|
Replies: 39
| visibility 2109
|
All-In [25912]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13255
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Are we this dumb now?
2
Jul 3, 2024, 11:52 PM
|
|
If you mean by the term 'democracy' all people being able to vote on every single bill, then no the US nor any other country is a democracy.
Yes, we are a Republic, that as far as I know, has governmental institutions that are elected more democratically than any other country that I know of.
Parliamentary governments are for the most part ultimately, democratically elected, which is what much of the "free world" exists. We are not even parliamentary, our vote is much more direct (and even much more segmented from national, to state, to local).
The United States is (by its structure) the exemplification of democracy in the world.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
1
Jul 3, 2024, 11:58 PM
|
|
That limit the power of the people
Republics have constitutions that limit the power of the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority
That is why the United States is not a democracy and that is why the founding fathers abhored democracies.
They should start teaching civics 101 again as a required class
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25912]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13255
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
4
Jul 4, 2024, 12:09 AM
|
|
You're right Civics 101 needs to be taught.
Is your House of Representative Congress person democratically elected? Is your Senator democratically elected? Is your Governor democratically elected? Is your mayor democratically elected? Is your Sheriff democratically elected? Is your State Congress person democratically elected? Is your State House person democratically elected?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25912]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13255
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
1
Jul 4, 2024, 12:13 AM
|
|
I think where you might be confused is, yes we have individual rights codified into law, but that does not mean we are not a country founded on the ideas of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
I am not confused
1
Jul 4, 2024, 1:38 AM
|
|
The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution — the two most fundamental documents of our nation. NOT ONCE!
Here is a sampling of the disdain our founders held for democracy:
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " . . . that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
The founders knew that a democracy would SUCK!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46901
Joined: 4/23/00
|
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
1
Jul 4, 2024, 10:00 AM
|
|
you are talking about a pure democracy, where every person votes directly on issues without representatives in-between them and the final decision. It can ultimately amount to mob rule, which can be dangerous.
To everyone who is hung up on that, a pure or direct democracy is not the only kind of democracy, and a system of government does not have to be a pure/direct democracy to be a form of democracy. There is no "gotcha". You haven't outsmarted anybody.
A representative republic is still a democracy, and a democratic form of government, where the people, through their representatives (who the people elect) have a voice and ultimately determine their fate. Our founders fully understood this. They were 100% in support of a democracy where to people voted and ultimately determined their fate, but they did not support a pure/direct democracy which could result in mob rule.
The U.S. is in fact, a democracy. Stop with the nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25912]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13255
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: I am not confused
1
Jul 4, 2024, 10:58 AM
[ in reply to I am not confused ] |
|
The guy who wrote The Declaration of Independence was ultimately in a political party called the Democratic-Republicans... because err, maybe he knew we are a democratic republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Re: I am not confused
Jul 4, 2024, 11:19 AM
|
|
The term "Democratic-Republican" was not used until the 1900’s by FDR and now modern day liberal political scientists that are ignorant of history.
I challenge you to find one reference where Thomas Jefferson or any of the founding fathers claimed to be part of something called the “Democratic Republican Party”
True historians (not political scientists) refer to the party as “Jeffersonian Republicans".
The term "Democratic Party" was first used pejoratively by Federalist opponents as an insult.
Historians also maintain that the party died out before the present-day Democratic Party was formed.
However, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt Democratic politicians proudly (and falsely) claim Jefferson as their founder under the “democratic” banner that he would unquestionably oppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46901
Joined: 4/23/00
|
You do realize we are quibbling over definitions of words here, right?
2
Jul 4, 2024, 11:40 AM
|
|
When the founders were differentiating between democracy and republic, they were talking about a pure/direct democracy vs. having elected representatives, which was referred to as a republic.
Now, today, when we say we have a democracy in the U.S., we are precisely and unequivocally talking about what the founders referred to as a republic.
From Webster's Dictionary:
Is the United States a democracy or a republic?
The United States is both a democracy and a republic. Democracies and republics are both forms of government in which supreme power resides in the citizens. The word republic refers specifically to a government in which those citizens elect representatives who govern according to the law. The word democracy can refer to this same kind of representational government, or it can refer instead to what is also called a direct democracy, in which the citizens themselves participate in the act of governing directly.
What is the basic meaning of democracy?
The word democracy most often refers to a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.
What is a democratic system of government?
A democratic system of government is a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections.
So yes, the founders were wary (and rightly so, imho) of a pure/direct democracy, which they simply referred to as a democracy. They did not foresee stupid internet message board aguments in 2024. In a broader sense, it is perfectly correctly and universally understood that "democracy" includes the representative republic we have in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Ok, if you want to argue the definition has changes over time
Jul 4, 2024, 12:31 PM
|
|
Because or persistent misuse starting in the 20th century, then I can agree with that
But in the classical sense and according to the definitions of the terms in the late 1700’s I will not concede because it's just not so.
Not one of the framers ever dared to call our form of government a democracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46901
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Right, like I said, because they were talking about a pure/direct democracy.
Jul 4, 2024, 12:39 PM
|
|
When people today say America is a democracy, that is NOT what they are talking about. Not only are they not talking about that, they are actually talking about exactly what the founders were in favor of, which they called a republic. This has been universally accepted and understood for a long, long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
If everyone called your uncle your aunt
Jul 4, 2024, 12:59 PM
|
|
Would it make it true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46901
Joined: 4/23/00
|
As it is, nobody does that, and I would probably scream defiantly "That is NOT
Jul 4, 2024, 1:18 PM
|
|
my aunt, it's my uncle!", but I would know and understand they were, in fact, talking about my uncle, and I would not refuse to acknowledge it, whether or not I like it or agreed with it. In other words, when responding to someone who referred to my uncle as my aunt, I would respond in a way that referred to my uncle in a way so that we are both talking about the same person, and we both understand it as such. I wouldn't continue to talking about my aunt, knowing that's not who the other person is talking about.
But you do understand, right, that now by definition, "democracy" does in fact include represntative republic? I mean, it's not debateable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Re: As it is, nobody does that, and I would probably scream defiantly "That is NOT
Jul 4, 2024, 1:34 PM
|
|
Then why pray tell did the framers of the constitution consistently distinguish between the two and criticize democracy in favor of a republic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46901
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Because they wanted to distiguish between mob rule and the indirect rule
Jul 4, 2024, 3:34 PM
|
|
of the majority restrained by laws intended to protect individual rights. I fully understand and support that. No argument from me.
I don't know if occurred on Tuesday, Dec 3 1798 @ 10:03 A.M., or Friday, Apr 19 1901 @ 3:15 P.M., but while technically there remains a distinct difference between democray/republic, somewhere along the way, a representative republic, which the founders wanted, came to be recognized as a form of democracy, since power is ultimately vested in the people by means of free elections, as opposed to a dictatorship or oligarchy/aristocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Re: Because they wanted to distiguish between mob rule and the indirect rule
Jul 4, 2024, 3:55 PM
|
|
If the excuse is that our country has been lazy and careless about the terms they use
And that we as a people do not appreciate why our system of government - imperfect as it is -endures
Then I agree 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46901
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I certainly appreciate it, no matter what it's called.
Jul 4, 2024, 4:06 PM
|
|
I love my children more than words can describe. I hate spiders. If I woke up tomorrow following some supernatural event, and everything was exactly the same except children were now called spiders and spiders were called children, I'd still love my spiders and hate children. Nothing but the words would have changed.
When the founders were arguing for a form of government, they were aguing for what we have now, and is now considered a form of democracy. There's nothing to be upset about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2496]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2546
Joined: 1/7/00
|
He's not confused. He knows we're both a Republic and a Democracy....
Jul 4, 2024, 10:00 AM
[ in reply to Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution ] |
|
But he hates Democracy. So, he's pretending we're not one.
There's no confusion here. This "we're not a Democracy" talking point is coming from hate. That's what powers it....not "confusion".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
Jul 4, 2024, 1:34 AM
[ in reply to Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution ] |
|
If you equate majority vote determining the selection of representatives and senators to a democracy, you are ill informed an incorrect
If they were “democratically” elected there would be no constraint on their age or us citizenship or state citizenship. It would be whatever candidate the majority willed irrespective of any rules or constraints.
And if they participated in a “representative democracy” there would be no limitation on their powers and no safeguards protecting the rights of minorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4176]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 8481
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
1
Jul 4, 2024, 8:03 AM
|
|
Democracy is a nasty word, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4730
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
Jul 4, 2024, 8:08 AM
|
|
Here is a sampling of the disdain our founders held for democracy:
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " . . . that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4176]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 8481
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Democracies by definition cannot have a constitution
Jul 4, 2024, 4:30 PM
|
|
Founding fathers were wealthy land owners and they had their fears of everyone being equal. And now you agree with them. Lol.
Oooooops. 😆
"Madison and others did write against direct democracy, but the democracy that Adams derided, and Randolph called the chief danger facing the country, and Madison recoiled from in his famous Federalist 10, had nothing to do with referendum. Representation is what those men worried about—a representation too broad and inclusive, creating state legislatures too responsive to ordinary people’s wishes, not sufficiently protective of the well-off."
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/democracy/our-chief-danger
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25912]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13255
Joined: 9/1/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14789
Joined: 12/14/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [114625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74634
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Other than Switzerland
2
Jul 4, 2024, 6:34 AM
|
|
I think the days of dropping black or white marbles into a basket is a little unreasonable considering the world's population and the complexity of decisions our lawmakers face. And the point of representative democracy is to prevent the marginalization of the minority opinion in the great old US of A.
and America is the "Beacon" of democracy because when Europe was still kissing the rings of Kings and queens after a 1500-year romance with an aristocratic rule, we fought for our freedom and became a "beacon" for the rest of the world to follow.
Unfortunately, IMO, we are drifting back into an aristocracy with money ruling our politics and the expansion of executive power Judicial power. Some of you need to wake up and understand that Trump is a direct threat to this 248-year-old experiment and the decisions our courts are making can not be put back in the box without a constitutional amendment. And if you do not think for one second that the majority of Elected GOP representatives don't all despise, and talk smack about Trump behind his back, then you are a fool. But they also kiss his ring out of fear of losing power, only to be replaced by, say tommy tubbervile, who is a fugging moran and has no place serving in our senate. The first move in the playbook is to put idiots in power who will stand on the sidelines as this country seeks further and further into a plutocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15054
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Its funny hearing the idiots claim Trump is the threat as
2
Jul 4, 2024, 8:09 AM
|
|
Democrats are currently in the process of jailing political rivals, defying SCOTUS and paying off personal loans, not enforcing immigration law, defying the voters and going to replace their candidate.
You’re a joke brah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [491]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 1039
Joined: 8/3/23
|
Yes people get convicted when they commit crimes.
Jul 4, 2024, 10:29 AM
|
|
And your lord and savior convicted felon Trump isn’t going to jail. At least not for these charges. Maybe for the others he’s clearly guilty of.
Keep crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32935]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10752
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
3
Jul 4, 2024, 6:46 AM
|
|
Doesn’t take too long reading this forum to realize that oh yes, we are this dumb now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7057]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4851
Joined: 2/20/24
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
Jul 4, 2024, 6:51 AM
|
|
Makes you wonder why this topic is even argued?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32935]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10752
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
3
Jul 4, 2024, 7:15 AM
|
|
Seems like the visceral reaction to say that the US isn’t a democracy is an implied defense of Donald Trump, given the criticism of his disregard of democratic institutions and norms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7057]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4851
Joined: 2/20/24
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
Jul 4, 2024, 7:19 AM
|
|
That would be my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4176]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 8481
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
Jul 4, 2024, 7:24 AM
[ in reply to Re: Are we this dumb now? ] |
|
If they can get the word democracy out of the way, it allows them to justify Trump's autocratic decisions and proposals. It allows them to defend the removal checks and balances that Trump and Project 25 are pushing for. They want to bend the knee. It's a symptom of cult worship. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7057]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4851
Joined: 2/20/24
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
Jul 4, 2024, 6:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: Are we this dumb now? ] |
|
Makes you wonder why this topic is even argued?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25912]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13255
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Are we this dumb now?
Jul 4, 2024, 11:04 AM
[ in reply to Re: Are we this dumb now? ] |
|
The question was rhetorical. I knew the unfortunate answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5495
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Simply put... We are a Republic with some democratic processes
1
Jul 4, 2024, 7:27 AM
|
|
Thank the good Lord above we are NOT a pure democracy as that would result in mob rule, tyranny and ultimately a disintegration into chaos. I would not want to live in any system where a simple majority of 50.1% had the absolute power to dictate and force any rule or desire onto the other 49.9% of it's citizens...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4176]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 8481
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Simply put... We are a Republic with some democratic processes
1
Jul 4, 2024, 8:03 AM
|
|
Lol, "some democratic processes". Again, they are softening the blow to justify Trumps autocratic moves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15054
Joined: 11/2/15
|
member when he indicted his political rivals
Jul 4, 2024, 8:07 AM
|
|
or when he defied scotus twice for the great student loan grift? Oh he’s, that was your daddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4176]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 8481
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: member when he indicated his political rivals
1
Jul 4, 2024, 8:09 AM
|
|
LOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2496]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2546
Joined: 1/7/00
|
It's not them being "dumb"....It's a calculated talking point....
Jul 4, 2024, 10:28 AM
|
|
Everyone knows we're a Democracy (and a Republic), including the people who say we aren't a Democracy.
This is powered by people who hate elections, despise the people that they share this country with, and who therefore are trying to pretend we're not a Democracy.
Occasionally, they give away the game by admitting that "you're all trash" or "too many people vote". This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You can't talk reason into them, because their views are shaped by disdain for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2828]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3569
Joined: 7/3/07
|
If the D word was good enough for Marshall and Wilson
Jul 4, 2024, 2:24 PM
|
|
It’s good enough for me.
You can thank talking heads like Mark Levin for all of the folks that are here making this dumb argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 2109
|
|
|
50
