This thread is the sadder counterpart of Today's Good News.

There might be a correlation between anesthesia and reduced language abilities.

Today we have elections for electing a new President of the Republic for the next five years, here in Portugal.

Course I will not vote. I never vote. For a simple reason, I will vote when voting bulletins have an option at the last row for a "None of the above" option.That option must be counted as any other option and if it wins, elections must be repeated but with a major difference, the candidates can't run again, it has to be new ones.

Why such option never exists? because it's the only way that would change the actual system and that's not admissible.
People are forced to chose amongst what is given to them to chose, not what they want.
This is not democracy.

Besides, I'm monarchist, I don't elect presidents.   

People are forced to chose amongst what is given to them to chose, not what they want.
This is not democracy.

Besides, I'm monarchist, I don't elect presidents.   

As a monarchist and a proponent of democracy, you would rather elect kings, right?

As a monarchist and a proponent of democracy, you would rather elect kings, right?

Let me see.. Estonian humour?

Glad you ask that because many people don't understand the reason why to defend a non elected state role in a Democracy.

One of the many functions a king goes beyond any president is because people aren't artificial political constructs, people are real and people organise themselves, at most human societies, in families.
To have a human being organisation at the the top of the state is the right way to prevent the arrival of Brave New Worlds or autocratic regimens that try to dehumanise human beings and turn them into obeying-non thinking robots.
Et voilá.

One of the many functions a king goes beyond any president is because people aren't artificial political constructs, people are real and people organise themselves, at most human societies, in families.
To have a human being organisation at the the top of the state is the right way to prevent the arrival of Brave New Worlds or autocratic regimens that try to dehumanise human beings and turn them into obeying-non thinking robots.
Et voilá.

This all sounds very nice as long as your king is enlightened and ruling with the approval and respect of the people such as Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who intervened to resolve the crises during his reign to a good effect.

But how about when your king is a total moron such as the current Vajiralongkorn of Thailand, whose wasteful loitering in Germany is an international scandal? He only intervenes to punish the people who rightfully consider him a shame to the nation.

A good monarchy is good.
Well, a good whatever is good.

But how about when your king is a total moron [...]

Enlightened monarchies do have the internal mechanisms to solve those issues.

I don't defend the equivalent in monarchies to a presidential regimen, like the American regimen for example, where the president governs the country at his will.
I'm in favour of the type of parliamentary regime where an elected government governs the country and the president/king has only supervising powers (but also others) not the effective government of the Nation.

To the King what belongs to the king, to the people what belongs to the people.

Pity you lost yours a long time back to nutters. My monarch smils at me from above the living room fireplace