"Two Terms for a President" is a democratic tale for the enslavement of the colonies

Hello ATS!

Today there will be a lot of letters and words)))
In discussions on our forum, people constantly write to me that, according to the canons of “democracy,” heads of state must have no more than 2 terms. Otherwise, it is already totalitarianism, autocracy, dictatorship and hundreds of other labels. Although, as I remember, Franklin Roosevelt had 3 terms, but they tell me that “this is different,” “it should have been that way,” and “we can,” “we decided so.”
So let's figure out why exactly 2 terms were actually required, no more and no less.

Over the past 30 years, they have been intensively explaining to us that the West (Europe and the USA) has become so prosperous solely due to the fact that everyone there is so hardworking, honest, democratic, tolerant, punctual and the most body-positive.

At the same time, they are somehow bashfully silent about the fact that for 500 years the most outright robbery and outflow of the resources of the entire planet to the West took place (and is happening). Both Americas, Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, Oceania - the juice was squeezed out of all this in favor of Europe, and then the USA (as the successor to European civilization).

Everything, from gold and slaves to offshore capital, flowed (and in many ways still flows) to the West.

By the way, before the 500-year history of colonialism, there was another 300-year history of the Crusades, which also plundered and brought wealth to Europe, but that is a separate story.
And yes, now this West feeds the whole world with fairy tales, as if democracy and respect for human rights simply helped them. Nothing more. Yes, yes, that’s exactly how it happened.

At the same time, if some Honduras or Cambodia introduces exactly the same democratic rules as in the United States, neither Honduras nor Cambodia, for some reason, becomes the second United States.

This reminds me of re-sticking a nameplate from a Ferrari onto a Fat Mini and then wondering why the Fiat Mini doesn’t accelerate? Isn't that a cool badge with a horse on it?

On the other hand, there are countries that would give a damn about some terms for presidents, freedom of speech and democracy in general. Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Singapore are countries with the highest standard of living, but their human rights are somehow difficult. And in the first two countries there is no president, but there is an irremovable monarch.

Well, or let's look at Britain, which is excellent at deceiving everyone (including its own people), that their Queen (king) is simply a tribute to tradition and does not solve anything. Yes, sure...

No strategically important decision is made in Britain without the approval of the Royal Family. Not a single politician can occupy a more or less responsible position if he is not approved by the Royal Family (we are talking about the family, and not about a “fictitious” audience with the King).

Prime ministers of Britain change like gloves, but the power of British monarchs is stable, and therefore the political system of the state is stable.

Can you imagine such stability in Russia, which in the 20th century alone had 4 revolutions, not counting minor coups d'etat?
In the USSR, Khrushchev abolished Stalin, Brezhnev abolished Khrushchev, Gorbachev abolished Brezhnev, Yeltsin abolished Gorbachev, etc... It is difficult to remember when in Russia since 1917 the government had changed and not jumped sharply in some other direction.
The British can change their prime ministers even every day, but the power itself will not change - the Queen will rule, and then transfer all power to her descendants. This allows the state to plan for decades ahead, understanding that nothing will change fundamentally in Britain.

In Russia, you’re even afraid to take out a mortgage for 5 years, because who knows what will happen there after 2024? What kind of idiot with Western views could come after Putin and what changes will he initiate?

Judging by the Russian past, we can suddenly rush from monarchism to communism, from communism to capitalism. And any changes of this magnitude lead to decline for the first couple of decades while the economy is rebuilt.

In the USA, by the way, the situation is similar to Britain. Presidents change every 4-8 years, but the strategic policy of the States remains unchanged. This is because the President in the USA is not a real power, but just a talking head, behind which there are stable elite groups based on the institution of clanism. Nowadays it is commonly called "Deep State".

About 50% of all US governors and presidents are related to one another. And even Arnold Schwarzenegger would not have become governor of California if he had not married a representative of the Kennedy clan, Maria Shriver (she is the niece of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated).

And does anyone else think that in the USA there is no clanism, continuity and stability of power? When the president was first the father (George Bush), and then his son (also George Bush) - this already resembles the elements of a monarchy, simply beautifully packaged in a candy wrapper of democracy.

Continued below...

For its own colonies (among which, undoubtedly, was Russia), the West came up with such a toy as “Change of power every 4 years.” Moreover, everything is done so that not just power changes, but the vector of development itself.

Every new president in other countries starts everything almost all over again, throwing the country in a completely different direction. The elites simply do not have time to form; we ourselves destroy them amid cries of “Hurray!” This can be seen especially clearly in Ukraine.

At the same time, I repeat, the entire modern well-being of the democratic West rests on 500 years of worldwide plunder, organized by the undemocratic and irreplaceable monarchs of Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Holland, etc.

Modern Europe and the USA are simply eating away this prosperity, just as the democratic Gorbachev and Yeltsin were eating away the prosperity laid down and built under the “undemocratic” and irreplaceable Stalin.

It may seem that I advocate the absolute irremovability of power for Russia. No, this is not so, although everyone on the forum knows that I am a supporter of the Russian Autocracy, a monarchist.

In my opinion, people should have the opportunity (but not the obligation) to change power. Every election must be held.

This is something like a stop valve that should be there just in case. For example, in a case like Yeltsin or Biden. Such presidents must be removed through democratic elections (by pulling the stop valve).

But the problem is that we are forced to pull this stop valve regularly, no matter how successfully our train is moving.

Even if we have a super brilliant, super honest, super effective president, we will be obliged to pull the stop valve and remove such a president. Destroy the formation of elites and start all over again.

This is the trick that the West imposed on all its colonies. Moreover, I still have not heard a single sane argument as to why the deadline should be 2, and not 3, or not 1.

Well, apart from the abstract assumptions that were made up from thin air, that after 2 terms the president suddenly breaks away sharply from the people and necessarily becomes a dictator - why? Why? And after the first term it doesn’t work? How then was Roosevelt elected for 4 terms and was the best president in history? Questions, questions...

Thank you.

PS. I ask my “English friends”, my “fan group” not to litter the topic with propaganda provocative phrases. Stick to the topic, especially since neither Russia, nor Putin, nor Ukraine are involved in this topic.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
according to the canons of “democracy,” heads of state must have no more than 2 terms. Otherwise, it is already totalitarianism, autocracy, dictatorship and hundreds of other labels. Although, as I remember, Franklin Roosevelt had 3 terms, but they tell me that “this is different,” “it should have been that way,” and “we can,” “we decided so.”

Roosevelt was elected to four terms. After he was elected four times, the law was put in place to restrict it to two terms. This isn't 'canons of democracy'. It's simply US law. That way we don't get dictatorships ... like what you have.

At the same time, they are somehow bashfully silent about the fact that for 500 years the most outright robbery and outflow of the resources of the entire planet to the West took place (and is happening).

Nope. No robbery. Good economics and understanding trade.

And yes, now this West feeds the whole world with fairy tales, as if democracy and respect for human rights simply helped them. Nothing more. Yes, yes, that’s exactly how it happened.

We are a REPUBLIC. We have the institution of democracy for voting. And yes, having democracy helped us greatly. So did having a FREE MARKET SYSTEM and understanding trade. Having a strong military helps as does living far far away from evil expansionist communist entities like Russia and China so it makes it harder for them to wage war against us.

At the same time, if some Honduras or Cambodia introduces exactly the same democratic rules as in the United States, neither Honduras nor Cambodia, for some reason, becomes the second United States.

Other factors are at play. They don't have the resources and education, and they have problems with drug cartels and crime organizations, and Cambodia has China interfering with the country.

In the USA, by the way, the situation is similar to Britain. Presidents change every 4-8 years, but the strategic policy of the States remains unchanged.

If something works, why change it. If a President and the Senate and the Congress keep policies in place ... SO WHAT? No need to change something that works.

This is because the President in the USA is not a real power, but just a talking head, behind which there are stable elite groups based on the institution of clanism. Nowadays it is commonly called "Deep State".

Incorrect. The president has power, so does the senate, so does the congress and so does the Supreme Court. It's called checks and balances. And it's very important otherwise "we the people' don't get a say anymore and then we get murdering psychopaths taking over ... like what you have with Putin in Russia.

About 50% of all US governors and presidents are related to one another.

You pulled that number out of your butt. That's incorrect.

And even Arnold Schwarzenegger would not have become governor of California if he had not married a representative of the Kennedy clan, Maria Shriver (she is the niece of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated).

Schwarzenegger marrying Maria Shriver had nothing to do with him becoming governor of California. She had no pull with any kind of power to get him elected, and she had no sway with the voters.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
the West came up with such a toy as “Change of power every 4 years.”

Having an election every four years is not a 'toy' and it's not a 'change of power'. It's simply electing who 'we the people' want to have in office. People we disapprove of, we vote out. People we approve of, we vote in. Very simple.

Every new president in other countries starts everything almost all over again, throwing the country in a completely different direction.

So what? That's their problem. And that's why they fail. America works just fine so there is no need to 'start everything all over again'. We have problems, but that's why we elect new people and try new things, so as to fix them. But the basic system and the basic direction for America remains unchanged because IT WORKS WELL.

The elites simply do not have time to form; we ourselves destroy them amid cries of “Hurray!” This can be seen especially clearly in Ukraine.

Yeah right ... that's why Putin is still in, because elites simply do not have time to form. Rich psychopathic murdering Putin .... in for life. Pffft. You are comically funny.

In my opinion, people should have the opportunity (but not the obligation) to change power. Every election must be held.

Then tell Putin to stop killing people who oppose him.

How then was Roosevelt elected for 4 terms and was the best president in history?

He was a good president. But as for being 'the best' ... that's a matter of opinion and if you ask people in the USA who was the best, his name doesn't come up more often than any other.

Another incorrect thread by RT....
You talk about deceiving people which you seem to know a lot about reading the types of threads you post, with your blatent attempts at trying to spread division here.

Your sad misunderstanding of British democracy also shows your attempts at spreading misinformation and misunderstanding of a constitutional monarchy, and what that means. I'd post more links and information for you but I know you won't read it and as I point out a lot of your nonsence, you tend to run off and hide.

www.barrons.com...

The British monarch is mainly a ceremonial figurehead and is generally expected not to intervene in political matters. But as head of state, they have retained some constitutional powers.

Parliament is the highest legislative authority in the United Kingdom and comprises the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Crown -- another word for the monarchy.

The Crown is the oldest part of Britain's system of government, but its powers have withered away over time, and are now broadly ritualistic.

The day after a general election, the monarch invites the leader of the party that won the most seats in the House of Commons to become prime minister and form a government.

The monarch opens parliament every year at the tradition-heavy State Opening, and reads out the government's plans for the next 12 months.

The event usually begins with the monarch's procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster.

Wearing the Imperial State Crown, the monarch proceeds to the House of Lords.

Your talk of colonialism and evils of the west seems to gloss over Russian Imperialism and the scars it's also left on the world.
Russia is still trying to interfere in Africa and it's democracy to this day, by supporting warlords and rebels with arms and mercinaries after its failed imperial dominations of the past..
The wave of decolonisation in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, which started after World War II, was accompanied by discussions of colonial legacies and tools of violence.

By contrast, the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union didn't result in similar scrutiny of the Russian imperial or colonial legacy.

As for your despot Putin and his 21 years in power, Putin is still in power because he murders any political opposition that's a real threat to his power.

For your further education..
www.aljazeera.com...

The Russian imperial army fought numerous wars in the east, west and south, and by the mid-19th century, Russia had become the largest land empire. Along with the British, Austro-Hungarian and French empires, it understood and presented itself as a European colonial power.

Following the October Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks proclaimed the end of the Russian monarchy and Russian imperialism, but they fought brutally to preserve the Russian imperial borders. They reconquered newly formed independent states, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, which emerged after the collapse of the Russian Empire.

In the early 1930s, Joseph Stalin embraced Russian nationalism based on the old imperial myth of the greatness of the Russian people. Bolshevik Moscow made ethnic Russians the most privileged group in the Soviet Union and sent Russian settlers to populate and control non-Russian regions.

www.aljazeera.com...

“Remember, you are white, a man of the superior race,” this was one of the rules Lieutenant Grigorii Chertkov espoused while deployed in Africa in the service of the Russian Empire in 1897. He was part of a delegation sent by Russian Emperor Nicholas II to Ethiopia to establish a formal Russian diplomatic mission with the aim of bringing the African country into the Russian imperial fold.

In the eyes of the African people who saw the Russian convoy make its way from a port in Djibouti to Addis Ababa, the Russians were probably hardly distinguishable from any other European colonial troops they had seen. Wearing white pith helmets – not only an item of headwear but also a symbol of presumed racial superiority – the Russians, like their European counterparts, were there to advance an imperial cause......

More than a century later, another Russian emissary visiting the Ethiopian capital would speak of colonialism on the African continent as if his country never tried to engage in it. At a July 2022 press conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticised the West for trying to bring back the “colonial epoch”.

His speech conveniently missed the fact that his ancestors wanted to be part of the imperial domination of Africa that defined that epoch. Indeed, today’s official Russian rhetoric outlines the history of Russian relations with Africa in exclusively anti-colonial terms. And yet, historical facts reveal that Russia was part of the imperial “scramble for Africa” – only, it failed miserably at it.

You really do make me laugh RT.
Russia failed at being a monarchy, had a revolution and become a communist state which it failed at, and then tried to 'westernise' but because of the corruption, that failed too, and now it's a dictatorship, and will soon fail at that as well...

PS. I ask my “English friends”, my “fan group” not to litter the topic with propaganda provocative phrases. Stick to the topic, especially since neither Russia, nor Putin, nor Ukraine are involved in this topic.

I loved this little tag on.
You do talk of Russia and Putin in your little speech but then attempt to tell people what they can and can't post about as usual, as long as it's on toipic, and you clearly and blatantly talk about your imagined Russian 'superiority', so all's fair.

a reply to: RussianTroll

We have elections every 4 years so that if we end up with some nutcase we can get rid of them. Yeah pillage and plunder happens in nation building that's just what it is. Other countries don't do as well as the west because of systems put in place by the global banking conglomerate that control all the money.

Anybody else wanna sail a schooner round the horn of Mexico? I dont know why but I just listened to that song and every time Kristofferson sings that part I burst into hysterical laughter.

Sorry to disappoint but your depiction of our monarchy doesn't really merit any response.

Trying to divert attention from Navalny's funeral, perchance?

I will post what I please. This isn't Russia you know.

As for us English posting "propaganda', that's funny!

a reply to: RussianTroll

"PS. I ask my “English friends”, my “fan group” not to litter the topic with propaganda provocative phrases. Stick to the topic, especially since neither Russia, nor Putin, nor Ukraine are involved in this topic."

But, you mentioned Russia and Putin in your OP?

a reply to: Kurokage

"You really do make me laugh RT.
Russia failed at being a monarchy, had a revolution and become a communist state which it failed at, and then tried to 'westernise' but because of the corruption, that failed too, and now it's a dictatorship, and will soon fail at that as well..."

A perfect summary!

As far as I can tell, the topic of your thread is a wide ranging rant at the UK, the US and the West in general?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
As far as I can tell, the topic of your thread is a wide ranging rant at the UK, the US and the West in general?

When is it never that which you describe?

a reply to: quintessentone

True.

Meanwhile, in front of Putin's thugs, the crowds are calling Navalny's name, calling Putin a murderer and chanting "Russia will be free!'


Amen to that.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It does seem like putin is afraid of a dead man and his wife and the chance he may become a martyr for real Russian democracy which is why we have this rant from RT.

a reply to: FlyersFan

A small example of what kind of “democrats” are leading you.



On the right is Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister of Belgium since October 1, 2020. (born 1975) Father Herman Francis Joseph De Croo. (born 1937) From 1999 to July 2007, De Croo was President of the House of Representatives, the lower house of the Federal Parliament. He is the current mayor of Brakel.


Ursula von der Leyen (Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen) born in 1958. Father Ernst Carl Julius Albrecht served as Prime Minister of Lower Saxony for 15 years from February 6, 1976 to June 21, 1990. Born in 1930.
The Albrecht family was one of the Hübshe (“courtly” or “noble”) families of the Electorate and the Kingdom of Hanover, a state in personal union with the United Kingdom.
Ursula von der Leyen's great-grandmother, American Mary Ladson Robertson, was from a family of plantation origins in Charleston, South Carolina, and a descendant of James Ladson and several colonial governors. Her ancestor James H. Ladson owned more than 200 slaves by the time slavery was abolished in the United States; her relatives and ancestors were among the wealthiest in British North America in the 18th century. And great-grandfather Georg Alexander Albrecht moved to Bremen in the 19th century, where he became a wealthy cotton merchant, a member of the Hanseatic elite and Austro-Hungarian consul from 1895. He married Baroness Louise Dorothea Betty von Knoop (1844–1889), daughter of Baron Johann Ludwig von Knoop, one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the 19th century Russian Empire.

Of the three of them, only Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the son of a socialist-anarchist and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, is drawn to the “democrat”))))

a reply to: RussianTroll

So what? Sins of ancestors now, is it?

a reply to: Kurokage

Does rather reek of diversionary tactics?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I was about to say to RT how poor his argument is aganist western democracy if he's posting family trees and peoples ancestory.

I must look to see if any of them are ex-KGB office staff/runners?

a reply to: RussianTroll

I always get a kick out of people who genuinely believe Justin Trudeau is Castros son.

a reply to: strongfp

Is that really a "thing!!!?

originally posted by: RussianTroll
A small example of what kind of “democrats” are leading you.

A small example of what kind of leader you have.

Newsweek - List of Some of the Putin Critics Who Have Died Mysteriously

For over two decades, President Vladimir Putin has squeezed dissent in Russia. Critics, journalists, and defectors have faced dire consequences after opposing him. From poisonings to shootings, mysterious falls from windows, and even plane crashes, there is a long trail of silenced voices.

Alexei Navalny, whose death in prison is as yet unexplained, had previously fallen ill on a flight from Siberia to Moscow in 2020 after being poisoned with Novichok, a nerve agent. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian spy who defected and was a prominent Putin critic, was murdered with polonium-210 in London in 2016.

Other deaths of opposition figures under Putin's rule also appear to follow a pattern. Boris Nemtsov, shot dead near the Kremlin, and Stanislav Markelov, assassinated in Moscow alongside journalist Anastasia Baburova, are just two examples. Natalia Estemirova, abducted and found dead in Chechnya, and Anna Politkovskaya, an investigative journalist murdered in her Moscow apartment building, also paid the ultimate price following their dissent.

Alexei Navalny, Mikhail Lesin, Boris Nemtsov, Boris Berezovsky, Sergei Magnitsky, Stanislav Markelov, Anastasia Baburova, Natalia Estemirova, Anna Politkovskaya, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, Prighozhin, Alexander Litvinenko,