Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, I'm over 55 Peach and with more degrees than I can use (LOL) and I don't recall anyone saying there's no distinction between direct democracy and democracy, or that democracy is necessarily distinct from republic in the larger sense.
You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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 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
Well, I'm over 55 Peach and with more degrees than I can use (LOL) and I don't recall anyone saying there's no distinction between direct democracy and democracy, or that democracy is necessarily distinct from republic in the larger sense.
But I certainly do agree that we've altered balances of power, and lost checks on the power of the federal level, both legislative and executive. I'm not sure that this was not inevitable in order for the nation to persevere through avoiding secession and confronting German nationalism and the communist "menace" of the 20th century.
You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
Mon Dieu! I fear my brain may not be sufficiently flexible to entertain concepts not previously encountered.Well, I'm over 55 Peach and with more degrees than I can use (LOL) and I don't recall anyone saying there's no distinction between direct democracy and democracy, or that democracy is necessarily distinct from republic in the larger sense.
But I certainly do agree that we've altered balances of power, and lost checks on the power of the federal level, both legislative and executive. I'm not sure that this was not inevitable in order for the nation to persevere through avoiding secession and confronting German nationalism and the communist "menace" of the 20th century.
Well, I'm over 55 and actually going for one more degree..
Must be a touch of insanity.
Your ringing is more of a sour bell.It always rings hollow to me, when the Court explains why it has the Constitutional power to strike down a law as unconstitutional. The Courts whole premise is based on a power never given to the Court by the Constitution. True, we have accepted the premise but it would have been so much better if the framers had put in one little blurb that the Court could point to as intent of the framers, the same intent, the Court seeks in today's rulings.
"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...
You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them. The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox
Would the Court accept the argument: "it was an accepted fact that many of the framers" wanted something therefore it was Constitutional?Your ringing is more of a sour bell.It always rings hollow to me, when the Court explains why it has the Constitutional power to strike down a law as unconstitutional. The Courts whole premise is based on a power never given to the Court by the Constitution. True, we have accepted the premise but it would have been so much better if the framers had put in one little blurb that the Court could point to as intent of the framers, the same intent, the Court seeks in today's rulings.
You might be confusing partisan, ideological arguments with facts? Marbury solidified an already accepted (by many of the framers and others, but not all) a precept whose effect: "Although the immediate effect of the decision was to deny power to the Court, its long-run effect has been to increase the Court’s power by establishing the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation." - Marbury v. Madison - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." - Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The framers were leery of democracy, fearing people could vote themselves all sorts of goodies. Yet the framers realized that we the people had to be involved in the new government to make it work. The American people no longer accepted monarchies and nobles in the new Age of Enlightenment and Declaration of Independence and wanted more equality and a better life.
What the framers could not see was, with the use of money, the elite could carry on a program to convince people that the goodies as found in the elite circles was not good for them or the nation.
Would the Court accept the argument: "it was an accepted fact that many of the framers" wanted something therefore it was Constitutional?Your ringing is more of a sour bell.It always rings hollow to me, when the Court explains why it has the Constitutional power to strike down a law as unconstitutional. The Courts whole premise is based on a power never given to the Court by the Constitution. True, we have accepted the premise but it would have been so much better if the framers had put in one little blurb that the Court could point to as intent of the framers, the same intent, the Court seeks in today's rulings.
You might be confusing partisan, ideological arguments with facts? Marbury solidified an already accepted (by many of the framers and others, but not all) a precept whose effect: "Although the immediate effect of the decision was to deny power to the Court, its long-run effect has been to increase the Court’s power by establishing the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation." - Marbury v. Madison - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." - Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...
You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats.
The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!
The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox
"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...
You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats.
The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!
The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox
"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...
You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats.
The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!
The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox
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
False, and laughably ignorant.
I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people."It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats.
The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!
The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats.
The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!
The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox
You must have missed the remarks I made about Jeb Bush and my past and present anti McCain remarks.
I also do not like Boehner or McConnell.
I never said that the main stream media did not criticize the Democrats.
no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.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
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.
"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
From YOUR OWN LINK:
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.
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.
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.
YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...
it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept
It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.
There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats.
The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!
The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.
McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:
"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.
"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox
I have no idea how Peach feels about McConnell, but I'm pretty sure he/she has no love for Republicans who, for example, voted to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. The dislike is more towards progressives.
I never really understood what stoked McConnell's distain of Obama. Obama carries a huge ego, but by all accounts he's not a bad guy one on one. But, imo, it really came down to the individual mandate and "ordering" all citizens purchase "at least this much" insurance. I don't see how any republican could have compromised to accept that, and without it Obama couldn't get universal coverage, and that's what he promised Ted to get his endorsement and Hillary under the bus.
Conversely, I think Obama and Boehner really did try to reach compromises during the first term, but in the end I think the White House was correct in concluded Boehner couldn't deliver a pizza let alone a vote on an overall spending bill that reduced the deficits with 75% spending cuts and 25% new revenues.
I have no idea how Peach feels about McConnell, but I'm pretty sure he/she has no love for Republicans who, for example, voted to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. The dislike is more towards progressives.
