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

[eagle1462010]

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

Long ago in this very thread a poster stated that Jefferson wanted only a House of Reps.........or somewhat like that...............so it has been brought up before on this very thread...........I'm not going back to look for it right now as it doesn't matter.

I use STOP and you use PREVENT..............you have gotta be a freaking lawyer..............

 

[eagle1462010]

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

but please don't state it's the will of everyone.

stop taking my words out of context. Standard liberal tactic.

50 plus one isn't the will of all the people or do I need to write it in crayon for you..............

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

Long ago in this very thread a poster stated that Jefferson wanted only a House of Reps.........or somewhat like that...............so it has been brought up before on this very thread...........I'm not going back to look for it right now as it doesn't matter.

I use STOP and you use PREVENT..............you have gotta be a freaking lawyer..............

Jefferson had lots of nutty ideas his friends framing the Constitution ignored. Thank god Jefferson was NOT a framer.

In the way the sentence played out. If you had said wanted to stop a tyranny from developing....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

but please don't state it's the will of everyone.

stop taking my words out of context. Standard liberal tactic.

50 plus one isn't the will of all the people or do I need to write it in crayon for you..............

again, wtf are you talking about with 'will of everyone'?

 

[eagle1462010]

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

Long ago in this very thread a poster stated that Jefferson wanted only a House of Reps.........or somewhat like that...............so it has been brought up before on this very thread...........I'm not going back to look for it right now as it doesn't matter.

I use STOP and you use PREVENT..............you have gotta be a freaking lawyer..............

Jefferson had lots of nutty ideas his friends framing the Constitution ignored. Thank god Jefferson was NOT a framer.

In the way the sentence played out. If you had said wanted to stop a tyranny from developing....

Give me a grammar ticket and move on............Is that the site of your talking points and why you take statements out of context................

It's a tactic of a lame assed liberal usually.

 

[eagle1462010]

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

but please don't state it's the will of everyone.

stop taking my words out of context. Standard liberal tactic.

50 plus one isn't the will of all the people or do I need to write it in crayon for you..............

again, wtf are you talking about with 'will of everyone'?

and again..........reread what I stated..............I stated that 50 plus 1 doesn't REPRESENT THE OPINION OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 50.1% versus 49.999%..............The 49.9999999999999999999% may not agree.

Do you understand the point now or will you continue to troll it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

but please don't state it's the will of everyone.

stop taking my words out of context. Standard liberal tactic.

50 plus one isn't the will of all the people or do I need to write it in crayon for you..............

again, wtf are you talking about with 'will of everyone'?

and again..........reread what I stated..............I stated that 50 plus 1 doesn't REPRESENT THE OPINION OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 50.1% versus 49.999%..............The 49.9999999999999999999% may not agree.

Do you understand the point now or will you continue to troll it.

again, who says anything is supposed to represent the opinion of all the people?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

Long ago in this very thread a poster stated that Jefferson wanted only a House of Reps.........or somewhat like that...............so it has been brought up before on this very thread...........I'm not going back to look for it right now as it doesn't matter.

I use STOP and you use PREVENT..............you have gotta be a freaking lawyer..............

Jefferson had lots of nutty ideas his friends framing the Constitution ignored. Thank god Jefferson was NOT a framer.

In the way the sentence played out. If you had said wanted to stop a tyranny from developing....

Give me a grammar ticket and move on............Is that the site of your talking points and why you take statements out of context................

It's a tactic of a lame assed liberal usually.

putting a key word before a phrase or after the exact same phrase can change the entire meaning of said phrase.

Is English your second language (seriously, no insult intended)?

 

[eagle1462010]

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

but please don't state it's the will of everyone.

stop taking my words out of context. Standard liberal tactic.

50 plus one isn't the will of all the people or do I need to write it in crayon for you..............

again, wtf are you talking about with 'will of everyone'?

and again..........reread what I stated..............I stated that 50 plus 1 doesn't REPRESENT THE OPINION OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 50.1% versus 49.999%..............The 49.9999999999999999999% may not agree.

Do you understand the point now or will you continue to troll it.

again, who says anything is supposed to represent the opinion of all the people?

No Gov't always represents the will of 100% of the people. And I've never stated that.

I've stated the warning of a TEMPORARY MAJORITY and stated that it was referred to as the TYRANNY of the Majority under the Federalist papers.

 

[eagle1462010]

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.

Long ago in this very thread a poster stated that Jefferson wanted only a House of Reps.........or somewhat like that...............so it has been brought up before on this very thread...........I'm not going back to look for it right now as it doesn't matter.

I use STOP and you use PREVENT..............you have gotta be a freaking lawyer..............

Jefferson had lots of nutty ideas his friends framing the Constitution ignored. Thank god Jefferson was NOT a framer.

In the way the sentence played out. If you had said wanted to stop a tyranny from developing....

Give me a grammar ticket and move on............Is that the site of your talking points and why you take statements out of context................

It's a tactic of a lame assed liberal usually.

putting a key word before a phrase or after the exact same phrase can change the entire meaning of said phrase.

Is English your second language (seriously, no insult intended)?

Again, If you want an ENGLASH CLASH START THE THREAD to someone who cares or get back on topic.

 

[eagle1462010]

Back to the OP.

Obamacare is a prime example of Democracy without the protections of a Republic.

If we only had a House of Reps, this is how or nation would create laws from now on. The Senate and Presidency puts in the checks to make sure minority views and States have a say in creating laws.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to prevent.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and the founders wanted to stop the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and the founders wanted to prevent the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No Gov't always represents the will of 100% of the people. And I've never stated that.

I've stated the warning of a TEMPORARY MAJORITY and stated that it was referred to as the TYRANNY of the Majority under the Federalist papers.

Then why are you using an argument against something that doesn't represent the opinion of 100% of the people? What are you arguing against? Who said what had to represent the opinion of 100% of the people?

enough with your pocket edition rantings on the Federalist -- please!

 

[eagle1462010]

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to prevent.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and the founders wanted to stop the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and the founders wanted to prevent the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

prevent versus stop.............that's your whole dang argument

LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

No Gov't always represents the will of 100% of the people. And I've never stated that.

I've stated the warning of a TEMPORARY MAJORITY and stated that it was referred to as the TYRANNY of the Majority under the Federalist papers.

Then why are you using an argument against something that doesn't represent the opinion of 100% of the people? What are you arguing against? Who said what had to represent the opinion of 100% of the people?

enough with your pocket edition rantings on the Federalist -- please!

enough of your holier than thou rantings on the dictionary.

You started the argument by misquoting my sentence............I have already rephrased the dang NOT STATEMENT................

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back to the OP.

Obamacare is a prime example of Democracy without the protections of a Republic.

If we only had a House of Reps, this is how or nation would create laws from now on. The Senate and Presidency puts in the checks to make sure minority views and States have a say in creating laws.

Good gawd man! Protections of a republic? You can have republics outside of a democratic system: Constitutional Monarchy ring a bell?

Minority views do not have to be considered when enacting legislation. States do not have a say in enacting federal laws. You appear as confused as ever

Obamacare was passed by the Legislative branch -- two chambers of a duly enacted Congress, and signed by a duly elected Executive, and ruled Constitutional by our Supreme Court.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist 62

HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate. The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to prevent.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and the founders wanted to stop the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and the founders wanted to prevent the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

prevent versus stop.............that's your whole dang argument

LOL

nope. the position of the word as well as the word. I gave you an example of how placing and the term used changes the meaning.

English is your second language? One use implies something that is active needs stopping. Another usage implies wanting to keep something from happening that hasn't happened yet

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No Gov't always represents the will of 100% of the people. And I've never stated that.

I've stated the warning of a TEMPORARY MAJORITY and stated that it was referred to as the TYRANNY of the Majority under the Federalist papers.

Then why are you using an argument against something that doesn't represent the opinion of 100% of the people? What are you arguing against? Who said what had to represent the opinion of 100% of the people?

enough with your pocket edition rantings on the Federalist -- please!

enough of your holier than thou rantings on the dictionary.

You started the argument by misquoting my sentence............I have already rephrased the dang NOT STATEMENT................

Jesus, you are still stuck on stupid? So again, is English your second language? It is an honest question

 

[eagle1462010]

Back to the OP.

Obamacare is a prime example of Democracy without the protections of a Republic.

If we only had a House of Reps, this is how or nation would create laws from now on. The Senate and Presidency puts in the checks to make sure minority views and States have a say in creating laws.

Good gawd man! Protections of a republic? You can have republics outside of a democratic system: Constitutional Monarchy ring a bell?

Minority views do not have to be considered when enacting legislation. States do not have a say in enacting federal laws. You appear as confused as ever

Obamacare was passed by the Legislative branch -- two chambers of a duly enacted Congress, and signed by a duly elected Executive, and ruled Constitutional by our Supreme Court.

Good gawd man.................I explained our system of Gov't...........NOT ATHENS..........

Good Gawd man............There are many types of Democratic Gov'ts...........but I wasn't talking about Sweden........

Good Gawd man...........I referenced Obamacare because it serves as an example if we didn't have the checks and balances of OUR REPUBLIC MAN...................

Good Gawd man you are still splitting freaking hairs over the intent of the posts.

Do you like our form of Gov't? Yes or No.

Or would you rather not have a Senate at all............that's a simple question.

Or would you rather have the system of Sweden...............

Or would you rather have a house of Lords...............

Do you agree with us being a Republic or do you want another form of Gov't..............

If so, please state what that would be.