*thinking emoji*

DPRK, in the flesh.
(But that's just a proxy, obviously.)

Yeah, but it's highly unlikely we'll get that leader here kim. I'd rather just roll the dice with Democracy.

Attached: 1528212507983.png (700x632, 522K)

>elections are wrong if they don‘t reflect my personal stance
>a non-democratic leadership is good if it does
>t. the left

Man everything about democracy is great except for the democratic part.

>it's not democracy if the guy I like loses!

>There is something explosive about an era in which interest in politics grows while faith in politics declines. What does it mean for the stability of a country if more and more people warily keep track of the activities of an authority that they increasingly distrust? How much derision can a system endure, especially now that everyone can share their deeply felt opinions online?
lol pls dont think

>At the beginning of the 21st century, citizens could follow the political theatre, minute by minute, on radio, television or the internet, but today they can respond to it from second to second and mobilise others. The culture of immediate reporting now has instant feedback, resulting in even more of a cacophony. The work of the public figure, and especially the elected politician, is not made easier by any of this. He or she can immediately see whether new proposals appeal to the citizen, and indeed just how many people the citizen can whip up. New technology gives people a voice, but the nature of this new political involvement makes the electoral system creak at the joints all the more.
This is actually a legitimate point. The speed of feedback is far faster than it used to be. Anybody have some literature on how this affects the political systems?

Really, though, I wish the US would implement mandatory voting. If the IRS can snoop people and ensure everyone's paying their taxes, the government obviously has the power to make people submit a stinkin' ballot.

Even if you don't vote for anybody, and you just put your name, etc. in the info section and leave the rest of the ballot blank, you would literally eliminate all this "voter turnout" bullshit.

>guardian
I would never have guessed.

Attached: 1521259149593.png (574x306, 161K)

TL;DR:
>We can't let people vote anymore because they made a decision with which I disagree, and that's not ok. Everyone should be forced to do what I want them to do. Because reasons.

Attached: 1523661613559-pol.jpg (510x383, 28K)

north korea lol

Elfwick changed name?

Also what happened to this glorious faggot, anyway?

unironically true

>Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders.

>What is important for a leader is that which makes him a leader. It is the needs of his people.

It's democracy and serving the people when the political system veers left but populism and dangerous when it veers right. Kind of hypocritical of these socialist faggots wouldn't you say?

Attached: 1528556544185.jpg (446x289, 27K)

Huh

You're right. How is it possible to ensure that all future leaders care for their nations though?

I've read op eds and done some minor personal research.

My first concern with accelerating tech is "the death of history" where we as a species have so much archived information second to second, but so little to go on for the pre-computer era that eventually history may very well be divided "earth era" and "everything else"

It's kind of a long haul concern, but there it is.

Other than that, the speed and pace of news disallows most people from really taking it in, considering it, digesting it, and formulating a nuanced opinion. So much easier to toe a party line and shout the same slogan as the ones to your left and right. We've become educated idiots.

You need to be fortunate to get a benevolent leader, evolution favors evil.

Ok I'll bite, who is that?

I'll save you the time.

>trump and brexit =bad for democracy

But Clinton and corrupt technocrats you didn't elect are fine

>Everything is fina and cool as long as politicians i like get elected, but when a person i hate gets elected the system is broken and we must enter a dictatorship of folks i like ruling over us

There, i just channeled the writers inner thoughts.

Genetically engineered monarchy. Create superhumans socialized through a noble and transendent philosophy then give them all the powers of state without exception.

Thank you for the summary, good user.

I couldn't agree with the author more. God Emperor Trump for dictator!

Attached: HH.png (1301x787, 438K)

so he's suggesting that instead of letting everyone vote, choose people at random and try to educate them enough to make informed decisions, by listening to experts and various proposals.

sounds great, but who picks the "experts" and the proposals???

Attached: Screenshot_2018-06-16_07-34-52.png (734x231, 43K)

Speed of news reinforces ideology division then. Which places more weight on things like persuasion and inculcation. That means having persuasive people or a foothold in the education institutions is good. The right could use more of the latter.

Incorrect. Evolution favors success, not evil.

The problem is that in times long past, when leaders grew corrupt, complacent, incompetent, and malicious, we fucking killed them. It's one of the oldest archetypal stories in our history: The brave hero who overthrows the corrupt king and brings about a new age of prosperity. It's normal for a community to eliminate selfish leaders, because selfish leaders destroy the entire community - failure to eliminate such leaders leads to the demise of the entire tribe.

And what is not happening right now, is justified tyrannicide righting the course. So we instead see our tribes perish, as is the natural result.

Furthermore, nature actually rewards freedom. The more a nation-state has to invest in protecting the tyrannical against the plebeians, the less resources go to making that nation-state successful and competitive vs other nation-states. In the end, the nation-state with the most freedom is able to devote the most resources to competition with other tribes, and in this way succeed and thrive against them.

Well gosh user it's not like states which have mandatory mail in ballots mysteriously become really liberal

It's almost like mandatory voting that isn't in person with a photo ID is a terrible idea because as long as states never clear their voting databases dead people end up "voting" when their shitty pothead grandson sends in their filled out ballot because they're still officially registered according to the colorado state government

"So tell me Oboongo, why is the USA so racist?"

Attached: raycisss.jpg (481x511, 46K)

Why, the (((people))) who want to actually run the """democracy""". e.g. the guy who wrote that article.

It's just revealing the contempt people like him have for normal folks, and the unsubstantiated pomposity and arrogance he holds as he views himself the informed enlightener of the prole.

STOP VOTING

Attached: STOP.jpg (428x525, 31K)

"Our borders should be wide open because economy ok?"
-expert

"We need to redistribute your property to the immigrants because your ancestors oppressed them, ok?"
-expert

"We need to place a tax on you for your heritage, ok?"
-expert

Sooner or later the left will find a reason to be against the secret ballot. The power they currently hold in society is due to using shaming techniques combined with corporatism. The right, at least in the US, has power at the ballot box. As more people become sick of political correctness and SJW behavior, they will elect more and more conservative candidates. The left sees this as they hold the fewest number of elected positions in the history of the US. So the secret ballot must go.

Democracy always fails in the end because low IQ voters outbreed those with high IQs.

"Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding..."

Gee, it's almost as if the founding fathers ensured only white landing owning males could vote for a reason

You used the word community several times. Our nations are rapidly losing anything that could be considered community except for those communities made up of immigrants. This is why there has been no revolution to kick out the leaders who fail us. They destroyed our community first so we would be unable to respond. Eventually these immigrant communities will dominate and install their own leaders, removing or even killing the current leaders who foolishly believe that immigrants will have loyalty to those who opened the door to let them invade.

I didn't see that part anywhere in the Constitution.

However, they DID ensure that the producers/land owners/high IQ would be represented in the law making process. In order to amend the Constitution, the amendment needs supermajority support. Said support would be extremely difficult to attain if smart people knew it was destructive.

infoplease.com/timelines/us-voting-rights

I read electrons and it made more sense that way

What do you think "our posterity" meant?

based

This, based Kim

Fpbg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy

Lmao, literally Kim posting this. Made my day

Attached: 1528233672635.png (780x871, 426K)

I hate you faggots
archive.is/ptDcb

ted cruz didn't age too well

And that's a good thing!

this
Kim speaks the truth as usual

Attached: LOTGH.jpg (1199x484, 116K)

i say its time to give the left what they so greatly wish for

Attached: 1509691128458.jpg (612x819, 89K)

hello rato!

>people in NK starve
>leaders with good intentions
Oh fuck you Kim.

Juche (self-sufficiency) is hard to carry out, but it's way better than having (((central banks))) exterminate your folk and replace them with subhumans.

Lmao.
>just elect who well tell you to goyim"

Attached: 1524429627994.jpg (727x480, 38K)

lmao you guys should read this from (((Sky News))). They seem worried about the death of leftist liberalism and the rise of Authoritarian Hegemony led by men across the world and its only going to grow.
news.sky.com/story/sky-views-so-far-its-working-for-worlds-strong-men-11406388

People want strong men that take no shit from anyone now. They don't want bowing,kneeling and arsekissing men that pander to everyone.
The tide is turning

Attached: 1485981064899.gif (500x375, 953K)

I read it as electricians.

>establishment wins
i sleep
>establishment causes massive crisis
i sleep
>populists win
WAAAAH CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY!!! LIBERAL DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK!!!

Our voting system worked well for decades while we had everyone duped into voting left, but now it's broken because people are waking up and starting to vote right.

Where the fuck is she browsing?

The media have completely insulated themselves from comments via their leftist media cuck faggot friends like Twitter and Youtube mods, they don't even have comment sections anymore.

Attached: united-states-launces-missile-attack-syria-trump-933x445.jpg (933x445, 30K)

Honestly Hans, you country would be better off with a few million people in internment camps. Maybe Kim is on to something

It's just these sycophantic (((journalists))) who have sown the win and reaping the whirlwind. Actions and elections have consequences unfortunately for them.

>""democracy""
rule is when YOU make decisions.
people are not making decisions and nobody asked for their opinions.
it's not democracy.

Attached: wIondVZ.jpg (640x480, 138K)