The Royals

[Johnny75]

Of course they do. Takes about 20 seconds of Google to discover that. Soft power can be used for good or bad obviously, trouble is with a monarch you don't get to choose or get rid.

They don't have any soft power, don't talk rubbish.

You may or may not like the Monarchy but I'd rather have them as independents until we can put an independent person in place so we don't end up with an American system which is fucking shit as it's one person at the top without any checks and balances.

Imagine Johnson in that system. Fuck that.

 

[Tony Towner]

" While its annual contribution to the UK economy was £1.76bn in 2017 alone. Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day."
The revenue from Crown properties is three times what they cost a year. (about £100m or half a Neymar)

Always such a bad faith argument

 

[Alan]

They don't have any soft power, don't talk rubbish.

You may or may not like the Monarchy but I'd rather have them as independents until we can put an independent person in place so we don't end up with an American system which is fucking shit as it's one person at the top without any checks and balances.

Imagine Johnson in that system. Fuck that.

What?

 

[Tredman]

We can argue about whether a replacement system would be better as much as we want, but the fact that people are born to be head of state is so laughably absurd you’d be classed as insane if it were suggested in any other situation.

 

[Alan]

We can argue about whether a replacement system would be better as much as we want, but the fact that people are born to be head of state is so laughable absurd you’d be classed as insane if it were suggested in any other situation.

Come on, everyone would love to have Jeff Shi Jr. lined up as the next CEO of Wolves!

 

[Johnny75]

We can argue about whether a replacement system would be better as much as we want, but the fact that people are born to be head of state is so laughable absurd you’d be classed as insane if it were suggested in any other situation.

You think nepotism doesn't exist in politics?

 

[Johnny75]

What?

You have one person at the top don't you?

 

[Templeton Peck]

They don't have any soft power, don't talk rubbish.

You may or may not like the Monarchy but I'd rather have them as independents until we can put an independent person in place so we don't end up with an American system which is fucking shit as it's one person at the top without any checks and balances.

Imagine Johnson in that system. Fuck that.

Fuck me I wish I lived in your world it sounds so simple!

Always nice to see the old President Johnson/Thatcher/Blair argument trotted out too.

 

[Johnny75]

Fuck me I wish I lived in your world it sounds so simple!

Always nice to see the old President Johnson/Thatcher/Blair argument trotted out too.

What power do you think they have?

 

[Paul]

We can argue about whether a replacement system would be better as much as we want, but the fact that people are born to be head of state is so laughable absurd you’d be classed as insane if it were suggested in any other situation.

Would you ? It's happened in numerous countries since the dawn of the civilised world

 

[Tredman]

Would you ? It's happened in numerous countries since the dawn of the civilised world

So was human sacrifice.

 

[Alan]

You have one person at the top don't you?

Sort of, but saying the President has “no checks or balances” is simply not the case.

 

[Tredman]

You think nepotism doesn't exist in politics?

Of course it does, however Nicholas Soames didn’t make it to PM etc

 

[Johnny75]

Of course it does, however Nicholas Soanes didn’t make it to PM etc

True, I was thinking more the American stuff tbh.

 

[Johnny75]

Sort of, but saying the President has “no checks or balances” is simply not the case.

There's no sorry if, that's exactly what it is.

We don't have that and that's a good thing.

 

[Tredman]

There's no sorry if, that's exactly what it is.

We don't have that and that's a good thing.

That’s not an argument for keeping an anachronism though.

 

[Alan]

There's no sorry if, that's exactly what it is.

We don't have that and that's a good thing.

That’s not what it is. Presidents can’t unilaterally do all that much. Congress also has to be onside. And then the Courts check the other two.

I’m not defending our system, it’s fucking garbage. But the President has nothing like the explicit overruling power you’re implying.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I have no time for the Royal family whatsoever and think they are leeches. But that’s my personal view. To pretend they have any great power is palpable nonsense so if people want to like them and revel in the coronation who am I to say they shouldn’t? If royalists enjoy it then fair play to them. Equally, I can ignore the whole thing. And that’s fine too.

 

[Johnny75]

That’s not an argument for keeping an anachronism though.

No, and if we could find another independent body to go with the Lord's I'd prefer that. But we don't and I'm not sure anybody would agree on who or what.

 

[Johnny75]

That’s not what it is. Presidents can’t unilaterally do all that much. Congress also has to be onside. And then the Courts check the other two.

I’m not defending our system, it’s fucking garbage. But the President has nothing like the explicit overruling power you’re implying.

So you don't have one person at the top?