And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one
thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there
might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going
to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so
overwhelming that he did what he did.
Your energy would have been better spend trying to change the system.
I'm not sure how to characterise this slogan since pretty much all of the current monarchs are constitutional monarchs. The current batch are under significant constraints to ensure that constitutional monarchs serve as symbols of
national unity rather than as active rulers, reflecting a balance
between tradition and democratic governance. And this has been pretty much the case since the 17th and 18th Centuries.
I probably should define "constitutional monarchy" since it seems most people who chant this slogan are ignorant of this system of government where a monarch
serves as the ceremonial head of state, with their powers defined and
limited by a constitution. This allows the monarch to perform
official duties while the legislative body holds the authority to create
and repeal laws. Countries with constitutional monarchies often blend
traditional royal ceremonies with modern democratic practices, providing
a sense of stability amid political changes.
In 2025, there were forty-three monarchies in the world, most of which were categorized as constitutional monarchies; fifteen of those shared King Charles III as their monarch, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several Caribbean nations.
A defining feature of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch
respects the limitations set forth by the constitution and rarely seeks
to alter such a document in his or her favor. Even in the United Kingdom
itself, which has no written constitution but rather a series of
foundational documents, the king or queen remains within the bounds set
by customary rules. This characteristic is the important one if one is going to run around ignorantly saying "no kings".
Monarchs don't act like Trump.
On the other hand, the United States is a dysfunctional democracy. Dysfunctional democracy
refers to a political system where democratic processes fail to
effectively represent the will of the people, often leading to
dissatisfaction and instability among citizens. This can occur due to
issues like ineffective governance, lack of accountability, and the
erosion of civil rights.
A dysfunctional democracy can appear to have democratic institutions, but those don't really represent the will of the people. For a democracy to work, the democracy needs to be properly functioning.
This is a good transition to how the current duopoly system doesn't represent the people:
Very few people are talking about how Amazon came into existence during the Clinton administration with its intent of at least cornering the book market. Or to quote what the search came up with "mazon was named after the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, reflecting Jeff Bezos's vision of making his store the biggest bookstore." Amazon has made it clear that it aims to dominate the e-commerce market by offering "a wide range of products and services".
Like Walmart, Amazon is good at killing small businesses and preventing the rise of competition.
But, to get us back to the subject of monarchs: which system has universal healthcare, housing, and works for the people: the US's "Democratic-republic" or a constitutional monarchy?
Lina Seiche on El Salvador's Nayib Bukele with a story which sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders.
On thing people neglect to mention is that "Socialist" Bernie represents a historically red state. Bukele's rise reminds me of Sanders since they both started as "leftists" who managed to unify a politically polarised nation. I think Sanders would have done so if he were given a chance.
Unfortunately, Sanders' time was 2016.
I'm of the opinion that the duopoly won't let anyone vaguely like a Sanders or Bukele get anywhere near the American people. Also, the people who truly influence politics don't want someone like a Bukele in power.
I don't agree with Bukele's positions on a few things, but he proves that a polarised political climate can be changed.
