Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

right_toon_t715.jpg
 
iolo said:
i.e by flogging other people's work to make money. They do nothing for anyone and make us pay for it, as you know.
Click to expand...

Please. Do you get your money by flogging other people's work? You must get it from somewhere--you must be taking it away from others. Nobody makes you pay for anything unless you choose to buy their products and services.

You make people seem helpless like we are little puppets. That is a sign of low self-efficacy based on our personality characteristics rather than reality. Just as some people believe every conspiracy they ever heard--not based on facts but personality types (high dopamine level).
 
Flash said:
Please. Do you get your money by flogging other people's work? You must get it from somewhere--you must be taking it away from others. Nobody makes you pay for anything unless you choose to buy their products and services.

You make people seem helpless like we are little puppets. That is a sign of low self-efficacy based on our personality characteristics rather than reality. Just as some people believe every conspiracy they ever heard--not based on facts but personality types (high dopamine level).
Click to expand...
Anyone with any knowledge of socialism can make money in this system, if they have no conscience. Of the four serious socialists in my sixth form one was homosexual and had his own problems and I wasn't interested in gambling, but the other two are billionaires. You are helpless little puppets who believe licking your master's arses will bring you 'success' - pathetic buggers!
 
iolo said:
Anyone with any knowledge of socialism can make money in this system, if they have no conscience. Of the four serious socialists in my sixth form one was homosexual and had his own problems and I wasn't interested in gambling, but the other two are billionaires. You are helpless little puppets who believe licking your master's arses will bring you 'success' - pathetic buggers!
Click to expand...

Did these rich socialists feel any sense of remorse for their hypocrisy?
 
Threedee said:
Did these rich socialists feel any sense of remorse for their hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

They weren't hypocrites by then - they were tories, real American-brainwashed shit. But they had understood what obvious fatuity the robber-system was, and how to use you mugs.
 
iolo said:
They weren't hypocrites by then - they were tories, real American-brainwashed shit. But they had understood what obvious fatuity the robber-system was, and how to use you mugs.
Click to expand...

So, who used you? Unless you are among the wealthiest men in Wales, someone made a living off of your labour. :cof1:
 
Threedee said:
So, who used you? Unless you are among the wealthiest men in Wales, someone made a living off of your labour. :cof1:
Click to expand...

What sort of clown would want to be the wealthiest man anywhere? I learned early on how to get enough. Only Yanks and other mugs want more. Obviously, your masters took about a third of my income.
 
iolo said:
What sort of clown would want to be the wealthiest man anywhere? I learned early on how to get enough. Only Yanks and other mugs want more. Obviously, your masters took about a third of my income.
Click to expand...

The more you have, the more you can give back to society. Is that not something that has ever crossed your mind?
 
Threedee said:
I'm not talking about killing fields. I am talking about charity, civics, and the arts.
Click to expand...
As Jesus pointed out, the poor ye have always with you - which is why charity is just tory filth. What have the other things to do with your grovelling?
 
cawacko said:
Now granted political parties aren't democracies and can do as they please but should Democrats be lecturing anyone on democracy after what the DNC did to Bernie in 2016?

And the electoral college was created by our founders for a very specific reason. Claiming we have the EC because of today's conservatives is rather disingenuous.
Click to expand...

no one did anything to Bernie

we allowed him to run on a Democratic party ticket and he used the Russian lies against Hilary.

He promised when he ran on our party Platform that he would nit go negative


he BROKE HIS PROMISE

he refused to help raise money for down ticket people

He refused to make sure the voters he brought in were actually registered to vote


he screwed us after we gave him a platform


how many votes would he have gotten if he didn't have the Democratic party platform we allowed him to use?


5
 
kudzu said:
Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?
By Eugene Volokh May 13, 2015

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that.

A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote.

Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.”

But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.


Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.”


And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.

But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted.

Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.

continued


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...public-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.c5eccefbbdc6
Click to expand...

I have been schooling people here on Democracy for years
 
iolo said:
As Jesus pointed out, the poor ye have always with you - which is why charity is just tory filth. What have the other things to do with your grovelling?
Click to expand...

Charity is filth? Does that come from a belief the state should do all for everyone?
 
iolo said:
As Jesus pointed out, the poor ye have always with you - which is why charity is just tory filth. What have the other things to do with your grovelling?
Click to expand...

Mass murder by the state and the denial of fundamental rights is where the filth is, ye lecherous statist.
 
iolo said:
What sort of clown would want to be the wealthiest man anywhere? I learned early on how to get enough. Only Yanks and other mugs want more. Obviously, your masters took about a third of my income.
Click to expand...

I should point out that if someone left you with 2/3 of your income, they obviously didn't take enough. Surely you can suffer far more loss in the interests of a more just and equal society.
 
iolo said:
Anyone with any knowledge of socialism can make money in this system, if they have no conscience. Of the four serious socialists in my sixth form one was homosexual and had his own problems and I wasn't interested in gambling, but the other two are billionaires. You are helpless little puppets who believe licking your master's arses will bring you 'success' - pathetic buggers!
Click to expand...

You must be referring to our government masters.
 
iolo said:
Yes, mug. That is called socialism.
Click to expand...

No, socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Individuals are equally greedy whether they work for the government or the private sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top