do you seriously believe in democracy? the majority are always dumb niggers, how can they make a good decision?
do you seriously believe civilians should be able to own weapons? imagine a nigger cattle mob, is that what you want?
Do you seriously believe in democracy? the majority are always dumb niggers, how can they make a good decision?
Dylan Rogers
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
bitchute.com
twitter.com
Charles Martinez
just like the vote, the guns also should only be given to white, land owning males, since they are the only ones able to make well thought out decisions, both for themselves and the community around them
this will end all problems and you cant dispute this
Josiah Harris
Holy fucking shit. This board once a sanctuary for a few good ideas has been reduced to a small childs debate on whether democracy is a good thing. This board has the biggest pussy faggots in the world.
Jose Long
"Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth."
Sebastian Nguyen
Democracy doesn't actually exist. Read Burnham.
Angel Torres
>land owning
the new generation can't afford to own land, they can only live in auschwitz bunk beds with free wifi
Jordan Hughes
yes and yes, worked in america up untill like 2010
Connor Mitchell
there is no democracy. the entity running the voting process are the dictators.
Christopher Gutierrez
>Holy fucking shit. This board once a sanctuary for a few good ideas has been reduced to a small childs debate on whether democracy is a good thing. This board has the biggest pussy faggots in the world.
Noah Morris
Democracy is just a catch-all term for a country run by Jewish Bankers
> Senator Nye later produced a document titled The Next War, which cynically referred to “the old goddess of democracy trick”
Austin Roberts
No i dont. We live now in some sort of feudalism. We have the tzar Putin, we have the center of power - Moscow, and people are happy with this, maby it was democratical choice to live like this lol.
Kevin Nelson
>NANOMACHINES, SON!
>THEY HARDEN IN RESPONSE TO PHYSICAL TRAUMA!
>YOU CAN'T HURT ME, HOMER!
Anthony Watson
>do you seriously believe in democracy?
no
Owen Thompson
We should Have King.
Fuck All Voting.
Jack Robinson
>tzar putin
just admit if any of us were Putin we would probably run the country to the ground in 1 month
Sebastian Green
No I believe in the republic for which it stands.
Jordan Campbell
Brandon Sanchez
yep probably russia now lives its best times
Cameron Price
OP is an idiot, every gay decision in this country is determined by non-democratic means: federal court cases, media shilling, and the administrative state. California voted to ban gay marriage and deny personhood to illegal immigrants and it got struck down by the freemasonic jew worshiping bible dupe kritarchy.
Ryan White
People might not always make the smartest decisions, but they have a pretty good idea of where their interests lie. The population at large is kind of like a larger group-brain with its own thoughts and emotions.
This is sort of an "instinctual knowledge" that's held in the population, which you can measure at the ballot box. But these people lack refined, specific knowledge of the sort possessed by a scientist or expert. For more about this concept I'd refer you to Ryan Faulk's "implicit vs. explicit knowledge" video:
>bitchute.com
What it means is that elections are not pointless. They do work well, especially at a more local level. The issue is the population has trouble making this type of refined decisionmaking you would expect from a scientist or something of that sort. In order to make those decisions, you need something other than democracy. And that is the purpose of an aristocracy.
Actually this concept has been understood for quite a long time. In fact the English government is modeled after it. Having one house, called the House of Commons, intended to represent the desires of the people. And another house, called the House of Lords, intended to represent the feelings of the aristocracy. Both coming together to hammer out policy. In fact the US modeled its system directly after this, with the house of Reps being the wild and rambunctious "house of commons", and the Senate an elite body that functions as the "house of lords".
Building an aristocracy of the type described here is something that nobody has really done successfully. It might even be an impossible task. Perhaps with ability tests, such as IQ tests and the like, such an aristocracy could be selected. That's something nobody has yet tried.
Christian Hill
It's funny because the original form of American "Democracy" was only white male land owners could vote. Yes this works.
Unrestricted democracy absolutely does not work and we can see how it has destroyed the US.
Austin Torres
if it works then how come they voted themselves out of prominence?
Thomas Brooks
I sort of don't believe that men to give women and nonwhites the vote. I think that these sorts of decisions were made at an elite level and passed through the government on gilded rails.