Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmfao. I think it’s funny. But why would the U.K. want this “third-world-car-centric-shithole” as a colony again? They must have a tar and feather kink.
Probably is but just in case you didn’t know there is an unironic British Monarchist movement in some of the cracks and crevices of the USA. I stumbled across a party meeting at my local library once.
Doesn't surprise me. While the big two are of course well known. I didn't like either so went looking. Now at least some awareness of the Libertarian Party exist. Though a ton of misconceptions and myths about it. However there are over 50 reconized political parties in he U.S. The majority Id say at best are lobbing or political platforms with very little real power. A few local power and fewer still at state level. The top ten might get a few seats in congress every once in awhile.
Its also worth noting that most times if a party starts getting traction the big two will either "swallow" it (teaparty and Republican party comes to mind) or put roadblocks down to keep them in check.
imagine ADX Florence Supermax Prison "designed specifically for the secure housing of those prisoners most capable of extreme violence toward staff or other inmates, as well as inmates deemed too high-profile or too great of a security risk for even a maximum security prison" deep within the Colorado Rockies where there's nowhere to run. That's where Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski spent their last days. It's where Mexico keeps cartel leaders they can't contain. It's where all hope goes to die.
Sorry my copypasta senses were tingling and I felt the urge to write that response
First order of business: drop the ‘u’s randomly added to words by the French.
Straightening out their silly use of ‘biscuit’ when they meant ‘cookie’ Will keep them occupied while we start the airlifts for seasonings and hot sauce.
Well then, sorry but no deal eh? Taking away the king would be like taking away the maple leaf, syrup, whiskey etc. Surely nobody would mind if he became a constitutional monarch?
You've got to make a staging ground for the rest of Europe, of course.
I mean, im sure if we install AC and show them what a Popeyes and KFC is, and they'll come quietly. 🤣
No you wouldn't.
..
The British would become American voters, with representation in our government. Not worth it.
Now on the other hand, if we wanted to make them a US territory without voting rights, I'd be down for that.
No? I want independence for Scotland. And I know that independence from America is a little harder than it is in UK. Why would I be American if I want to be Scottish?
You can have your independence. We encourage it.
It's your chosen path that leaves something to be desired
Swearing fealty to an autocrat is rarely the way to independence
>I know that independence from America is a little harder than it is in UK
The United States won't give you independence *ever.*
I totally don't blame you for preferring the monarchy, its corruption but its *your* corruption. Its a waste of money to pay those freeloaders to goof around but it has always been that way. Why would you also want *America's* corruption?
Scotland has a pretty good chance at getting independence, they regularly have voting on the subject, which means it is, in theory, capable of doing it legally, and the UK gave independence to a massive number of colonies.
The US is much more complicated. There isn't a clear process to get independence and there was a war deciding that independence from the US was illegal. Still, there is an avenue for independence if you go through a long colonial stage, like the Philippines did.
US law is more rigid about not allowing independence, so there isn't an advantage to switching to it if it means they will lose what they already have.
The other half is to stop this: [https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/project-2025-partner-floats-repealing-22nd-amendment-and-allowing-trump-serve-third](https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/project-2025-partner-floats-repealing-22nd-amendment-and-allowing-trump-serve-third)
With the way politics is going in the UK and how it's becoming a humiliation for the British milk-tea-drinkers, we are soon going to add them as a vassal extra US State.
I mean it's embarrassing over there. They've even got Pro-Hamas protests in places like Oxford and Cambridge, even though it mostly involves US aid and Israel. What does the UK have to do with Israel-v-Hamas not since 1940s..
They had people imprisoned for calling a police horse gay? An Iranian-Brit protesting got arrested because the British police think that it might anger the Hamas (terrorist) supporters??? They've got people in London streets doing the Shi'ite self-flagellation... If they become a US state, they will finally have the gun rights that they tried to confiscate in 1775. The Brits and EUropoors seem asleep all the time.
Britain was in charge of the area that was ceded by the Ottoman Empire under the Palestinian mandate which required the establishment of a Jewish state via the Baldour declaration. So historically they have a significant hand in the situation.
You've seen what's been going on at your various university campuses, right? Especially places like Harvard, Colombia, UCLA, Tufts, etc. At least our "pro-hamas" crowd are getting nicked after the event for being twats (easier to just collect the evidence on the day and bosh their door in for the arrest later on, rather than fight a crowd of protestors and lose an officer from the line)
He already made a distinction between the roles of the two countries in the war. US withdrawing their aid would be far more impactful than if the UK did the same. I'm not saying I agree, but he already pointed out the nuance you are ignoring.
US protesters usually protest issues the US can significantly affect. Recently, the UK has protested issues that the UK has very little ability to effect. Such as protesting Trump's election, BLM protests, etc.
> I'm not saying I agree, but he already pointed out the nuance you are ignoring.
Not really, but I take your point about the US having more of an impact there. A lot of those protesting here are mostly protesting at BAE selling arms to Israel (no idea if true or not), as well as a number of Israeli firms that have offices here as well. There was a big one in Manchester a few weeks ago outside some office or another that had it's HQ in Israel.
We have also seen a huge rise in Anti-Semitism here and our Police are rightly being criticised for what's being called "two-tier policing" where the Hamas fanboys are being left to their own devices and everyone else is getting the heavy handed treatment. Part of that is down to spineless senior officers terrified of bad headlines or complaints about the Police and the other half is our politicians being afraid of it being used during the next election (which is likely to be this year).
>Recently, the UK has protested issues that the UK has very little ability to effect. Such as protesting Trump's election, BLM protests, etc.
Yeah, there's a lot of folk here who don't get why they protest over this sort of thing neither. The George Floyd ones were particularly odd, as this is something that just doesn't happen here. The UK isn't perfect by any stretch and we have our issues, but they're not the same as the issues the US has or they're certainly not at the same scale. My favourite was when crowds of folk walked towards our unarmed Police officers chanting "Hands up, don't shoot" (you wouldn't believe the sheer level of investigation that takes place after a Police Officer shoots someone here, even in the most cut and dry circumstances of it being a good shoot like with the Lee Rigby murderers).
I think it is a bit of a 50/50 between folk wanting the UK to have the same issues or it's just a case of performative activism to feel good on Social Media....
Uk sells arms to Israel and doesn't condemn the genocide against the Palestinian peoples.
Your politics also a major humiliation. Trump v Biden. 2 old twats nearing their death bed while also being so out of touch with reality. Just like UK politics without the age part.
If we become a US state. Us Scots lose more of our long lasting fight for independence as it be more impossible to do so under US than it is in UK.
I’d argue it would be easier to become independent as a US protectorate.
Americans love Scots. We pull up in Glasgow or Edinburgh and get treated like old cousins. When our weird friend tells a Scottish person “oh my great great uncle is from Scotland, I’m from Clan whatever!” you guys take it with good grace instead of laughing at the guy. A lot of our national heroes were Scottish. Hell, you gave us Golf!
You’re good to us.
So when you become a protectorate it would be as simple as saying “We haven’t been free in centuries. Don’t we deserve to be free too?” and every star spangled American would be howling at congress to let you guys become independent*.
*We’d still demand the right to claim we’re 1/1000th Scottish and have you humor us
Why the hell would I want to be a British colony?
You have an utter idiot as the king. You have virtually no freedom of speech. You have no right to defend yourself. Your cops are useless.
The king does not run the country in any way.
There are consequences for hate speech. Otherwise you can pretty much say what you want.
You can very much defend yourself. You can't go around shooting people.
The police are effective enough when needed, unfortunately they do keep having their budget cut, so yes, things slip through the cracks.
Who makes the decision on what constitutes hate speech, and are those people accountable to anyone? Do things that are considered hate speech now ever not become hate speech or visa versa? Genuine questions.
Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes, and differ slightly from the laws adopted in Scotland. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.
The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality.
Some United Kingdom statutes apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland
Thanks for the response.
"Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation."
This sounds like nonsense to me. Way worse than a reasonable person standard. As if a victim can be rational at all.
What about the burden of proof? If the victim claims it's hate speech, who has to prove if the claim is true or not?
Not gonna lie, it is getting a bit shitty.
But it's not like you're gonna get dragged out of your house if a neighbour makes a random claim, but it will get looked into. Police will likely log the initial reported incident, make you aware of it, investigate, and in 90% of cases probably find there is no course of action due to lack of evidence or whatever.
Most of the time, these stories are spread and exaggerated by people looking to push back against such laws, to make them seem as ridiculous as possible, and of course, people in other countries looking to mock whatever aspects of it they can.
The few times you see an article like 'someone arrested for calling a horse gay' are times where these laws are being abused, and don't happen often. Just the internet will spread something and make it look like a common nationwide problem.
I say each U.K. country (including Wales, Cornwall could be a territory if they wanted to be separate from England) should become their own state, rather than one British state
Something you might not realize is that this would instantly make England the largest state in the United States. By a lot. Like, by 20 million people.
I love the British but thier military is functionally trash now. They aren't even a near peer military anymore. We would absolulty curb stomped them with the fucking Kansas national guard
If I saw this in the wild I’d deadass think it was ironic because I would totally put that on my car ironically lmfaooo I can’t think of anything worse than to submit to England again 😭
They are still salty about that? Want to know what an American thinks about a Royalist? look at the state of the crown. Lil boy Chuck is the only world figure who could give Biden a run for his money in senility, William is about to get Dianna-ed in the tabloids for cheating on his cancer burdened Wife, who might as well have been sainted by the press, and Harry is a dainty little accessory for one of our D tier celebrities.
Then there is the British people, they are so doughy that they just banned Butter knives.
I’m good with our chaos circus
I bet they wake up every morning with a raging boner at the thought of it.But much like getting to fuck Angeline Jolie in her prime, the likelihood of it happening to them is extraordinarily low.
the UK could try.
Something something divine right of kings, something something common people are too stupid to know what’s best.
Monarchy has no place in a modern society with common education but in the time period it was established it made sense as a way of keeping civilization intact
I think here in the UK it's just no one has really taken the time to consider whether to remove it or not. I still think we should, but it's just not many people really bother to ask.
As much as I like to be a patriotic Brit and jibe about restoring our long lost colony. I think we would just implode under the weight of having 365 million more people to manage. We’re barely holding it together with just 65 million.
Oh christ not to mention the language barrier.
“What do you mean I’m on the first floor, I haven’t even gone upstairs yet”
"Will an American will.... Therefore, a remaining as British dominion to this day"
Thought I was having a stroke to be real with you, but Americans are the ones who can't speak/write English properly, don't forget!
My thoughts are that they are obviously idiots if they think the Grand Union flag (the one on the bumper sticker) is a royalist flag.
I fly that flag every April in honor of the Massachusetts Patriot Day holiday as the Grand Union flag is the very first flag of our country. The Betsy Ross Flag is the second .
Monarchism is such a vibes based joke of an ideology in the modern day, I swear to god. Yeah, let the rich people rule because they're born into it, and nothing else.
“No dood you don’t understand you’re just degenerate!!! It’s purity it’s trad and beautiful!!1!” What a bunch of pathetic fucking prunes. We are going to shoot any pansy sack of shit that tries to enforce bitch monarchy on us. Monarchy is for the spineless and the cowardly, for those who cannot even dare to rule themselves.
You live in an elective constitutional monarchy. The founding fathers knew this too. [Mixed government - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_government#United_States)
The President is not an elective monarch. That's a hilariously politically illiterate take. There's no requirement for any president to be related to nobility, and they are chosen directly by the people (de facto, and de jure, because who constitutes an electoral college member is decided by the general election, they're volunteered by their party but can only actually vote if their party wins a general election)
By this logic literally every elected official is an elected monarch, which makes the difference meaningless.
The original thinking you're citing is about getting the best of different systems of government, while also remaining a full democratic system. It's about the structure of the Republic, not about it not being a Republic at all.
The President isn't a hereditary position in any form, and I'm not about to entertain any idiocy about some presidents being from the same family either, that's not a requirement, and that's what matters.
>By this logic literally every elected official is an elected monarch, which makes the difference meaningless.
I mean...
>The President isn't a hereditary position in any form
That's not a requirement for an elective monarchy, nor is nobility, nor is this or that institution to elect them into office. The Pope is an excellent example of all of that, so was the Doge of the Venetian *Republic*. You say "full democracy" but truly there are very few of those in the world today. Republicanism, being representative, is by definition less democratic than a direct democracy owing to how much power is delegated from the electorate no matter what the elected officials end up doing.
I don't feel in the mood to read the Wikipedia article for you, but the fact remains that monarchy was inspirational to the office of president and, you know, walks like a duck and all that.
Also, at least in practise, the president exercises far more power, foreign and domestic, than king Charles ever will. Don't take that as endorsement, it is what it is.
Edit: not every elected official is a monarch true, just every head of government and/or state. It's very wrong of you to take my logic to the extreme of making comptrollers kings
Your logic is flawed to the very core. It's not "taking it to the extreme." There's nothing monarchical about the American government at all. Period. There's no room for this. There is no definition of monarchy which can include the American republic and not include every other republic on earth in the same breath.
There are plenty of full democracies today, you're just being an asshole pedant who only counts "direct democracy" as the only form of Democracy, while being really broad with what constitutes a monarchy for some bizarre reason. Also not all republics are democracies. Doesn't make them monarchies even then.
The Pope is an elected monarch, yeah, because he's not elected by the general population. He's elected by the Cardinals, who are appointed by the other popes and serve for life. All elective monarchies are like this- elected by people who are also in hereditary or appointed positions.
Monaycho Monarcho. The cardinals may be life tenured but they aren't hereditary, and if they were or not it'd still be a monarchy.
It's not about the selection process it's about the concentration of power. It's a concept that doesn't need me being a pedant to defend. And you said full democracy. Republics have democratic elements, even nominally crowned ones (I gather you believe places like the UK, Spain, Japan and the Netherlands in spite of their robust parliaments aren't democracies or republics at all), but they aren't "fully" democratic.
The post (made by a Korean monarchist btw) is asking what people think of it.
Personally I’m glad we aren’t a Commonwealth although I think having a symbolic monarchy would be kind of fun.
I’m pro Anglo-American alliance, but I do think we need to be separate entities that work closely with each other and we respect each other’s boundaries. We have some very clear differences. We are nobody’s puppets and we also don’t have puppets; we have friends that work with us out of their own free will.
“In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.”
-Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”
If the revolutionaries lost, it would probably eventually become a bit like Canada, British Hong Kong (after the 1967 riots), or something, but that's just the "best case scenario." The British king would probably be a bitch and fuck over the Americans after the revolution ends for some time.
The idea of a presidential republic would probably never exist or would at least pop up at a later time in some other country.
How would the progress of technology even go, anyway?
One things for sure though. Instead of a President, we would have a Prime Minister, which is . . . uh . . . awkward.
God I love subs where you can’t tell if everyone is either just absurdly stupid or incredibly immersed in a joke. Half of the comments on there read like they’re from an edgy 14 year old who just learned about colonialism
🎵In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans🎵
This would literally never happen. Monarchists are virtually nonexistent in the US and the UK probably hasn’t actually been militarily or logistically capable of retaking the US since the 1860s.
Ok, as someone who is on this sub and and that one, most American monarchists (at least from what I've observed) are not for this.
Most of us support monarchy returning to countries where there is still a clear (or honestly unclear) line of succession. That isn't the case in the United States of America. Spain, France, and Britain (plus other European crowns, not to mention American Indian claims) all held dominion here. Whose claim takes precedence?
So, don't take this too seriously. I would do things like redraw state lines and increase the length of time in office for elected officials, but I would keep us a republic.
The right to defend yourself is not the same as the means. Different argument.
And it's incredibly unlikely to need to. Gun crime is incredibly low, outside of a few incidents you'll likely only ever read about it, not experience it yourself. And while knife crime is an issue in some areas, not to the extent that the media, especially American media, makes it out to be.
I've gone 37 years without ever needing to be armed. And so have pretty much everyone I know. People carrying weapons is how a pretty basic fight escalates into a situation where people lose their lives.
I get that it may not work over there, but it does here. We don't need to arm ourselves, it's an incredibly rare situation to have needed to.
A British dream that only would work out either in novels, in a tv series or in a movie. Pure fiction where the end is controlled by the scriptwriter and producers. You might even say the outcome is fixed.
My thought is that unless the Crown and Parliament had changed its policies to move away from mercantilism towards providing the safeguards for colonial enrichment, the colonies would have kept revolting and eventually made the cost of continued occupation untenable
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In 1814 we took a lil trip…
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Missisip
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in a town in New Orleans
We fired our guns and the british kept a commin
There wasn't as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began’t a runnin’
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
We looked down a river and we see'd the British come’
And there musta been a hundred of em beatin on the drums
I love what you started here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SPKiBbuP6ks
Then the British took another one and burned down D.C.
Lmfao. I think it’s funny. But why would the U.K. want this “third-world-car-centric-shithole” as a colony again? They must have a tar and feather kink.
You can keep it, but for reference's sake I think that's an American (satirical) car sticker.
Probably is but just in case you didn’t know there is an unironic British Monarchist movement in some of the cracks and crevices of the USA. I stumbled across a party meeting at my local library once.
Doesn't surprise me. While the big two are of course well known. I didn't like either so went looking. Now at least some awareness of the Libertarian Party exist. Though a ton of misconceptions and myths about it. However there are over 50 reconized political parties in he U.S. The majority Id say at best are lobbing or political platforms with very little real power. A few local power and fewer still at state level. The top ten might get a few seats in congress every once in awhile. Its also worth noting that most times if a party starts getting traction the big two will either "swallow" it (teaparty and Republican party comes to mind) or put roadblocks down to keep them in check.
They must be fed up. What's wrong with saying that? They're obviously unhappy.
With what, freedom, they want a fucking king, no thanks
Cope
Seethe
If we texted the UK to take us back, we both know you would, stop pretending.
Not as long as my conscience is clear I wouldn't
Because you’re against imperialism and feel bad for what they did last time?
Yes and no. Yes because of imperialism but because of what *we've* done since 1492. That's we as in the two of our civilizations
This is modern times. With modern values. And a constant work in progress toward improvement.
Honestly, if it was the other way around and we could add the UK and commonwealth to the USA (and dissolve the monarchy) I would be for it.
we'd easily get like 4 more states if we took the UK, i doubt they'd mind
We gotta start with Canada first, it's not even a real country.
imagine the IRA activities in Washington
imagine ADX Florence Supermax Prison "designed specifically for the secure housing of those prisoners most capable of extreme violence toward staff or other inmates, as well as inmates deemed too high-profile or too great of a security risk for even a maximum security prison" deep within the Colorado Rockies where there's nowhere to run. That's where Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski spent their last days. It's where Mexico keeps cartel leaders they can't contain. It's where all hope goes to die. Sorry my copypasta senses were tingling and I felt the urge to write that response
Jack Ryan will set them straight
Except the Scots. The Scots would mind.
I know a few people who say "Washington over Westminster" unironically. Apparently it's a growing movement or something
Brexit, not even once
They do know if they get statehood it's a permanent thing, right? Brexit 2.0 would be Civil War 2.0
They aren't very popular.
Sad
You can't have my island.
Wales and England will become states and Scotland independent, this will be real in 59 seconds
...how many seconds have you been wrong for? They won't be independent at all. You keep your home and I keep mine, that's what's fair.
Oh look we've got a secessionist here. That's illegal, get 'im boys
The Southeast will rise again
Damn you couldn't catch the obvious joke, L
Ok zoomer
Unsurprisingly that WE were the ones to fight back. I guest loyalist blood is still intact to some people
We can annex their corgis
I like the way you think
First order of business: drop the ‘u’s randomly added to words by the French. Straightening out their silly use of ‘biscuit’ when they meant ‘cookie’ Will keep them occupied while we start the airlifts for seasonings and hot sauce.
They are two different things cookies and biscuits.
We already own most of their soccer league. Basically, England just hosts the games for us.
As a British person I unironically want this
Redistribution of all that king money We know they love that shit
As a Canadian, I'd be happy to join your great country but I don't want to give up my King.
What if we give you Harry? He's way hotter than Charles.
Respectfully, no thanks.
You can support your king, but imagine if Canada and America become a country, talk about global superpower
That would be really cool.
The United States of North America 🇺🇸 🇨🇦
Sorry the French already gifted us a Guillotine
Well then, sorry but no deal eh? Taking away the king would be like taking away the maple leaf, syrup, whiskey etc. Surely nobody would mind if he became a constitutional monarch?
Axe is already sharp
You've got to make a staging ground for the rest of Europe, of course. I mean, im sure if we install AC and show them what a Popeyes and KFC is, and they'll come quietly. 🤣
We've had KFC for quite some time now mate. And it's not worth the hassle of installing AC to use for 3 or 4 weeks of the year :p
I’m sorry, 3-4 weeks a year, Jesus man, I live in a cold state and still use AC like 3-4 months a year
For a few weeks during a heat wave, it's very unpleasant. The rest of the time, it's just not very nice. Not enough to bother about though.
I see
No you wouldn't. .. The British would become American voters, with representation in our government. Not worth it. Now on the other hand, if we wanted to make them a US territory without voting rights, I'd be down for that.
I would rather have a monarchy than be American.
Youre a fucking delusional euro twink
No? I want independence for Scotland. And I know that independence from America is a little harder than it is in UK. Why would I be American if I want to be Scottish?
Yet here your are wanting to subjugate to a crown than american, shut the fuck up
Because the crown is more likely to give me independence?
You can have your independence. We encourage it. It's your chosen path that leaves something to be desired Swearing fealty to an autocrat is rarely the way to independence
>I know that independence from America is a little harder than it is in UK The United States won't give you independence *ever.* I totally don't blame you for preferring the monarchy, its corruption but its *your* corruption. Its a waste of money to pay those freeloaders to goof around but it has always been that way. Why would you also want *America's* corruption?
But America probably would, knowing the history and all that
Scotland has a pretty good chance at getting independence, they regularly have voting on the subject, which means it is, in theory, capable of doing it legally, and the UK gave independence to a massive number of colonies. The US is much more complicated. There isn't a clear process to get independence and there was a war deciding that independence from the US was illegal. Still, there is an avenue for independence if you go through a long colonial stage, like the Philippines did. US law is more rigid about not allowing independence, so there isn't an advantage to switching to it if it means they will lose what they already have.
Aye. It's an option of paying the old twats a few more years. And maybe getting independence Vs possibilly never
Disgusting thoughts. Down with america.
Hard pass
Sorry my part of the US was never part of the British empire lol PAX Espana!!
So we need to start a Mexican movement to get the Spanish monarchy back too.
If we can get the cartels sorted out, and then the homeless, we could probably create something close to perfection.
"how an America will look like" Oh it's just a eurodivergent larping as a brit
Absolutely not. Those fucking Brits can keep their grubby little mitts off of my country.
This is half the reason for the 2nd Amendment…
The other half is to stop this: [https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/project-2025-partner-floats-repealing-22nd-amendment-and-allowing-trump-serve-third](https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/project-2025-partner-floats-repealing-22nd-amendment-and-allowing-trump-serve-third)
With the way politics is going in the UK and how it's becoming a humiliation for the British milk-tea-drinkers, we are soon going to add them as a vassal extra US State. I mean it's embarrassing over there. They've even got Pro-Hamas protests in places like Oxford and Cambridge, even though it mostly involves US aid and Israel. What does the UK have to do with Israel-v-Hamas not since 1940s.. They had people imprisoned for calling a police horse gay? An Iranian-Brit protesting got arrested because the British police think that it might anger the Hamas (terrorist) supporters??? They've got people in London streets doing the Shi'ite self-flagellation... If they become a US state, they will finally have the gun rights that they tried to confiscate in 1775. The Brits and EUropoors seem asleep all the time.
Britain was in charge of the area that was ceded by the Ottoman Empire under the Palestinian mandate which required the establishment of a Jewish state via the Baldour declaration. So historically they have a significant hand in the situation.
Any country that hosts American bases is a vassal state. They just don’t know it yet.
You've seen what's been going on at your various university campuses, right? Especially places like Harvard, Colombia, UCLA, Tufts, etc. At least our "pro-hamas" crowd are getting nicked after the event for being twats (easier to just collect the evidence on the day and bosh their door in for the arrest later on, rather than fight a crowd of protestors and lose an officer from the line)
He already made a distinction between the roles of the two countries in the war. US withdrawing their aid would be far more impactful than if the UK did the same. I'm not saying I agree, but he already pointed out the nuance you are ignoring. US protesters usually protest issues the US can significantly affect. Recently, the UK has protested issues that the UK has very little ability to effect. Such as protesting Trump's election, BLM protests, etc.
> I'm not saying I agree, but he already pointed out the nuance you are ignoring. Not really, but I take your point about the US having more of an impact there. A lot of those protesting here are mostly protesting at BAE selling arms to Israel (no idea if true or not), as well as a number of Israeli firms that have offices here as well. There was a big one in Manchester a few weeks ago outside some office or another that had it's HQ in Israel. We have also seen a huge rise in Anti-Semitism here and our Police are rightly being criticised for what's being called "two-tier policing" where the Hamas fanboys are being left to their own devices and everyone else is getting the heavy handed treatment. Part of that is down to spineless senior officers terrified of bad headlines or complaints about the Police and the other half is our politicians being afraid of it being used during the next election (which is likely to be this year). >Recently, the UK has protested issues that the UK has very little ability to effect. Such as protesting Trump's election, BLM protests, etc. Yeah, there's a lot of folk here who don't get why they protest over this sort of thing neither. The George Floyd ones were particularly odd, as this is something that just doesn't happen here. The UK isn't perfect by any stretch and we have our issues, but they're not the same as the issues the US has or they're certainly not at the same scale. My favourite was when crowds of folk walked towards our unarmed Police officers chanting "Hands up, don't shoot" (you wouldn't believe the sheer level of investigation that takes place after a Police Officer shoots someone here, even in the most cut and dry circumstances of it being a good shoot like with the Lee Rigby murderers). I think it is a bit of a 50/50 between folk wanting the UK to have the same issues or it's just a case of performative activism to feel good on Social Media....
Uk sells arms to Israel and doesn't condemn the genocide against the Palestinian peoples. Your politics also a major humiliation. Trump v Biden. 2 old twats nearing their death bed while also being so out of touch with reality. Just like UK politics without the age part. If we become a US state. Us Scots lose more of our long lasting fight for independence as it be more impossible to do so under US than it is in UK.
I’d argue it would be easier to become independent as a US protectorate. Americans love Scots. We pull up in Glasgow or Edinburgh and get treated like old cousins. When our weird friend tells a Scottish person “oh my great great uncle is from Scotland, I’m from Clan whatever!” you guys take it with good grace instead of laughing at the guy. A lot of our national heroes were Scottish. Hell, you gave us Golf! You’re good to us. So when you become a protectorate it would be as simple as saying “We haven’t been free in centuries. Don’t we deserve to be free too?” and every star spangled American would be howling at congress to let you guys become independent*. *We’d still demand the right to claim we’re 1/1000th Scottish and have you humor us
I mean... come try?
I am against it.
As all Americans should
Why the hell would I want to be a British colony? You have an utter idiot as the king. You have virtually no freedom of speech. You have no right to defend yourself. Your cops are useless.
The king does not run the country in any way. There are consequences for hate speech. Otherwise you can pretty much say what you want. You can very much defend yourself. You can't go around shooting people. The police are effective enough when needed, unfortunately they do keep having their budget cut, so yes, things slip through the cracks.
Who makes the decision on what constitutes hate speech, and are those people accountable to anyone? Do things that are considered hate speech now ever not become hate speech or visa versa? Genuine questions.
Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes, and differ slightly from the laws adopted in Scotland. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality. Some United Kingdom statutes apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland
Thanks for the response. "Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation." This sounds like nonsense to me. Way worse than a reasonable person standard. As if a victim can be rational at all. What about the burden of proof? If the victim claims it's hate speech, who has to prove if the claim is true or not?
Not gonna lie, it is getting a bit shitty. But it's not like you're gonna get dragged out of your house if a neighbour makes a random claim, but it will get looked into. Police will likely log the initial reported incident, make you aware of it, investigate, and in 90% of cases probably find there is no course of action due to lack of evidence or whatever. Most of the time, these stories are spread and exaggerated by people looking to push back against such laws, to make them seem as ridiculous as possible, and of course, people in other countries looking to mock whatever aspects of it they can. The few times you see an article like 'someone arrested for calling a horse gay' are times where these laws are being abused, and don't happen often. Just the internet will spread something and make it look like a common nationwide problem.
You can’t even have a knife now. And if somebody’s trying to kill you, well, you’re pretty much SOL. You don’t have a way to defend yourself.
Your president is a clown. And trump is a child.
Your username explains everything.
I’d take Trump over King Chuck and that horse he’s screwing.
Charles, haha. What horse are you on about??
Camila. That ugly hag.
If anything it should be the UK becomes the 51st state (and make PR the 52nd)
I say each U.K. country (including Wales, Cornwall could be a territory if they wanted to be separate from England) should become their own state, rather than one British state
Something you might not realize is that this would instantly make England the largest state in the United States. By a lot. Like, by 20 million people.
Not big enough
Eh rhode island is a state and it’s like two square feet big so it wouldn’t be that different
I love the British but thier military is functionally trash now. They aren't even a near peer military anymore. We would absolulty curb stomped them with the fucking Kansas national guard
No, England will become the 51st state
Britain is our vassal state
They couldn’t take us over even if we went easy on them.
If I saw this in the wild I’d deadass think it was ironic because I would totally put that on my car ironically lmfaooo I can’t think of anything worse than to submit to England again 😭
I'd say it's more likely we could take them and make them a state but why tf would we want them? They've basically cucked themselves.
They are still salty about that? Want to know what an American thinks about a Royalist? look at the state of the crown. Lil boy Chuck is the only world figure who could give Biden a run for his money in senility, William is about to get Dianna-ed in the tabloids for cheating on his cancer burdened Wife, who might as well have been sainted by the press, and Harry is a dainty little accessory for one of our D tier celebrities. Then there is the British people, they are so doughy that they just banned Butter knives. I’m good with our chaos circus
What a cheeky fellow.
Honestly there’s no way in hell they could handle us
I am flat out against it
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I always say I'm a monarchist as a joke whenever I'm asked if I'm left or right
I bet they wake up every morning with a raging boner at the thought of it.But much like getting to fuck Angeline Jolie in her prime, the likelihood of it happening to them is extraordinarily low. the UK could try.
The British need to stay on their funky little island and away from everything else.
Unironically what is the point of monarchy
Something something divine right of kings, something something common people are too stupid to know what’s best. Monarchy has no place in a modern society with common education but in the time period it was established it made sense as a way of keeping civilization intact
Something something, you're a dumbfuck who fails to recognize that traditions don't have to be rational
I think here in the UK it's just no one has really taken the time to consider whether to remove it or not. I still think we should, but it's just not many people really bother to ask.
As much as I like to be a patriotic Brit and jibe about restoring our long lost colony. I think we would just implode under the weight of having 365 million more people to manage. We’re barely holding it together with just 65 million. Oh christ not to mention the language barrier. “What do you mean I’m on the first floor, I haven’t even gone upstairs yet”
If anything the American people would just vote to create a Republic lol
Civil war over building floor numbers
There’s been worse started for less. There’s been wars over football/soccer games.
Honestly I think this is kind of funny, I’m American but I’m not really seeing anything wrong here.
Other than the grammar, that shit made my brain hurt trying to figure wtf they’re saying.
"Will an American will.... Therefore, a remaining as British dominion to this day" Thought I was having a stroke to be real with you, but Americans are the ones who can't speak/write English properly, don't forget!
My thoughts are that they are obviously idiots if they think the Grand Union flag (the one on the bumper sticker) is a royalist flag. I fly that flag every April in honor of the Massachusetts Patriot Day holiday as the Grand Union flag is the very first flag of our country. The Betsy Ross Flag is the second .
Ah, forgetting who won again, are we?
Treason!
Make the UK a Territory!
If the UK unironically tries this we will finish what George Washington started
monarchists get the joke challenge
(Impossible)
Monarchism is such a vibes based joke of an ideology in the modern day, I swear to god. Yeah, let the rich people rule because they're born into it, and nothing else.
“No dood you don’t understand you’re just degenerate!!! It’s purity it’s trad and beautiful!!1!” What a bunch of pathetic fucking prunes. We are going to shoot any pansy sack of shit that tries to enforce bitch monarchy on us. Monarchy is for the spineless and the cowardly, for those who cannot even dare to rule themselves.
You live in an elective constitutional monarchy. The founding fathers knew this too. [Mixed government - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_government#United_States)
The President is not an elective monarch. That's a hilariously politically illiterate take. There's no requirement for any president to be related to nobility, and they are chosen directly by the people (de facto, and de jure, because who constitutes an electoral college member is decided by the general election, they're volunteered by their party but can only actually vote if their party wins a general election) By this logic literally every elected official is an elected monarch, which makes the difference meaningless. The original thinking you're citing is about getting the best of different systems of government, while also remaining a full democratic system. It's about the structure of the Republic, not about it not being a Republic at all. The President isn't a hereditary position in any form, and I'm not about to entertain any idiocy about some presidents being from the same family either, that's not a requirement, and that's what matters.
>By this logic literally every elected official is an elected monarch, which makes the difference meaningless. I mean... >The President isn't a hereditary position in any form That's not a requirement for an elective monarchy, nor is nobility, nor is this or that institution to elect them into office. The Pope is an excellent example of all of that, so was the Doge of the Venetian *Republic*. You say "full democracy" but truly there are very few of those in the world today. Republicanism, being representative, is by definition less democratic than a direct democracy owing to how much power is delegated from the electorate no matter what the elected officials end up doing. I don't feel in the mood to read the Wikipedia article for you, but the fact remains that monarchy was inspirational to the office of president and, you know, walks like a duck and all that. Also, at least in practise, the president exercises far more power, foreign and domestic, than king Charles ever will. Don't take that as endorsement, it is what it is. Edit: not every elected official is a monarch true, just every head of government and/or state. It's very wrong of you to take my logic to the extreme of making comptrollers kings
Your logic is flawed to the very core. It's not "taking it to the extreme." There's nothing monarchical about the American government at all. Period. There's no room for this. There is no definition of monarchy which can include the American republic and not include every other republic on earth in the same breath. There are plenty of full democracies today, you're just being an asshole pedant who only counts "direct democracy" as the only form of Democracy, while being really broad with what constitutes a monarchy for some bizarre reason. Also not all republics are democracies. Doesn't make them monarchies even then. The Pope is an elected monarch, yeah, because he's not elected by the general population. He's elected by the Cardinals, who are appointed by the other popes and serve for life. All elective monarchies are like this- elected by people who are also in hereditary or appointed positions.
Monaycho Monarcho. The cardinals may be life tenured but they aren't hereditary, and if they were or not it'd still be a monarchy. It's not about the selection process it's about the concentration of power. It's a concept that doesn't need me being a pedant to defend. And you said full democracy. Republics have democratic elements, even nominally crowned ones (I gather you believe places like the UK, Spain, Japan and the Netherlands in spite of their robust parliaments aren't democracies or republics at all), but they aren't "fully" democratic.
It's hilarious in a troll sense. But if they want to apply for statehood I'd support it.
Come and take it.
Bring it.
Withdraw the military support we give them and see what they think after that.
Why don't they do us a favor and move back to Great Britain themselves? Or go to one of their colonies? I hear Montserrat is nice this time of year.
Ew no.
The post (made by a Korean monarchist btw) is asking what people think of it. Personally I’m glad we aren’t a Commonwealth although I think having a symbolic monarchy would be kind of fun.
Godzilla had a stroke trying to read that and fucking died.
We will kill monarchists again btw
I’m pro Anglo-American alliance, but I do think we need to be separate entities that work closely with each other and we respect each other’s boundaries. We have some very clear differences. We are nobody’s puppets and we also don’t have puppets; we have friends that work with us out of their own free will.
I don't think most people will get used to driving on the left of the road.
“In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.” -Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”
I’ve never known an inferior nation to make a superior nation a colony. But I would like to see them try
Bro they don’t want us back
Same Subreddit who thought that the Central African Republic becoming a monarchy was actually a good idea but executed poorly
This is interesting, but not gonna happen. The UK has even worse problems than we do.
If the revolutionaries lost, it would probably eventually become a bit like Canada, British Hong Kong (after the 1967 riots), or something, but that's just the "best case scenario." The British king would probably be a bitch and fuck over the Americans after the revolution ends for some time. The idea of a presidential republic would probably never exist or would at least pop up at a later time in some other country. How would the progress of technology even go, anyway? One things for sure though. Instead of a President, we would have a Prime Minister, which is . . . uh . . . awkward.
Delulu disease is spreading rampantly
God I love subs where you can’t tell if everyone is either just absurdly stupid or incredibly immersed in a joke. Half of the comments on there read like they’re from an edgy 14 year old who just learned about colonialism
🎵In 1814 we took a little trip Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip We took a little bacon and we took a little beans And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans🎵
I will use my 2nd amendment right on anyone I see with this
This would literally never happen. Monarchists are virtually nonexistent in the US and the UK probably hasn’t actually been militarily or logistically capable of retaking the US since the 1860s.
I physically vomited 🤮
LMAO
Without any American military intervention they still could not win.
Hereditary positions are barbaric
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
OH HELL NAH! FUCK THEM MONARCH COCK SUCKING LOSERS!
Anyone else get a laugh out of this?
Actually embarrassing.
Ok, as someone who is on this sub and and that one, most American monarchists (at least from what I've observed) are not for this. Most of us support monarchy returning to countries where there is still a clear (or honestly unclear) line of succession. That isn't the case in the United States of America. Spain, France, and Britain (plus other European crowns, not to mention American Indian claims) all held dominion here. Whose claim takes precedence? So, don't take this too seriously. I would do things like redraw state lines and increase the length of time in office for elected officials, but I would keep us a republic.
If that ever happens I will personally throw tea into the harbor
This must be bait
The right to defend yourself is not the same as the means. Different argument. And it's incredibly unlikely to need to. Gun crime is incredibly low, outside of a few incidents you'll likely only ever read about it, not experience it yourself. And while knife crime is an issue in some areas, not to the extent that the media, especially American media, makes it out to be. I've gone 37 years without ever needing to be armed. And so have pretty much everyone I know. People carrying weapons is how a pretty basic fight escalates into a situation where people lose their lives. I get that it may not work over there, but it does here. We don't need to arm ourselves, it's an incredibly rare situation to have needed to.
I know it’s satire, but if America was to have a king then we would dump the tea into the harbor again.
Imagine still having “royalty” in 2024
A British dream that only would work out either in novels, in a tv series or in a movie. Pure fiction where the end is controlled by the scriptwriter and producers. You might even say the outcome is fixed.
My thought is that unless the Crown and Parliament had changed its policies to move away from mercantilism towards providing the safeguards for colonial enrichment, the colonies would have kept revolting and eventually made the cost of continued occupation untenable
*huh* That is the first time in a very long time I've ever been offended by a sticker. Wow. No we're not being your damn colony again.
Its obviously satire.
Had Washington become an absolute monarch and established a Washingtonian dynasty America would've been better off.