The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

America can we try a monarchy (serious question)

fabulouslyghetto

fabulouslyghetto

Kween of Hot Topics
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Posts
24,917
Reaction score
1,018
Points
113
Location
The Trap
Imagine if we tore the white house down and built a palace instead. Then our king and queen (or king x2 or queen x2) could sit in the palace all fabulous with their crown jewels. Obviously democracy just doesn't work, if you've been trying something for 3 centuries and still can't get it right, baby it's just not meant to be. I don't see how a monarchy would be any worse. Then if there's corruption there's only 2 people we gotta chase outta the country vs a whole political party. I say we give it a fair shot. :gogirl:
 
Some Americans already think you already have a King. How's that working for you?
 
I can't remember how many times I've reposted this from 2019 but does anyone take any notice? Do they heck.

2zgvhv.jpg
 
giphy.gif



I won't bow or bend the knee to any man, woman, or deity
 
I have to say that having a parliamentary democracy and a King/Queen as Head of State hasn't worked out too badly for us.
 
rareboy said:
I have to say that having a parliamentary democracy and a King/Queen as Head of State hasn't worked out too badly for us.
Click to expand...
case in point. obviously as ruler and kween of JUB i'm much too busy to run the US, maybe somebody like Mindy Kaling or Beyonce or even Trevor Noah. :gogirl:
 
fabulouslyghetto said:
not a king, an authoritarian tyrant. ein trumpf is nowhere near a proper king.
Click to expand...
"Proper Kings" were authoritarian tyrants, that's why it took all those bloody revolutions to take their power away. It's the fake kinds and historical relics that just sit about and do nothing.

Besides, if we were to have a King of any kind, it would not end up being the fabulous, Black, Queen of JUB.

It would be some uptight prudish, 'phobic, probably racist white guy.
 
TX-Beau said:
"Proper Kings" were authoritarian tyrants, that's why it took all those bloody revolutions to take their power away. It's the fake kinds and historical relics that just sit about and do nothing.

Besides, if we were to have a King of any kind, it would not end up being the fabulous, Black, Queen of JUB.

It would be some uptight prudish, 'phobic, probably racist white guy.
Click to expand...
You don't know the things I'd be willing to do for votes. ;)

But the power would corrupt me.
 
fabulouslyghetto said:
case in point. obviously as ruler and kween of JUB i'm much too busy to run the US, maybe somebody like Mindy Kaling or Beyonce or even Trevor Noah. :gogirl:
Click to expand...
Ah, but Queen Elizabeth II did not 'run' Canada. We have been self-governing since Queen Victoria:

(Note that Lord Melville says 'the Canadas'. There were 2 of them: Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec). They became Canada when we became a Dominion in 1867.)

 
We could use separation of head of government and head of state. A President is supposed to represent all of us, but is beholden(at least through the first term) to their party. A proper, separate head of state, especially a highly restricted constitutional symbol, probably in our case call it President or whatever title indicating a non monarchical title who is popular publicly across party lines would be nice. While the prime minister like head of government can promote policies and agendas the leading party wishes to enact, and lead the competition of the battle of ideas in the legislature as well as trying to work for all the people. We seem to be going backwards fast now, no doubt monumentally fucked by one party that let in the worst of the worst because they liked power so much and these extremists they brought in energized and motivated the people most inclined to support the party if thoroughly enraged and engaged.
 
Sausy said:
We could use separation of head of government and head of state. A President is supposed to represent all of us, but is beholden(at least through the first term) to their party. A proper, separate head of state, especially a highly restricted constitutional symbol, probably in our case call it President or whatever title indicating a non monarchical title who is popular publicly across party lines would be nice. While the prime minister like head of government can promote policies and agendas the leading party wishes to enact, and lead the competition of the battle of ideas in the legislature as well as trying to work for all the people. We seem to be going backwards fast now, no doubt monumentally fucked by one party that let in the worst of the worst because they liked power so much and these extremists they brought in energized and motivated the people most inclined to support the party if thoroughly enraged and engaged.
Click to expand...
This entire idea, whatever one calls the monarch, began as a compromise between people conditioned to monarchy and reformers when it became clear to everyone that monarchy had to go. It arose from a need to keep the comfort provided by the "tradition," without embracing the gist. There is no separating it from the recent death of Elizabeth and the mountain of fairly revisionist nostalgia that came with it. First off, the Monarch in England is NOT a representative of "all the people," anywhere. even in England where she had the greatest support. In a large number of places in the former Empire she is an icon of exploitation and oppression.

Second, people keep confusing this idea with the person it's supposed to define, but what if the idea only worked BECAUSE of the person who held that position and all of the weight of history? Did it really work outside of very White places anyway? Do you honestly think someone can choose just some guy or girl, call them "Head of State," demand taxpayer money to support them, and have them magically become this fantasy of universal unity that not even Elizabeth with all the history of monarchy and tradition behind her was not?

Who gets to choose? If you vote, it is political, if it is hereditary, you will throw up more fools than geniuses, and publicly funded support of primogeniture is indeed going backward, and that too, is absolutely political - just like all the Monarchies of Europe when they began their existence.

The British monarchy as it is, is the product of their history and can't be replicated anyway. Nor should we try. There is no possibility that instituting such a thing wouldn't be deeply, and divisively political, especially since we'd all have to pay for it, and Americans notoriously don't like to pay for anything in the first place.

This flirtation with an historical compromise is being driven by nostalgia for one person very good at pushing a policy that was actually created by politicians - one in particular, out of the rubble of a system overthrown for extremely potent reasons.

Our path forward is more voices and more political parties and more bickering and more compromise. If we need a unifying symbol, let's enshrine principles over persons - there is no need for a unifying "symbol" to be a King, or Head of State, or anything we might attempt to call it - and let the past be the past. If we take one last thing from Great Britain, let be Parliamentary Democracy.
 
You may well be right, but with the situation we are in right now, and the way our political system has evolved... I just don't know how we get to the system you envision. I'm all for it, but just how the hell do we get there?
 
Sausy said:
You may well be right, but with the situation we are in right now, and the way our political system has evolved... I just don't know how we get to the system you envision. I'm all for it, but just how the hell do we get there?
Click to expand...
We stop telling ourselves someone else is going to save us, we get up and do something, we get involved and stop pretending that agency is beyond us. The greatest weapon that the hater right has and has always had is apathy. despair, and inaction. When people get up and get involved, when they come out in numbers and patriciate, the haters lose - every time. When we sit home and do nothing, from complacency or despair, they win.

Where is our passion for the liberty we desire? Is it strong enough that we fight for it, that we push those around us, that we refuse to believe the haters who tell us no, that we refuse to accept that there is nothing to be done? Is our desire for liberty that strong? Is it?

Our system did NOT "evolve" to this point. It was sabotaged, deliberately. It is a weapon of the hater right that we are caused to tell ourselves anything else. That is what they want us to believe - that we are helpless, that it is inevitable, that there can be no change. That is a lie. We believe it at our own peril.

What are we all doing individually in our separate little lives to bring about, and motivate the change we want? What am I doing? What are you doing? With every tiny fiber the rope becomes stronger.

We get out there and volunteer our time, our cash, our passion. We become political and confront and support when and where we can no matter how trivial the situation. We let no injustice go unchallenged, all of us, everywhere, to everyone.

If we feel we are not in control of our lives, we get up and take it. How is that done? By increments and small things, by vigilance and perseverance, by asking people around us to become involved and setting the example, by confrontation, by giving what we can, be it cash, or time, or just votes, by reminding people that we are in fact the masters of our own destiny, and by REMEMBERING that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
 
We may not have formal royalty, but I have had moments when I was more than a little concerned how certain families seemed to almost own the White House. At one point, it seemed like the White House would go back and forth between the Bush and Clinton families more or less forever.
 
Depends on who the King or Queen would be. I would love to have some rulers like Catherine the Great, Wu Zetian or Lady Nata.
 
No you wouldn't. In Imperial Russia or China, you would have been ostracized and despised. In feudal Japan who knows about trans people but bucking the rigid caste and patriarchal hierarchy would have cost you your head.
 
Mariatenebre said:
Depends on who the King or Queen would be. I would love to have some rulers like Catherine the Great, Wu Zetian or Lady Nata.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I was under the impression that this was a bit more your style

6546392128c8bfc05937f1855deefbfa.jpg
 
johaninsc said:
Interesting.

I was under the impression that this was a bit more your style

6546392128c8bfc05937f1855deefbfa.jpg
Click to expand...
She is absolutely but I am more referring to the realm of reality. Obviously I would love a benevolent Goddess to rule us with The Mandate of Heaven but I don't see that happening in this current world cycle/age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top