Would you support having an American monarch IF it kept the courts separate from politics?

Mostly because it wasn't as extreme as Republicans have made it

 

You have no idea if that is true or not, and since you only want to ding on the GOP, you don't care.

 

Yes. If everyone ruled, it would be called anarchy, no system at all. There is nothing special about the majority or a minority, it is what is best for all of us. I had 6 kids, but I was the minority ruling because the majority were incapable of ruling, like 50% of the current crop of those under 26 years of age are today in the political circles. The only possibility of the majority is to throw out a corrupt minority. We did so with Hillary.

 

Well, that's good. So you and I can unite in not being comfortable with authoritarianism.

That's a shared value.

 

Voted no because there wasn't a button labeled 'not no but hell no" . Worst idea this millennium.

 

Like a "little bit pregnant" is not as extreme as "really pregnant". Either is it right or it is wrong. So which are you going to go with. Corruption is good if it is just a little less corrupt than others?

 

Wrong. There has been gerrymandering for almost 200 years.

It's an issue now because Republicans have gotten SO good at it that they produce far fewer votes and Control the House using it

 

You have to define "authoritarianism". Being parent of 6 kids, I was an authoritarian, but now all six kids are grown up and doing very well. Just follow the constitution AS WRITTEN and we will need no authoritarian rulers if the constitution is applied as written, not made up shitt by the courts.

 

No rule at all is best, save that necessary to insure an orderly society.

 

So stealing some things is ok, but stealing others is not. There either should be no gerrymandering, or any party can gerrymander. Which do you want? You don't like it because the republicans are better at it than the democrats? That appears to be what you are saying, right?

 

Yes, totally agree.

 

Translation:
It's an issue now because it means Democrats have less power.

 

That is what the constitution as written is suppose to be, not shitt made up by the courts and lawmakers.

 

Fair enough, authoritarian state national and local governments.

I agree.

 

Ah, you presume I am democrat. I'm not.

 

I don't particularly care one way or the other.

 

Oddly Dems have much less power in spite of having millions more votes and voters...

 

I accept your concession of the point; you refusal to understand how US elections work is irrelevant.

 

You have to do better than that, i.e. you have denied nothing I said in fact you’ve said nothing whatever, so if you wish to reply you have to be constructive. I know it’s hard but try.

 

But there all in California so it doesn't matter.

 

Computers can be hacked or remotely controlled.

 

It worked well for Charlemagne.

 

All governments are authoritarian in one degree or another.

 

Yes.

 

Wow found the republican.