PDA

View Full Version : Elections Ron Paul may have the most delegates to date


Taco John
02-10-2012, 10:35 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9x28_I9oIVg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Taco John
02-10-2012, 10:44 PM
The Paul campaign is giving the United States a lesson in our Republican government. It's not about "majorities." It's about being committed.

When people say we live in a democracy, this is why they are wrong. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where a tireless minority has a shot against a placated majority.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2012, 11:24 PM
She's a jerk. The caucus is just a straw poll. How often have we heard straw polls don't matter?

alnorth
02-10-2012, 11:26 PM
This could be true as of right now.

After super tuesday, it wont be, even under the most optimistic of Ron Paul caucus-winning scenarios.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2012, 11:32 PM
If they changed the rules to make Mitt Romney the nominee, which I am sure is true, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP Establishment finds a way to strip Paul's delegates. Let's see how this plays out.

I still think there's been some other shenanigans than what he's stated....if only to shave off numbers in the straw poll votes to prevent any possible momentum with the general public, if they saw more voting for him.

CUCUMBER
02-10-2012, 11:35 PM
fear begins to resonate amongst the chiefsplanet troglodytes.....

BucEyedPea
02-10-2012, 11:36 PM
LOL!

Pawnmower
02-10-2012, 11:58 PM
lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll\\\\

Taco John
02-11-2012, 01:22 AM
If they changed the rules to make Mitt Romney the nominee, which I am sure is true, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP Establishment finds a way to strip Paul's delegates. Let's see how this plays out.


As far as I'm concerned, this is the best scenario. If the GOP moves to strip Paul of his delegates, he'll have the political justification to pursue the Americans Elect nomination while giving Rand a fair amount of political cover. He'd have the organization to pull it off and a favorable media line due to being shunned by the GOP.

How things play out from there - I think you'd see the Republican party continue to be at civil war with itself and march on towards a brokered convention. It would be a pretty huge mess really because Romney would probably win the nomination (Newt and Santorum don't have the organizations to go all the way), and the base would be torn between Romney and Paul. Romney would be dead in the water. The question would be whether or not Paul would be able to pull enough civil liberty liberals from Obama to edge him out.

Donger
02-11-2012, 11:08 AM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4eImfnC8scOH6sN5LXT0bFjvze53Bx-eg_-WsOqIK9Yh_5mV42UfCiTxC6w

chiefforlife
02-11-2012, 11:58 AM
Amazing, I went to my Caucus, Santorum clearly won. I was one of two who voted for Mr. Paul and yet I was elected a delegate. I was very clear that I would be voting for Mr. Paul at the next level.
Our table had 24 people, Santorum 9, Romney 8, Gingrich 5 and Paul 2.
The other Paul person was also elected. I would say this strategy is working.

FD
02-11-2012, 12:00 PM
The Paul campaign is giving the United States a lesson in our Republican government. It's not about "majorities." It's about being committed.

When people say we live in a democracy, this is why they are wrong. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where a tireless minority has a shot against a placated majority.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about your candidate undermining democracy.

Pioli Zombie
02-11-2012, 12:57 PM
Ron Paul has as much chance of getting the nomination as a little kid has of getting out of Sanduskys basement

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2012, 01:03 PM
And monkeys might fly out of your ass too. Actually, that's more likely.

Taco John
02-11-2012, 02:22 PM
Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about your candidate undermining democracy.

Democracy? LOL!

I'm a REPUBLICan not a Democracy-rat.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 02:42 PM
Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about your candidate undermining democracy.

Since we're not a democracy, it's not being undermined. These are straw polls aka beauty contests. How many times have we been told straw polls don't matter? Even by the media? Why the sudden concern? We also have an Electoral College too. They don't have to vote for who they're pledged for either.

Donger
02-11-2012, 03:30 PM
Since we're not a democracy.

Yes, we are. A representative democracy.

I hate to ask why you think we aren't, but... why?

dmahurin
02-11-2012, 05:04 PM
Yes, we are. A representative democracy.

I hate to ask why you think we aren't, but... why?

We are a constitutional republic. Just a slight difference.

Taco John
02-11-2012, 05:08 PM
We are a constitutional republic. Just a slight difference.

No, he's right. In a constitutional republic, you have to actually follow the constitution. In a representative democracy, you can do whatever you want so long as you can get the polls behind it.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 05:08 PM
Yes, we are. A representative democracy.

I hate to ask why you think we aren't, but... why?

No we're not a Constitutional Democracy. FWIW, Churchill was not one of our Founders. They got it right and he got it wrong.
You are not in Britain anymore.

A democracy is where the people make the laws. The people do not make the laws here either through reps or directly.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 05:13 PM
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 05:16 PM
de•moc•ra•cy
n. pl. de•moc•ra•cies

1: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives 2: A political or social unit that has such a government 3: The common people, considered as the primary source of political power 4: Majority rule 5: The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

~ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 05:18 PM
When the original Constitutional Convention ended, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence.
Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:56 PM
A democracy is where the people make the laws. The people do not make the laws here either through reps or directly.

Oh, I simply must ask: who makes the laws in the USA?

banyon
02-12-2012, 10:27 AM
Yeah, Donger, don't bother.

As usual there is some deviant definition of democracy that they have concocted in the lewrockwell/mises/paulworld that they are going to require you to adopt so that their little catchphrase "we don't live in a democracy" works for them. They don't understand how we have shared features of both systems in place. Hell, look at BEP's post no. 22 as a perfect example. She has to take the fifth of five definitions and completely ignore the other four to get to where she wants to go. The blinders must be fully opaque at all times.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 02:28 PM
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Directly from Article 4 the Constitution.

banyon
02-12-2012, 02:44 PM
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Directly from Article 4 the Constitution.

Are you responding to me?

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 02:51 PM
Are you responding to me?

No, it was a generic reply to the thread. I agree that our government is a hybrid of a Republic and a Democracy. I would say heavy on the Republic.

banyon
02-12-2012, 02:55 PM
No, it was a generic reply to the thread. I agree that our government is a hybrid of a Republic and a Democracy. I would say heavy on the Republic.

Ok.

It's all there in Federalist No. 10 for people who actually know the difference.

A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference, between a Democracy and a Republic, are, first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest: Secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

I mean, the Soviet Union and Communist China are "republics" using Madison's definition, and they certainly weren't any great shakes. What they lacked was the element of democracy.

Basically, BEP and Taco are using the term "Democracy" as if the only variety of it is a pure Greek-styled version, what Madison calls "pure democracy". The term has of course evolved over the years and once again they are insisting on the antiquated version of the term. Even by De Tocqueville's time the term "democratic republic" was well understood. Hell, that's even how Jefferson and Madison described themselves. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch17.htm

Donger
02-12-2012, 03:54 PM
Yeah, Donger, don't bother.

As usual there is some deviant definition of democracy that they have concocted in the lewrockwell/mises/paulworld that they are going to require you to adopt so that their little catchphrase "we don't live in a democracy" works for them. They don't understand how we have shared features of both systems in place. Hell, look at BEP's post no. 22 as a perfect example. She has to take the fifth of five definitions and completely ignore the other four to get to where she wants to go. The blinders must be fully opaque at all times.

Well, unless "democracy" in her mind can only be defined a pure, direct democracy, she's wrong.

The_Doctor10
02-12-2012, 08:23 PM
Democracy? LOL!

I'm a REPUBLICan not a Democracy-rat.

You're talking about them like there's some sort of difference. Or like you'd notice a difference if your guy was in office.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 09:42 PM
You're talking about them like there's some sort of difference. Or like you'd notice a difference if your guy was in office.

There IS a difference—to the educated anyway.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 09:57 PM
Well, unless "democracy" in her mind can only be defined a pure, direct democracy, she's wrong.

No I'm not wrong. You're wrong. In fact, I've done some study of how it was once defined even by our own military. It changed over time due to the Progressive movement wanting to use the term instead so they could change America to Amerika. Academia and major media keep pushing it.

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” ~ Karl Marx

Does our govt have some democratic features? Yes but that doesn't make it a democracy. It also has some very undemocratic features. We got a radically new and different govt when it was formed. It had some features of different systems for a unique kind of republic— one that no one ever had before.

Democracy happens more at the local level or smaller locales with more direct citizen involvement. Since our central govt diffuses power downward in most areas this is allowed. Also, markets tend to more democracy. (I can feel banyon shuddering in horror, here!) The ancient Greeks would laugh at what we call a democracy today. They essentially had no policy to follow, which is what you're more likely to get in a democracy.

However, our national govt just is NOT a democracy. It just isn't.

Here's how our military once defined democracy. Frankly I think it's one of the best definitions and shows what was thought of democracy at one time in this country until the people were dumbed-down:

Democracy, n.:
• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
direct expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. [ I can feel the shuddering of the Progressives here as well!]
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].

Training Manual No. 2000-25 that was published by the then War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/U..S..Army.Training.Manual.No..2000-25.Quote.7CCA

Ayup! That's what we're disintegrating into today as that all sounds like what's going on as we post. Looks like you bought the lie Donger. I am not surprised at banyon, but I am surprised at you being a Republican and all....even one that is supposed to be a conservative. But now that I know you're really a Tory NeoCon ( British NeoCon) I guess I should have seen it coming. ROFL

Donger
02-13-2012, 06:44 AM
No I'm not wrong. You're wrong. In fact, I've done some study of how it was once defined even by our own military. It changed over time due to the Progressive movement wanting to use the term instead so they could change America to Amerika. Academia and major media keep pushing it.

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” ~ Karl Marx

Does our govt have some democratic features? Yes but that doesn't make it a democracy. It also has some very undemocratic features. We got a radically new and different govt when it was formed. It had some features of different systems for a unique kind of republic— one that no one ever had before.

Democracy happens more at the local level or smaller locales with more direct citizen involvement. Since our central govt diffuses power downward in most areas this is allowed. Also, markets tend to more democracy. (I can feel banyon shuddering in horror, here!) The ancient Greeks would laugh at what we call a democracy today. They essentially had no policy to follow, which is what you're more likely to get in a democracy.

However, our national govt just is NOT a democracy. It just isn't.

Here's how our military once defined democracy. Frankly I think it's one of the best definitions and shows what was thought of democracy at one time in this country until the people were dumbed-down:



Ayup! That's what we're disintegrating into today as that all sounds like what's going on as we post. Looks like you bought the lie Donger. I am not surprised at banyon, but I am surprised at you being a Republican and all....even one that is supposed to be a conservative. But now that I know you're really a Tory NeoCon ( British NeoCon) I guess I should have seen it coming. ROFL

Oh, okay. I was right. You have an extreme and antiquated definition of democracy: that is must be a direct democracy.

What a shock.

Now, go and churn some butter for us. Because the stuff I get at the store is just a form of butter, but not like it used to be. K?

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 07:12 AM
It's just weird, this endless fascination with battling over the definition of commonly accepted words and concepts, almost invariably in an utterly irrelevant context.

How about this: no matter what the word democracy means, Ron Paul has no freaking chance of being the Republican nominee. That's not because of an evil conspiracy, it's because he's a 75 year old with very controversial ideas that don't appeal to most of the people who will be selecting the Republican nominee. That's it. Nothing else to say.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 07:15 AM
It's just weird, this endless fascination with battling over the definition of commonly accepted words and concepts, almost invariably in an utterly irrelevant context.

How about this: no matter what the word democracy means, Ron Paul has no freaking chance of being the Republican nominee. That's not because of an evil conspiracy, it's because he's a 75 year old with very controversial ideas that don't appeal to most of the people who will be selecting the Republican nominee. That's it. Nothing else to say.

We've heard your claptrap before, it's already been said. Trust me we all know how little ole Amnorix feels, so feel free to vacate these threads as you have nothing else to say.

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 07:21 AM
We've heard your claptrap before, it's already been said. Trust me we all know how little ole Amnorix feels, so feel free to vacate these threads as you have nothing else to say.


I'm very amused that you of all people -- the Mad Carpet Bomber of Bullshit -- are calling my posts worthless. I'd give you kudos for having brass balls, at least, but it's more likely the result of extreme myopia.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 07:23 AM
I'm very amused that you of all people -- the Mad Carpet Bomber of Bullshit -- are calling my posts worthless. I'd give you kudos for having brass balls, at least, but it's more likely the result of extreme myopia.

Wait...I thought you said there was nothing more to say? Bullshit eh? Who's got that crap running from his mouth? uh-huh thought so.

Brainiac
02-13-2012, 07:25 AM
Ron Paul has as much chance of getting the nomination as a little kid has of getting out of Sanduskys basement
ROFL

Rep

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 10:43 AM
Oh, okay. I was right. You have an extreme and antiquated definition of democracy: that is must be a direct democracy.

What a shock.

Now, go and churn some butter for us. Because the stuff I get at the store is just a form of butter, but not like it used to be. K?

NOPE!

It's not antiquated. It's been used dishonestly as an abuse of language. This is what Orwell was referring to with his Newspeak and Doublethink. In fact, Orwell, wrote about the abuse of language as another way to change the people and bring in a new system. Your post is Kool-Aid and exposes you as a European-style social democrat. You were for giving money to illegals as I recall.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/deRo-BXLAz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
02-13-2012, 10:49 AM
NOPE!

It's not antiquated. It's been used dishonestly as an abuse of language. This is what Orwell was referring to with his Newspeak and Doublethink. In fact, Orwell, wrote about the abuse of language as another way to change the people and bring in a new system. Your post is Kool-Aid and exposes you as a European-style social democrat. You were for giving money to illegals as I recall.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/deRo-BXLAz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As usual, you are wrong:

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

So, yes, we are a democracy. I realize that isn't how you define it, but you're fucking nuts. So...

And, no, I've never approved giving money to illegals.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:03 AM
That definition is inadequate, as in incomplete, because although we have indirect representation, our govt still has many undemocratic features to check the will of the people via it's reps and the reps as well. Why haven't you defined Republic?

One is that we have a Constitution that restrains the national government from being involved in certain areas or doing certain things, not only to protect the natural rights of people but to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of a minority. This removes it from really be a democracy where the majority prevails or the "mob", I never said it didn't have some democratic features but lump sum total it's a unique kind of Republic that is s mixed form of govt. It includes representation but with Checks and Balances, Electoral College, rights including the rights of the States.

Also dictionaries can be inadequate depending on which one you use. but generally they have eventually changed because they use the evolving trends. This evolving trend began with the Progressive era, as I stated. So you have to look at the roots, etymology ( history and evolution of the word) and other historical sources to see what has happened to adopting this idea. You're using it how people use it today but it's inadequate as it omits so much.

I noticed that you completely disregarded what some of our Founders/Framers said about democracy too. Odd for a conservative. Conservatives usually love what the Founders have to say about such things.

Donger
02-13-2012, 11:05 AM
That definition is inadequate as in incomplete, because although we have indirect representation, our govt still has many undemocratic features to check the will of the people via it's reps and the reps as well.

One is that we have a Constitution that restrains the national government from being involved in certain areas or doing certain things, not only to protect the natural rights of people but to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of a minority. This removes it from really be a democracy where the majority prevails or the "mob", I never said it didn't have some democratic features but lump sum total it's a unique kind of Republic that includes representation with checks and balances as well as rights.

Also dictionaries can be inadequate depending on which one you use but generally they have eventually changed because the use the evolving trends. This evolving trend began with the Progressive era. So you have to look at the roots and etymology ( history) to see what has happened. You're using it how people use it today but it's inadequate as it omits so much.

I noticed that you completely disregarded what some of our Founders/Framers said about democracy.

Yeah, yeah. Forgive me, honey, but I'm going to go with Merriam-Webster vs. you all the time.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:11 AM
Here's another dictionary definition.
de·moc·ra·cy/B]

[B]1) government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Supreme power is not in the people in our system. There is power for the states too.


Origin:
1525–35; < Middle French démocratie < Late Latin dēmocratia < Greek dēmokratía popular government, equivalent to dēmo- demo- + -kratia -cracy

This one doesn't say that "demos" means people
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

Donger
02-13-2012, 11:16 AM
Here's another dictionary definition.
de·moc·ra·cy/B]

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them [B]or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


Did you even read what you posted? If not, the pertinent part is bolded. See, that's what we have and why we have a democracy.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:20 AM
Yeah, yeah. Forgive me, honey, but I'm going to go with Merriam-Webster vs. you all the time.

I gave you my sources and it's not just my viewpoint. I had this taught to me by a history teacher originally where new knowledge changed my mind. My sources have been: our Framers, history via a military manual of the US Govt to show what it once meant which is more accurate and to show how it was altered over time. Another source is the US Constitution. Do you see the word "democracy" in there? I don't.

How 'bout you look up the word "republic" the root of which means — public.

A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government.~ wikipedia


Since you like Mirriam Webster so much:

Definition of REPUBLIC
1a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Origin of REPUBLIC
French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
First Known Use: 1604



See the difference. You think we're a nation ruled by men instead of a nation ruled by law. That's what a democracy results in.

Saul Good
02-13-2012, 11:20 AM
Perhaps you should look up the word "supreme" while you're at it.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:21 AM
Did you even read what you posted? If not, the pertinent part is bolded. See, that's what we have and why we have a democracy.

Yes, I did see that but that just shows you have still missed the whole point. You continue to ignore that they are checked by rule of law with a Constitution that prevents majority rule. I think you are projecting because you have read what I even posted yourself. There is a distinction that you continously overlook that does not make us a democracy but a republic.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:24 AM
Perhaps you should look up the word "supreme" while you're at it.

I know what it means: highest in rank, authority or order.

If you're referring to our Constitution, even that isn't "supreme" in terms of how it's currently used which is sweeping and in all areas. It is not. It is supreme where authority is given to the Federal govt. The congress can remove certain cases from being heard by the SC even under the Constitution because some issues are not part of the jurisdiction of the Federal govt. The Constitution primarily restrains the Federal govt. This restraint is also a vertical check on the people because they just can not vote for whatever they want even if a majority wants it.

Donger
02-13-2012, 11:32 AM
Yes, I did see that but that just shows you have still missed the whole point. You continue to ignore that they are checked by rule of law with a Constitution that prevents majority rule. I think you are projecting because you have read what I even posted yourself. There is a distinction that you continously overlook that does not make us a democracy but a republic.

No, sugar, we are a democracy. You can continue to claim we aren't, though. Watching you flail about hasn't lost its luster.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:45 AM
So Donger, do you see the word "democracy" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Nope!
Not even when it underwent it's own changes.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I 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."


President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," in 1954 due to the threat of communism. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Donger
02-13-2012, 11:48 AM
So Donger, do you see the word "democracy" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Nope!
Not even when it underwent it's own changes.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I 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."


President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," in 1954 due to the threat of communism. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We live in a republic. Our system of government is democracy, albeit indirect democracy, you dork.

Do you really want to keep this up?

vailpass
02-13-2012, 11:55 AM
We live in a republic. Our system of government is democracy, albeit indirect democracy, you dork.

Do you really want to keep this up?

LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:59 AM
When the original Constitutional Convention ended, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence.

Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Okay, so we're not keeping it. We haven't been keeping a republic due mainly to the Progressive era. Here's a site where it's admited we were formed as a republic but welcomes the idea of it being changed over to a democracy because it was the monied and property-owning class that formed our govt. See, this is the left-wing Progressive changes to our system that he prefers. We're still a republic though. The amendments he cites made it more democratic. I'd say the changes for blacks protected the rights of a minority instead by ending slavery for all with the 13th and protecting them in the 14th which was written for blacks. As for increasing votes of both blacks and women that falls under both camps and is just adapting to change as opposed to changing the document into a different form of govt. But support of direct election of senators, while it does make us more of democracy, is a change in the wrong direction, imo. This one does alter our form of govt in the direction of being a democracy, as well as creating other problems such as reducing the rights and interests of the states. So this one goes against the spirit of what our Framers warned against.

My point in bringing this up to you, is that you accept the left-wing Progressive idea of making more like a democracy just as this man does. Therefore, it's a democracy to you.

Let's look at what he uses for his reasons:

Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.


At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.


So there you have an admission that our form of govt is changing more into a democracy by a person who obviously is a Progressive, but who at least is capable of admitting our govt was not founded as a democracy, still is not one — but more and more is going that way. The Constitution is further being shredded in this direction by Obama. Dictionaries are just keeping up with this alteration but are inadequate for showing what is happening and what we're supposed to be. He's also wrong about some of the things he says about republics— as in they overlap. The can overlap. It just depends on the kind of republic it is. The Soviet Union was also a republic.

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:03 PM
Hey, nutter? I see you never answered my question posed in #24. Want to take a stab at that one?

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:07 PM
We live in a republic. Our system of government is democracy, albeit indirect democracy, you dork.

Do you really want to keep this up?

Our system of govt is a Republic that has features of different systems for a mixed kind of govt. That removes it from being just a democracy.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:07 PM
Hey, nutter? I see you never answered my question posed in #24. Want to take a stab at that one?

I didn't read it because I felt you were being circular with an inability to discern, similarities and differences. I am just addressing the issue generally now and not giving you much attention.

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:09 PM
Our system of govt is a Republic that has features of different systems for a mixed kind of govt. That removes it from being just a democracy.

I've never claimed that we are "just a democracy." You, however, did claim that we are not a democracy. We are.

It's okay, you know. Your kookiness just got in the way of your rational thought. It's not a big deal.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:09 PM
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Directly from Article 4 the Constitution.

:clap:

Good! I forgot about that one.

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:11 PM
I didn't read it because I felt you were being circular with an inability to discern, similarities and differences. I am just addressing the issue generally now and not giving you much attention.

Well, I was responding to this:

A democracy is where the people make the laws. The people do not make the laws here either through reps or directly.

I naturally asked you who you think make the laws in the USA.

So, who do you think makes the laws in the USA? I mean, you wrote that, so surely you must have some idea.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:12 PM
Did you even read what you posted? If not, the pertinent part is bolded. See, that's what we have and why we have a democracy.

Again, you're being circular and ignoring other points I used earlier. I already know that we have elected reps which is part of being our republic too. <— Did you read this part?

What you continue to ignore and omit is that they cannot just vote for what their constituents want under our system which is rule of law too.
You also ignore that a rep does not even have to heed what his constituents want if he feels it's bad or unConstitutional. They are supposed to also exercise their own judgement and they are allowed to do that. True, they can be voted out but they should have integrity.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:15 PM
Well, I was responding to this:



I naturally asked you who you think make the laws in the USA.

So, who do you think makes the laws in the USA? I mean, you wrote that, so surely you must have some idea.

I already addressed that in the body of earlier posts. It must have gone over your head.
I didn't hear the whoosh then....but I do now.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:19 PM
WHOOSH! The whole point made went over Donger's head.

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:20 PM
Again, you're being circular and ignoring other points I used earlier. I already know that we have elected reps which is part of being our republic too. <— Did you read this part?

What you continue to ignore and omit is that they cannot just vote for what their constituents want under our system which is rule of law too.
You also ignore that a rep does not even have to heed what his constituents want if he feels it's bad or unConstitutional. They are supposed to also exercise their own judgement and they are allowed to do that. True, they can be voted out but they should have integrity.

Again, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT WE AREN'T A REPUBLIC AS WELL. You are the one arguing that we aren't a DEMOCRACY AT ALL.

So, you're wrong. But, keep flailing away.

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:22 PM
I already addressed that in the body of earlier posts. It must have gone over your head.
I didn't here the whoosh then....but I do now.

That's possible. I don't read every word in your posts, especially when you start on one of your "Oh my God, I hope this link supports my silly position!" additions.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:23 PM
Again, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT WE AREN'T A REPUBLIC AS WELL. You are the one arguing that we aren't a DEMOCRACY AS WELL.

So, you're wrong. But, keep flailing away.
We aren't a democracy. We have some democratic features is what I said. That doesn't make it a democracy. I also was making a case that democracy was not always defined the way your sources are defining it.

You must also equate democracy with freedom too, Donger. That's not true either.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:26 PM
That's possible. I don't read every word in your posts, especially when you start on one of your "Oh my God, I hope this link supports my silly position!" additions.

I used links first to show that it's not just "me" deciding and saying this which was one of your own arguments. That backs up my claim.

I also used links because you eventually have demanded them in other arguments. ( and then ignore any facts in them) So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Sounds to me you have little to nothing to base your claims on except one inadequate dictionary definition and your own opinion. Yup, you conceded this one. Thank you for showing me with this post. It's no wonder you don't understand the argument being made and what support it's based on. Afraid of being wrong, Donger? I'd say so. LMAO

Oh and you are the one that is wrong.

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:27 PM
We aren't a democracy. We have some democratic features is what I said. That doesn't make it a democracy. I also was making a case that democracy was not always defined the way your sources are defining it.

You must also equate democracy with freedom too, Donger. That's not true either.

No, we are a democracy, just not a direct democracy. If you had been more specific and written, "We aren't a direct democracy," we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you would have been right.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:29 PM
No, we are a democracy, just not a direct democracy.
We are neither.

If you had been more specific and written, "We aren't a direct democracy," we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you would have been right.

Because we are neither.

Having a feature of democracy doesn't mean we are a democracy. I said we were a mixed form of govt for a unique type of Republic. Yes, this is in a 6th Gread history book written by Skousen and put out by a center on the Constitution. Since, you unable to read the posts then this explains your lack of confront on what I said and thus a lack of understanding.

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:29 PM
I used links first to show that it's not just "me" deciding and saying this which was one of your own arguments. That backs up my claim.

I also used links because you eventually have demanded them in other arguments. ( and then ignore any facts in them) So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Sounds to me you have little to nothing to base your claims on except one inadequate dictionary definition and your own opinion. Yup, you conceded this one. Thank you for showing me with this post. It's no wonder you don't understand the argument being made and what support it's based on. Afraid of being wrong, Donger? I'd say so. LMAO

Oh and you are the one that is wrong.

I re-read all your vomitus and don't see an answer to this very simple question, so I'll ask one more time:

Who do you think makes the laws in the USA?

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:35 PM
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
~ Ronald Reagan



We've all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.


George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated.

In Orwell's view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government:

“There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?


Representative Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html)

Yeah, it's just my opinion with no basis in fact—NOT!

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 12:37 PM
I re-read all your vomitus and don't see an answer to this very simple question, so I'll ask one more time:

Who do you think makes the laws in the USA?

You're question is flawed as it demands a partial truth.

The answers are in there. That you can't see it shows me there is a reading comprehension issue, an inability to connect dots with critical thinking or both here.
Or are you just doing what you accuse me of—not admitting when you're wrong. Ya' know projection?

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 01:15 PM
So, who do you think makes the laws in the USA? I mean, you wrote that, so surely you must have some idea.
Well, a representative Republic has the people vote for representatives. But there are three branches to our govt:

Executive Branch:
Who votes for the president? An Electoral College who do not have to go with the popular vote even if they have.

Legislative Branch:
Senators ( State Reps originally and it should return to this.)
Who was originally supposed to select Senators? The state legislatures.

The People's House:
Who votes for the House of Representatives? Those people who are eligible to vote. But they cannot invoke majoritarianism for everthing they want.

Judicial Branch
Who selects SC justices? The president with confirmation from the Senate. ( which was supposed to be selected by the states legislatures)

All restrained by the Constitution so we are governed by law and not just by the majority.

Mixed system for a unique Republic.

Bowser
02-13-2012, 01:25 PM
what is this I don't even

Donger
02-13-2012, 01:40 PM
Well, a representative Republic has the people vote for representatives. But there are three branches to our govt:

Executive Branch:
Who votes for the president? An Electoral College who do not have to go with the popular vote even if they have.

Legislative Branch:
Senators ( State Reps originally and it should return to this.)
Who was originally supposed to select Senators? The state legislatures.

The People's House:
Who votes for the House of Representatives? Those people who are eligible to vote. But they cannot invoke majoritarianism for everthing they want.

Judicial Branch
Who selects SC justices? The president with confirmation from the Senate. ( which was supposed to be selected by the states legislatures)

All restrained by the Constitution so we are governed by law and not just by the majority.

Mixed system for a unique Republic.

Excellent! So, you know that congress make the bills which then become law through the EB in our country. That's great!

Now, who elects the congress critters?