Are there any actual arguments against this?

Are there any actual arguments against this?

Attached: 8689B843-077E-4E5B-8A9F-C880E6D95F9B.jpg (819x1024, 233.69K)

Attached: 1630658397906.jpg (600x800, 99.2K)

Yeah democracy is wrong

people are retarded. simple as

non-white arent the people

Name a better system then

...

people require land to survive

Nonwhites shouldn't have the right to vote.
Women shouldn't have the right to vote.
Poor people shouldn't have the right to vote.
People who don't own land shouldn't have the right to vote.
People who can't pass a literacy test shouldn't have the right to vote.

The problem is both colors are bourgeois parties.

Why should one state be allowed to simply stack up a huge population and overrule the other states? That's bullshit.

Yes. Only landowning white men should vote. And nobody on welfare should vote either. You do not get to choose how this country is managed if you cannot even manage yourself.

That's basically evolved democracy. For eg USA is ancap

Usually they go on about jow all that land is occupied by farmers that feed everyone when in reality farmers are welfare queens who grow corn and goybeans for HFCS, fuel, and junk food.

Attached: 1646867097393m.jpg (1024x575, 56.16K)

Literally everything else

Constitutional monarchies with small government and gold.

People don't vote, states do. That's the whole point of the Electoral College

Good luck living in heroin niggerland aka LA without the rest of the country supplying you with everything you need.

Two things: democrats do not actually get all the votes they claim. Also democracy itself is just mob rule. It's a degenerated fallen Republic. Pure Democracy is not a good thing.

The reason why smaller states have a larger proportion, is because small states are given a certain minimum representation in the congress. And the electoral vote is proportional to congressional representation. This is what makes liberals mad. The fact that some states have a certain minimum representation requirement in the government. It makes them seethe with anger.

Two men consent to rape against one woman who doesn't consent. Rape wins

All of them are better than demshitcracy.
Monarchism for example.

>demosharts rig the game in such a way they can claim it isn't rigged
This is why demosharts fight so hard to seize and maintain control of the cities, purely for the power it grants them not because they want to make people's lives better.

figure it out on your own
good luck

Attached: 1647865815552.jpg (1000x660, 98.92K)

Capitalism is degenerate because it breeds socialism.

Aka megacities are economically efficient in capitalist growth, but that causes ghettos and their rootless, marginalized middle-upper class dwellers who would support atheist progressivism.

I don't want faggots living in california and new york dictating how I live my life.

yeah, that'll stop globohomo tanks and drones

So all of America?

>Niggers
>People
/Thread

*Absolute monarchies

Only landowners are real people.

People who receive welfare should be allowed to vote, they don’t demonstrate individual responsibility needed to make decisions that have an effect on the people that pay for their welfare in the form of taxes.

So if 50 years from now you have 5x the number of welfare niggers in your cities, is your point now more correct? Is democracy now better or something? You don't even have a point.

Yes, but people with land can disassociate from people from other lands.

Attached: Jesusland.jpg (1618x2000, 375.12K)

Yeah, the fact we have a bicameral legislative branch

I just really hate kikes and their pet niggers.

>muh democracy
> the 51% controls the 49%
What could go wrong?

Attached: ajllotd.gif (488x204, 496.63K)

Why should I be ruled by California and New York because they have more people? They don't know anything about my state

The US isn't a democracy but a republic. Land effectively votes. High school civics class.

There wouldn't be if the federal and state governments were suffeciently restricted and small communities were allowed to live and govern as they see fit. Instead cosmopolitan hegemony is being imposed across the nation.

Most of those people don’t own land or businesses off the coasts so why would they have more say that the people that actually have a stake in the country doing well?

Retard

Attached: 15C4CED3-D149-4C18-8975-29047A095E97.jpg (1284x1318, 973.06K)

No
How so? I don't see any difference. Monarch also appoints officials, so do democratic leaders. Only the top person is different in these two systems.

Different regions have different needs, and people in heavily populated areas aren't going to have any idea of the challenges faced by more rural areas. And rural areas tend to already be behind in development and have more unmet needs due to the fact that they're further removed from logistical systems and public services.

So these areas, regardless of their population count, need to retain some prerequisite amount of agency. Or else the citizens in more metropolitan areas will have free reign to vote against those areas' interests to serve their own.

The US is a republic of states. Not one entity. At least by design.

Retard is not a political system I heard of

Yes. In the US land literally votes. The United States is 50 different states and a republic. If the states no longer receive representation in the federal system, it makes no sense for the states to remain in the United States.

niggers and spics arent people.

if land doesn't vote, then why are we only seeing US land on both?

My face to your footocracy

Land votes in the US. It's called the Electoral College, dummy.

red land can separate of blue land

I own a home. I provide most of the resources for said home. There is one of me and a wife. There are however many multitudes of cockroaches that live behind my stove wall.

They contribute nothing, they do not own the land upon which they inhabit, I'd it were not for my existence they would not have life.

A decision regarding the home is presented, should each cockroach get one vote? Of course not.

>You're comparing city dwellers to disease ridden insects

Yes.

Attached: 1647448878282m.jpg (1024x990, 134.69K)

Sure. It's called the system in place. We live in a fucking republic and that land they're discounting has people who must be represented. Leftists can stack up numbers in their shithole cities, but they don't get to decide what the people of Jeffrey City, Wyoming can and cannot do with their lives. Mob rule is precisely why America was founded. The people who first came here wanted to escape the tyranny of the majority in Europe.

Fuck your cities. Fuck your millions of people. There's a reason Texas is still Red despite having a population of 29 million and 10 million of that being in metropolitan areas.

If a city wants to be socialist, then by all means, turn socialist. But to force the other parts of the state to be socialist is not a republic.
Better to ruin your city than the state or country. Keep your misery to your local area instead of forcing everyone in the county to go down with your stupid ideology.

this

Blacks aren’t people

literally anything else

The founding fathers couldn't have predicted people this stupid, we need common sense voter control.

Attached: image0-7.png (480x360, 276.54K)

Californians are not people.

>name a better system then
Labeling everything on hard lines is part of the problem and busybodies. Here's some advice,
>stay out of my way and out of my business and there won't be no problems
It's that simple but you faggots can't do it you will push and push until little jonny picks up a semi automatic ar10 pumping round after round into his abusers.