# The Great RW myth about the Founders' meaning of 'Republic'.



## NYcarbineer

We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

*"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

 I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

 Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
*
Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

*"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic, 

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

*"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

*"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles


----------



## owebo

Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?

But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...


----------



## NYcarbineer

And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.

Such is the intellect of the USMB right.


----------



## NYcarbineer

owebo said:


> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...



what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?


----------



## owebo

NYcarbineer said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
Click to expand...

The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....


----------



## Correll

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles






And thus when they took the "republic" beyond the level of a "limits of a town" they did not do direct, or pure democracy, but put in a couple of factors to prevent the larger states from completely dominating the smaller states.


One of which was the Electoral College.


Your Cognitive Dissonance is preventing you from understanding your own post.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Correll can be ignored: he literally has an IQ of less than 80.

However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted.  The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.

If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.

Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.


----------



## Moonglow

Republic is an old Latin word meaning, "by treaty"...So your nation is a country of states that have been joined by treaty and the operation is by treaty..


----------



## eflatminor

He also acknowledged its impracticability beyond the limits of a town.

He was right.

Once gain, you've failed.

Off you go collectivist boy...unless of course you're ready to refresh that tree of liberty?  LOL!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles



Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.


----------



## Correll

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.
Click to expand...



Which is what the LEft WANTS.


----------



## Rustic

NYcarbineer said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.
Click to expand...


There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that.  Sorry.


----------



## xyz

The US will soon become a kakistocracy.


----------



## Correll

xyz said:


> The US will soon become a kakistocracy.





Trump will implement radical new policies, such as a Trade Policy designed to support US manufacturing, and a restrictive Immigration policy.

This should result in significant increases in wages and working conditions for Middle America.

With all the follow on positives that one would expect.


----------



## regent

The word Republic also had another use at the time and that was: not a monarchy. When Mrs. Powel asks Franklin, have you given us a monarchy or a Republic she was using the word in that sense.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument.  I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.  Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people.  Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it? 

Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck. 

 Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders.  At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..


----------



## Vastator

*Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. *
*As you can see from the information you provided, even he realised the limitations of pure democracy, over a large geographic. And because of this we have the electoral college.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> The word Republic also had another use at the time and that was: not a monarchy. When Mrs. Powel asks Franklin, have you given us a monarchy or a Republic she was using the word in that sense.


Remember when Franklin answered, "a mob rule Democracy where Hillarys 3MM vote lead in CA would translate to only 1.7MM lead nationwide and make it her turn to be President"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We were modeled on the Roman Republic; we're Rome


----------



## BluesLegend

Liberals believe an elite ruling class should rule and make decisions for the people, because the people are too stupid to make decisions and elect the right people e.g. liberals. Constrained by the Constitution they work to undermine it, packing the courts with activists who 'interpret' the Constitution e.g. twist its meaning to suit the liberal agenda.


----------



## eagle1462010

The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.  

A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## BluesLegend

Context...when the Constitution was drafted the world was dominated by tyrannical corrupt monarchies and ruling classes that abused the people. In many countries the people were not allowed to keep and bare arms, only the ruling classes. This was the context in which the Constitution was drafted. Living in those times the founders did what they could to safeguard the people from this.


----------



## NYcarbineer

owebo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....
Click to expand...


The Articles were abandoned as a failure, and have nothing to do with the point of this thread.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


>



The people have had the power to 'vote themselves money' for over 200 years.  We're still here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................



So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,

those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?


----------



## Muhammed

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument.  I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.  Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people.  Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it?
> 
> Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck.
> 
> Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders.  At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..
Click to expand...

The US Constitution is what ALL the founders agreed upon and signed.


----------



## jillian

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles



do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?

i haven't seen evidence of it.


----------



## jillian

Muhammed said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument.  I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.  Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people.  Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it?
> 
> Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck.
> 
> Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders.  At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US Constitution is what ALL the founders agreed upon and signed.
Click to expand...


bummer you have no clue what it means.


----------



## NYcarbineer

jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?
> 
> i haven't seen evidence of it.
Click to expand...


They certainly don't understand the point I made about Jefferson as is evidenced by the replies.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................



It's ironic that you point that out.  We never cease to hear conservatives complain about the handful of 'unelected tyrannical judges' on the SCOTUS;


----------



## NYcarbineer

Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,

and then OMG they love it!!!

Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum.  Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.

Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'?  No they thought it was the best thing ever.

When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?

No, they threw a fit.

That's how having no principles works.


----------



## jillian

NYcarbineer said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?
> 
> i haven't seen evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They certainly don't understand the point I made about Jefferson as is evidenced by the replies.
Click to expand...


they love to talk about the federalist papers while being clueless that it's author wanted a strong centralized government

and they pretend they like the constitution, yet support every violation of it.... while misinterpreting the extent of the 2nd ....which is the only part of the constitution they care about. they certainly have no interest in the equal protection clause or the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.


----------



## eagle1462010

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,
> 
> and then OMG they love it!!!
> 
> Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum.  Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.
> 
> Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'?  No they thought it was the best thing ever.
> 
> When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?
> 
> No, they threw a fit.
> 
> That's how having no principles works.


And the courts through it out...........whether we like the end result or not............REPUBLIC.


----------



## owebo

NYcarbineer said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Articles were abandoned as a failure, and have nothing to do with the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

The point is above your education level....


----------



## eagle1462010

NYcarbineer said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ironic that you point that out.  We never cease to hear conservatives complain about the handful of 'unelected tyrannical judges' on the SCOTUS;
Click to expand...

appointed by whom you twit..............appointed by executive branch......confirmed by the senate..................THE STATES YOU TWIT.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Muhammed

jillian said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument.  I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.  Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people.  Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it?
> 
> Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck.
> 
> Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders.  At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US Constitution is what ALL the founders agreed upon and signed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bummer you have no clue what it means.
Click to expand...

 Projection.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,
> 
> and then OMG they love it!!!
> 
> Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum.  Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.
> 
> Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'?  No they thought it was the best thing ever.
> 
> When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?
> 
> No, they threw a fit.
> 
> That's how having no principles works.
> 
> 
> 
> And the courts through it out...........whether we like the end result or not............REPUBLIC.
Click to expand...




jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?
> 
> i haven't seen evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They certainly don't understand the point I made about Jefferson as is evidenced by the replies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they love to talk about the federalist papers while being clueless that it's author wanted a strong centralized government
> 
> and they pretend they like the constitution, yet support every violation of it.... while misinterpreting the extent of the 2nd ....which is the only part of the constitution they care about. they certainly have no interest in the equal protection clause or the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.
Click to expand...


I know.  They always invoke the federalist papers when conservative views are more closely represented by the anti-federalists of the times.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ironic that you point that out.  We never cease to hear conservatives complain about the handful of 'unelected tyrannical judges' on the SCOTUS;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appointed by whom you twit..............appointed by executive branch......confirmed by the senate..................THE STATES YOU TWIT.
Click to expand...


Why are you arguing with me and agreeing with me at the same time?  Is that some sort of pathology I'm not familiar with?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Democracy never meant mob rule.  That is concoction.  The Greeks had a word for mob rule...

ochlocracy


----------



## Rustic

NYcarbineer said:


> Democracy never meant mob rule.  That is concoction.  The Greeks had a word for mob rule...
> 
> ochlocracy


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,
> 
> those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?
Click to expand...


Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure

As you can see above, we don't always get what we believe to be right.  However I still support and respect the form of government, that being a Republic, that the vast majority of Founders had chosen as drafted under the Constitution.  Apparently liberals would much rather throw a tantrum in public...  burning cars, vandalizing buildings, all because they didn't get what they want.


----------



## NYcarbineer

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,
> 
> those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years
> 
> Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure
> 
> As you can see above, we don't always get what we believe to be right.  However I still support and respect the form of government, that being a Republic, that the vast majority of Founders had chosen as drafted under the Constitution.  Apparently liberals would much rather throw a tantrum in public...  burning cars, vandalizing buildings, all because they didn't get what they want.
Click to expand...


Why are you accusing me of burning cars?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

*“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News


----------



## Billy_Bob

JakeStarkey said:


> Correll can be ignored: he literally has an IQ of less than 80.
> 
> However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted.  The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.
> 
> If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.
> 
> Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.



AS usual Jake is lying out of his mouth and ass..

The founding fathers made sure that mob rule could not overwhelm the majority of the land.  The electoral college is working as designed, keeping libtards and their mob from forcing their agenda on those who do not believe the crap...


----------



## Billy_Bob

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News


Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..


----------



## NYcarbineer

Billy_Bob said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
Click to expand...


Ryan wants abortion rights decided by what you RW'ers call 'tyranny of the majority'.

Ryan thinks the courts, which are there to protect minority rights, are the tyrants.

Jesus, which is it?


----------



## peach174

NYcarbineer said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,
> 
> those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years
> 
> Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure
> 
> As you can see above, we don't always get what we believe to be right.  However I still support and respect the form of government, that being a Republic, that the vast majority of Founders had chosen as drafted under the Constitution.  Apparently liberals would much rather throw a tantrum in public...  burning cars, vandalizing buildings, all because they didn't get what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you accusing me of burning cars?
Click to expand...


He didn't.
Did he say NYcarbineer?  No, he said liberal's.


----------



## NYcarbineer

peach174 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,
> 
> those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years
> 
> Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure
> 
> As you can see above, we don't always get what we believe to be right.  However I still support and respect the form of government, that being a Republic, that the vast majority of Founders had chosen as drafted under the Constitution.  Apparently liberals would much rather throw a tantrum in public...  burning cars, vandalizing buildings, all because they didn't get what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you accusing me of burning cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't.
> Did he say NYcarbineer?  No, he said liberal's.
Click to expand...


And when did you decide I'm not a liberal?


----------



## peach174

NYcarbineer said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.
> 
> A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1.  Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate.  They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason.  To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,
> 
> those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years
> 
> Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure
> 
> As you can see above, we don't always get what we believe to be right.  However I still support and respect the form of government, that being a Republic, that the vast majority of Founders had chosen as drafted under the Constitution.  Apparently liberals would much rather throw a tantrum in public...  burning cars, vandalizing buildings, all because they didn't get what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you accusing me of burning cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't.
> Did he say NYcarbineer?  No, he said liberal's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when did you decide I'm not a liberal?
Click to expand...



Generalizing is not accusing you personally.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News



No ... Conservatives believe in (and Ryan speaks of) the role given to the three branches of government, the separation of powers.  Liberals believe if Congress can't get it done legislatively, through the outline specifically laid out in the Constitution, then allow the executive branch to do it through executive order or the Supreme Court (7 unelected but appointed judges, to speak in place of the people).  There is a big difference between what the Constitution allows for, and allowing another branch of government to do what the Constitution doesn't allow for.


----------



## regent

The communists liked the name Republic so much they used it all over their domain.


----------



## xyz

regent said:


> The communists liked the name Republic so much they used it all over their domain.


The word "soviet" also isn't particularly related to Communism; it's just the Russian word for "council".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Billy_Bob said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll can be ignored: he literally has an IQ of less than 80.
> 
> However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted.  The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.
> 
> If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.
> 
> Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> AS usual Jake is lying out of his mouth and ass.  The founding fathers made sure that mob rule could not overwhelm the majority of the land.  The electoral college is working as designed, keeping libtards and their mob from forcing their agenda on those who do not believe the crap...
Click to expand...

My post, billy_boob, talks about  geography and regional needs are not to be outweighed by a straight democracy, which is what you meant, you boob.    So, instead, think about what I wrote; you attacked me, which is the stupidest thing you can do, because I will make you look stupid every time you do it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Billy_Bob said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
Click to expand...

The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
Click to expand...


"Think straightly"???  Really Jake

Does this basically summarize your personal knowledge on the subject?  When exactly ARE you going to finally start contributing something of knowledge on one of these threads exactly, beyond just the usual bloviated commentaries of course?  You know, a well thought out discussion with substance and links would sure be a shock to many of us here.


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles



Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

I see the OP is still trying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Think straightly"???  Really Jake  Does this basically summarize your personal knowledge on the subject?  When exactly ARE you going to finally start contributing something of knowledge on one of these threads exactly, beyond just the usual bloviated commentaries of course?  You know, a well thought out discussion with substance and links would sure be a shock to many of us here.
Click to expand...

Far and objective discussions with evidence is something you can never do, Shaklestool.  You want whatever furthers your insidious schemes, whether republicanism or mass democracy.  You simply want power by any means that works.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
Click to expand...

Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.


----------



## Norman

JakeStarkey said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
Click to expand...


This person, kind of like you, isn't mentally on adult level. I address you at your appropriate level.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
Click to expand...


I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
Click to expand...


No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.


Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
Click to expand...


As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...


Ok, who wrote the letters then?


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
Click to expand...


As suspected, your argument against the system is that it's better for republicans than a more puritarian democracy.

Similar to you every argument made ever. If it advances democrats = good, if not = bad. How dumb is that...


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
Click to expand...


It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
Click to expand...




We didn't need it the country needed it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...


Jefferson said:

*"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *

IOW, he is saying that a government is more 'republican' the more that 'popular election' controls its composition.

That is contrary to the idea that the electoral college, for example, which is not a 'popular election' represents a more 'republican' government.

Jefferson is saying that represents a less 'republican' government.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
Click to expand...


Ok, then you interpret the quote:

*"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
Click to expand...


It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.

Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Norman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
> 
> 
> 
> This person, kind of like you, isn't mentally on adult level. I address you at your appropriate level.
Click to expand...

In fact, you were addressing at your highest level of understandng is the point.


----------



## Norman

JakeStarkey said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
> 
> 
> 
> This person, kind of like you, isn't mentally on adult level. I address you at your appropriate level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, you were addressing at your highest level of understandng is the point.
Click to expand...


Well, then it's not much of a point, given that it's not true. Of course, truth is something you haven't ever come in contact with.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
_The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."

_more_

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Norman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
> 
> 
> 
> This person, kind of like you, isn't mentally on adult level. I address you at your appropriate level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, you were addressing at your highest level of understandng is the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's not much of a point, given that it's not true. Of course, truth is something you haven't ever come in contact with.
Click to expand...

Of course it's true.  Your lack of reasoning skills, similar to Shakles' inability to reason,  is self evidenced in your confirmation bias.  The following is true: "The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states."  The right wing Shay's Rebellion documents my point.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.
> 
> Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...
Click to expand...


Who guarantees the rights in a republic?  Who decides that free speech will be a right?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.
> 
> Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...
Click to expand...


Are you part of the mob or not?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted Jefferson verbatim.  He believed democracy and republic were interchangeable terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.
> 
> Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...
Click to expand...


Why can't a pure democracy protect rights?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles



Kudos to you for researching and now acknowledging that Jefferson along with the other founders realized that pure democracy or pure Republic was not practical for the entire country. 



Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
You've grown and I assume will now accept the results of the election as a demonstration of not a pure republic or pure democracy, but rather a unique design of popular government spread across a large geographical area.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.
> 
> Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you part of the mob or not?
Click to expand...

When it comes to LGBT marriage rights or abortion rights, yes, he is part of the mob.  When it comes to Trump's election, he is not part of the mob.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.
> 
> 
> Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.
> 
> Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't a pure democracy protect rights?
Click to expand...

If it is a pure democracy, than civil rights are subject to 50+1 majority.  Ipso facto, such rights cannot be protected by mob voting.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, who wrote the letters then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then you interpret the quote:
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.
> 
> Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't a pure democracy protect rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is a pure democracy, than civil rights are subject to 50+1 majority.  Ipso facto, such rights cannot be protected by mob voting.
Click to expand...


The 'mob' can pass a law that says you have a right to bear arms, can't they?  The 'mob' can attach a requirement to that law that it can't be repealed with less than a 75% majority.  Can't they?


----------



## NYcarbineer

BuckToothMoron said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for researching and now acknowledging that Jefferson along with the other founders realized that pure democracy or pure Republic was not practical for the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
> You've grown and I assume will now accept the results of the election as a demonstration of not a pure republic or pure democracy, but rather a unique design of popular government spread across a large geographical area.
Click to expand...


Direct democracy is a subset of Democracy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?



That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ryan wants abortion rights decided by what you RW'ers call 'tyranny of the majority'.
> 
> Ryan thinks the courts, which are there to protect minority rights, are the tyrants.
> 
> Jesus, which is it?
Click to expand...


Except Gallup has America 50% Pro-Life and 44% Pro-Choice.

The court has ruled in Roe v Wade that murdering a fetus is a right.  Then, by extension, if the murder of one class of citizen is legal, what's to stop the Court from deciding to legalize the murder of another class of citizen if a third class claims it's their right?  A precedent has been set.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
Click to expand...


The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.

What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues? 

Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people. 

It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?


----------



## blackhawk

Amazing how people's view of our current system of government can change depending on how an election turns out.


----------



## Billy_Bob

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
Click to expand...


Can you imagine the blow back if just the population centers were dictating how the rest of us live?  The Electoral College prevents them from becoming the ruling class and America becoming a dictatorial state similar to the one in the movie "The Hunger Games"...

The founding Fathers were very wise...

Now to quote Ben Franklin, "We have given you a Republic, but can you keep it?"


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
Click to expand...


I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

regent said:


> The communists liked the name Republic so much they used it all over their domain.




True, but the USSR and the DPR are not "Federal" Republics's.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

JakeStarkey said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
Click to expand...


There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Billy_Bob said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the blow back if just the population centers were dictating how the rest of us live?  The Electoral College prevents them from becoming the ruling class and America becoming a dictatorial state similar to the one in the movie "The Hunger Games"...
> 
> The founding Fathers were very wise...
> 
> Now to quote Ben Franklin, "We have given you a Republic, but can you keep it?"
Click to expand...

Too many on the far right and far left want a mass democracy so they can holocaust their opponents.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Derelict_Drvr said:


> [There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.
Click to expand...


There were rightwingers during the Revolution.  They were called Tories, or Loyalists.


----------



## NYcarbineer

blackhawk said:


> Amazing how people's view of our current system of government can change depending on how an election turns out.



Yeah.  The Right claimed Clinton's win in 92 wasn't legitimate because he only got 43% of the popular vote.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ryan wants abortion rights decided by what you RW'ers call 'tyranny of the majority'.
> 
> Ryan thinks the courts, which are there to protect minority rights, are the tyrants.
> 
> Jesus, which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Gallup has America 50% Pro-Life and 44% Pro-Choice.
> 
> The court has ruled in Roe v Wade that murdering a fetus is a right.  Then, by extension, if the murder of one class of citizen is legal, what's to stop the Court from deciding to legalize the murder of another class of citizen if a third class claims it's their right?  A precedent has been set.
Click to expand...


The Court protecting abortion rights is exactly the kind of government that you people claim distinguishes a democracy from a republic, the Court supposedly being characteristic of the latter.

PS 60% of Americans do NOT want Roe v Wade overturned.  lol, you lose either way.


----------



## NYcarbineer

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
Click to expand...


A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
Click to expand...


Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
Click to expand...


Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult.  The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were rightwingers during the Revolution.  They were called Tories, or Loyalists.
Click to expand...


You're labeling everyone on the right as "ringtwinger".  You don't even know the meaning.  A ringwinger is a reactionary and/or an ultraconservative.  In Urban slang it is the party the sits on the right side of chambers.   Personally, I choose to use the true meaning of the word.  I believe using slang, in most cases, is an affront to the English language.  Words have meaning, slang changes that meaning thereby changing the context and content of communication.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
Click to expand...

You are a fool.

There is no other explanation.

Or maybe brain damage.

A democracy cannot protect minority rights.


----------



## Norman

JakeStarkey said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fool.
> 
> There is no other explanation.
> 
> Or maybe brain damage.
> 
> A democracy cannot protect minority rights.
Click to expand...


Classic projection. Your communist ideology is responsible for deaths to the tune of 100 millions. Yet you believe in it. That's insanity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Norman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fool.
> 
> There is no other explanation.
> 
> Or maybe brain damage.
> 
> A democracy cannot protect minority rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Classic projection. Your communist ideology is responsible for deaths to the tune of 100 millions. Yet you believe in it. That's insanity.
Click to expand...

One, used projection as psychological compensation wrongly.  You don't know what it means.

You have no idea what is 'communism,' and democracy and capitalism have killed a 100 million as well over three centuries of imperialism and colonialism and nationalism.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles




Well I guess you now know why there are no national elections. The States formed the union and established the federal government, the States decided how their representatives to that government would be elected.  All elections are conducted by the States in the smallest areas practical to accomplish that intent. That's why they established a representative in the House for every 35,000 citizens within each state, of course that has changed with the rapidly expanding population in modern society.

But the short of it is the States are responsible for the federal government we have, and the Constitution they established to determine their representation at all levels. There are no national elections, only State elections to determine State representation to that government. The electoral college is comprised of State representatives who carry out the wishes of the respective States, not the union as a whole.


----------



## blackhawk

NYcarbineer said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how people's view of our current system of government can change depending on how an election turns out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The Right claimed Clinton's win in 92 wasn't legitimate because he only got 43% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point the right did then now you on the left are doing the same thing in 2016.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles




Stop it NY ...you are starting to sound pathetic..

*We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the generalWelfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles




They're throwing around "republic" now because they know they're getting a monarchy in January.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
Click to expand...



Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.

Trump: 62,238,425
Clinton: 64,156,255

2016 presidential election results


----------



## EverCurious

Folks seriously need to read the Federalist papers and see the arguments that were being made during the planning of our Constitution...


----------



## hazlnut

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles




The founders outlined a very detailed Republic in the constitution.  Their collaborative work tells us exactly what they wanted.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate majority rule.  Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.
> 
> Conservatives hate it either way.
> 
> Paul Ryan on abortion rights:
> 
> *“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”*
> 
> IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome.  That is how the Right thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Click to expand...


So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.


----------



## AmericanFirst1

NYcarbineer said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
Click to expand...

Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
Click to expand...



Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Our founders went with a republican government because (1) they feared the mob and (2) a too strong executive.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AmericanFirst1 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.
Click to expand...

Shut up, AF1, if you cannot intelligently discuss this topic.  Jefferson is an expert source on the OP.  You are not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
Click to expand...

Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
Click to expand...


So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.

Let's hear you prove that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

OKTexas said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
Click to expand...


That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.


----------



## Norman

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner"  - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Federal Republic (n)
> a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
> 
> Example
> _The United States of America_ is a federal republic on the continent of North America.
> 
> the definition of federal republic
> 
> 
> A *federal republic* is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the *federal republic* elect their own *representatives* to lead them.
> 
> What is a federal republic?
> 
> 
> "An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two _forms_ of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
> 
> _more_
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
> 
> 
> Burned again NYCarbineer.  Aren't you getting tired of it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.


USA is a republic, deal with it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AmericanFirst1 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.
Click to expand...


Not in the context of my original assertion.  My original assertion is a refutation of the common RWnut claim that the Founders formed a republic because it's some sort of vastly different entity from a democracy.


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
Click to expand...



Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.


----------



## eagle7_31

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
Click to expand...


And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would  hear a peep  out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yup, it will fail as did Nixon's if the people does not rally around him.  He has made a couple of baby steps, so he has a long way to go.  Or he just may be as inept and incompetent as Carter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

eagle7_31 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would  hear a peep  out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.
Click to expand...

But the far right and alt right *conservatives *would be fucking screaming their heads off.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
Click to expand...



You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.


----------



## Norman

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle7_31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would  hear a peep  out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the far right and alt right *conservatives *would be fucking screaming their heads off.
Click to expand...


What really is funny is that the fact that these people claimed that Trump would not accept the results of the election, and that being "demonic". Now they are in full denial mode themselves.


----------



## eagle7_31

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle7_31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would  hear a peep  out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the far right and alt right *conservatives *would be fucking screaming their heads off.
Click to expand...


No doubt some would, but the left wingers would be of the opposite position they are now.


----------



## Death Angel

NYcarbineer said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
Click to expand...

No. You should learn to read before lecturing those who can


----------



## AmericanFirst1

NYcarbineer said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the context of my original assertion.  My original assertion is a refutation of the common RWnut claim that the Founders formed a republic because it's some sort of vastly different entity from a democracy.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is stupid, as are you.


----------



## AmericanFirst1

OKTexas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
Click to expand...

Nycarb is a commie idiot.


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles





> The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”



It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.


----------



## OKTexas

AmericanFirst1 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
Click to expand...



Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Norman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
> 
> 
> USA is a republic, deal with it.
Click to expand...


You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.

Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
Click to expand...


I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,

AKA a democracy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

OKTexas said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
Click to expand...


So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
Click to expand...

We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

OKTexas said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is full of false premises.  Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
Click to expand...


lol, so you think the current system  IS tyranny of the majority.  Funny stuff.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
Click to expand...


We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
Click to expand...

Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.


----------



## NYcarbineer

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
Click to expand...


Why?  For the same reasons they chose to count black people as 3/5's of a person and to deny them their freedom.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
Click to expand...


Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
Click to expand...


What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.

One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.

You're a marvel in that sense.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.


Considering your past posts can you blame them?
Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

OKTexas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.
Click to expand...


So why did you and/or your RWnut pals wail to high heaven when Obamacare was passed,

rammed down your throat as was repeatedly claimed, and passed over the People's majority opposition to it, so said the polls supposedly?

If you LOVE undemocratic government so much, why weren't you cheering that, instead of pissing and moaning about it being 'undemocratic'?

eh?


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, so you think the current system  IS tyranny of the majority.  Funny stuff.
Click to expand...



Only really ignorant fools like you would even attempt to push words on people much smarter than you, they didn't say. But hey, your intellectually dishonest ignorance is entertaining, so carry on.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
Click to expand...


I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
Click to expand...


The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
Click to expand...


So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?

lol


----------



## NYcarbineer

WaitingFor2020 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
Click to expand...


When I often say that conservatives want to take us back to 1900, I may be a century or so light on that estimate.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption.  Now prove my evidence is  false with something other than a blanket statement.  Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.
> 
> My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative.  It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
> 
> 
> USA is a republic, deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.
> 
> Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.
Click to expand...


A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.
Click to expand...

Not if they are taken out of context, you fucking tool....


----------



## WaitingFor2020

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.
Click to expand...


The most ignorant whim just got elected POTUS.


----------



## NYcarbineer

*Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

 Ronald Reagan*

Read more at: Ronald Reagan Quotes

Would that be the idiot Ronald Reagan who said that?  Some guy who had no clue what kind of a government we had?


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Death Angel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You should learn to read before lecturing those who can
Click to expand...


Oh, wow.  Just floored by your scope of knowledge.


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.

Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
> 
> 
> USA is a republic, deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.
> 
> Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.
Click to expand...


Slavery was legal in our REPUBLIC for 80 years or thereabouts.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did you and/or your RWnut pals wail to high heaven when Obamacare was passed,
> 
> rammed down your throat as was repeatedly claimed, and passed over the People's majority opposition to it, so said the polls supposedly?
> 
> If you LOVE undemocratic government so much, why weren't you cheering that, instead of pissing and moaning about it being 'undemocratic'?
> 
> eh?
Click to expand...



You got it done by changing the rules in the middle of the game, just like we will undo it, using your rules. And you folks will cry like hypocritical babies. Plus regressive reps ignored the people that elected them, of course many of them lost their jobs the next election, pay back is a bitch, ain't it.


----------



## EverCurious

NYcarbineer said:


> You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.
> 
> Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.



WTF!?!  Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd fucking amendment it's not a "minority right" 

Holy...


----------



## AmericanFirst1

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did you and/or your RWnut pals wail to high heaven when Obamacare was passed,
> 
> rammed down your throat as was repeatedly claimed, and passed over the People's majority opposition to it, so said the polls supposedly?
> 
> If you LOVE undemocratic government so much, why weren't you cheering that, instead of pissing and moaning about it being 'undemocratic'?
> 
> eh?
Click to expand...

Yep, you are an idiot.


----------



## AmericanFirst1

WaitingFor2020 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most ignorant whim just got elected POTUS.
Click to expand...

Better than hillary.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
Click to expand...


No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,

and they are very pleased that it is so.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

NYcarbineer said:


> *Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
> 
> Ronald Reagan*
> 
> Read more at: Ronald Reagan Quotes
> 
> Would that be the idiot Ronald Reagan who said that?  Some guy who had no clue what kind of a government we had?




Oh noes!  Don't remind them of Reagan.  Next you'll be going all Bush on us.  

_"The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament — and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people — their creativity, their genius and their rights."""_
Remarks by President George W. Bush at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy – NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.
Click to expand...



Out of context quotes can often be misleading, why didn't you post the complete letters, so people could understand the real meaning?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Conservatives NEED an undemocratic system.  It's the last straw they can grasp to keep themselves and their beliefs out of the dustbin of history.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

AmericanFirst1 said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most ignorant whim just got elected POTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than hillary.
Click to expand...


Maybe, but the 'Pubes could have come up with someone besides Fuckface von ClownStick and still beat her.


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
Click to expand...

You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.


----------



## NYcarbineer

OKTexas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context quotes can often be misleading, why didn't you post the complete letters, so people could understand the real meaning?
Click to expand...


Why don't you go find the letters, and prove that they contain context that reverses the meaning of what I posted.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

AmericanFirst1 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
Click to expand...



There should be a special board for drive-by neanderthals who really have nothing to say.


----------



## Death Angel

Like I said, the OP can't read (with understanding), his own quotes. TRY to understand this. TJ makes it pretty clear to the rest of us:


> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*



THIS is why we have the EC. 

STATES (not people) elect the President.

The People vote their choice on a state-by-state basis. This ensures the interests of the STATE be recognized rather than the MOB (pure majority).

Pleas try to think this thru. It's really not that difficult if you have an OPEN MIND.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
Click to expand...


You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,

therefore it must be undemocratic.


----------



## NYcarbineer

WaitingFor2020 said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There should be a special board for drive-by neanderthals who really have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Debates don't build character, they reveal it.


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
Click to expand...



And it still works as intended, that's called foresight.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
> 
> AKA a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
Click to expand...



^^^^  Pixelated methane.  If it wasn't for cheap shots you'd have no shots at all.


----------



## Death Angel

*"A democracy [is] the only pure republic,but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*


----------



## WaitingFor2020

OKTexas said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it still works as intended, that's called foresight.
Click to expand...


You think they foresaw electricity and the internet?  You're too stupid to breathe and type at the same time.  Get on your horse and remember to shut the door to the outhouse after you leave.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles



And again we see what happens when someone goes to the internet to find something they think fits the view they need to justify changing the results of the election.

There are several levels of government.  

As a country we are a republic.  End of discussion.  Jefferson does not hold court on what it means to be a republic.  He wasn't even around when the Constitution was being drafted.

James Madison (you know the guy who was actually the father of our constitution) wrote in federalist 10 (the whole of 10 being devoted to this topic).

*The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are*: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

He then followed:

*The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations*.

So.....


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most ignorant whim just got elected POTUS.
Click to expand...



That would be your opinion and worth about as much as mine.


----------



## Darkwind

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have never been a democracy.  I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^  Pixelated methane.  If it wasn't for cheap shots you'd have no shots at all.
Click to expand...

Acurate assessments of the person I'm laughing at is not even close to a cheap shot.  I've  known the racist Carby for a long time and understand the lengths and depths he's willing to lie.  Don't worry about him, he'll take a pill and tomorrow think he's actually won something and onto something worth pursuing.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
> 
> 
> USA is a republic, deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.
> 
> Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was legal in our REPUBLIC for 80 years or thereabouts.
Click to expand...



And?


----------



## francoHFW

A republic is defined as a representative democracy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Death Angel said:


> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic,but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*




Don't even try.   

""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, *but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made**, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change*, with the change of circumstances, *institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times...*"
Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816


----------



## Darkwind

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
Click to expand...

LOL

I said we are not a democracy.  If you don't know the difference, then you're not worth talking to until you calm down.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context quotes can often be misleading, why didn't you post the complete letters, so people could understand the real meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go find the letters, and prove that they contain context that reverses the meaning of what I posted.
Click to expand...



It's on you to prove relevance to your non-point.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> *Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
> 
> Ronald Reagan*
> 
> Read more at: Ronald Reagan Quotes
> 
> Would that be the idiot Ronald Reagan who said that?  Some guy who had no clue what kind of a government we had?


Yet another quote taken out of context.......


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Death Angel said:


> Like I said, the OP can't read (with understanding), his own quotes. TRY to understand this. TJ makes it pretty clear to the rest of us:
> 
> 
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is why we have the EC.
> 
> STATES (not people) elect the President.
> 
> The People vote their choice on a state-by-state basis. This ensures the interests of the STATE be recognized rather than the MOB (pure majority).
> 
> Pleas try to think this thru. It's really not that difficult if you have an OPEN MIND.
Click to expand...


So you're a contemporary socialist, got it.  You think individuals have no rights and are just considered part of a mob.  You are a total waste of time.  Everyone's individual time.


----------



## Harry Dresden

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,
> 
> and then OMG they love it!!!
> 
> Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum.  Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.
> 
> Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'?  No they thought it was the best thing ever.
> 
> When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?
> 
> No, they threw a fit.
> 
> That's how having no principles works.


lots of liberals in cal thought prop 8 was great too,thats why it passed....


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Darkwind said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^  Pixelated methane.  If it wasn't for cheap shots you'd have no shots at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acurate assessments of the person I'm laughing at is not even close to a cheap shot.  I've  known the racist Carby for a long time and understand the lengths and depths he's willing to lie.  Don't worry about him, he'll take a pill and tomorrow think he's actually won something and onto something worth pursuing.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you prove over and over again that you don't know shit.


----------



## OKTexas

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
Click to expand...



Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.


----------



## owebo

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You should learn to read before lecturing those who can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, wow.  Just floored by your scope of knowledge.
Click to expand...

I would think all fake Indian supporters would be....


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.
Click to expand...

The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections.  The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
Click to expand...

You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.


----------



## owebo

NYcarbineer said:


> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
> 
> 
> USA is a republic, deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.
> 
> Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was legal in our REPUBLIC for 80 years or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

Until we republicans ended you democrats evil...


----------



## WaitingFor2020

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
> 
> Ronald Reagan*
> 
> Read more at: Ronald Reagan Quotes
> 
> Would that be the idiot Ronald Reagan who said that?  Some guy who had no clue what kind of a government we had?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another quote taken out of context.......
Click to expand...


Just stop.  Stop while you're behind.

*"""You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you."""*
*The History Place - Great Speeches Collection: Ronald Reagan Speech on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day*


----------



## Darkwind

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^  Pixelated methane.  If it wasn't for cheap shots you'd have no shots at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acurate assessments of the person I'm laughing at is not even close to a cheap shot.  I've  known the racist Carby for a long time and understand the lengths and depths he's willing to lie.  Don't worry about him, he'll take a pill and tomorrow think he's actually won something and onto something worth pursuing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you prove over and over again that you don't know shit.
Click to expand...

I'll let you know when you're qualified to judge Me.  

But so that the people can see your ignorance, why don't you make the case for HOW the United Sttates is a direct democracy and not a Constitutional Representative Democracy...


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, in terms of the Constitution,  But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP.  If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most ignorant whim just got elected POTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your opinion and worth about as much as mine.
Click to expand...

Nah, waiting's almost always worth more than yours.


----------



## Death Angel

JakeStarkey said:


> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.


The states just elected your president. Get used to it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Darkwind said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^  Pixelated methane.  If it wasn't for cheap shots you'd have no shots at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acurate assessments of the person I'm laughing at is not even close to a cheap shot.  I've  known the racist Carby for a long time and understand the lengths and depths he's willing to lie.  Don't worry about him, he'll take a pill and tomorrow think he's actually won something and onto something worth pursuing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you prove over and over again that you don't know shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll let you know when you're qualified to judge Me.
> 
> But so that the people can see your ignorance, why don't you make the case for HOW the United Sttates is a direct democracy and not a Constitutional Representative Democracy...
Click to expand...

You are qualified to judge no, DarkFury.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
Click to expand...

I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.

We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.


*An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic *

_It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see._

*A Democracy*

_The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.


This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:


"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."


This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).


The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that: 


"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:


"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:


"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals._

*A Republic*

_A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.


The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
_
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.


An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it still works as intended, that's called foresight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they foresaw electricity and the internet?  You're too stupid to breathe and type at the same time.  Get on your horse and remember to shut the door to the outhouse after you leave.
Click to expand...



They foresaw a country that would be expanding westward with different needs than the rest of the country, they provide the new States with a say in how the federal government would operate. They never intended for the population centers to have the power to dictate policy to the rest of the country. You can try to deflect from their genius, but that just proves you to be a pathetic loser. If 38 States decided to abolish or completely reorganize the federal government, they could, and the feds would have nothing to say about it.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Darkwind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> I said we are not a democracy.  If you don't know the difference, then you're not worth talking to until you calm down.
Click to expand...


You're worth putting on ignore.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Death Angel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

You did not read what I wrote.  You are not even mediocre in smarts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> I said we are not a democracy.  If you don't know the difference, then you're not worth talking to until you calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're worth putting on ignore.
Click to expand...

No, no, no.  His worth here is chew toy.  He is amusing to the better thinkers here.


----------



## EverCurious

Federalist Papers. 39 ["The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles"]

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

*That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.*

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. *The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society.* The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.

The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

_If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. *Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government.* Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. *In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS,* it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character._

The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national. 

-----

Federalist Papers No. 68 ["The Mode of Electing the President" March 14, 1788]

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. _And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen,_ this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. _Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. *Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States,* in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty._

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that *the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.* Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a *single State;* but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of *the whole Union,* or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.


----------



## Darkwind

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> *An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic *
> 
> _It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see._
> 
> *A Democracy*
> 
> _The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
> 
> 
> This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
> 
> In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
> 
> It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
> 
> 
> "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
> 
> 
> This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
> 
> 
> The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
> 
> 
> "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
> 
> Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
> 
> 
> "Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
> 
> It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
> 
> For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
> 
> 
> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
> 
> Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals._
> 
> *A Republic*
> 
> _A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
> 
> 
> The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
> 
> "By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
> 
> Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
> 
> The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
> 
> This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
> 
> With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
> 
> "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
> _
> It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
> 
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​
Click to expand...

/thread


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic,but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try.
> 
> ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, *but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made**, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change*, with the change of circumstances, *institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times...*"
> Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's exactly why they included Article 5 in the Constitution, to allow for such changes, it's been used 27 times.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

OKTexas said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it still works as intended, that's called foresight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they foresaw electricity and the internet?  You're too stupid to breathe and type at the same time.  Get on your horse and remember to shut the door to the outhouse after you leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They foresaw a country that would be expanding westward with different needs than the rest of the country, they provide the new States with a say in how the federal government would operate. They never intended for the population centers to have the power to dictate policy to the rest of the country. You can try to deflect from their genius, but that just proves you to be a pathetic loser. If 38 States decided to abolish or completely reorganize the federal government, they could, and the feds would have nothing to say about it.
Click to expand...


They did not foresee the automobile, and the ability to go someplace in 30 minutes on a freeway that would otherwise take a full day on horseback then, since there weren't many roads, either, stupid.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

WaitingFor2020 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
Click to expand...



The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.  The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3."

Why the Electoral College


----------



## Death Angel

mudwhistle said:


> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.


They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.


----------



## Darkwind

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> I said we are not a democracy.  If you don't know the difference, then you're not worth talking to until you calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're worth putting on ignore.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Death Angel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
Click to expand...



So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count?  You're full of it.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

JakeStarkey said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> 
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> I said we are not a democracy.  If you don't know the difference, then you're not worth talking to until you calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're worth putting on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no, no.  His worth here is chew toy.  He is amusing to the better thinkers here.
Click to expand...


Not original enough to be amusing.  He's the echo inside the echo chamber.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Let's just all be sure we remember this, too, from the petulant man-child:





*Donald J. Trump*‏@realDonaldTrump
*The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.*

*8:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012*
*Donald J. Trump on Twitter*


----------



## mudwhistle

Death Angel said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
Click to expand...

It's just Carbeaner pouting and wanting to change the rules after the election so he can win.


----------



## Death Angel

WaitingFor2020 said:


> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count? You're full of it.


You should move to Cuba


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections.  The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
Click to expand...



Do you have a translation for that contradictory gibberish?


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
Click to expand...



So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?


----------



## mudwhistle

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Let's just all be sure we remember this, too, from the petulant man-child:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏@realDonaldTrump
> *The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.*
> 
> *8:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012*
> *Donald J. Trump on Twitter*


Bet he likes it now. 
He geared his campaign to winning the electoral vote, not the popular vote.
Frankly, I don't think even the popular vote would have been close if this had been a 100% honest election.
Everybody knows Democrats have been flooding states with refugees and giving them voting rights for over a decade.


----------



## OKTexas

Darkwind said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^  Pixelated methane.  If it wasn't for cheap shots you'd have no shots at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acurate assessments of the person I'm laughing at is not even close to a cheap shot.  I've  known the racist Carby for a long time and understand the lengths and depths he's willing to lie.  Don't worry about him, he'll take a pill and tomorrow think he's actually won something and onto something worth pursuing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you prove over and over again that you don't know shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll let you know when you're qualified to judge Me.
> 
> But so that the people can see your ignorance, why don't you make the case for HOW the United Sttates is a direct democracy and not a Constitutional Representative Democracy...
Click to expand...



That would be a Constitutional Representative Republic.


----------



## AmericanFirst1

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives NEED an undemocratic system.  It's the last straw they can grasp to keep themselves and their beliefs out of the dustbin of history.


You so funny. You're also a liar.


----------



## Death Angel

WaitingFor2020 said:


> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count? You're full of it.


And then there's THIS for those of you elitists who found this new respect for old TJ:

*"An industrious farmer occupies a more dignified place in the scale of beings, whether moral or political, than a lazy lounger, valuing himself on his family, too proud to work, and drawing out a miserable existence by eating on that surplus of other men's labor which is the sacred fund of the helpless poor." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:91*


----------



## Darkwind

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count?  You're full of it.
Click to expand...

You don't want your vote to count.  You want no one else's vote to cancel yours.

What you are is a spoiled idiot who is screaming and kicking your feet because you can't have your way.   Since the inception of this country, we have elected a President this way.  If you want it changed so that we are a mob, then get 38 States and the US Legislature to create an amendment to change it.

Until then, read this again.



mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> *An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic *
> 
> _It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see._
> 
> *A Democracy*
> 
> _The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
> 
> 
> This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
> 
> In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
> 
> It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
> 
> 
> "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
> 
> 
> This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
> 
> 
> The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
> 
> 
> "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
> 
> Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
> 
> 
> "Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
> 
> It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
> 
> For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
> 
> 
> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
> 
> Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals._
> 
> *A Republic*
> 
> _A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
> 
> 
> The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
> 
> "By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
> 
> Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
> 
> The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
> 
> This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
> 
> With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
> 
> "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
> _
> It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
> 
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​
Click to expand...




OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> 
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
Click to expand...

How did you come to that conclusion?  I have maintained and will continue to maintain we are not a dierct democracy but a Constitutional Republic Democracy.

Which means we elect representatives who use law to direct  society.

At no point does the threat of a mob override the whole of the nation.  Which is why California, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles cannot override the rest of the country by sheer numbers of population.  The democracy extends only to their representatives district, their states borders.


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> I said we are not a democracy.  If you don't know the difference, then you're not worth talking to until you calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're worth putting on ignore.
Click to expand...



Only real pussies use ignore.


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector.  If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it still works as intended, that's called foresight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they foresaw electricity and the internet?  You're too stupid to breathe and type at the same time.  Get on your horse and remember to shut the door to the outhouse after you leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They foresaw a country that would be expanding westward with different needs than the rest of the country, they provide the new States with a say in how the federal government would operate. They never intended for the population centers to have the power to dictate policy to the rest of the country. You can try to deflect from their genius, but that just proves you to be a pathetic loser. If 38 States decided to abolish or completely reorganize the federal government, they could, and the feds would have nothing to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not foresee the automobile, and the ability to go someplace in 30 minutes on a freeway that would otherwise take a full day on horseback then, since there weren't many roads, either, stupid.
Click to expand...



And? More deflection, good job loser.


----------



## Darkwind

What I find funny is that those idiots here promoting up a direct democracy were the first ones to say that the will of the people does not matter when discussion of California's Prop 8 was passed.  That was a direct vote of the majority of the people.

At that time, the left were all for the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority and for the concept of rule of law over mob rule.


----------



## OKTexas

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count?  You're full of it.
Click to expand...



Your vote counted just as much as any in your State, just like mine.


----------



## Death Angel




----------



## JakeStarkey

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Let's just all be sure we remember this, too, from the petulant man-child:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏@realDonaldTrump
> *The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.*
> 
> *8:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012*
> *Donald J. Trump on Twitter*


But we are a Republic with democratic practices.  We could not protect minority rights in a 50 + 1 democracy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> 
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
Click to expand...

Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Darkwind said:


> How did you come to that conclusion?  I have maintained and will continue to maintain we are not a dierct democracy but a Constitutional Republic Democracy.Which means we elect representatives who use law to direct  society.At no point does the threat of a mob override the whole of the nation.  Which is why California, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles cannot override the rest of the country by sheer numbers of population.  The democracy extends only to their representatives district, their states borders.


Sigh.  No, you don't get your own facts.  We are a constitutional republic, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## OKTexas

Darkwind said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count?  You're full of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want your vote to count.  You want no one else's vote to cancel yours.
> 
> What you are is a spoiled idiot who is screaming and kicking your feet because you can't have your way.   Since the inception of this country, we have elected a President this way.  If you want it changed so that we are a mob, then get 38 States and the US Legislature to create an amendment to change it.
> 
> Until then, read this again.
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> *An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic *
> 
> _It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see._
> 
> *A Democracy*
> 
> _The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
> 
> 
> This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
> 
> In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
> 
> It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
> 
> 
> "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
> 
> 
> This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
> 
> 
> The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
> 
> 
> "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
> 
> Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
> 
> 
> "Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
> 
> It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
> 
> For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
> 
> 
> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
> 
> Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals._
> 
> *A Republic*
> 
> _A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
> 
> 
> The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
> 
> "By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
> 
> Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
> 
> The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
> 
> This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
> 
> With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
> 
> "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
> _
> It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
> 
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you come to that conclusion?  I have maintained and will continue to maintain we are not a dierct democracy but a Constitutional Republic Democracy.
> 
> Which means we elect representatives who use law to direct  society.
> 
> At no point does the threat of a mob override the whole of the nation.  Which is why California, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles cannot override the rest of the country by sheer numbers of population.  The democracy extends only to their representatives district, their states borders.
Click to expand...



Like I said before, democracy ends at the States. State representatives are elected by democratic means, the president and vice president the only true federal elected representatives are elected by States Electors who are also elected by democratic means.


----------



## Darkwind

OKTexas said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count?  You're full of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want your vote to count.  You want no one else's vote to cancel yours.
> 
> What you are is a spoiled idiot who is screaming and kicking your feet because you can't have your way.   Since the inception of this country, we have elected a President this way.  If you want it changed so that we are a mob, then get 38 States and the US Legislature to create an amendment to change it.
> 
> Until then, read this again.
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> *An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic *
> 
> _It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see._
> 
> *A Democracy*
> 
> _The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
> 
> 
> This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
> 
> In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
> 
> It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
> 
> 
> "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
> 
> 
> This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
> 
> 
> The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
> 
> 
> "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
> 
> Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
> 
> 
> "Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
> 
> It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
> 
> For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
> 
> 
> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
> 
> Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals._
> 
> *A Republic*
> 
> _A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
> 
> 
> The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
> 
> "By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
> 
> Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
> 
> The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
> 
> This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
> 
> With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
> 
> "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
> _
> It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
> 
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you come to that conclusion?  I have maintained and will continue to maintain we are not a dierct democracy but a Constitutional Republic Democracy.
> 
> Which means we elect representatives who use law to direct  society.
> 
> At no point does the threat of a mob override the whole of the nation.  Which is why California, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles cannot override the rest of the country by sheer numbers of population.  The democracy extends only to their representatives district, their states borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, democracy ends at the States. State representatives are elected by democratic means, the president and vice president the only true federal elected representatives are elected by States Electors who are also elected by democratic means.
Click to expand...

correct.

At no time does the population directly elect a President.  The people never have.  Thats not how its done in a Constitutional Republican Democracy.


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're compiling no such thing.  Because the only way you could even get a first result is to rewrite what our system of government actually is.  Since there are over 230+ years that prove you wrong, you go on ahead with your bad self and knock yourself out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.
Click to expand...


Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?


----------



## Darkwind

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have said we don't have a democratic government.  You yourself insist we have some sort of Republic that cannot be equated to a democracy,
> 
> therefore it must be undemocratic.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
Click to expand...

Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.

This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.


----------



## OKTexas

Darkwind said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY national things the states got to do was to ratify the Constitution, the amendments, and have an effect on presidential elections. The rest is done by the people, their legislatures, and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The states just elected your president. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we in the cities should move to BumFuck so our vote will count?  You're full of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want your vote to count.  You want no one else's vote to cancel yours.
> 
> What you are is a spoiled idiot who is screaming and kicking your feet because you can't have your way.   Since the inception of this country, we have elected a President this way.  If you want it changed so that we are a mob, then get 38 States and the US Legislature to create an amendment to change it.
> 
> Until then, read this again.
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> *An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic *
> 
> _It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
> 
> These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see._
> 
> *A Democracy*
> 
> _The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
> 
> 
> This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
> 
> In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
> 
> It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
> 
> 
> "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
> 
> 
> This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
> 
> 
> The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
> 
> 
> "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
> 
> Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
> 
> 
> "Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
> 
> It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
> 
> For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
> 
> 
> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
> 
> Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals._
> 
> *A Republic*
> 
> _A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
> 
> 
> The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
> 
> "By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
> 
> Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
> 
> The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
> 
> This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
> 
> With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
> 
> "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
> _
> It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
> 
> 
> An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you come to that conclusion?  I have maintained and will continue to maintain we are not a dierct democracy but a Constitutional Republic Democracy.
> 
> Which means we elect representatives who use law to direct  society.
> 
> At no point does the threat of a mob override the whole of the nation.  Which is why California, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles cannot override the rest of the country by sheer numbers of population.  The democracy extends only to their representatives district, their states borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, democracy ends at the States. State representatives are elected by democratic means, the president and vice president the only true federal elected representatives are elected by States Electors who are also elected by democratic means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correct.
> 
> At no time does the population directly elect a President.  The people never have.  Thats not how its done in a Constitutional Republican Democracy.
Click to expand...



Once again, the federal government is a Constitutional Representative Republic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is no such thing in the US as a "Constitutional Republican Democracy."


----------



## OKTexas

Darkwind said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy ends at the States as the founders intended.
> 
> 
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.
Click to expand...



That was directed to fakey, not you.


----------



## Darkwind

OKTexas said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still refuse to learn the facts, don't you.  Our republic is not a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was directed to fakey, not you.
Click to expand...

Ah..I can't see him....

BTW....

*The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic* (*a federation of states with a Representative Democracy*)

The United States of America is a Democracy - Fact or Myth?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no such thing in the US as a "Constitutional Republican Democracy."




Its a constitutional republic.. 

Yah I agree that was retarded Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey

Death Angel said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing in the US as a "Constitutional Republican Democracy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a constitutional republic..
> 
> Yah I agree that was retarded Jake
Click to expand...

Bear, OKTexas, and I are in agreement!  Buy lottery tickets, folks!


----------



## OKTexas

Darkwind said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So our representatives at every level aren't elected by democratic means? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was directed to fakey, not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah..I can't see him....
> 
> BTW....
> 
> *The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic* (*a federation of states with a Representative Democracy*)
> 
> The United States of America is a Democracy - Fact or Myth?
Click to expand...



Ok, I can buy that term, not much difference. Just don't try to keep throwing democracy in the mix.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
Click to expand...


Bullshit 

You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property


----------



## Darkwind

OKTexas said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Republic has democratic practices, but it is not a democracy, per se.  If it were, then HRC is president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was directed to fakey, not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah..I can't see him....
> 
> BTW....
> 
> *The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic* (*a federation of states with a Representative Democracy*)
> 
> The United States of America is a Democracy - Fact or Myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I can buy that term, not much difference. Just don't try to keep throwing democracy in the mix.
Click to expand...

A very limited form of democracy is the baseline of our society.  It is severely restricted for good reason.  Though some would say that our legislatures use a form of democracy, its really a form of parliamentary democracy.

In either case, we are a nation of laws in which the power resides in the people through our elected representatives and the tyranny of the mob/majority is tempered and checked with the balance of powers between the three branches of government and the many States.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
Click to expand...

See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Darkwind said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was directed to fakey, not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah..I can't see him....
> 
> BTW....
> 
> *The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic* (*a federation of states with a Representative Democracy*)
> 
> The United States of America is a Democracy - Fact or Myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I can buy that term, not much difference. Just don't try to keep throwing democracy in the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very limited form of democracy is the baseline of our society.  It is severely restricted for good reason.  Though some would say that our legislatures use a form of democracy, its really a form of parliamentary democracy.
> 
> In either case, we are a nation of laws in which the power resides in the people through our elected representatives and the tyranny of the mob/majority is tempered and checked with the balance of powers between the three branches of government and the many States.
Click to expand...

Darkwind reads me like he does scripture.  He hates that I have to correct him all the time.  What a doink.  Note, though, he is moving his argument to more of a constitutional republic than before.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
Click to expand...


Again that was the most stupidest comment 

How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.? 

.


----------



## there4eyeM

eagle1462010 said:


>



Just replace 'people' with 'persons'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment  How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
Click to expand...

The cops can come on your land for good cause any time.  Did you not know that?  Burn trash on your land when no burn permits are being issued and see what happens.

Do tell us if the address each other as commissar.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hell his friends called the ambulance


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment  How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cops can come on your land for good cause any time.  Did you not know that?
Click to expand...



Yeah if you're beating up a wife or kids.. 

Not just driving a vehicle.. 


I am still mad about  that  one


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell his friends called the ambulance
Click to expand...

Of course they did not, but that can be considered as a threat against LEO doing their jobs.  Don't be stupid, at least publicly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment  How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cops can come on your land for good cause any time.  Did you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah if you're beating up a wife or kids..Not just driving a vehicle..I am still mad about  that  one
Click to expand...

You are not the law is the point.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> 
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment  How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cops can come on your land for good cause any time.  Did you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah if you're beating up a wife or kids..Not just driving a vehicle..I am still mad about  that  one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not the law is the point.
Click to expand...



D.u.I laws don't apply to private property..


----------



## OKTexas

Darkwind said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems I've been saying that all along, are you not paying attention? Democracy ends at the States, any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Iv'e never said otherwise.  Not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> This country has never been a direct democracy.  You can quote Me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was directed to fakey, not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah..I can't see him....
> 
> BTW....
> 
> *The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic* (*a federation of states with a Representative Democracy*)
> 
> The United States of America is a Democracy - Fact or Myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I can buy that term, not much difference. Just don't try to keep throwing democracy in the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very limited form of democracy is the baseline of our society.  It is severely restricted for good reason.  Though some would say that our legislatures use a form of democracy, its really a form of parliamentary democracy.
> 
> In either case, we are a nation of laws in which the power resides in the people through our elected representatives and the tyranny of the mob/majority is tempered and checked with the balance of powers between the three branches of government and the many States.
Click to expand...



I can agree to a point, State level officers are elected by using the majority of the State, also State referendums are determined the same way, both are pure democracies. Even smaller subdivisions of the States are also elected by pure democracies.


----------



## OKTexas

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never learned the meaning of certain words in the English language.
> 
> We elect leaders through a Democratic process, but our government is a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.


----------



## Wyatt earp

OKTexas said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know better. They're only making this pathetic argument because their communist lost.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
Click to expand...


ATV accident..


----------



## OKTexas

bear513 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what is a "communist" or "communism."  When you post like you just did, you reveal that you are ignorant, misguided, poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
Click to expand...



Sounds like an easy one to beat.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

OKTexas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
Click to expand...


If NYcarbneer really knew anything about our American history, he would know the Founders already entertained the option of electing the president on the basis of a democratic majority vote, before considering the electoral college, and REJECTED it.  Yet I'm vety certain he would not have the slightest clue as to why.  These liberals really ought to open up an American history book sometime, I just can't believe how little they really know about our country.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency.  .  They are fooks because they cannot think straightly.  Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
> In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it)  to overcome their loss of the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.
> 
> What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?
> 
> Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.
> 
> It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives.  That the dumbest thing you've ever said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government.  What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either?  Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history.  When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  For the same reasons they chose to count black people as 3/5's of a person and to deny them their freedom.
Click to expand...


Please tell me you're joking and you are seriously not that ignorant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment  How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cops can come on your land for good cause any time.  Did you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah if you're beating up a wife or kids..Not just driving a vehicle..I am still mad about  that  one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not the law is the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> D.u.I laws don't apply to private property..
Click to expand...

Take that up with the WV legislature and courts.  The say it does, not you.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
Click to expand...


Pretty much.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit  You thought it was OK to give a guy a DUI  on his own property
> 
> 
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an easy one to beat.
Click to expand...

Not if the law says you cannot drink and drive anywhere in WV.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Why?  For the same reasons they chose to count black people as 3/5's of a person and to deny them their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me you're joking and you are seriously not that ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Look at Shakles trying to act all growed up.  Of course the Founders tried to limit voting privileges to people like themselves: propertied white males.


----------



## OKTexas

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If NYcarbneer really knew anything about our American history, he would know the Founders already entertained the option of electing the president on the basis of a democratic majority vote, before considering the electoral college, and REJECTED it.  Yet I'm vety certain he would not have the slightest clue as to why.  These liberals really ought to open up an American history book sometime, I just can't believe how little they really know about our country.
Click to expand...



Or the Constitution itself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.  Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?  Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how shackled tries to do it, and then he fails almost all the time.  Not a pity, because he is slow like mudbrain, bodick, and squeeze dingle berry,.  The Founders did not create a democracy: they created a constitutional republic.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that our current government is *undemocratic,* and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get  38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did you and/or your RWnut pals wail to high heaven when Obamacare was passed,
> 
> rammed down your throat as was repeatedly claimed, and passed over the People's majority opposition to it, so said the polls supposedly?
> 
> If you LOVE undemocratic government so much, why weren't you cheering that, instead of pissing and moaning about it being 'undemocratic'?
> 
> eh?
Click to expand...


If the vast amount of the people across the country outside of Washington don't support Obamacare, as controversial and unpopular as it's been known to be during its fight for passage, with Nancy Pelosi having to say "we have to pass it so you can find out what's in it", a President that has to cross the country to try and convince the American voters ACA is actually "GOOD" for the people.... all that usually refers to state politicians not heeding the voice of their constituents.  Rather, they were following the threats of those Democrat leaders who wanted it, OVER the concerns of the people. A republic form of government still has representatives from each state that speak FOR the will of its respected constituents they were elected to represent, not the interest of a speaker Pelosi in Washington.

So concludes this lesson of Republic.


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, your comment reveals you as ignorant, misguided, and poorly educated if you think 'communists' using 'communism' came to that decision in the legislature and the courts.  Sux to be you.  reb used your terms like that wrongly all the time and then cry when pointed out how stupid he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an easy one to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the law says you cannot drink and drive anywhere in WV.
Click to expand...



WV DUI law are under traffic regulations and laws of the road, they would not apply to private property. Also if the police were not called specifically for the accident they would have no probable cause to enter private property without a warrant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Americans, in a great majority, either want to keep it as is or improve it and make it better.  About 40% flat out don't like it because they really don't know what it is.  Shakled clearly does not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again that was the most stupidest comment
> 
> How could you not be communist if you thought it was a good idea for the cops to come on private land and arrest someone for a D.U. I.?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an easy one to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the law says you cannot drink and drive anywhere in WV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WV DUI law are under traffic regulations and laws of the road, they would not apply to private property. Also if the police were not called specifically for the accident they would have no probable cause to enter private property without a warrant.
Click to expand...

Go read up on this.  The courts said it was legal.  Tough if you don't like it.  If the police came on the land for any lawful reason and see you careening around on your land drunk as a skunk, they will arrest you.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an easy one to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the law says you cannot drink and drive anywhere in WV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WV DUI law are under traffic regulations and laws of the road, they would not apply to private property. Also if the police were not called specifically for the accident they would have no probable cause to enter private property without a warrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read up on this.  The courts said it was legal.  Tough if you don't like it.  If the police came on the land for any lawful reason and see you careening around on your land drunk as a skunk, they will arrest you.
Click to expand...



Not the Supreme Court..


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an easy one to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the law says you cannot drink and drive anywhere in WV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WV DUI law are under traffic regulations and laws of the road, they would not apply to private property. Also if the police were not called specifically for the accident they would have no probable cause to enter private property without a warrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read up on this.  The courts said it was legal.  Tough if you don't like it.  If the police came on the land for any lawful reason and see you careening around on your land drunk as a skunk, they will arrest you.
Click to expand...


BTW quit being a commie bastard.. 


Again why do you think this is OK ?

Unless you're another asshole who is jealous of someone who has some money and land.. 

Please explain it in your own words a dude works his butt off and buys land 
.

Then he wants to drink a beer on his land..


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> Derelict_Drvr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.
> 
> Let's hear you prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
> 
> 
> USA is a republic, deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights.  Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.
> 
> Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was legal in our REPUBLIC for 80 years or thereabouts.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it you that stated in a reply that "that's ancient history" and therefore not relevant?

Make up your mind what it is that is relevant.


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> Americans, in a great majority, either want to keep it as is or improve it and make it better.  About 40% flat out don't like it because they really don't know what it is.  Shakled clearly does not.




A great majority of Americans have no clue what's in the law and can in no way make an educated decision one way or the other. What people like are the more popular aspects of the law such and preexisting conditions and grown children being able to stay on parents plans. They have no clue of the taxes and mandatory spending involved.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> Americans, in a great majority, either want to keep it as is or improve it and make it better.  About 40% flat out don't like it because they really don't know what it is.  Shakled clearly does not.



Those are not the statistics during the time of ACA's fight to PASSAGE under a democrat led Congress, which I was referring to, ....   was it?


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on what brought the police there in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATV accident..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an easy one to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the law says you cannot drink and drive anywhere in WV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WV DUI law are under traffic regulations and laws of the road, they would not apply to private property. Also if the police were not called specifically for the accident they would have no probable cause to enter private property without a warrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read up on this.  The courts said it was legal.  Tough if you don't like it.  If the police came on the land for any lawful reason and see you careening around on your land drunk as a skunk, they will arrest you.
Click to expand...



Police have no authority to enforce traffic laws on private property. They violated the 4th and 5th Amendments by entering the private property without a warrant or probable cause.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> BTW quit being a commie bastard.. Again why do you think this is OK ? Unless you're another asshole who is jealous of someone who has some money and land.. Please explain it in your own words a dude works his butt off and buys land  Then he wants to drink a beer on his land..


You sound stupidly as did reb on communism.  You have no idea what you are talking about, do you, boo boo?  We own far, far more than you could ever imagine.  No one is jealous of you, boo boo, in the slightest.  If the cops catching you drinking heavily on your land and deem you a threat, yes, you can be arrested.  Why would you think not?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW quit being a commie bastard.. Again why do you think this is OK ? Unless you're another asshole who is jealous of someone who has some money and land.. Please explain it in your own words a dude works his butt off and buys land  Then he wants to drink a beer on his land..
> 
> 
> 
> You sound stupidly as did reb on communism.  You have no idea what you are talking about, do you, boo boo?  We own far, far more than you could ever imagine.  No one is jealous of you, boo boo, in the slightest.  If the cops catching you drinking heavily on your land and deem you a threat, yes, you can be arrested.  Why would you think not?
Click to expand...


Translation - your jealous


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW quit being a commie bastard.. Again why do you think this is OK ? Unless you're another asshole who is jealous of someone who has some money and land.. Please explain it in your own words a dude works his butt off and buys land  Then he wants to drink a beer on his land..
> 
> 
> 
> You sound stupidly as did reb on communism.  You have no idea what you are talking about, do you, boo boo?  We own far, far more than you could ever imagine.  No one is jealous of you, boo boo, in the slightest.  If the cops catching you drinking heavily on your land and deem you a threat, yes, you can be arrested.  Why would you think not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation - your jealous
Click to expand...

Of you getting drunk on your little acre?  OK.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you  take your Xanax today?  You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
Click to expand...


You're the one stating it's undemocratic. We are contending that it is *not*
a Democracy.  Words have meaning, and there is a great difference between the two. 

America has a Democratic _style _of government insomuch as it's not an oligarchy, monarchy, or anarchy, etc.  Our _form _of government is a Federal Republic.  As there are different forms of a Democracy, so are there different forms, or interpretations, of a Republic and what that means.

I know you won't do it because it would poke holes in your diatribe  But you really should study multiple sources so you can at least sound educated instead of a left-wing, talking points spewing, shill.  Then maybe people would take you serious.  But I doubt it.


----------



## mudwhistle

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...
> 
> 
> NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If NYcarbneer really knew anything about our American history, he would know the Founders already entertained the option of electing the president on the basis of a democratic majority vote, before considering the electoral college, and REJECTED it.  Yet I'm vety certain he would not have the slightest clue as to why.  These liberals really ought to open up an American history book sometime, I just can't believe how little they really know about our country.
Click to expand...

They got the impression somewhere that if they fundamentally change it, America will become perfect. Never mind the fact that America is already better than almost every other country right now. They think they can make it better. It's a pipe-dream of course, because smarter more visionary men then they are already considered everything they're trying to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says the right wing talking points spewing shill, muddy.

We are a federated constitutional republic with democratic practices.  We elect people to represent us, and they generally appoint those who run the government.  Thus a school board is democratically elected as its representatives, but they appoint the Superintendent who appoints other members of his administration with the SB normally doing a rubber stamp approval.  City managers are appointed by a City Council, and it is the city manager who is the CEO of the town government.

The left generally want a democracy because it can sway the mob to their side to the horror of the right.

When a populist demagogue like Trump wins office, a demolite playing conservative, the system becomes very interesting!


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

NYcarbineer said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context quotes can often be misleading, why didn't you post the complete letters, so people could understand the real meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go find the letters, and prove that they contain context that reverses the meaning of what I posted.
Click to expand...


Already found them and they're call _The Federalist Papers.
_
But don't bother, people.  All he will do is say they are full of errors because they don't coincide with his beliefs, even though his clueless about the topic.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

WaitingFor2020 said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There should be a special board for drive-by neanderthals who really have nothing to say.
Click to expand...

You mean like you and NYcarbineer?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW quit being a commie bastard.. Again why do you think this is OK ? Unless you're another asshole who is jealous of someone who has some money and land.. Please explain it in your own words a dude works his butt off and buys land  Then he wants to drink a beer on his land..
> 
> 
> 
> You sound stupidly as did reb on communism.  You have no idea what you are talking about, do you, boo boo?  We own far, far more than you could ever imagine.  No one is jealous of you, boo boo, in the slightest.  If the cops catching you drinking heavily on your land and deem you a threat, yes, you can be arrested.  Why would you think not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation - your jealous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of you getting drunk on your little acre?  OK.
Click to expand...


I don't have an acre.. Three acres.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Derelict_Drvr said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nycarb is a commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be a special board for drive-by neanderthals who really have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like you and NYcarbineer?
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean you, of course.  Talk like a political neanderthal, D_D, you will get called out on it.  I do not agree with NYC on this, but he is much brighter than you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW quit being a commie bastard.. Again why do you think this is OK ? Unless you're another asshole who is jealous of someone who has some money and land.. Please explain it in your own words a dude works his butt off and buys land  Then he wants to drink a beer on his land..
> 
> 
> 
> You sound stupidly as did reb on communism.  You have no idea what you are talking about, do you, boo boo?  We own far, far more than you could ever imagine.  No one is jealous of you, boo boo, in the slightest.  If the cops catching you drinking heavily on your land and deem you a threat, yes, you can be arrested.  Why would you think not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation - your jealous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of you getting drunk on your little acre?  OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an acre.. Three acres.
Click to expand...

Wow!  

We have more than 1,800 in seven states.  We could get drunk on the biggest chunk and LEO would never find us.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

francoHFW said:


> A republic is defined as a representative democracy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


You forgot the Federal!

Some Communist country's are Republics because they have representatives.  Their representatives are not elected however, and instead of the people telling them what they, the representative tells the people what what they want.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic,but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try.
> 
> ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, *but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made**, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change*, with the change of circumstances, *institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times...*"
> Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816
Click to expand...


Ahhh yes. The stale old assertion that the Constitution is "A Living Document" and has outlived its usefulness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

D_D and Francho have it wrong.

We are a federated constitutional republic.


----------



## Zoom-boing

We're a representative republic.  We elect representatives so we don't have a pure democracy.  But we elect those representatives via popular vote, so it is democratic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We use democratic practices along with appointments by representatives to choose and govern in our system.


----------



## Zoom-boing

But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.  

And to the Republic, for which it stands.


----------



## francoHFW

Derelict_Drvr said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> A republic is defined as a representative democracy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the Federal!
> 
> Some Communist country's are Republics because they have representatives.  Their representatives are not elected however, and instead of the people telling them what they, the representative tells the people what what they want.
Click to expand...

Not real republics then.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.
> 
> Such is the intellect of the USMB right.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your past posts can you blame them?
> Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted verbatim verified quotes.  In our country those are considered factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context quotes can often be misleading, why didn't you post the complete letters, so people could understand the real meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go find the letters, and prove that they contain context that reverses the meaning of what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already found them and they're call _The Federalist Papers.
> _
> But don't bother, people.  All he will do is say they are full of errors because they don't coincide with his beliefs, even though his clueless about the topic.
Click to expand...


Why don't you prove that Jefferson didn't say what I posted, for starters?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> We're a representative republic.  We elect representatives so we don't have a pure democracy.  But we elect those representatives via popular vote, so it is democratic.



It's a representative democracy, with some undemocratic elements.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.



Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Derelict_Drvr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent.  It's like batting 1.000.
> 
> One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.
> 
> You're a marvel in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head.  When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts.  You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way.   You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.
> 
> Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am compiling a long list of conservatives who insist our system of government is UNDEMOCRATIC,
> 
> and they are very pleased that it is so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one stating it's undemocratic. We are contending that it is *not*
> a Democracy.  Words have meaning, and there is a great difference between the two.
Click to expand...


democratic is the adjective form of the noun democracy.  If we are not a democracy then we are undemocratic.

You think the word democracy only means direct democracy.  That's where you're going wrong.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

mudwhistle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez.   She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.
> 
> Trump: 62,238,425
> Clinton: 64,156,255
> 
> 2016 presidential election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres.  That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If NYcarbneer really knew anything about our American history, he would know the Founders already entertained the option of electing the president on the basis of a democratic majority vote, before considering the electoral college, and REJECTED it.  Yet I'm vety certain he would not have the slightest clue as to why.  These liberals really ought to open up an American history book sometime, I just can't believe how little they really know about our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They got the impression somewhere that if they fundamentally change it, America will become perfect. Never mind the fact that America is already better than almost every other country right now. They think they can make it better. It's a pipe-dream of course, because smarter more visionary men then they are already considered everything they're trying to do.
Click to expand...


What they don't realize is that our Founders already debated the same issues the liberals are bringing up today, regardihg the process of how best to represent the people when electing a president.  They looked to representation through those elected in Congress, a democrat majority vote on a national level, as well as an electoral college.  Regardless of what they believed one Founder may have said regarding a "pure" system that accurately represents the interests of the people, the Founders collectively decided that an electoral college best represents all the concerns they had hoped to solve. 

Now the only reason we have this thread regarding the election process of the presidency, is because they don't really know what those concerns actually are the Founders were referring to and hoped to solve.  Their refusal to answer a question directly imposed to them only adds further proof, that many unfortunately simply do not know the history behind how our Constitution and how the Founders came to choose this particular form of government.


----------



## Pop23

I love this. 

Gays want a democracy, but would be crushed if a true democracy was put in place. 

Blacks want a democracy, but would be crushed if a true democracy was put in place. 

Pro abortion advocates want a democracy, but would be crushed if a true democracy was put in place. 

Honestly, get over it, a republic serves the needs of minority groups best. 

You can't make this shit up folks.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
Click to expand...


Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.


----------



## paperview

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.
Click to expand...


"representative republic"  is redundant.


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> We were modeled on the Roman Republic; we're Rome


And you're a freeman with client responsibilities to your patron...


----------



## Zoom-boing

paperview said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "representative republic"  is redundant.
Click to expand...


No it's not.

*Representative* democracy (also indirect democracy, *representative republic*, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

Representative democracy - Wikipedia


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "representative republic"  is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> *Representative* democracy (also indirect democracy, *representative republic*, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
> 
> Representative democracy - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Yes.  That is the correct definition that a dozen RW'ers in this thread are denying is the correct definition.


----------



## Zoom-boing

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "representative republic"  is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> *Representative* democracy (also indirect democracy, *representative republic*, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
> 
> Representative democracy - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the correct definition that a dozen RW'ers in this thread are denying is the correct definition.
Click to expand...


Well then they should stop doing that because they're wrong.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's more accurate to say we're a republic.
> 
> And to the Republic, for which it stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "representative republic"  is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> *Representative* democracy (also indirect democracy, *representative republic*, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
> 
> Representative democracy - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the correct definition that a dozen RW'ers in this thread are denying is the correct definition.
Click to expand...


Constitutional republic


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the point of the OP is that Jefferson used the two terms interchangeably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then saying we're a representative republic isn't wrong.  Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "representative republic"  is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> *Representative* democracy (also indirect democracy, *representative republic*, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
> 
> Representative democracy - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the correct definition that a dozen RW'ers in this thread are denying is the correct definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then they should stop doing that because they're wrong.
Click to expand...


They aren't allowed to stop because the Master won't permit it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.

Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.


----------



## Pop23

Has it occurred to anyone else that the reason so many democrats are advocating for democracy is they are tired of being shackled by minority groups?

In a democracy the minority populations mean almost zip.

They can throw gays, blacks and hispanics under the bus and say it's just the system working the way it should.

They will throw them under the bus anyway, this way is just a bit less messy.


----------



## Pop23

NYcarbineer said:


> The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.
> 
> Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.



And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pop23 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.
> 
> Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.  How does that work?  Democracy evil towards minorities.


----------



## Pop23

NYcarbineer said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.
> 
> Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  How does that work?  Democracy evil towards minorities.
Click to expand...


The majority becomes self serving. That's democracy dim wit.

Do you even realize what majority rules means?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pop23 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.
> 
> Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  How does that work?  Democracy evil towards minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority becomes self serving. That's democracy dim wit.
> 
> Do you even realize what majority rules means?
Click to expand...


So ideally when a bill goes through Congress, if only a minority of legislators vote for it,

it should become law?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

NYcarbineer said:


> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles



Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.


----------



## Pop23

NYcarbineer said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.
> 
> Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  How does that work?  Democracy evil towards minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority becomes self serving. That's democracy dim wit.
> 
> Do you even realize what majority rules means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ideally when a bill goes through Congress, if only a minority of legislators vote for it,
> 
> it should become law?
Click to expand...


You're a child aren't you?

The whole "checks and balances" issue flys out the window in a democracy. 

All of it dimwit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
Click to expand...


off topic personal attack lol.

This thread isn't about Hillary.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pop23 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key objection to 'democracy' as RW'ers define it is their label that it's 'mob rule'.
> 
> Translation:  too many Americans allowed to share the power of our governments.  Government by the People is bad.  Government by a select few of the People is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  How does that work?  Democracy evil towards minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority becomes self serving. That's democracy dim wit.
> 
> Do you even realize what majority rules means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ideally when a bill goes through Congress, if only a minority of legislators vote for it,
> 
> it should become law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child aren't you?
> 
> The whole "checks and balances" issue flys out the window in a democracy.
> 
> All of it dimwit.
Click to expand...


Why?  The majority can't legislate a judiciary?  An executive?  Laws that protect rights?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off topic personal attack lol.
> 
> This thread isn't about Hillary.
Click to expand...


Hillary is exactly what this thread is about


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off topic personal attack lol.
> 
> This thread isn't about Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary is exactly what this thread is about
Click to expand...


Pay attention. 

This thread is about the definitions of democracies and republics.  Period.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> off topic personal attack lol.
> 
> This thread isn't about Hillary.
Click to expand...



I am still confused why you are so mad?

Yeah I know you are mad the founding fathers didn't make slaves free and didn't give women the right to vote.. 

I don't get why you can't comprehend the reason? 

Don't you ever travel out side of New York?  Didn't you ever watch shows like Andy Griffin? Mayberry


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hear it all the time.  The founders didn't want democracy;  they wanted a 'republic'.  The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -
> 
> those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.
> 
> Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> *"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,
> 
> I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.
> 
> Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19
> *
> Get it?  Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.
> 
> Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.
> 
> Jefferson again:
> 
> *"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65*
> 
> .Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,
> 
> he equates them.
> 
> And Jefferson continues:
> 
> *"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.*
> 
> There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.
> 
> And one more...
> 
> *"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23*
> 
> I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.
> 
> Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> off topic personal attack lol.
> 
> This thread isn't about Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am still confused why you are so mad?
> 
> Yeah I know you are mad the founding fathers didn't make slaves free and didn't give women the right to vote..
> 
> I don't get why you can't comprehend the reason?
> 
> Don't you ever travel out side of New York?  Didn't you ever watch shows like Andy Griffin? Mayberry
Click to expand...


What are you even trying to talk about?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off topic personal attack lol.
> 
> This thread isn't about Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary is exactly what this thread is about
Click to expand...


If it was about Hillary that would make it political and therefore you wouldn't have moved it to History from Politics.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost.  Get over it and move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off topic personal attack lol.
> 
> This thread isn't about Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary is exactly what this thread is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was about Hillary that would make it political and therefore you wouldn't have moved it to History from Politics.
Click to expand...


I didn't move it.

It's still about Hillary


----------



## Pop23

NYcarbineer said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  How does that work?  Democracy evil towards minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority becomes self serving. That's democracy dim wit.
> 
> Do you even realize what majority rules means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ideally when a bill goes through Congress, if only a minority of legislators vote for it,
> 
> it should become law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child aren't you?
> 
> The whole "checks and balances" issue flys out the window in a democracy.
> 
> All of it dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  The majority can't legislate a judiciary?  An executive?  Laws that protect rights?
Click to expand...


Then you don't want a democracy. It's obvious you don't have a clue as to what a democracy is.


----------



## regent

It seems that many of the framers and founders believed the people should be involved in government, sort of a, we the people thing, but were also afraid people would vote themselves too much largess. So the Constitution was a compromise. But the thought was always there, that a nation needed the people and was established for all the people. Since that time we have grown more democratic and will continue to do so. Many of our political battles today is the battle over who is the government for, the elites or the people.


----------



## Picaro

They were trying to solve the dilemma of needing popular support while retaining power and privilege in the hands of a few; some 5,000 men controlled politics and most of the money in those times, and they all disagreed and argued over how to divvy it up. The compromises worked out pretty well considering nobody liked it at all and didn't think it would last 20 years, but it was a start and better than nothing. The people gained a lot of leeway and personal freedoms as a result, and haven't looked back, so it's turned out relatively well for such a diverse and anarchic social experiment among so many conflicting interest and ethnic groups. Lots of contradictions, obviously, and of course there can never be 'equal outcomes' in real life, some fare better than others, but at least some sort of meritocratic principles  got lip service and occasionally practice , which was far more than Europe or Asia ever offered its common peoples. The Anglo-Saxon legal codes combined with the Protestant work ethic and moral idealism created a pretty unique foundation for a small country just starting out, and proved to be the best combo in history.

And yes, it was clearly a Republic, not a democracy; I don't know why some astro-turfers have started peddling the nonsense otherwise, probably some modern gimmick to invent a history for some agenda or other.


----------



## there4eyeM

'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.


----------



## Picaro

there4eyeM said:


> 'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.



Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg

owebo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?
> 
> But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did he say?  Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....
Click to expand...


Mob rule?  You are calling american voters a mob?
How about yourself?
Sounds like you would like to turn it into a dictatorship.

You say you believe in a limited government but I am sure you are all in on a huge military budget.


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg

Picaro said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.
Click to expand...


It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
Military forces have always desroyed democracies.  it's what they do,  since the beginning of history.
It's like "planet of the apes."


----------



## Picaro

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
> Military forces have always desroyed democracies.  it's what they do,  since the beginning of history.
> It's like "planet of the apes."
Click to expand...


Partly true, but there are times when some form of it was necessary in order to organize against invasions, and also the reverse, to get enough support for raiding somebody else. The Greeks and Vikings for instance had some variations of it, even if only for specific campaigns. Most of the successful Republics were organized from the top down, in power sharing agreements, sometimes militarily imposed, like the Magna Carta, sometimes by consensus among the various  leaders of factions, as in Rome and Greece, and of course in the founding of the U.S.. Those that were a result of collapsed states and mobs all failed. The oppressed almost invariably become worse than those who oppressed them.


----------



## Wyatt earp

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
> Military forces have always desroyed democracies.  it's what they do,  since the beginning of history.
> It's like "planet of the apes."
Click to expand...



Except in this case the U.S. and it's military grew and protected democracys across the  globe time's a 100 fold since the beginning of the 19th century ...

BTW why do you hate high paying Union jobs?


.


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg

bear513 said:


> TipOfTheIceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
> Military forces have always desroyed democracies.  it's what they do,  since the beginning of history.
> It's like "planet of the apes."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except in this case the U.S. and it's military grew and protected democracys across the  globe time's a 100 fold since the beginning of the 19th century ...
> 
> BTW why do you hate high paying Union jobs?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Reagan sure the hell did along with a majority of republicans.


----------



## Polk

JakeStarkey said:


> However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted.  The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.
> 
> If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.
> 
> Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.



They didn't create the Electoral College out of a highminded ideal. It was done to increase the relative power of slave states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Polk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted.  The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.
> 
> If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.
> 
> Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't create the Electoral College out of a highminded ideal. It was done to increase the relative power of slave states.
Click to expand...

That's an opinion with no evidence, so give it the weight your argument is worth.


----------



## regent

In any case America keeps on the democratic path.


----------

