Trump supports President For Life idea

[Steve]

Well, I never said I wanted to do that, just pointing out that the States deciding not to go for rulers for life, or even very long terms, was something fairly new to European experience since, well, the Romans I think, when the Roman consuls were up for election every year.

[Karha of Honor]

Well, I never said I wanted to do that, just pointing out that the States deciding not to go for rulers for life, or even very long terms, was something fairly new to European experience since, well, the Romans I think, when the Roman consuls were up for election every year.

Before and after mass literacy civilization is not even in the same universe.

[Madner Kami]

Well, I never said I wanted to do that, just pointing out that the States deciding not to go for rulers for life, or even very long terms, was something fairly new to European experience since, well, the Romans I think, when the Roman consuls were up for election every year.

Actually... No, not alien to Europe at all. That democracy "broke out" in Europe during the 18th century (and following) isn't a historical coindidence, it's a deep rooted tradition in vast parts of the societies of the continent. The "Interlude" of Kings and Kaisers in the Middle Ages was the historical abnormality.

[Karha of Honor]

Well, I never said I wanted to do that, just pointing out that the States deciding not to go for rulers for life, or even very long terms, was something fairly new to European experience since, well, the Romans I think, when the Roman consuls were up for election every year.

Actually... No, not alien to Europe at all. That democracy "broke out" in Europe during the 18th century (and following) isn't a historical coindidence, it's a deep rooted tradition in vast parts of the societies of the continent. The "Interlude" of Kings and Kaisers in the Middle Ages was the historical abnormality.

Rome was an Empire for a long time before that, even in the Dark Ages nobility existed and so did slavery.

[Madner Kami]

Rome was an Empire for a long time before that, even in the Dark Ages nobility existed and so did slavery.

Rome was an Empire for about 500 years before the "Dark Age" happened, assuming you refer to the Middle Age here and the Roman Empire and it's socio-economic makeup is the prime reason for Feudalism to happen in the first place. Also, slavery and nobility are not antithetical to democracy. Athens had nobility and slavery. The Roman Republic is plagued by the eternal feud between plebeians and patricians and the antagonism between both groups is the big impetus for almost everything that happened during the Republic. The US of A, the great democracy bringer, isn't unfamiliar with slavery and nobility either. And if you insist that slavery and nobility are incompatible with democracy, then you should look at the celtic and germanic tribes, you know, the guys who voted for Vercingetorix to lead them against Caesar and the guys who murdered Arminius because they feared that he'd make himself a king.

[Beastro]

Oh right, I forgot I was talking to a predominatnly American board.

I had more in mind the Stadholderate above all else, especially given the impact the Dutch Republic has upon the foundation of the US, although without the issues the Republic had due to it's severely conpromising issues that the US had improved upon.

Actually... No, not alien to Europe at all. That democracy "broke out" in Europe during the 18th century (and following) isn't a historical coindidence, it's a deep rooted tradition in vast parts of the societies of the continent. The "Interlude" of Kings and Kaisers in the Middle Ages was the historical abnormality.
[/quote]

Both have a long tradition within Europe often coexisting at the same time, although when it came to things like the Germanic tribes that could widely vary. One can point to the Carolingian Empire and dominance of the Franks as the main reason why Medieval monarchy took on the form it did oppose to others, like the Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian take on the institution.

Also, slavery and nobility are not antithetical to democracy. Athens had nobility and slavery. The Roman Republic is plagued by the eternal feud between plebeians and patricians and the antagonism between both groups is the big impetus for almost everything that happened during the Republic. The US of A, the great democracy bringer, isn't unfamiliar with slavery and nobility either. And if you insist that slavery and nobility are incompatible with democracy, then you should look at the celtic and germanic tribes, you know, the guys who voted for Vercingetorix to lead them against Caesar and the guys who murdered Arminius because they feared that he'd make himself a king.

There is also the lull in slavery during the Middle Ages with slaves often making up the smallest part of the population, although modern views prefer too see no difference between it and Serfdom.

We're getting into sticky territory with things like slavery since the institution was very until the advent of the Modern Era, at least in the West. My suspicion is slavery as we know it arose from, or was an amalgamation of, the Islamic form of it and it's impact upon Iberia over the course of the Reconquista).

Well, I never said I wanted to do that, just pointing out that the States deciding not to go for rulers for life, or even very long terms, was something fairly new to European experience since, well, the Romans I think, when the Roman consuls were up for election every year.

And a result was ensuring the near continuous drama around Consulship with so much devoted to maintaining ones position as one, especially if one has done illicit things given a Consuls freedom from prosecution.

A balance has to be struck between election cycles being too quick or too long, but there can be a place for a lifetime position with the British monarchy's reinvention over the 20th Century being a good example.

[Yukaphile]

Almost hope he does it. I hate him, but I hate us more for letting this happen. I could see this coming a mile off.