America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[dcraelin]

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

I do like the idea of recall......
perhaps we should limit the money Senators take for -election to that from people residents of their states....and no outside money can advertise for them either.

I believe the five republicans on the Supreme Court have said we may not do that with our own elections.

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The problem with selective quotes is we can post competing quotes -- from the same man. Over time people change tastes and opinions change with new information or out of wounded pride in lost battles.

ex: a Wikipedia entry I came across had John Adams praising Thomas Paine for his pamphlets in the cause of the rebellion/revolution, and later on quoting Adams saying Paine was a dangerous radical and demagogue. I guess competing editors wanted to push competing views with "quotes"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Peach - all due respect - I didn't ask you for an uncited cut and paste. But I'll assume you believe the two are mutually exclusive because of what this writer (whoever they may be) told you to think. Feel free to provide something to the contrary if you have it.

A democratic republic is a democracy. It's not PURE democracy and there has never been a PURE democracy on the planet.

I was taught that in school,same as the writer was.
Something the schools are not teaching today.

Ok, well thank you for your reply.

Personally, I'm very glad that is not taught anymore - kinda like the world is flat stuff. It's just flat wrong. I can't imagine anyone with a college degree trying to foist that off on kids.

No disrespect intended.

Could you provide a link please?

A link to what?

And that is exactly why we are in the mess that we have right now.
Hillsdale College is as well as many other conservative colleges are still teaching it.
I could never see it in a liberal college, because they don't tolerate any conservative views.
One thing that I do like seeing, is conservative college students fighting back on that intolerance in Liberal Colleges.

Huh? Is this sorta like that wingnut favorite "The war on Christmas" where wingnutty people go out and find a handful of activists who oppose everything about Christmas celebrations and who in turn conflate the handful as representing everyone else who doesn't fall in line with the intolerance of radical right wingism?

 

[dcraelin]

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The problem with selective quotes is we can post competing quotes -- from the same man. Over time people change tastes and opinions change with new information or out of wounded pride in lost battles.

ex: a Wikipedia entry I came across had John Adams praising Thomas Paine for his pamphlets in the cause of the rebellion/revolution, and later on quoting Adams saying Paine was a dangerous radical and demagogue. I guess competing editors wanted to push competing views with "quotes"

Yes, i agree but generally the people that use that saying, admire teh founders tremendously, I think it could perhaps show them their error.

Here is a link from a libertarian /conservative view. as to why that saying is wrong and perhaps dangerous

There s Room for Direct Democracy in a Republic Cato Liberty

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

I do like the idea of recall......
perhaps we should limit the money Senators take for -election to that from people residents of their states....and no outside money can advertise for them either.

I believe the five republicans on the Supreme Court have said we may not do that with our own elections.

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The problem with selective quotes is we can post competing quotes -- from the same man. Over time people change tastes and opinions change with new information or out of wounded pride in lost battles.

ex: a Wikipedia entry I came across had John Adams praising Thomas Paine for his pamphlets in the cause of the rebellion/revolution, and later on quoting Adams saying Paine was a dangerous radical and demagogue. I guess competing editors wanted to push competing views with "quotes"

Yes, i AGREEE but generally the people that use that saying, admire teh founders tremendously, I think it could perhaps show them their error.

There s Room for Direct Democracy in a Republic Cato Liberty

Direct democracy? Anathema!!!

My gawd, that is so unAmerican it isn't funny. It's a system foreign to our founding concepts of nationhood. Of course a Republic can have whatever version of democracy they desire, but that doesn't make all versions equal in practice

 

[dcraelin]

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

I do like the idea of recall......
perhaps we should limit the money Senators take for -election to that from people residents of their states....and no outside money can advertise for them either.

I believe the five republicans on the Supreme Court have said we may not do that with our own elections.

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

 

[dcraelin]

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The problem with selective quotes is we can post competing quotes -- from the same man. Over time people change tastes and opinions change with new information or out of wounded pride in lost battles.

ex: a Wikipedia entry I came across had John Adams praising Thomas Paine for his pamphlets in the cause of the rebellion/revolution, and later on quoting Adams saying Paine was a dangerous radical and demagogue. I guess competing editors wanted to push competing views with "quotes"

Yes, i AGREEE but generally the people that use that saying, admire teh founders tremendously, I think it could perhaps show them their error.

There s Room for Direct Democracy in a Republic Cato Liberty

Direct democracy? Anathema!!!

My gawd, that is so unAmerican it isn't funny. It's a system foreign to our founding concepts of nationhood. Of course a Republic can have whatever version of democracy they desire, but that doesn't make all versions equal in practice

It is very American and would be a vast improvement over the corruption we see now.

gotta run...later

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO: I think the frame of reference for the founders in creating the senate was something closer to the "legislative" body that was present previously in England - Aristocrats who knew far better than the unwashed masses what was good for the unwashed masses.

Of course the founders also allowed many different tiers which we no longer support. I have no problem with the 17th

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

They absolutely ARE..
A true democracy is governed by 50% plus one. Also, it is absent of remedy for those in opposition.
California and New Jersey are about the closest resemblance to democracies.
California is a "Proposition" state. Where voters can through petitioning of the State legislature or by public petition place a question on a local or statewide ballot that would be binding.
New Jersey is a "binding referendum state"..The process is similar to California in one way. The state government or local government can place a question on a voting ballot.
The decision of the voters is final.

The outcome of Prop 8 says otherwise.

The outcome of prop8 says states cannot take away rights protected by the US Constitution.

In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall basically said laws singling out individuals who are gay form entering into a marriage contract before the state were against the state constitution. She wrote people could remedy that by amending the state constitution to deny gays this right. This was beautiful in that if it had happened a suit in federal court would have ensued: a state law denying gays the marriage contract right would violate the federal constitution.

True popular democracy is an evil

the Prop 8 SC case decided nothing of the sort, it just made some lame irrational decision on standing....a dangerously dumb decisioon at that.

True popular democracy is not evil....it would in most cases be an improvement on the corruption we have now.

See my pic-quotes in gallery for more on the subject, especially the one with Jefferson who says the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Schools have been teaching that we are a democratic republic for the last 50 yeas and that's wrong.

Pure poppycock and myth. Prove it!

I took an advanced history class at a local City College (matriculated so was with very bright freshmen) with a far left instructor. He had his bias and opinions but he did teach USA was a constitutional republic and a representative democracy.

His views on how to proceed forward seemed to slant towards convincing people that popular democracy was the natural evolution of things

so again, you appear to misread and misrepresent most everything

 

[bendog]

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

 

[nodoginnafight]

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

OK, I think you did a better job of explaining her position to me than she did. (Maybe that's my fault - I'm NOT pointing fingers)

But my issue is with the claim that a republic is not a democracy or that the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

I also believe that the U.S. has drifted. So I'm not gonna argue against that point.

 

[peach174]

The United States is not a Democracy. It is more of a Republic, with representatives for the people, such as Senators and Congressmen.
The reason that some Americans think that USA is a Democracy is because it holds some of the most important essences of the ideology: The Five Freedoms: Religious Liberty · Speech · Press · Assembly · Petition.
Just because it has those essences does not make us a Democracy.
You are seeing how we are a Republic right now, by how the Conservatives in the House is not letting full lefty ideology take over.
It happened under Wilson, F.D.R., Carter, Clinton and now Obama.

 

[bendog]

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

OK, I think you did a better job of explaining her position to me than she did. (Maybe that's my fault - I'm NOT pointing fingers)

But my issue is with the claim that a republic is not a democracy or that the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

I also believe that the U.S. has drifted. So I'm not gonna argue against that point.

I've had a hard time understanding Peach. Imo that's because she/he was using different definitions of republic and democracy than I was. I was thinking is a more general sense of political science or humanistic philosophy, in which they are roughly synonyms, but democracy being more inclusive of forms of govt than republic.

And not to diss Peach individually, but I have to say there's a veracity problem. After Reagan, the "conservatives" adopted "starve the beast." They realized medicare wasn't going anywhere in terms of repeal, so they adopted the strategy of "let's cut taxes till we can't afford it." People were happy with lower taxes, but they still wanted to keep medicare.

SO NOOOOOOW, the fiscal imbalance is the fault of those who want medicare. There's a reason Mitt lost to an elitist with 8% unemployment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

peach - I think the reason the vast majority of people in the United States believe we are a democracy is because we are.

I don't want to bicker, but I do want to disagree with your misunderstanding of the term democracy.

Democracy DOES NOT MEAN that every last decision is made by popular vote. (Maybe that is what a pure democracy would be if there ever had been one.)

Checks and balances does not rule out democracy. A Constitution that demands a super majority to abridge protected rights does not rule out democracy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

OK, I think you did a better job of explaining her position to me than she did. (Maybe that's my fault - I'm NOT pointing fingers)

But my issue is with the claim that a republic is not a democracy or that the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

I also believe that the U.S. has drifted. So I'm not gonna argue against that point.

I've had a hard time understanding Peach. Imo that's because she/he was using different definitions of republic and democracy than I was. I was thinking is a more general sense of political science or humanistic philosophy, in which they are roughly synonyms, but democracy being more inclusive of forms of govt than republic.

And not to diss Peach individually, but I have to say there's a veracity problem. After Reagan, the "conservatives" adopted "starve the beast." They realized medicare wasn't going anywhere in terms of repeal, so they adopted the strategy of "let's cut taxes till we can't afford it." People were happy with lower taxes, but they still wanted to keep medicare.

SO NOOOOOOW, the fiscal imbalance is the fault of those who want medicare. There's a reason Mitt lost to an elitist with 8% unemployment.

And that is why I'm such a stickler for using the right word and attaching the correct definition.

It seems to me that so many people are constantly trying to change the definition of terms in order to press their political agenda. (For a good example look at the "evolution" of the term assault rifle)

You can't just change a word's meaning - it makes communication damn near impossible and perhaps that contributes to the inability of so many who disagree politically to communicate effectively.

 

[peach174]

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

They absolutely ARE..
A true democracy is governed by 50% plus one. Also, it is absent of remedy for those in opposition.
California and New Jersey are about the closest resemblance to democracies.
California is a "Proposition" state. Where voters can through petitioning of the State legislature or by public petition place a question on a local or statewide ballot that would be binding.
New Jersey is a "binding referendum state"..The process is similar to California in one way. The state government or local government can place a question on a voting ballot.
The decision of the voters is final.

The outcome of Prop 8 says otherwise.

The outcome of prop8 says states cannot take away rights protected by the US Constitution.

In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall basically said laws singling out individuals who are gay form entering into a marriage contract before the state were against the state constitution. She wrote people could remedy that by amending the state constitution to deny gays this right. This was beautiful in that if it had happened a suit in federal court would have ensued: a state law denying gays the marriage contract right would violate the federal constitution.

True popular democracy is an evil

the Prop 8 SC case decided nothing of the sort, it just made some lame irrational decision on standing....a dangerously dumb decisioon at that.

True popular democracy is not evil....it would in most cases be an improvement on the corruption we have now.

See my pic-quotes in gallery for more on the subject, especially the one with Jefferson who says the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

I also do not like Jefferson, his believes were somewhat closer to some the elites that we have in both parties today, far from honorable or admirable.

 

[bendog]

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

OK, I think you did a better job of explaining her position to me than she did. (Maybe that's my fault - I'm NOT pointing fingers)

But my issue is with the claim that a republic is not a democracy or that the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

I also believe that the U.S. has drifted. So I'm not gonna argue against that point.

I've had a hard time understanding Peach. Imo that's because she/he was using different definitions of republic and democracy than I was. I was thinking is a more general sense of political science or humanistic philosophy, in which they are roughly synonyms, but democracy being more inclusive of forms of govt than republic.

And not to diss Peach individually, but I have to say there's a veracity problem. After Reagan, the "conservatives" adopted "starve the beast." They realized medicare wasn't going anywhere in terms of repeal, so they adopted the strategy of "let's cut taxes till we can't afford it." People were happy with lower taxes, but they still wanted to keep medicare.

SO NOOOOOOW, the fiscal imbalance is the fault of those who want medicare. There's a reason Mitt lost to an elitist with 8% unemployment.

And that is why I'm such a stickler for using the right word and attaching the correct definition.

It seems to me that so many people are constantly trying to change the definition of terms in order to press their political agenda. (For a good example look at the "evolution" of the term assault rifle)

You can't just change a word's meaning - it makes communication damn near impossible and perhaps that contributes to the inability of so many who disagree politically to communicate effectively.

2nd amendment and infringe. An 18th century definition was "frustrate" and "encroach" LOL