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

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelinHitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

A plebiscite, not an election. The Nazi party won free elections.

Good gawd, what's with the false choices? The regime now is a direct result of the Arab Spring. People who fail to grasp the concepts without an experience of democracy and republicanism always cause great harm with good intentions.

Direct democracy and the concept that winner takes all, that 50 plus 1 means one gets to do what one wants without recognition that a huge minority needs to be brought in. Was Egypt was better off under Mubarak?

Morsi was terrible. He brought about the coup

I dont think morsi was given enough of a chance.......

dont understand you point about plebiscite and elections...Hitler never won, honestly, a 50% plus election.

what made the majority in america want the bill of rights?...the majority if honeslty asked is usually pretty fair....now religious conflict can be a problem as the English know also....but still ultimately the most pratical/fair way to iron things our is democracy

Split hairs all you want, but Hitler won within the system they had. End of story. Good people voted for his program.

Morsi was given more than a chance, but he was ill equipped and too inexperienced to govern adequately. He was in charge -- he gets the blame. Unless of course you feel sorry for our little brown cousins who need patronizing?


In the constitutional convention: The minority wanted the Bill of Rights. Look at the first constitution in Massachusetts and at Virginia's. Look at the progression of the arguments for and against an enumerated bill of rights. The majority if asked on any given day will lock up every Japanese American during war time hysteria or demand fairness for them when things calm down. Do not ever make the mistake of putting your life in the hands of the majority.

Me, I'd usually ask for a trial by Judge rather than by Jury depending on the reputation of the court and Judge.

your better off with the jury

Only if I'm guilty, I'm O.J. and the jury is black

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

I would like a Constitutional Convention, but I doubt we'd want the same things on the plate. To pass a Amendment that could pass would take an area of common concerns as they would be the only Amendments with a snow balls chance in hell of passing.

Name ten individuals you would have faith and trust in to represent you in a convention. Then try getting others to name ten. Almost impossible.

Difficult but not impossible............and states have to ratify and vote for the Amendments as a hole..........so if rats get into the convention..............they would have to get a massive vote to win the rats agenda.

All in all the Convention could be dangerous.

back to reason:

Yeah a convention could be dangerous, but I'd support one if I could name enough people I'd trust. We need one. We need leadership.

What we have is demagogues and ligtweight prima donnas

we don't need a convention we need the people to stop sending equal numbers of democrats and republicans to Congress and then rating them at 11% approval for doing exactly what they sent them there to do.

Do you understand?

 

[francoHFW]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

I would like a Constitutional Convention, but I doubt we'd want the same things on the plate. To pass a Amendment that could pass would take an area of common concerns as they would be the only Amendments with a snow balls chance in hell of passing.

Name ten individuals you would have faith and trust in to represent you in a convention. Then try getting others to name ten. Almost impossible.

Difficult but not impossible............and states have to ratify and vote for the Amendments as a hole..........so if rats get into the convention..............they would have to get a massive vote to win the rats agenda.

All in all the Convention could be dangerous.

back to reason:

Yeah a convention could be dangerous, but I'd support one if I could name enough people I'd trust. We need one. We need leadership.

What we have is demagogues and ligtweight prima donnas

we don't need a convention we need the people to stop sending equal numbers of democrats and republicans to Congress and then rating them at 11% approval for doing exactly what they sent them there to do.

Do you understand?

your simple mind is actually astounding.

try studying a little bit of human nature. I agree with your underlying premise -- the American voter is a stupid fuck

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

your simple mind is actually astounding.

try studying a little bit of human nature. I agree with your underlying premise -- the American voter is a stupid fuck

why be so afraid to tell us what we'd learn from studying
human nature.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

your simple mind is actually astounding.

try studying a little bit of human nature. I agree with your underlying premise -- the American voter is a stupid fuck

why be so afraid to tell us what we'd learn from studying
human nature.

jesus, you're dense

 

[francoHFW]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

Oh the irony! The irony.

 

[francoHFW]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

Oh the irony! The irony.

You dupes don't care whether you have facts, just stand by your stupid bs. It's called brainwashing.

 

[dcraelin]

they used it as sysnonymous with democracy

yes because ultimately they had to sell it to the people!! when it meant that the people were giving up much of their power if they supported it.

a contract signed under false pretenses is not legitimate

 

[peach174]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

Making any speech fairer means censorship against free speech.
Some of left are killing speech.
Political Correctness is killing free speech
Liberal Colleges will not allow Conservative speakers or pro life activists speak.
Go against a lib professor be afraid to get a low grade.
Just to mention a few.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

Making any speech fairer means censorship against free speech.
Some of left are killing speech.
Political Correctness is killing free speech
Liberal Colleges will not allow Conservative speakers or pro life activists speak.
Go against a lib professor be afraid to get a low grade.
Just to mention a few.

There is no constitutional free speech right to receive speaking invitations at colleges.

 

[NYcarbineer]

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

A plebiscite, not an election. The Nazi party won free elections.

Good gawd, what's with the false choices? The regime now is a direct result of the Arab Spring. People who fail to grasp the concepts without an experience of democracy and republicanism always cause great harm with good intentions.

Direct democracy and the concept that winner takes all, that 50 plus 1 means one gets to do what one wants without recognition that a huge minority needs to be brought in. Was Egypt was better off under Mubarak?

Morsi was terrible. He brought about the coup

I dont think morsi was given enough of a chance.......

dont understand you point about plebiscite and elections...Hitler never won, honestly, a 50% plus election.

what made the majority in america want the bill of rights?...the majority if honeslty asked is usually pretty fair....now religious conflict can be a problem as the English know also....but still ultimately the most pratical/fair way to iron things our is democracy

Split hairs all you want, but Hitler won within the system they had. End of story. Good people voted for his program.

Morsi was given more than a chance, but he was ill equipped and too inexperienced to govern adequately. He was in charge -- he gets the blame. Unless of course you feel sorry for our little brown cousins who need patronizing?


In the constitutional convention: The minority wanted the Bill of Rights. Look at the first constitution in Massachusetts and at Virginia's. Look at the progression of the arguments for and against an enumerated bill of rights. The majority if asked on any given day will lock up every Japanese American during war time hysteria or demand fairness for them when things calm down. Do not ever make the mistake of putting your life in the hands of the majority.

Me, I'd usually ask for a trial by Judge rather than by Jury depending on the reputation of the court and Judge.

your better off with the jury

Only if I'm guilty, I'm O.J. and the jury is black

Yep.

If you're innocent, ask for a judge; if you're guilty and trying to get off, take the jury.

 

[NYcarbineer]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

 

[peach174]

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

Sovereignty of the people is different than sovereignty of the states. States have a say. Elections are run by counties within each states. States send representatives to both houses of the Congress. House members are elected by districts drawn up by states and Senators are elected state wide.

The Federal Government is not a collection of state legislators, it is it's own entity. The US Constitution says so.

You appear confused on how things work. It's okay. You're probably from the South

I never said that the Federal Government is a collection of state legislators...........I said that under OUR REPUBLIC the Senate was THEIR VOICE................the HOUSE was created as the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

It's OWN ENTITY..................They are hired to do a dang job...............They are EMPLOYEES OF THE PEOPLE............and should be fired when they do a shitty job..............That's not an ENTITY on to itself............The District of Columbia is no mans land for a reason. It is occupied by a bunch of used car salesmen.

Distinction with a huge difference: Elected Representatives are not equivalent to Employees of yours or mine.

jesus christ, I forgot why I needed a break from usmb

Do we the people vote for our Representatives?
Then we the people have hired them.
Do we the people pay their salaries?
Yes we do
Do we the people vote them out?
Then we the people have fired them.
They are the employees of the people, because they work for us.
We hire them, we pay their salaries and we fire them.
Same as our Employees in our businesses.
Many in Congress have forgotten that and they work for what is best for the Government and their parties, not what is best for the country.

 

[peach174]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

That is exactly why some of the left want to get rid of the electoral college votes so that the popular votes win.
Doing this would turn us more into a pure democracy which is mob rule.
Never mind that at one time the far left was against it when they were in the minority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

That is exactly why some of the left want to get rid of the electoral college votes so that the popular votes win.
Doing this would turn us more into a pure democracy which is mob rule.
Never mind that at one time the far left was against it when they were in the minority.

The popular vote wins in 99.9% of the elections in this country.

The idea that anything other than the people's vote should win is purely undemocratic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

Sovereignty of the people is different than sovereignty of the states. States have a say. Elections are run by counties within each states. States send representatives to both houses of the Congress. House members are elected by districts drawn up by states and Senators are elected state wide.

The Federal Government is not a collection of state legislators, it is it's own entity. The US Constitution says so.

You appear confused on how things work. It's okay. You're probably from the South

I never said that the Federal Government is a collection of state legislators...........I said that under OUR REPUBLIC the Senate was THEIR VOICE................the HOUSE was created as the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

It's OWN ENTITY..................They are hired to do a dang job...............They are EMPLOYEES OF THE PEOPLE............and should be fired when they do a shitty job..............That's not an ENTITY on to itself............The District of Columbia is no mans land for a reason. It is occupied by a bunch of used car salesmen.

Distinction with a huge difference: Elected Representatives are not equivalent to Employees of yours or mine.

jesus christ, I forgot why I needed a break from usmb

Do we the people vote for our Representatives?
Then we the people have hired them.
Do we the people pay their salaries?
Yes we do
Do we the people vote them out?
Then we the people have fired them.
They are the employees of the people, because they work for us.
We hire them, we pay their salaries and we fire them.
Same as our Employees in our businesses.
Many in Congress have forgotten that and they work for what is best for the Government and their parties, not what is best for the country.

Our representatives are elected by the Mob, and work for the Mob.

 

[peach174]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

That is exactly why some of the left want to get rid of the electoral college votes so that the popular votes win.
Doing this would turn us more into a pure democracy which is mob rule.
Never mind that at one time the far left was against it when they were in the minority.

The popular vote wins in 99.9% of the elections in this country.

The idea that anything other than the people's vote should win is purely undemocratic.

Which is why we are a Republic.
Why are you so against the minorities voices?
That is undemocratic, exclusion of the minorities.