Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "‘Off-putting’: Megyn Kelly roasts ‘weird head thing’ Ron DeSantis does" video.

@alexpalaciossantos4940 "ah yes, totally normal for believers in democracy to be calling politicians kings" In addition to Faithwalkertodd's comment, there are plenty of places (such as Australia) that are democratic and have a king. The two are not necessarily incompatible.
1
@alexpalaciossantos4940 "not surprised that someone who argues slavery is compatible with democracy..." Given that nobody here has argued that, I have no idea who you're referring to. "...would say that monarchy and democracy are compatible." Well, as I have pointed out, in the form of the constitutional monarchy, they are compatible. And I note that you've not given any reason or evidence ot the contrary.
1
@alexpalaciossantos4940 "anyone who claims the usa was founded as a democracy and is a democracy has argued that slavery is compatible with democracy. " That's a non-sequitur, and false. "You can put whatever words you want together, doesnt mean they make sense." You mean like providing a non-sequitur? Yes, I agree. So why do it? "Having an unelected person appropriate billions of tax payer funds, make unilateral decisions, ... is fundamentally incompatible with the central principle of democracy:..." True (if by "appropriate", you mean taking the money improperly, and if you're talking about making unilateral decisions for other people without their input). But how does that support your claim? "...represent the country on the world stage is fundamentally incompatible with the central principle of democracy..." Not if they are elected to do that.
1
@alexpalaciossantos4940 "it is not a non sequitur." And yet you've not explained how one follows from the other. "...the usa was founded on slavery, the union would not have formed if slavery was not codified in the constitution." It wasn't founded "on" slavery. You're arguing that it was founded because of slavery. That's not the same thing, or at very least is ambiguous. "Slavery continues in the usa to this day, through prisons, ..." Only if you redefine 'slavery'. "...and supports the us economy as we enslave the rest of the world." Except that you're not enslaving the rest of the world. "if you believe the us was a democracy when it was founded, despite only landed white men being able to vote, ..." I've been told that the U.S. is not a democracy, because the people arguing that consider 'democracy' to be what is known as a 'direct' or 'true' democracy, as they had in ancient Greece. And yet that democracy was not open to not just women, but also slaves and people not born in the city. In other words, not everyone being able to vote does not mean that you can't call it a democracy. "you show you either lack understanding of the word democracy, or you intentionally paint oligarchy as democracy. " And yet I'm showing that it is you who does not understand the word. An oligarchy is normally understood to be rule by a group of unelected people, and by that understanding, the U.S. is not an oligarchy, so I'm not painting it as a democracy. "your final comment makes no sense." Okay, I'll concede that, given that you were explicitly referring to unelected persons. However, there is nothing undemocratic about an unelected person representing their country at the behest of an elected government, So again, how does that support your claim? "and it is appropriated, bc the people who pay those taxes have no say in wether the monarchy takes their money." That is false for two reasons. First, what the British royals get paid is a portion of what they contribute to the country. The income from the royal properties is paid to the government, and a portion of that is paid back to them for their expenses. They actually contribute to the country's finances, and that's not even taking into account the income from tourists visiting the country for royal events and the like. Second, the people do have a say, in that such decisions are made by the elected government.
1