Democracy: Yes or No

[jc456]

Democracy: Yes or No?


No

Anarchist/Stateless state

Q. Where might that be?

A. If Trump is allowed to be above the law, and it seems McConnell and Barr are so intended to allow that, then it seems it can happen here.

how is he above the law? cause someone on CNN told you that?

Are you awake, or are you an example of what Plato meant in the analogy of the cave, to wit:

"Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows."
Allegory of the Cave

That said, what would happen to you if you were served with a subpoena and told the authority to pound sand?

well first, the subpoena has to be valid and about something. The congress already has what they subpoena'd, so I'm unaware on what grounds their position actually is since they have that with which they asked for already? And BTW, executive privilege has been invoked!!!

 

[Anathema]

As an Ultra-Conservative Authoritarian, I am definitely a “NO” vote when it comes to Democracy or any sort of Republican system of Government.

The masses have proven ourselves too stupid and immoral to live proper when given the option not to - so we need to have those options removed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Democracy: Yes or No?


No

Anarchist/Stateless state

Q. Where might that be?

A. If Trump is allowed to be above the law, and it seems McConnell and Barr are so intended to allow that, then it seems it can happen here.

how is he above the law? cause someone on CNN told you that?

Are you awake, or are you an example of what Plato meant in the analogy of the cave, to wit:

"Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows."
Allegory of the Cave

That said, what would happen to you if you were served with a subpoena and told the authority to pound sand?

well first, the subpoena has to be valid and about something. The congress already has what they subpoena'd, so I'm unaware on what grounds their position actually is since they have that with which they asked for already? And BTW, executive privilege has been invoked!!!

If you are served with a subpoena, and tell the authority to Pound Sand, a warrant of arrest will be issued, and very soon you would find yourself in jail.

 

[Anathema]

If you are served with a subpoena, and tell the authority to Pound Sand, a warrant of arrest will be issued, and very soon you would find yourself in jail.

That’s fine. No stay in jail would loosen my tongue or make me comply with anything. I have ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT for the entire Congress. Both Houses. Both Partues.

 

[dblack]

More food for thought:

Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

For those, many who post on this message board, it seems they oppose universal suffrage and would prefer that only an elite should be eligible to vote.

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

Even the Supreme Court has watered down democracy in the two Citizen's United decisions and overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination in voting.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Pogo

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

I have no interest in limiting who can vote. But I have a strong interest in limited what kinds of things are subject to a vote in the first place. Most of the problems we face can be dealt with without resorting to democracy - without taking a vote and forcing everyone to fall in line.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you are served with a subpoena, and tell the authority to Pound Sand, a warrant of arrest will be issued, and very soon you would find yourself in jail.

That’s fine. No stay in jail would loosen my tongue or make me comply with anything. I have ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT for the entire Congress. Both Houses. Both Partues.

With your attitude I wouldn't expect the general population would greet you with open arms.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment

Yes, it should be overturned, but it won't, so it's a moot point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

no there isn't. just plain wrong. there is no right. there is a mandate to show who you are if you show up with a ticket, that's it. You have an obligation to obey the rules of the FAA or get tossed into jail. That is a choice! but there is absolutely no right to fly. If there was, it would be free.

Then you are a meat puppet owned by The State.

Comply or suffer the ire of your betters!

Poor, poor slave.

naw, now you're just acting out cause you can't get your way over what I posted. facts are just facts. every citizen has a right to have a gun, you don't have to buy one to use it. nor does one need to show IDs to use one. rights are given. Opportunities provided based on technology don't imply rights. everyone can ride a train, it's your right to ride one or not, just like a plane. do you have to show ID's to get on? nope. one can ride a metra into town everyday of your life and not need to show an ID. so? your point is irrelevant.

No, you're deliberately mischaracterizing what I said to rationalize your being a good little automaton of The State.

The airline did not make the law that I needed to show a State approved ID as a condition of consummating our contractual agreement...The State did that....They have forcefully interposed their rules and bureaucrats between me and the vendor.

The bit about riding mass transit is a deflection and an irrelevant red herring.

I never said the airlines did anything I said FAA.

Dude you should take a chill pill for sure.

The FAA is The State....They take their orders from the ruling class.

You're talking like a liberoidal with a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.

Lieability?

 

[Anathema]

With your attitude I wouldn't expect the general population would greet you with open arms.

Given my previous comments, do you really think I give the most minimal fuck about what the general population thinks about me, or anything else?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

 

[Wry Catcher]

With your attitude I wouldn't expect the general population would greet you with open arms.

Given my previous comments, do you really think I give the most minimal fuck about what the general population thinks about me, or anything else?

It's not what the general population thinks that would be your problem, it's what they will/can do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

 

[emilynghiem]

More food for thought:

Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

For those, many who post on this message board, it seems they oppose universal suffrage and would prefer that only an elite should be eligible to vote.

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

Even the Supreme Court has watered down democracy in the two Citizen's United decisions and overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination in voting.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Pogo

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

Simple Wry Catcher don't panic
What this means is when you are voting on people's money, the people who put that money in have a say in where it goes.

It's not about excluding people but excluding people from dictating to others where THEIR money goes.

That's what they are essentially arguing for.

We just need to organize better where we truly protect people from the
dictatorship and whims of others who don't share the same beliefs.

Wry Catcher we do this all the time.
Do non-Catholics interfere and intervene on what the Catholic church votes on for its own members to pay for?
Do we dictate what Catholic or other church institutions do with their property or programs?
No, only the BOARDS of organizations and their members vote on their agenda and
budgets based on BY LAWS they AGREED to follow.

That's what we are supposed to be doing with the Constitution
and having set rules, limits and process for managing federal budget and programs.

However, this got off track, when social programs got added that
required funding from people who didn't agree to the terms of the social programs.

We need to reorganize so people can fund and follow the programs and beliefs
they want supported without conflict, obstruction or interference from people
who want to fund a different solution to those same problems.

Just like the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Catholics and Muslims pay for their
own programs and decide for their own members;
and the States have their own sovereign systems for their citizens who AGREE to be under
the same rules and pay into under agreed process and terms of services;
we also need such a system for PARTIES so members can access
their own programs without fear of anyone dictating or blocking them from doing so!

That's all.

Just reorganizing similar to States in a Union:
where we AGREE on federal laws, sure we all AGREE to fund that budget.

But where we DISAGREE we need to quit trying to vote in or out
terms that another group is willing to fund with their own taxes.

Similar to churches, but treating political parties and organizations
like any other Nonprofit or Religious organization, since parties all
espouse their own political beliefs or religions. Let each have their own.

Then it becomes MORE CLEAR where we ALL AGREE TO FUND PUBLIC POLICY.

Just quit mixing in the relative beliefs and disagreement in with public policy
and we will quit having these conflicts, and just fund our different approaches
separately like all the other Churches do and States do that have their own
laws and taxes/budgets voted on by their own members under their rules they agree to

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

You can interpret it anyway you want but in the end we are a Federal Republic and never been a Democracy...

 

[Oddball]

Simple Wry Catcher don't panic
What this means is when you are voting on people's money, the people who put that money in have a say in where it goes.

It's not about excluding people but excluding people from dictating to others where THEIR money goes.

That's what they are essentially arguing for.

We just need to organize better where we truly protect people from the
dictatorship and whims of others who don't share the same beliefs.

Wry Catcher we do this all the time.
Do non-Catholics interfere and intervene on what the Catholic church votes on for its own members to pay for?
Do we dictate what Catholic or other church institutions do with their property or programs?
No, only the BOARDS of organizations and their members vote on their agenda and
budgets based on BY LAWS they AGREED to follow.

That's what we are supposed to be doing with the Constitution
and having set rules, limits and process for managing federal budget and programs.

However, this got off track, when social programs got added that
required funding from people who didn't agree to the terms of the social programs.

We need to reorganize so people can fund and follow the programs and beliefs
they want supported without conflict, obstruction or interference from people
who want to fund a different solution to those same problems.

Just like the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Catholics and Muslims pay for their
own programs and decide for their own members;
and the States have their own sovereign systems for their citizens who AGREE to be under
the same rules and pay into under agreed process and terms of services;
we also need such a system for PARTIES so members can access
their own programs without fear of anyone dictating or blocking them from doing so!

That's all.

Just reorganizing similar to States in a Union:
where we AGREE on federal laws, sure we all AGREE to fund that budget.

But where we DISAGREE we need to quit trying to vote in or out
terms that another group is willing to fund with their own taxes.

Similar to churches, but treating political parties and organizations
like any other Nonprofit or Religious organization, since parties all
espouse their own political beliefs or religions. Let each have their own.

Then it becomes MORE CLEAR where we ALL AGREE TO FUND PUBLIC POLICY.

Just quit mixing in the relative beliefs and disagreement in with public policy
and we will quit having these conflicts, and just fund our different approaches
separately like all the other Churches do and States do that have their own
laws and taxes/budgets voted on by their own members under their rules they agree to

But....but....but.....MUH FEELZ!

 

[emilynghiem]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

You can interpret it anyway you want but in the end we are a Federal Republic and never been a Democracy...

Dear Bruce_T_Laney
But we have a Democratic process, where all persons have equal right
to freedom of speech, of the press, right to assemble and to petition to redress grievances,
equal protections of the law etc.

So by equal protections of the law, people who believe in practicing more DIRECT democracy
as their belief have the right to exercise this without obstruction by govt.

What we could use is help to set up Representation by Party,
so people who WANT govt process or programs to manage things centrally
can have that for THEIR party, but not impose on other parties that want something else.

We have representation by States that are sovereign and have their own legislatures
and budgets and policies for their citizens.

Why not with Parties?

 

[progressive hunter]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

where in the constitution do you see that???

 

[Oddball]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

where in the constitution do you see that???

It's in between the intra-state commerce and the good-and-plenty clauses.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

More food for thought:

Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

For those, many who post on this message board, it seems they oppose universal suffrage and would prefer that only an elite should be eligible to vote.

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

Even the Supreme Court has watered down democracy in the two Citizen's United decisions and overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination in voting.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Pogo

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

Trump has won the democracy of men

What does that mean

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

You can interpret it anyway you want but in the end we are a Federal Republic and never been a Democracy...

We are a type of democracy

Our type is a constitutional republic type democracy

Like a ford car

There goes a ford but still it's a car