The idea that you should be ruling a country, simply because you were born by someone else who was already for zero reason ruling the country before you, is ridiculous. Good thing this absurd idea has zero public support and would be rightfully laughed at if anyone suggested it in public. Good thing most monarchs have been overthrown. Still some in the Middle East to go.

The idea that you should be ruling a country because you convince a bunch of idiots that you'd be a good leader is absurd. You're a commie so your opinion has been completely disregarded. You're clearly an edgy 16 yr old.

Monarchy is actually pretty tight, most of the time.

The idea that you should be ruling a country, simply because you were born by someone else who was already for zero reason ruling the country before you, is ridiculous. Good thing this absurd idea has zero public support and would be rightfully laughed at if anyone suggested it in public. Good thing most monarchs have been overthrown. Still some in the Middle East to go.

Ahh the edge is too much.. "Communist" 14 year old detected. Trust me you'll grow out of it buddy. You were attracted to the red symbols and the propaganda.

In reality, monarchs are trained throughout their life to rule. They are more capable rulers than any democratic leader who could have been thrown into that position and only able to serve a set amount of years. A monarch develops experience as leader over a lifetime.

"Good thing this absurd idea has zero public support and would be rightfully laughed at if anyone suggested it in public." Appeal to populism fallacy detected. You assume the majority of people have a knowledgeable perspective on politics.

+1 Nitr01

Democucks

>has been a stable form of governance for 10 thousand years
>doesn't work

That's a funny joke Paugers.

Monarchy is only good if you have a good ruler.
Unfortunately history shows that caring rulers are rare...

Kek, give a citation then.

Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, Napoleon, Genghis Khan? Just to list a few more.

You know those names because we are told about them to bias us against monarchism (more of democracy's social conditioning) but not the far more numerous good rulers. Also, Nero was the result of a failed democracy which corrupted its people and resulted in despotism, as democracy always does.

Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, Napoleon

lol idk if you know but you literally just roasted yourself. All of those people were despots who became rulers due to democracies. Let the intelligent people talk now.

Only 2 of those are monarchs Cata.
Only 2 of those are monarchs Paugers.

So you've got 4 out of literally thousands of people. Oh wow monarchists btfo now I'm a #Republikek

And Genghis was a warlord, not a king.

I think you do not understand the difference between despotism and a monarchy. Do some research

+1 PE

Hitler and Stalin were kings?! Napoleon was actually a consul and later an emperor.Genghis Khan..KHAN NOT King!

Democucks

Wow what a totally great contribution to the discussion!

They all ruled the country alone like in a Monarchy.

I know vengence stupid republicucks are just embarrassing themselves.

Once again: They all ruled the country alone like in a Monarchy.
Do you just spout bullshit out of you anus and let it type for you? Please. Stop posting. If you knew anything at all, you would know despotism is NOT monarchy. Please learn.

Edited 6/23/2016 03:28:51

^
Well, the result is the same. One person rules everone and no one can do anything against it, unless people start a revolution.