2 ms·
As I said, the symbol itself is evil. But it seems you agree Royal Assent is legally required. It's a monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it isn't.
by wilg 3y ago
As I said, the symbol itself is evil. But it seems you agree Royal Assent is legally required. It's a monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it isn't.
- defrost 3y agoIt's a sham monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it has any real power. The King has to rubber stamp assent, albeit with bloody ink pen, but it's symbolic like any other bit of pagentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA The power it once had has been whittled away to F-all. Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.
- wilg 3y agoYou are intentionally ignoring my point about how the symbolic nature itself is evil. It is unconscionable to have a monarchy as a symbol of a country! A monarchy is an affront to human decency; it's absurd. And I do not agree with your assessment that the king has no real power. A gentleman's agreement not to be a tyrant is not even close to good enough. I don't dispute it would cause lots of drama if the king tried to defy government, but he can do it. The guy is allowed to murder anyone he wants, he has full immunity from criminal prosecution! Is that a symbol worth protecting? No. It should be torn down and cast out. Any respectable modern system of governance would not want even a whiff of an impression that it was led by a bloodline of kings. Yet, the UK and Commonwealth countries lean into it. A crown is a symbol of oppression. It's disgusting.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoMore vacuous posturing. Btw, a king that misbehaves gravely becomes a tyrant, and if it is prudent, tyrants may be dispatched with a clear conscience.
- wilg 3y agoThe argument that a king is good to have is that when a king becomes a tyrant you won’t feel bad about killing him?