Trump 2024 — The second term

[actaeon277]

OMG!

IT'S BOTH!

Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Republic? Find Out! - U.S. Constitution.net

Defining a Constitutional Republic The United States operates as a constitutional republic, a form of government that involves representatives elected by the people, who execute their duties under the constraints of a prevailing constitution that specifies the powers and limits of government...

www.usconstitution.net

 

[BugI02]

So I should have zero expectations for my side and just be ok with crap like amnesty for college grads?

You don't get to drag your feet, kicking and screaming, that it in fact it is not your side, use your little paws to climb back aboard when you realize the ship isn't sinking like you hoped/predicted, and then expect to call the shots on anything

 

[jamil]

No there was a Roman republic long before us.

Yes. There was also a Greek republic before it. The Roman Republic was an early example of a representative democracy, which gave way to the Roman Republic. The thing that caused it to stop being a Republic was that it had an emperor who wielded absolute sovereign power and passed his thrown to his heirs.

Our form of government is the only one like it in the history of the earth. Once it's gone there will never be one like it again.

Both are true statements. Neither of which has any bearing on the definition of democracy or republic.

The founders called it a republic. That's what it is.

The founders called it a republic because it's not an empire, monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy (at least on paper). What they described that they wanted to avoid in this republic was a direct democracy, like the Greeks had. If they wanted to avoid any part of democracy, we wouldn't have public elections.

Not a democracy. Doesn't matter what anyone else said it's what the founders called it. If you have a problem with it being a republic take it up with the founders.

Again, I am not disputing that the founders called it a republic. Or that it IS a republic. It is. Those words had meaning long before the founders called this a republic. I'm sure they knew what the meanings were. Whether having any types of democracy has no bearing on being a republic.

Edit:

Using the word democracy over and over again give people the illusion that they have the final say In matters.

We don't avoid words where the definition of which, fits the thing being described, just because people are stupid and don't understand the meaning of words. We use words to describe things that the word fits. Like, we're a representative democracy, AND a constitutional republic. Using the exploitation of the word by some, as a reason to claim that US is not a representative democracy is not logical.

But, it's the way progressives are using it. They keep saying it like, "MAGA is destroying our democracy!) First, I dispute that people believe that they vote for laws directly. They understand that they vote for representatives.

Second, I don't believe that the repetitive use of "our democracy" is for the purpose of getting people to think that they already vote directly for laws. It is to get people to have a shared sense of "we are in this together" (among the five most dangerous words spoken together). This is what gets people to think in terms of mob justice. So similar to what you're saying, but not in terms of making them think they vote directly for laws.

Since there are no true democracies using the term democracy is for propaganda purposes.

This does not follow. There are no "pure" or "direct" democracies as far as I know. Because it does not scale well outside of highly homogeneous societies. But, there are versions of democracies that do scale well. Such as representative democracies, which the US is.

Also, you keep calling it "true" democracy. That adds absolutely nothing to its meaning. Like I said earlier, might as well say "true Scotsman".

How about calling it an Illusional Democracy?

I'd say our republic is an illusion because it functions more as an oligarchy than a representative democracy or a republic. The founders were brilliant for their time but did not mitigate everything that could go wrong. Our government has always been corrupt. Our form of government has not stopped that. It has not enforced rule of law evenly. Some are beyond the law. But it's still stood the test of time in terms of (mostly) individual liberty. Until they figured out how to spread the mind virus we call "woke".

 

[jamil]

OMG!

IT'S BOTH!

Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Republic? Find Out! - U.S. Constitution.net

Defining a Constitutional Republic The United States operates as a constitutional republic, a form of government that involves representatives elected by the people, who execute their duties under the constraints of a prevailing constitution that specifies the powers and limits of government...

www.usconstitution.net

Oh no! The 'D' word!

 

[DadSmith]

Yes. There was also a Greek republic before it. The Roman Republic was an early example of a representative democracy, which gave way to the Roman Republic. The thing that caused it to stop being a Republic was that it had an emperor who wielded absolute sovereign power and passed his thrown to his heirs.


Both are true statements. Neither of which has any bearing on the definition of democracy or republic.


The founders called it a republic because it's not an empire, monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy (at least on paper). What they described that they wanted to avoid in this republic was a direct democracy, like the Greeks had. If they wanted to avoid any part of democracy, we wouldn't have public elections.


Again, I am not disputing that the founders called it a republic. Or that it IS a republic. It is. Those words had meaning long before the founders called this a republic. I'm sure they knew what the meanings were. Whether having any types of democracy has no bearing on being a republic.



We don't avoid words where the definition of which, fits the thing being described, just because people are stupid and don't understand the meaning of words. We use words to describe things that the word fits. Like, we're a representative democracy, AND a constitutional republic. Using the exploitation of the word by some, as a reason to claim that US is not a representative democracy is not logical.

But, it's the way progressives are using it. They keep saying it like, "MAGA is destroying our democracy!) First, I dispute that people believe that they vote for laws directly. They understand that they vote for representatives.

Second, I don't believe that the repetitive use of "our democracy" is for the purpose of getting people to think that they already vote directly for laws. It is to get people to have a shared sense of "we are in this together" (among the five most dangerous words spoken together). This is what gets people to think in terms of mob justice. So similar to what you're saying, but not in terms of making them think they vote directly for laws.



This does not follow. There are no "pure" or "direct" democracies as far as I know. Because it does not scale well outside of highly homogeneous societies. But, there are versions of democracies that do scale well. Such as representative democracies, which the US is.

Also, you keep calling it "true" democracy. That adds absolutely nothing to its meaning. Like I said earlier, might as well say "true Scotsman".



I'd say our republic is an illusion because it functions more as an oligarchy than a representative democracy or a republic. The founders were brilliant for their time but did not mitigate everything that could go wrong. Our government has always been corrupt. Our form of government has not stopped that. It has not enforced rule of law evenly. Some are beyond the law. But it's still stood the test of time in terms of (mostly) individual liberty. Until they figured out how to spread the mind virus we call "woke".

This whole conversation is pointless.
You have not changed my mind nor have I changed your mind.

One final question. Do the American people have final say in everything the government does? No!
Therefore we are not a democracy.

 

[jamil]

This whole conversation is pointless.
You have not changed my mind nor have I changed your mind.

I can lead a horse to water. I can't make him drink.

One final question. Do the American people have final say in everything the government does? No!
Therefore we are not a democracy.

Does not follow. That's not the definition of democracy. Even in a direct democracy all the people don't have the final say. 50% + 1 do. 50% -1 don't. But, in a sense, a majority of people in our system can elect to go a different direction.

People are tired of Biden, tired of inflation, overrun borders. They could vote to change directions by electing Trump instead. Not necessarily people's first choice if they could choose anyone. But they could chose that direction.

But, the thing that makes that true is just on paper. In reality, the major institutions can put their influential thumbs on the scale and make people believe nonsense. So who they vote for depends a lot on who the oligarchy chooses.

 

[DadSmith]

I can lead a horse to water. I can't make him drink.



Does not follow. That's not the definition of democracy. Even in a direct democracy all the people don't have the final say. 50% + 1 do. 50% -1 don't. But, in a sense, a majority of people in our system can elect to go a different direction.

People are tired of Biden, tired of inflation, overrun borders. They could vote to change directions by electing Trump instead. Not necessarily people's first choice if they could choose anyone. But they could chose that direction.

But, the thing that makes that true is just on paper. In reality, the major institutions can put their influential thumbs on the scale and make people believe nonsense. So who they vote for depends a lot on who the oligarchy chooses.

Lol you refuse to answer the question because it goes against your argument.
The water of illusion is that what you want me to drink with you?
When this country was formed it was a republic which you deny. To you its a democracy albeit a illusional one.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

@jamil and @DadSmith



Transcript for DadSmith: https://montycasinos.com/montypython/scripts/argument.php.html

 

[jamil]

Lol you refuse to answer the question because it goes against your argument.
The water of illusion is that what you want me to drink with you?

What question did I not answer? You tried to ask a question which implied a definition that is inaccurate. The only way to answer that is to point out the inaccurate definition.

When this country was formed it was a republic which you deny. To you its a democracy albeit a illusional one.

I would like you to quote where I said I denied that the nation was formed as a republic. Instead, I have repeatedly said it was. And that it's a representative democracy.

The illusion is your belief that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. Words have meanings. You're not using the words we're disputing according to their meaning.

 

[DadSmith]

What question did I not answer? You tried to ask a question which implied a definition that is inaccurate. The only way to answer that is to point out the inaccurate definition.


I would like you to quote where I said I denied that the nation was formed as a republic. Instead, I have repeatedly said it was. And that it's a representative democracy.

The illusion is your belief that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. Words have meanings. You're not using the words we're disputing according to their meaning.

Sorry you feel that way.

In your opinion it was inaccurate, when it was a question that you could not answer without being wrong.

 

[jamil]

@jamil and @DadSmith



Transcript for DadSmith: https://montycasinos.com/montypython/scripts/argument.php.html

In my defense, I can't abide anyone being wrong on the internet.

 

[DadSmith]

In my defense, I can't abide anyone being wrong on the internet.

What makes you think you are right?
Show me by the founders comments and in the constitution where it says we are a democracy.

Why don't you read
The Federalist Papers : No. 63

That will give you their opinion of a democracy.


The Founders established a republic that would allow the people’s best beliefs about what is just not their immediate impulses for what they want to guide the government. Such a deliberative process is best described as republican.
I think you confuse this with democracy.

 

[jamil]

Sorry you feel that way.

In your opinion it was inaccurate, when it was a question that you could not answer without being wrong.

I'm not trying to be right. I'm trying to be true to what I know to be right. I'll assume you're trying to do the same thing, except you're wrong.

Our dispute is about definitions. You're not using the words according to their definition. I suspect for ideological reasons.

"Democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive.

Since you like questions, here are a couple:

1. Do people in the US vote for who they want to be president, US representatives, US Senators, state governors, state representatives, city mayors, councilmen, etcetera or not?
2. Does the US have a king, dictator, council, or does it derive its sovereignty ultimately from the people?

To head off the indirect nature of how we elect presidents, I'll point to my earlier post where I explained that process.

So if the answer to #1 is yes, we are indeed a representative democracy. That does not mean we are a direct or pure democracy. Democracy is not evil. Even if it's direct democracy. If the latter, it's simply failure prone. So is representative democracies and republics but I digress.

If the answer to #2 is yes, we are a republic.

If you think I'm using some new-fangled definitions, these definitions aren't any different from what I was taught in the 8th or 9th grade civics class. We're a republic because we don't have a king. And we're a representative democracy because we elect our leaders.

It's not any different from what I was taught in high school US government class. Or U.S. History. It's not any different from what I was taught in Western Civ, or political science in college.

And what is new and unique about our government in history is not that we're a republic. It is our three branches of government in a system of checks and balances. And, that we elect the chief executive indirectly through electors. Those features aren't what uniquely qualifies us to be a republic. You argue as if it is.

But we're not the first republic. And currently we're not the only republic. There are many parliamentarian democracies that are also republics. They don't have three branches of government like ours. They don't elect their chief executive the way we do. Are you going to argue that they're not "true" republics?

 

[Brad69]

Meanwhile in Philadelphia Trump is preparing for a Rally in the “hood”.

 

[DadSmith]

I'm not trying to be right. I'm trying to be true to what I know to be right. I'll assume you're trying to do the same thing, except you're wrong.

Our dispute is about definitions. You're not using the words according to their definition. I suspect for ideological reasons.

"Democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive.

Since you like questions, here are a couple:

1. Do people in the US vote for who they want to be president, US representatives, US Senators, state governors, state representatives, city mayors, councilmen, etcetera or not?
2. Does the US have a king, dictator, council, or does it derive its sovereignty ultimately from the people?

To head off the indirect nature of how we elect presidents, I'll point to my earlier post where I explained that process.

So if the answer to #1 is yes, we are indeed a representative democracy. That does not mean we are a direct or pure democracy. Democracy is not evil. Even if it's direct democracy. If the latter, it's simply failure prone. So is representative democracies and republics but I digress.

If the answer to #2 is yes, we are a republic.

If you think I'm using some new-fangled definitions, these definitions aren't any different from what I was taught in the 8th or 9th grade civics class. We're a republic because we don't have a king. And we're a representative democracy because we elect our leaders.

It's not any different from what I was taught in high school US government class. Or U.S. History. It's not any different from what I was taught in Western Civ, or political science in college.

And what is new and unique about our government in history is not that we're a republic. It is our three branches of government in a system of checks and balances. And, that we elect the chief executive indirectly through electors. Those features aren't what uniquely qualifies us to be a republic. You argue as if it is.

But we're not the first republic. And currently we're not the only republic. There are many parliamentarian democracies that are also republics. They don't have three branches of government like ours. They don't elect their chief executive the way we do. Are you going to argue that they're not "true" republics?

Look at my edited post you quoted.

 

[jamil]

What makes you think you are right?
Show me by the founders comments and in the constitution where it says we are a democracy.

What makes us a representative democracy is that we elect our representatives. Not because the founders said so. What makes me right is that I'm applying the definitions of words that matches our government.

Why don't you read
The Federalist Papers : No. 63

That will give you their opinion of a democracy.

I've read it. That will give their opinion of a direct democracy. And I agree with them. Our nation, especially given that it is a nation of immigrants, would have failed long ago if they'd have chosen direct democracy. They chose to have representatives of the people chosen by elections (except for Senators which at the time were appointed by states) make laws. They chose to have the chief executive be chosen by each state holding an election, where the party's electors got to vote for POTUS.

The Founders established a republic that would allow the people’s best beliefs about what is just not their immediate impulses for what they want to guide the government. Such a deliberative process is best described as republican.
I think you confuse this with democracy.

Again you're describing the features of a direct democracy. Most democracies today use a representative form of it, because of the mob mentality issues. The only reason it's "republican" is it is not one (like a king) or a small group of people (like an oligarchy) deciding unilaterally.

I'm not confusing that with democracy. I think your definition of democracy is not derived from the dictionaries, or encyclopedias, or academic study, or understanding of world history. You heard some patriotic citizens claiming the thing you believe, and because you feel solidarity with them, you believe it too.

Nothing wrong with feeling solidarity with fellow patriots. Sometimes they get things wrong. It's not unpatriotic to say they're incorrect about it.

 

[jamil]

About Philadelphia:

It'll probably be a lot like Detroit. Unless you're there you probably won't really know the impact. The left was claiming Detroit was a failure when it looked like the church was packed. Team Trump was claiming there were 8K people in a church that holds at most a few hundred, shoulder to shoulder. The videos I saw showed the church was obviously at least at full capacity. But that's far fewer than 8K. Seems like both sides are lying.

 

[DadSmith]

What makes us a representative democracy is that we elect our representatives. Not because the founders said so. What makes me right is that I'm applying the definitions of words that matches our government.


I've read it. That will give their opinion of a direct democracy. And I agree with them. Our nation, especially given that it is a nation of immigrants, would have failed long ago if they'd have chosen direct democracy. They chose to have representatives of the people chosen by elections (except for Senators which at the time were appointed by states) make laws. They chose to have the chief executive be chosen by each state holding an election, where the party's electors got to vote for POTUS.


Again you're describing the features of a direct democracy. Most democracies today use a representative form of it, because of the mob mentality issues. The only reason it's "republican" is it is not one (like a king) or a small group of people (like an oligarchy) deciding unilaterally.

I thought so you confused our form of republic with a democracy.
You need to empty your cup and refill it with an open mind.

“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour.” - James Madison

I guess that is a democracy to you right?

I'm not confusing that with democracy. I think your definition of democracy is not derived from the dictionaries, or encyclopedias, or academic study, or understanding of world history. You heard some patriotic citizens claiming the thing you believe, and because you feel solidarity with them, you believe it too.

I think what you are thinking is wrong.
I have studied it out but from a totally different angle than you have. Does that make me wrong and you right?

 

[jamil]

Look at my edited post you quoted.

I don't see anything you edited that I did not read. I read every word of the posts I replied to. Nothing has addressed any of the points I have made.

So. Are you going to address them? Oh, and I am still waiting for you to show me where I said that the founders did not form a republic.

 

[DadSmith]

We don't have unlimited democracy. But it's still democracy.

Yes we do. Our system is a form of democracy.

We are a democracy- Jamil

that we are a democracy

Again

Wow. Sounds like a democracy.

Again