Cons say we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic

[whitehall]

"Democracy is a scam":left wing logic from losers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a republic not a democracy.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

When that is changed to "and to the democracy for which is stands" come back

And in our Republic the rule of law is paramount, not the will of the people.

When the people err and enact laws repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, those laws are invalidated by the courts – such as laws that violate a woman’s right to privacy, or the equal protection rights of gay Americans to marry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

Everyone study the above and see if you get the same laugh I did.

Which words are too big for you? Or are you just stoned out of your mind as usual?

You need to reorganize.

 

[kaz]

pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

What do you know, the representatives don't like Trump! Bwah ha ha! Yo Trump, it's been like this throughout U.S. history.

The representatives don't like Bernie either, that's why Shrillary has 500 unearned super delegates.

Are voters starting to figure out that both parties don't give a damn about what the voters want? Are the people in this country starting to understand that the government is made up of con artists with their hands in your pocket for over two hundred years?

Is the electoral college going to coronate Clinton because they don't like Trump? Maybe the SCOTUS will overturn the electoral college....again.

Democracy,,,,what a scam!

The parties suck, but I don't get how elections being democratic mean that the parties need to pick their candidates with straight popular vote. Especially with so many States allowing crossover votes, which has really helped Trump. Where did you get the idea that being Democratic meant that the parties internally have to operate that way?

And as for your false dichotomy, that I don't agree with your black and white choices, that isn't defending the current process. But you mixed questions combining democracy with agreement with the process when they are completely different questions

The argument against straight popular vote is that if the electoral college or other means of regional selection is discarded in favor of the popular vote, the candidates would simply devote all their advertising and efforts at the huge population centers as those would decide all national elections. The millions and millions of us out here in fly over country would be completely ignored and would have no voice or viable vote at all.

But neither does the present system give an advantage to those of us in flyover country. In the 2012 election, Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college. But Romney won many hundreds more counties over the country than Obama won.

However, when unelected party bosses pull strings to deny any candidate the nomination on the first ballot, and hand picks delegates who are instructed to vote for the candidate or candidates designated by the party bosses on subsequent ballots, that is not a democratic system.

Hi Fyrefox! It's been awhile, hope you're doing great!

On the two parts:

1) I know what you're saying on the electoral college. There is no perfect choice. Should every State have an equal say? Every county? Every citizen (popular vote)? No perfect solution. The electoral college tries to be a balance, small States have more say than their proportion so they aren't ignored. But really, should Nebraska = California? So larger States have more say, but not as much as their proportion. We can debate it all day and we'll never get to a perfect answer

2) On the Republican party, comparing a political party being a democracy to a general election is in my view a terrible analogy. The party is not a democracy, it's a collection of people in theory from some perspective or view. That a larger group could come take their party by out voting them isn't logical to me.

I'm not arguing parties should not have votes, just that as I said that somehow them not being fully democratic isn't taking anyone's say in the process away. Find a party that supports your views, or start your own. Or chose the lesser evil, which too many people do and is why we only have two parties who both suck

Since I don't have another party to go to that has any chance of winning a general election, and since I am so opposed to the statism supported almost 100% by the Democratic Party, I'm stuck with the Republicans. Of course the numbnuts have accused me of whining about the way things are going, but I am not complaining about the rules or whatever.

If I am complaining about anything--I prefer to think of it as acknowledging and commenting--it is that the respective parties seem to play us for total idiots to be cajoled and wooed into thinking we really have any say in the matter, when in effect, we really do not.

All I am saying is that if they want the people to decide, then let the people decide. And if they intend to put somebody of their choosing up as the nominee, then do that up front, honestly, and transparently. We could save so much time and money by just doing it instead of going through the motions of having a primary election. It would also spare us a lot of misunderstandings and wouldn't add a toxic element into the process that doesn't have to be there.

Well stated, as you always do

 

[kaz]

This is a republic not a democracy.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

When that is changed to "and to the democracy for which is stands" come back

And in our Republic the rule of law is paramount, not the will of the people.

When the people err and enact laws repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, those laws are invalidated by the courts – such as laws that violate a woman’s right to privacy, or the equal protection rights of gay Americans to marry.

No, the courts don't strike down unconstitutional laws. Obamacare, New London, the list goes on.

What they do is per your examples create laws. Like your examples. Privacy is supposed to be protected by the 10th, and that is far more powerful than the laws you made up. But you don't like the 10th, it's too powerful. And gays being left alone, again their legit protection, the 10th, is too powerful. So you made up the positive right to demand recognition and free shit from others.

You don't know the first thing about what the COTUS actually says. You just know how to spin it to be the opposite of what it says. You turn protections from government into powers of government and use it to justify tyranny of the majority in your endless quest for free shit

 

[AvgGuyIA]

pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

You missed "one Nation under God".

 

[pwjohn]

pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

You missed "one Nation under God".

Looks good to me. Just the way it is.

 

[Contumacious]

a majority vote made us a republic, understand?

I understand that is how they get there. But that has little to do with how they govern once there.

congress passes laws by majority vote, congressmen are elected by majority vote, amendments are passed by majority vote, local bond issues are passed by majority vote. The bill of rights was made part of the constitution by majority vote.

I was mostly responding to the clowns who say we don't live by majority rule. Because we do.

Technically you are correct...in any description of U.S. Government we are certainly majority ruled via proxy. That is what a republic is.
All I am saying that our republic has been hijacked by corruption via corporations and the major investor class/system. They are better represented than we are...for sure.

NO, that is NOT what a REPUBLIC as intended by our Founding Fathers, is.

In a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic rights are secured by the Constitution


In a CONSTITUTIONAL republic the government authority is SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED

In the US today our rights depend on political majorities and the federal government's power are completely and totally Unrestricted - they do whatever the want to do WITHOUT judicial review.


.

Bullshit. And upper case letters doesn't make it true. The constitution limits government by protecting our rights. If fed power was unrestricted we would need no constitution. Duh.

We are a representative democracy, a republic. Now if unaccountable delegates are free to choose candidates, the people are not being represented, those in power are. And it's gotten worse over time, now big government/big business is calling the shots and growing more powerful, at our expense.

Listen shit for brains

That is no longer the case

Effective in 1935 fegov powers are UNRESTRICTED
http://blog.independent.org/2008/10/17/nero-at-his-worst/
Nero at His Worst

When Justice McReynolds read the dissenting opinion in the Gold Clause Cases in the Supreme Court in 1935, he was almost beside himself with rage, departing from his written text to utter such ejaculations as “the Constitution is gone” and “this is Nero at his worst.” If only James Clark McReynolds were here today to witness the government’s bailout of the banks.

 

[Political Junky]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

What you are failing on is that the people elect their representatives and that is NOT what's happening with delegates, the people aren't picking their representatives in many cases. The establishments on both sides are selecting them to protect their own interests.

Are you voting for Trump, who constantly says the US is a Democracy?

 

[xband]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

What you are failing on is that the people elect their representatives and that is NOT what's happening with delegates, the people aren't picking their representatives in many cases. The establishments on both sides are selecting them to protect their own interests.

Are you voting for Trump, who constantly says the US is a Democracy?

I am going to vote for Trump. The US is currently in an escalating economic war and who better to lead our country than a super rich businessman? Trump has suffered his failures in the business world but yet survived unethical business practices.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

What you are failing on is that the people elect their representatives and that is NOT what's happening with delegates, the people aren't picking their representatives in many cases. The establishments on both sides are selecting them to protect their own interests.

Are you voting for Trump, who constantly says the US is a Democracy?

I am going to vote for Trump. The US is currently in an escalating economic war and who better to lead our country than a super rich businessman? Trump has suffered his failures in the business world but yet survived unethical business practices.

Who better than Trump? How about . . . someone who knows something about national and international economics, rather than someone who just knows how to throw out slogans to gin up crowds? Lots of people are rich; most of them don't know anything about economics outside their own narrow fields, and some of them don't know much more than how to market themselves and hire other people to manage the money. Would you vote for one of the Kardashians based on "But they're RICH!"?

 

[Foxfyre]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

What you are failing on is that the people elect their representatives and that is NOT what's happening with delegates, the people aren't picking their representatives in many cases. The establishments on both sides are selecting them to protect their own interests.

Are you voting for Trump, who constantly says the US is a Democracy?

I am going to vote for Trump. The US is currently in an escalating economic war and who better to lead our country than a super rich businessman? Trump has suffered his failures in the business world but yet survived unethical business practices.

Who better than Trump? How about . . . someone who knows something about national and international economics, rather than someone who just knows how to throw out slogans to gin up crowds? Lots of people are rich; most of them don't know anything about economics outside their own narrow fields, and some of them don't know much more than how to market themselves and hire other people to manage the money. Would you vote for one of the Kardashians based on "But they're RICH!"?

Well, Trump has a college degree in economics which probably qualifies him in the economics category more so than a law degree would. He also has extensive experience wheeling and dealing both domestically and internationally dealing with complex laws, codes, regulations, and taxes which also gives him a leg up on your average politician.

And I say that not as a Trump supporter because I really am not. But I would vote for Trump in a heart beat over Hillary or Bernie. I think he probably has the skill set to get things accomplished more so than Cruz, and he won't be bound to establishment rules as Kasich will likely be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

What you are failing on is that the people elect their representatives and that is NOT what's happening with delegates, the people aren't picking their representatives in many cases. The establishments on both sides are selecting them to protect their own interests.

Are you voting for Trump, who constantly says the US is a Democracy?

I am going to vote for Trump. The US is currently in an escalating economic war and who better to lead our country than a super rich businessman? Trump has suffered his failures in the business world but yet survived unethical business practices.

Who better than Trump? How about . . . someone who knows something about national and international economics, rather than someone who just knows how to throw out slogans to gin up crowds? Lots of people are rich; most of them don't know anything about economics outside their own narrow fields, and some of them don't know much more than how to market themselves and hire other people to manage the money. Would you vote for one of the Kardashians based on "But they're RICH!"?

Well, Trump has a college degree in economics which probably qualifies him in the economics category more so than a law degree would. He also has extensive experience wheeling and dealing both domestically and internationally dealing with complex laws, codes, regulations, and taxes which also gives him a leg up on your average politician.

And I say that not as a Trump supporter because I really am not. But I would vote for Trump in a heart beat over Hillary or Bernie. I think he probably has the skill set to get things accomplished more so than Cruz, and he won't be bound to establishment rules as Kasich will likely be.

Okay, first of all, he has a Bachelor's degree in real estate economics. Unless we're planning on renting out the country, that's not enormously helpful. Nor does it make him particularly knowledgeable about macroeconomics at all. Wharton also has a Bachelor's in Economics with a concentration on Health Information Management, for the record, and I don't think anyone is going to suggest that hospital administrators are JUST the ticket for saving the national economy.

Second, Ted Cruz has a lot more than "a law degree". He graduated cum laude from Princeton with his Bachelor's in public policy. While he was studying Constitutional law at Harvard, from which he graduated magna cum laude, he was executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and a John M. Olin Fellow of Law and Economics. It's not like he studied to be an ambulance chaser or write up wills.

By the way, just as a side note, Ted Cruz did not go to prestigious schools on the Daddy Scholarship plan like Trump; he got in completely on his own merit and hard work. Do you know how difficult that is at not one, but two Ivy League schools?

Third, a close examination of Trump's business history does not exactly fill one with overflowing confidence. The bulk of his wealth and income actually come from things that other people do for him, and always have. Forbes and other business magazines indicate that the majority of his wealth comes from collecting rent on NYC real estate, much if not most of which he simply inherited from his father. When he took control of the company and started branching out onto his own grandiose schemes, he started his string of four bankruptcies and multiple failures (virtually every business outside of real estate went defunct, in fact), culminating in him being ousted from control of his own company.

I think it's pretty clear that Ted Cruz prepared his whole life for public service, and prepared brilliantly for it, and Donald Trump did the bare minimum to prepare for inheriting a NY real estate company. I know which one I would feel safer having at the helm of the US.

Furthermore, in every instance Cruz's platform and policy proposals indicate a much deeper and more realistic understanding of the issues facing our nation and what it takes to solve them. As far as I can tell, Donald Trump thinks all the country needs is him being wonderful and trash-talking every country we deal with.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'd respond at length but I fractured my wrist and won't be typing very much for three weeks!

Dude...hope you heal fast.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Cons say we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic"

The problem is most conservatives are inconsistent with their perception of our Constitutional Republic.

When states enact measures conservatives approve of, such as denying women their right to privacy or gay Americans their right to access marriage laws, they’re all in favor of the ‘will of the people’ – the Constitution, its case law, and respect for the rule of law be damned.

When states enact measures conservatives disapprove of, however, such as banning semi-automatic rifles, it’s the will of the people be damned, and conservatives are filing suit in Federal court citing the Constitution and its case law, and demanding that the rule of law supersedes the ‘will of the people’ in our Constitutional Republic.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

If states cannot ban certain firearms where the ‘will of the people’ is discarded in favor of Constitutional case law and the rule of law, then so too the states cannot prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, where the ‘will of the people’ is no more valid than when they sought to ban a given class of firearms.

 

[Iceweasel]

Okay, first of all, he has a Bachelor's degree in real estate economics. Unless we're planning on renting out the country, that's not enormously helpful. Nor does it make him particularly knowledgeable about macroeconomics at all. Wharton also has a Bachelor's in Economics with a concentration on Health Information Management, for the record, and I don't think anyone is going to suggest that hospital administrators are JUST the ticket for saving the national economy.

Second, Ted Cruz has a lot more than "a law degree". He graduated cum laude from Princeton with his Bachelor's in public policy. While he was studying Constitutional law at Harvard, from which he graduated magna cum laude, he was executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and a John M. Olin Fellow of Law and Economics. It's not like he studied to be an ambulance chaser or write up wills.

By the way, just as a side note, Ted Cruz did not go to prestigious schools on the Daddy Scholarship plan like Trump; he got in completely on his own merit and hard work. Do you know how difficult that is at not one, but two Ivy League schools?

Third, a close examination of Trump's business history does not exactly fill one with overflowing confidence. The bulk of his wealth and income actually come from things that other people do for him, and always have. Forbes and other business magazines indicate that the majority of his wealth comes from collecting rent on NYC real estate, much if not most of which he simply inherited from his father. When he took control of the company and started branching out onto his own grandiose schemes, he started his string of four bankruptcies and multiple failures (virtually every business outside of real estate went defunct, in fact), culminating in him being ousted from control of his own company.

I think it's pretty clear that Ted Cruz prepared his whole life for public service, and prepared brilliantly for it, and Donald Trump did the bare minimum to prepare for inheriting a NY real estate company. I know which one I would feel safer having at the helm of the US.

Furthermore, in every instance Cruz's platform and policy proposals indicate a much deeper and more realistic understanding of the issues facing our nation and what it takes to solve them. As far as I can tell, Donald Trump thinks all the country needs is him being wonderful and trash-talking every country we deal with.

He did pretty good with his real estate degree. It wasn't exactly a home flipping career. To minimize it in favor of paper accolades is just political polemics on your part. Lawyers made good presidents? Where the evidence for that? They don't even make good people for the most part.

Trump did delve into a lot of ventures and in business there are going to be failures, nothing is 100%. That's why most people don't do it. It may not all have been good or pretty but what is?
Many Americans are sick of career politicians, I don't care how well groomed they are or how much the political party bosses love them. That's not a sales feature for me. Teddy comes across like a snake oil salesman and isn't doing that great polling nationally and the left hasn't even begun to start in on him while Trump has been hammered relentlessly.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Cons say we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic"

The problem is most conservatives are inconsistent with their perception of our Constitutional Republic.

When states enact measures conservatives approve of, such as denying women their right to privacy or gay Americans their right to access marriage laws, they’re all in favor of the ‘will of the people’ – the Constitution, its case law, and respect for the rule of law be damned.

When states enact measures conservatives disapprove of, however, such as banning semi-automatic rifles, it’s the will of the people be damned, and conservatives are filing suit in Federal court citing the Constitution and its case law, and demanding that the rule of law supersedes the ‘will of the people’ in our Constitutional Republic.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

If states cannot ban certain firearms where the ‘will of the people’ is discarded in favor of Constitutional case law and the rule of law, then so too the states cannot prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, where the ‘will of the people’ is no more valid than when they sought to ban a given class of firearms.

You're full of shit and repeating it doesn't turn it into something else. There's no right to marry whoever you want in the constitution. There's no right to killing a fetus/baby in the constitution. Those kinds of things were left up to the states and interpreted by activists on the bench.

It looks inconsistent to you because you are clueless and intolerant.

 

[Kondor3]

We are not a democracy in the strict literal sense of the word; we are, indeed, a representative republic.

Trouble is, we're not even that, nowadays; the charlatans ruling our country do not adequatenly represent best interests the Common Man.

That is why the Populist Movement has been doing so well this election cycle, on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

[Kondor3]

...The U.S. was a republic. Since the Progressive Era and the ratification of Amendment XVII and the implementation of ballot initiatives, referendum, voter recalls, and direct primaries, the voting franchise has become less of a privilege and more of a right.

And the democratization of our republic isn't over. It is not socialist enough. The United States was a republic. It is a democracy. It will be Venezuela.

True. But that has nothing to do with the nature of democracy; rather, it will be attributable to our own foolishness in letting The Left control things for too long.

Eventually, everything they touch turns to shit, and we will, indeed, be a third-world shit-hole within another century, largely thanks to them and their policies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A republic is what we are. Never was a democracy. A republic is a representative democracy.

Everyone study the above and see if you get the same laugh I did.

Which words are too big for you? Or are you just stoned out of your mind as usual?

You said we are not a democracy - we are a democracy.