A parliamentary system with short term limits and head of state drawn by lottery (with exceptions only for the dangerously insane and convictions for serious felonies) would probably be better than a kingship.

Hey dude! As an aside, I sure like seeing you back around. Great to see you posting!

And you'll note, I said a benevolent kingship. Not merely a kingship. And the problems noted are why we are left with a Republic being the best we can do. Technically, the Christian Republics of the West were formed as regencies in waiting for the glorious Return of the King... Maranatha!

Perhaps if that duty were once again emphasized...

Burgum -- no. What has he done as a governor to distinguish himself? (as, say, DeSantis or Scott Walker) The guy is a "cypher politician". Convince me otherwise.

Rubio -- bad choice (and the problem with both candidates being "from" the same state). He's not going to bring in any more votes than Mr. Trump would win in Florida anyway.

Scott -- NO. This guy will prove to be a liability, not an asset. Again, no!

That leaves J.D. Vance.
I've mentioned his name for months in this forum as who should run with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Vance won't need a speechwriter -- he's a writer by past trade.
He could even smooth out Mr. Trump's speeches.
And he seems to have had a decent record in the Senate, as well.

If he gets the nod and wins the job, he can also leave a Senate seat that Republicans should be able to retain.

And again, I'd like to offer Rand Paul.

No... It's a bare fact. Hollywood means utterly nothing to me. Nor does the ruling class. Lord knows I painted enough of their mansions out here to get to know them plenty good. And they're all a**holes. Hollywood or industry, or politics. Doesn't matter.

Those who consider themselves fit to rule are always, as a rule, the last people you would want over you.
All of em. The problem is this: Still the best form of government is a benevolent kingship. The problem with it is drawing a benevolent king... And the next problem is that a benevolent father always whelps a tyrant.

And so it goes.

A parliamentary system with short term limits and head of state drawn by lottery (with exceptions only for the dangerously insane and convictions for serious felonies) would probably be better than a kingship. 

@roamer_1

Awww, STHU!  You and your incessant need to be "different".

Next, you'll be telling us how you prefer fat chicks because it's one less log you need to put in your stove at night.   

No... It's a bare fact. Hollywood means utterly nothing to me. Nor does the ruling class. Lord knows I painted enough of their mansions out here to get to know them plenty good. And they're all a**holes. Hollywood or industry, or politics. Doesn't matter.

Those who consider themselves fit to rule are always, as a rule, the last people you would want over you.
All of em. The problem is this: Still the best form of government is a benevolent kingship. The problem with it is drawing a benevolent king... And the next problem is that a benevolent father always whelps a tyrant.

And so it goes.

Hmmm...Sarah Palin didn't help John McCain very much...

... because Sarah Palin is another whacko-liberal populist. Her supposed appointment was to placate actual Conservatives who weren't about to vote for McCain't. Not that ANY VP would have helped McCain't, but you don't placate Conservatives with a populist liberal.