Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?

[IBDaMann]

THAT was your point? That the US isn't an Afghan Jirga?

So, you really can't follow along with your own train of thought. You lose yourself in three sentences like Biden. It's like you're getting dumber by the minute.

I guess that wraps it up. Thanks for playing....

Too funny! You've already forgot what you were saying. OK. I guess you're done.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Trump is not a fascist; they just need lies to peddle, is all.

I tell the truth to the best of my ability, and let the chips fall where they may.

Me no dummy.

 

[IBDaMann]

The different "fascist" movements and regimes have varied considerably in their specific goals and practices, but they are usually said to be characterized by several common features:

I'm betting that you didn't read the authoritative source on the matter and, as such, you probably don't stand much of a chance at getting it right.

Let's see.

Militant nationalism,

Yes ... but you chose the wrong definition of nationalism. Fascism is socialism marketed under heavy patriotism. Think lots and lots of national flags everywhere at every event, you know, like Hitler and Mussolini did.

proclaiming the racial and cultural superiority of the dominant ethnic group and asserting that group's inherent right to a special dominant position over other peoples in both the domestic and the international order

Nope. Didn't you even call boooooolsch't?

The adulation of a single charismatic national leader said to possess near superhuman abilities and to be the truest representation of the ideals of the national culture, whose will should therefore literally be law

Nope. Tell me you called boooooolsch't on this one, please.

 

[IBDaMann]

#1 is not a factor in all fascist agendas, just the examples used as propaganda narratives.

#1 is required for fascism. Check the authoritative source.

"the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism." - Giovanni Gentile

 

[EdwinA]

#1 is required for fascism. Check the authoritative source.

No, it isn't. There is no 'master race' agenda in most fascist economic policies. Trump's agenda for promoting on-shoring for instance has zero racial BS related to it.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, it isn't. There is no 'master race' agenda

Correct, but nationalism is required, otherwise it is plain, ordinary socialism.

 

[EdwinA]

Yes it did. He seized the banking industry by creating fiat currency. That's communism.

He didn't create the Fed Reserve, and it was banks that were failing all over the place and played the biggest role in the collapse. there was nothing to seize in most of them, they were bankrupt.

Bank Run ‑ Definition & The Great Depression

The stock market crash of October 1929 left the American public susceptible to rumors of impending financial disaster. A phenomenon that compounded the nation’s economic woes during the Great Depression was a wave of banking panics or “bank runs,” during which large numbers of anxious people...

www.history.com

 

[EdwinA]

Correct, but nationalism is required, otherwise it is plain, ordinary socialism.

What is wrong with 'nationalism'? Or is it just bad when Americans love their country? Democrats and multinational corporations with zero concern for the U.S. obviously see that as a problem; I don't.

 

[IBDaMann]

What is wrong with 'nationalism'?

There is nothing wrong with patriotism and love of country. Fascism requires it. You'll notice that regular vanilla Marxist socialism is not based on generating a nationalistic fervor, but rather in lighting a fire under the proletariat, wherever they are, to unite against the burgeoise. Fascism, on the other hand, calls for patriots to rally around the national flag. Fascism is socialism that is marketed under patriotism.

Notice, there weren't large pictures of Hitler shown at Nazi rallies, just mountains of large national flags/banners.

 

[Publius]

Nope. I realize that you are desperate to shoehorn the word "democracy" in there ... but no, a constitutional republic, by having a constitution, is therefore not a democracy.

I'm not desperate on this. But, clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your use of 'therefore' doesn't actually work because you make an assumption, and your assumption is based on your anemic knowledge of the term' democracy' and 'constitutional republic.

Yes, the founders were against democracy. The founders ensured that the words "democracy" and "democractic" did not appear whatsoever in the Constitution, and they ensured the Constitution specified a republican form of government.

You’ve got it wrong, my friend. Madison wasn't opposed to democracy per se; he was wary of the Athenian-style direct democracy, where citizens voted on every issue directly, and where mob rule could easily trample on minority rights. The Framers wanted something more sophisticated—a system where the majority's will is still paramount, but tempered by checks and balances, a system that avoids the pitfalls of direct democracy by filtering the people's voice through elected representatives. This is what we call a representative democracy. The term 'republic' in formal documents doesn’t negate this; it complements it. A republic is a form of government, and democracy is a method by which that government operates.

The Framers feared the dangers of factional control, so they designed a system that includes a bicameral legislature—a Senate and a House of Representatives—and an Electoral College to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. But make no mistake, they still intended for the people to have the ultimate say. You see, 'democracy' is not just a label; it’s a description. America votes for its leaders and representatives, and in any meaningful sense of the term, that makes it a democracy—a liberal democracy, to be exact, where 'liberal' refers not to political ideology, but to the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

So, call America whatever you like, but if you’re describing it accurately, it’s a democracy. Not in the parochial, narrowly defined sense, but in the broad, universally recognized one. And if that bothers you, maybe it’s time to rethink your definitions, not the system.

The founders specifically prohibited majority rule of individual liberties, for example, precluding a democracy.

Precluding a direct democracy. But since none or at least most (to my knowledge) of the 50 or so liberal democracies are direct, so in modernity, the term 'democracy' generally means a representative democracy.

Do you see those preceding dots, i.e. "..."? That means there is a bunch of preceding and surrounding context that you omitted, which means that you are lying deliberately. I think we're pretty much done here.

We're only done if you choose to be ignorant, your choice.

Not lying, only including the pertinent part, and the full text of the quote does not NEGATE the isolated point, so you really should query before you accuse.

And what does Hamilton say about it? In a letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris, dated 19 May 1777, Hamilton wrote:

"But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and nominally by the people, will, in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0162

And, again, since you ineptly accused me of being a liar, let's revisit Federalist 22 where Hamilton, as 'Publius' writes:

"....that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."

Hamilton was highlighting the necessity for a government system where the majority's opinion is central to its function and decision-making process. Yes, the full text tells us that he argues that giving small states like Rhode Island the same voting power as much larger states like New York or Virginia is fundamentally unfair. But, the underlying principle, a democratic principle, is not unchanged with the partial quote. So, your accusing of 'deliberate lying' is a deliberate lie. Or, the other possibility is that you do not understand that a true lie is. For example, recently, Trump said Cannon exonerated him. That was a deliberate lie, OR, Trump doesn't understand what a true lie is. Take your pick.

And, then by Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic

...democracy and republic are frequently used to mean the same thing: a government in which the people vote for their leaders.

This is right off the Government's website

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

So, you republicans who fear democracy, it's probably because y'all have been losing elections a lot, and the more y'all lose elections, the more I hear you guys spewing this nonsense, and you really need to stop it. It's like a cancer spreading.

Yes, yes, yes, in case you are going to regurgitate that old 'mob rule' trope, where I hear Republicans argument that the framers didn't want 'mob rule'.

But that doesn't mean 'minority rule' either. It means they feared the Athenian styled direct democracy, which is why they tried to contain democracy's excessies by installing a bicameral legislature and an electoral college.

I believe it is fair to say that America is a federal constitutional democratic republic, and a 'representative democracy' and that these terms are not mutually exclusive.

Representative democracy. Why is it called that? Because legislation is voted on by representatives.

Direct voting is held on:

congresspersons
Senators.
Governors
Mayors
Municipal and state office holders of various types.
State Ballot initiatives (yes, 'direct democracy' in many states).

The ONLY elections that are not direct of for legislation and the president.

Two, out of hundreds of elections in America.

Where there is a substantial amount of voting by citizens, you have a democracy. Call it anything you want, but descriptively speaking, it's a democracy. Now, if you want to get specific, which doesn't squash democracy concept at all, you can call it a 'constitutional republic' or a 'federal democratic constitutional republic' or anything you want, but it's still a democracy, a democracy of a certain type. So quit saying it isn't. That's a lie, and a BIG lie, at that. You see, in my 73 years of being on this earth, everywhere, except perhaps the last several years, at work, in the military, in the halls of government, in the classrooms in academia, in books, lectures, everywhere, really, America is descriptively referred to as a democracy, or a 'liberal democracy' or one of the 50 or so 'western democracies'.


"Democracy", has both a narrow use (as it was used by Madison) and a broader meaning, as it is used more often in modernity:

In 1971, Robert Dahl summarized the fundamental rights and freedoms shared by all liberal democracies as eight rights:

1. Freedom to form and join organizations.
2. Freedom of expression.
3. Right to vote.
4. Right to run for public office.
5. Right of political leaders to compete for support and votes.
6. Freedom of alternative sources of information
7. Free and fair elections.
8. Right to control government policy through votes and other expressions of preference.

But Madison's use of the term isn't really how it's used by most scholars, politicians, political scientists, to wit:

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation | Britannica

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation: Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and...

www.britannica.com

Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant.

In fact, the only time republicans started claiming it wasn't a democracy was about a decade after they were losing presidential elections and particularly the popular vote. In the last 30 years or so, they won the popular vote only once.

Repubs invented this 'America is not a democracy' bullshit so that they could:

1. Feel better about losing the popular vote
2. Make anti-democratic legislation and deliberately make it harder for poor neighborhoods to vote, under the lie that they are 'protecting the integrity of the election', which is based on Trump's lie that the election was stolen.

Bingo.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'm not desperate on this. But, clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your use of 'therefore' doesn't actually work because you make an assumption, and your assumption is based on your anemic knowledge of the term' democracy' and 'constitutional republic.

You’ve got it wrong, my friend. Madison wasn't opposed to democracy per se; he was wary of the Athenian-style direct democracy, where citizens voted on every issue directly, and where mob rule could easily trample on minority rights. The Framers wanted something more sophisticated—a system where the majority's will is still paramount, but tempered by checks and balances, a system that avoids the pitfalls of direct democracy by filtering the people's voice through elected representatives. This is what we call a representative democracy. The term 'republic' in formal documents doesn’t negate this; it complements it. A republic is a form of government, and democracy is a method by which that government operates.

The Framers feared the dangers of factional control, so they designed a system that includes a bicameral legislature—a Senate and a House of Representatives—and an Electoral College to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. But make no mistake, they still intended for the people to have the ultimate say. You see, 'democracy' is not just a label; it’s a description. America votes for its leaders and representatives, and in any meaningful sense of the term, that makes it a democracy—a liberal democracy, to be exact, where 'liberal' refers not to political ideology, but to the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

So, call America whatever you like, but if you’re describing it accurately, it’s a democracy. Not in the parochial, narrowly defined sense, but in the broad, universally recognized one. And if that bothers you, maybe it’s time to rethink your definitions, not the system.

Precluding a direct democracy. But since none or at least most (to my knowledge) of the 50 or so liberal democracies are direct, so in modernity, the term 'democracy' generally means a representative democracy.

We're only done if you choose to be ignorant, your choice.

Not lying, only including the pertinent part, and the full text of the quote does not NEGATE the isolated point, so you really should query before you accuse.

And what does Hamilton say about it? In a letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris, dated 19 May 1777, Hamilton wrote:

"But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and nominally by the people, will, in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0162

And, again, since you ineptly accused me of being a liar, let's revisit Federalist 22 where Hamilton, as 'Publius' writes:

"....that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."

Hamilton was highlighting the necessity for a government system where the majority's opinion is central to its function and decision-making process. Yes, the full text tells us that he argues that giving small states like Rhode Island the same voting power as much larger states like New York or Virginia is fundamentally unfair. But, the underlying principle, a democratic principle, is not unchanged with the partial quote. So, your accusing of 'deliberate lying' is a deliberate lie. Or, the other possibility is that you do not understand that a true lie is. For example, recently, Trump said Cannon exonerated him. That was a deliberate lie, OR, Trump doesn't understand what a true lie is. Take your pick.

And, then by Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic

...democracy and republic are frequently used to mean the same thing: a government in which the people vote for their leaders.

This is right off the Government's website

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

So, you republicans who fear democracy, it's probably because y'all have been losing elections a lot, and the more y'all lose elections, the more I hear you guys spewing this nonsense, and you really need to stop it. It's like a cancer spreading.

Yes, yes, yes, in case you are going to regurgitate that old 'mob rule' trope, where I hear Republicans argument that the framers didn't want 'mob rule'.

But that doesn't mean 'minority rule' either. It means they feared the Athenian styled direct democracy, which is why they tried to contain democracy's excessies by installing a bicameral legislature and an electoral college.

I believe it is fair to say that America is a federal constitutional democratic republic, and a 'representative democracy' and that these terms are not mutually exclusive.

Representative democracy. Why is it called that? Because legislation is voted on by representatives.

Direct voting is held on:

congresspersons
Senators.
Governors
Mayors
Municipal and state office holders of various types.
State Ballot initiatives (yes, 'direct democracy' in many states).

The ONLY elections that are not direct of for legislation and the president.

Two, out of hundreds of elections in America.

Where there is a substantial amount of voting by citizens, you have a democracy. Call it anything you want, but descriptively speaking, it's a democracy. Now, if you want to get specific, which doesn't squash democracy concept at all, you can call it a 'constitutional republic' or a 'federal democratic constitutional republic' or anything you want, but it's still a democracy, a democracy of a certain type. So quit saying it isn't. That's a lie, and a BIG lie, at that. You see, in my 73 years of being on this earth, everywhere, except perhaps the last several years, at work, in the military, in the halls of government, in the classrooms in academia, in books, lectures, everywhere, really, America is descriptively referred to as a democracy, or a 'liberal democracy' or one of the 50 or so 'western democracies'.


"Democracy", has both a narrow use (as it was used by Madison) and a broader meaning, as it is used more often in modernity:

In 1971, Robert Dahl summarized the fundamental rights and freedoms shared by all liberal democracies as eight rights:

1. Freedom to form and join organizations.
2. Freedom of expression.
3. Right to vote.
4. Right to run for public office.
5. Right of political leaders to compete for support and votes.
6. Freedom of alternative sources of information
7. Free and fair elections.
8. Right to control government policy through votes and other expressions of preference.

But Madison's use of the term isn't really how it's used by most scholars, politicians, political scientists, to wit:

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation | Britannica

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation: Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and...

www.britannica.com

Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant.

In fact, the only time republicans started claiming it wasn't a democracy was about a decade after they were losing presidential elections and particularly the popular vote. In the last 30 years or so, they won the popular vote only once.

Repubs invented this 'America is not a democracy' bullshit so that they could:

1. Feel better about losing the popular vote
2. Make anti-democratic legislation and deliberately make it harder for poor neighborhoods to vote, under the lie that they are 'protecting the integrity of the election', which is based on Trump's lie that the election was stolen.

Bingo.

WAY WAY WAY the fuck 2 much work.

Who the FUCK do U thing U R?

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not desperate on this.

You are extremely desperate. You are feeling your Marxist doctrines being put in jeopardy. I feel for you, but you did it to yourself. You should never have allowed others to do your thinking for you.

Madison wasn't opposed to democracy per se;

What Madison thought is irrelevant.

The Framers feared the dangers of factional control,

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, least of all for dead people.

You see, 'democracy' is not just a label; it’s a description.

... and the founding father's included no such description into the supreme law of the land. No mention of democracy anywhere, however they did ensure the Constitution spelled out a guarantee of a republic.

No democracy. Guaranteed republic.

By the way, the Constitution is the only document that matters.

America votes for its leaders and representatives,

America doesn't vote. We the People vote, and the DNC steals.

and in any meaningful sense of the term,

You do not own semantics. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy on your part.

So, call America whatever you like,

It's a republic and it's not a democracy.

but if you’re describing it accurately, it’s a democracy.

Nope. That would be allowing Marxists to further derail discussions through the hijacking of the language we need for meaningful communication.

We're going to have to go with the Constitution on this one. The US guarantees a republican form of government and deliberately gives no room for democracy. Sorry. If the framers were alive I'd tell you to take it up with them, but they're not and that ship has already sailed.

Precluding a direct democracy.

Correct. The Constitutional guarantee of individual liberties precludes the majority from infringing on those individual liberties, thus precluding a democracy.

We're only done if you choose to be ignorant, your choice.

You don't seem to have anything intelligent to add. Are you saying that you actually have something value-added that you'd like to contribute?

... the full text of the quote does not NEGATE the isolated point,

I'll be the judge of that. Give me the entire quote with all surrounding text needed to provide all necessary context. Until then, the argument is dismissed.

And what does Hamilton say about it? In a letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris, dated 19 May 1777, Hamilton wrote:

"But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and nominally by the people, will, in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable."

Was he talking about any simple majority vote? That's not the same thing as the United States.

And, again, since you ineptly accused me of being a liar,

False. I quite competently called you a liar.

let's revisit Federalist 22 where Hamilton, as 'Publius' writes:

"....that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."

You picked the wrong quote. Post that quote from Hamilton in which he states that a republic requires that the sense of the majority should prevail over the Constitutional liberties of the individual. Yes, post that quote.

For example, recently, Trump said Cannon exonerated him.

Trump did make that observation, which only required him to be paying attention.

This is right off the Government's website https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

It's erroneous in that regard. Of course, it's exactly the kind of Marxist disinformation that I have come to expect from my tyrannical government, which is why I join the rest of We the People in demanding that Donald Trump be elected President. My hope is that he'll fix our tyrannical deep state problem and ferret out the Marxism infestation.

 

[Publius]

Ayn Rand didn't do this. Karl Marx demonized economics in this way, because he was a stupid, lazy and entitled rich kid who wanted everyone else provide for him while he sat comfortably on a sofa and complained.

You apparently fell for it.


Profit motive is what brings everything that is good to the world. That certainly makes it a virtue, and it makes it an indelible part of human nature, i.e. the desire to acquire resources and to pursue happiness.


There is no "the system." There are only those who are rewarded for adding value to society. You appear to be a loser who does not add any value to society, and who is thusly hurling petty insults out of dire envy at those who are successful in adding value.


Money is liquid wealth. Wealth is reward for adding value. The spending of wealth/money on desired goods and services is the truest form of expression.


You demonize wealth in "sour grapes" fashion because you are a loser who doesn't have any and who is frustrated because he can't get any, likely because you are too lazy to add value.


Explain to me, using the supply-demand curve, how that is.


There is no "the system."


What is that equation, i.e. sheer force of capital?

F = ?


Aaaah, you don't understand the concept so you lash out in blame.


Those who understand economics know that the supply-demand curve is a win-win proposition. Both players who sit down at the table win, but neither can win until both players have won.

You never knew what you were talking about, did you?


Explain.


You seem pretty stupid. How is the money in your wallet responsible for your poor financial decisions? You are just a loser who seeks to blame money for his own fuqk-ups.


Let's examine your example of an unskilled laborer, who never bothered to improve his ability to add value to society, sitting around starving. You are fine with this, as long as no one else helps him in any way, because you are a sadistic misanthrop who hates all life and happiness in others.

Now, if some successful, happy philanthropist decides to help that poor, starving individual, you begin to seethe in anger that the laborer won't be starving to death, but will be receiving money to buy food and other desired goods and services, i.e. happiness, and you find happiness in others to be totally unacceptable, especially when said laborer was just about to die of starvation and fill you with glee. You lash out in irrational rage, blaming philanthropists everywhere of "offering jobs" and "offering business loans" and providing others tools to bring value to society on a larger scale, to be more successful on a larger scale, and to bring happiness to the world on a larger scale. It's enough to make you vomit and to make you want to fly large aircraft into tall buildings. You scream out in front of the mirror "It's grand exploitation, I tell you! It's all just grand exploitation!" Translation: "God, I'm such a fuqking loser; somebody please just kill me now!"


Exactly. Everybody needs/wants resources, and everyone prioritizes acquiring resources over their concerns for you. You're a loser. Piss off.


A free market is necessary for a free society. Money enables a free market in the same way that electricity enables computation.


Please list your top five examples of money being wielded as a weapon and not being used to buy goods and services (or other financial instruments).

Political Campaign Donations and Super PACs: Wealthy individuals and corporations funnel vast sums of money into political campaigns and Super PACs, not to buy goods or services, but to influence legislation, sway elections, and secure political power. This isn’t just spending; it’s using money as a tool to shape the very fabric of governance.

Economic Sanctions: Governments use economic sanctions to exert pressure on other nations. These sanctions cut off access to international markets and banking systems, crippling economies to achieve geopolitical aims. Money here isn’t buying anything—it’s a weapon aimed at destabilizing regimes or coercing them into policy changes.

Hostile Takeovers in Business: Corporations or wealthy individuals use financial power to perform hostile takeovers of companies. This isn’t about purchasing a product or service; it’s about using financial muscle to forcibly acquire control over another entity, often against the will of its current management and employees.

Vulture Capitalism: Certain hedge funds and investors engage in vulture capitalism, buying up distressed assets, particularly in struggling economies, and then leveraging those assets to extract exorbitant profits. This practice exploits economic hardship, using money as a tool to squeeze out value at the expense of broader economic health.

Bribery and Corruption: Money is often used to bribe officials, influence judicial outcomes, or secure unfair advantages in business. This isn’t an exchange for goods or services; it’s a perversion of power, using financial resources to undermine legal and ethical standards.

You never connected the dots, from "money" to "the true nature of power." In fact, you never defined any of your terms, i.e.

All you have to do is ask.

you are raving incoherently.

You are clearly one of those who thinks insults elevates your posture in a debate. Interesting, for a millisecond. I don't have the time to respond to all of your points, but I will express the following:

Money, in essence, is a receipt for labor where it's more convenient to trade the receipts than to trade labor directly.

Labor is the ultimate source of money's value. Oh, sure, it garners value in ways where labor isn't apparently involved, but without labor initiating the journey to value, there would be no value to money. But, money wields power, if you have a lot of it. Of course, power is necessary, it's all about how it's applied.

You are under the mistaken notion that I am opposed to free markets. What, someone criticizes Ayn Rand and you think they are communists?

Let's just say that Ayn Rand was a hypocrite, and leave her there.

Anway, I've been hearing that tired trope (lefties are commies, etc) since the 60s, from the lame fools in the John Birch Society all the way to today's MAGA maniacs. I am a capitalist, I've owned a number of businesses in my life, and I'm retired.

I adore free markets but what we have today are rigged markets. Not in every market, but in quite a number of them. What the current oligarchical system enjoys is corporate socialism

Free markets, in theory, are supposed to be about competition, innovation, and the fair exchange of goods and services. But what we’re witnessing now is far from that ideal—it’s a rigged system where a handful of powerful corporations and wealthy individuals pull the strings.

What we have today isn’t capitalism in its purest sense; it’s corporate socialism. The term might seem contradictory at first, but it captures the essence of the problem. In this system, the risks are socialized—meaning that the general public bears the brunt of failures, "too big to fail", while the profits are privatized and hoarded by a tiny elite. When big corporations make reckless decisions and things go south, they don’t suffer the consequences. Instead, they get bailed out by taxpayer money, while small businesses and regular workers are left to fend for themselves. I'm not saying every sector of the economy this holds true, but we've seen this story play out in the recent past.

This oligarchical system enjoys the benefits of government protection, subsidies, and favorable legislation, all while preaching the virtues of free markets. It’s a rigged game where the deck is stacked in favor of those who already have power and wealth. They use their influence to crush competition, lobby for laws that entrench their dominance, and create barriers to entry that keep others from having a fair shot.

So yes, while free markets are an admirable concept, what we’re dealing with now is a distorted version where true competition is stifled, and the principles of fair play are undermined by an oligarchical class that benefits from a system of corporate socialism. The challenge is reclaiming those markets and ensuring they truly operate freely and fairly for everyone, not just the few at the top.

 

[Publius]

Trump did make that observation, which only required him to be paying attention.

No, he lied, just like you lie.

It's erroneous in that regard. Of course, it's exactly the kind of Marxist disinformation that I have come to expect from my tyrannical government, which is why I join the rest of We the People in demanding that Donald Trump be elected President. My hope is that he'll fix our tyrannical deep state problem and ferret out the Marxism infestation.

Yeah, nothing spells "tyrannical" like screaming for a strongman to dismantle government institutions because you didn’t like the last election's outcome. It’s almost as if you're yearning for a real dictatorship while pretending to fight one.

You traffic in tired tropes that have been floating around right wing echo chambers since the 60s. I've heard it all.

Trump is a clever man, but an ignoramus and a threat to US national security. He is criminally stupid.

I regret inform you that Trump will lose.

 

[Publius]

WAY WAY WAY the fuck 2 much work.

Who the FUCK do U thing U R?

Sorry,. I don't post for lazy people. Just put me on ignore, and do us both a favor.

 

[Publius]

You are extremely desperate. You are feeling your Marxist doctrines being put in jeopardy. I feel for you, but you did it to yourself. You should never have allowed others to do your thinking for you.


What Madison thought is irrelevant.


You don't speak for anyone but yourself, least of all for dead people.


... and the founding father's included no such description into the supreme law of the land. No mention of democracy anywhere, however they did ensure the Constitution spelled out a guarantee of a republic.

No democracy. Guaranteed republic.

By the way, the Constitution is the only document that matters.


America doesn't vote. We the People vote, and the DNC steals.


You do not own semantics. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy on your part.


It's a republic and it's not a democracy.


Nope. That would be allowing Marxists to further derail discussions through the hijacking of the language we need for meaningful communication.

We're going to have to go with the Constitution on this one. The US guarantees a republican form of government and deliberately gives no room for democracy. Sorry. If the framers were alive I'd tell you to take it up with them, but they're not and that ship has already sailed.

to vote is democracy. There is plenty of room in the constitution for democracy:

• Article I, Section 2: This section refers to the election of members of the House of Representatives, stating that the electors in each state must have the qualifications required for the most numerous branch of the state legislature. It indirectly establishes that there will be elections, but does not specify the right to vote.
• 15th Amendment (1870): This amendment explicitly prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
• 19th Amendment (1920): This amendment guarantees that the right to vote cannot be denied based on sex, effectively granting women the right to vote.
• 24th Amendment (1964): This amendment eliminates poll taxes, which were used to prevent low-income individuals from voting, particularly African Americans.
• 26th Amendment (1971): This amendment lowers the voting age to 18, ensuring that citizens 18 years and older cannot be denied the right to vote based on age.

Correct. The Constitutional guarantee of individual liberties precludes the majority from infringing on those individual liberties, thus precluding a democracy.


You don't seem to have anything intelligent to add. Are you saying that you actually have something value-added that you'd like to contribute?


I'll be the judge of that. Give me the entire quote with all surrounding text needed to provide all necessary context. Until then, the argument is dismissed.


Was he talking about any simple majority vote? That's not the same thing as the United States.


False. I quite competently called you a liar.


You picked the wrong quote. Post that quote from Hamilton in which he states that a republic requires that the sense of the majority should prevail over the Constitutional liberties of the individual. Yes, post that quote.


Trump did make that observation, which only required him to be paying attention.


It's erroneous in that regard. Of course, it's exactly the kind of Marxist disinformation that I have come to expect from my tyrannical government, which is why I join the rest of We the People in demanding that Donald Trump be elected President. My hope is that he'll fix our tyrannical deep state problem and ferret out the Marxism infestation.

Do people in America vote for leaders, representatives, at federal, state, and municipal levels and, on occasion, legislation?

The answer is yes.

that's what you call, in descriptive terms, a democracy.

You can call America anything you want, but if we described it as a democracy, that would be correct.

If we said it was a 'constitutional republic', that would also be correct.

The fact that the term 'democracy' is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't negate the above.

There are a lot of things not in the constitution that exist in society.
1. Cabinet
2. Filibuster
3. Right to privacy
4. Judicial Review.
5. Democracy

Your point, therefore, that 'democracy' is not in the constitution doesn't buttress your claim.

 

[IBDaMann]

Wealthy individuals and corporations funnel vast sums of money into political campaigns and Super PACs,

People with more money give more than people with less, or no, money ... and that's for everything, not just political contributions.

]Governments use economic sanctions to exert pressure on other nations.

Some other words for you: "Diplomacy" and "Politics."

Corporations or wealthy individuals use financial power to perform hostile takeovers of companies.

Yep.

This isn’t about purchasing a product or service;

Of course it is. They purchased product is the company. Did you miss that part.

Certain hedge funds and investors engage in vulture capitalism,

Undefined buzzword. Dismissed.

Money is often used to bribe officials, influence judicial outcomes, or secure unfair advantages in business.

Everything you mentioned is illegal. Money is not to blame for crime. Criminals are to blame for the crimes they commit. Leave it to a Marxist to excuse criminals and blame inanimate objects.

You are clearly one of those who thinks insults elevates your posture in a debate.

You are clearly one of those who thinks that your posture in a debate is somehow elevated by regurgitating the stupid things your slave-masters have instructed you to believe.

I don't have the time to respond to all of your points,

You haven't responded intelligently to any of my points. I'm going to just continue breathing as opposed to holding my breath.

Money, in essence, is a receipt for labor where it's more convenient to trade the receipts than to trade labor directly.

Nope.

Labor is the ultimate source of money's value.

Nope.

Oh, sure, it garners value in ways where labor isn't apparently involved, but without labor initiating the journey to value, there would be no value to money.

Nope. Hint: Labor is just a commodity like any other. Money has nothing to do with that.

But, money wields power, if you have a lot of it.

Money doesn't wield anything. Your thought-masters' comments are stupid.

You are under the mistaken notion that I am opposed to free markets.

I am under the correct notion that you are completely opposed to free markets, and that you would do whatever you could to "fix" the non-problems that you listed above, and a whole lot more.

What, someone criticizes Ayn Rand and you think they are communists?

Nope. I simply profiled you to be the Marxist that you are. I haven't seen enough from you to know whether you are a communist or a socialist. Would you care to divulge?

Anway, I've been hearing that tired trope (lefties are commies, etc)

So, you're a communist? Would you prefer "Marxist Anarchist"?

since the 60s, from the lame fools in the John Birch Society all the way to today's MAGA maniacs.

So I'll ask ... what is so bad about making America great again?

I am a capitalist, I've owned a number of businesses in my life, and I'm retired.

You haven't convinced me. I'm presuming that you are a Marxist, and now I'm presuming that you are gun-shy about admitting such.

I adore free markets

... not if you refer to them as "rigged markets." You give yourself away when you write "—it’s a rigged system where a handful of powerful corporations and wealthy individuals pull the strings." That's your standard incoherent Marxist raving right there. Save it for your prayers to Karl.

What we have today isn’t capitalism in its purest sense;

Full stop. You're a Marxist. You're not going to convince me that you are somehow not a Marxist by using Marxist phraseology like the purity of capitalism. Like any Marxist, you don't even know what capitalism is beyond the generic slur it is intended to be.

"Capitalism" doesn't have a "purity".

it’s corporate socialism. The term might seem contradictory at first, but it captures the essence of the problem. In this system, the risks are socialized—meaning that the general public bears the brunt of failures, "too big to fail", while the profits are privatized and hoarded by a tiny elite. When big corporations make reckless decisions and things go south, they don’t suffer the consequences. Instead, they get bailed out by taxpayer money, while small businesses and regular workers are left to fend for themselves. I'm not saying every sector of the economy this holds true, but we've seen this story play out in the recent past.

I figured out the problem. You need to be engaged in a discussion with Blackwater Lunchbreak. I'm really not the right guy. You and he will hit it off big time.

So yes, while free markets are an admirable concept,

They are absolutely necessary for a free society, which is not a priority in your agenda.

The challenge is reclaiming those markets and ensuring they truly operate freely and fairly for everyone, not just the few at the top.

Fortunately, economics works the same for everyone just as it does for those at the top.

 

[Publius]

Redundant. All republics have a constitution.

Well, depends. All 'republic' is is a nation of elected or appointed leaders, as opposed to a monarchy, most have a constitution, but it's really a toothless fact as there are a number of 'republics' which gave on paper constitutions only that are ignored by a dictator.

No such thing. Democracies have no representatives and no constitution.

Representative democracies do. If you don't think so, you are ignoring history of the term.

The government does not get to redefine these words.

Public use is the basis of definitions. You don't get to redefine them, either.

False authority fallacy. The Britannica does not define any word.

Fallacy fallacy. A fallacy fallacy is where someone in a debate misapplies a fallacy category in the argument.
The 'appeal to authority' fallacy only becomes a valid point when someone declares that the one authority PROVES the argument.
But, that isn't what I'm doing.

You can appeal to authority to.......
1. Buttress your argument
2. Use more authorities to further buttress your argument

Why? Because an appeal to several authorities is a stronger argument than an appeal to ignorance.
Note that dictionaries define words according to popular use, and terms vary, over time.

Regarding the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Encyclopædia Britannica's authority as a trusted source of information is built on several key factors:

1. Historical Legacy: Britannica has been in publication since 1768, making it one of the oldest and most established reference works in the world. Its long history has allowed it to build a reputation for reliability and accuracy over centuries.
2. Expert Contributions: Articles in Britannica are written by experts, scholars, and professionals in their respective fields. These contributors are often recognized authorities, ensuring that the content is well-researched and credible.
3. Editorial Standards: Britannica maintains rigorous editorial standards, with content being carefully reviewed and fact-checked by experienced editors. This process helps ensure that the information presented is accurate, up-to-date, and unbiased.
4. Peer Review and Updates: Britannica frequently updates its content to reflect new research, discoveries, and changing perspectives. The commitment to ongoing revision ensures that Britannica remains a relevant and authoritative resource.
5. Reputation for Neutrality: Britannica is known for its commitment to neutrality and objectivity. The editorial process is designed to present balanced perspectives on controversial issues, avoiding bias and sensationalism.
6. Cross-Referencing and Sources: Britannica articles are often cross-referenced and linked to other credible sources, providing a comprehensive understanding of topics. This use of citations and references enhances its reliability as a scholarly resource.

These factors contribute to Britannica's long-standing reputation as a trusted and authoritative source of information across a wide range of subjects.

So, what is the source for your claim? If it is only yourself, I'll take the Britannica over you, sorry.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

I wasn't. Fallacy fallacy.

Democracies have no representatives.

Representative democracies do.

There is no such thing as a "direct" democracy. A government is a democracy, or it is not.

You must be confused.

There are no currently no democracies anywhere in the world.

There are representative democracies, AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies'.
Remember, it's a descriptive term.

They certainly were, and said so, and why.

WRONG. They created constitutions.

No, it doesn't.

Nope. A democracy is not a subset of a republic. They are two completely different forms of government. Set fallacy.
A republic is not a negative. It is government by law (a constitution). A republic is not a democracy. A democracy is not a republic. Redefinition fallacy.

Democracies have no representatives.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Definition of DEMOCRACY

government by the people; especially : rule of the majority; 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… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Frequently Asked Questions​

Is the United States a democracy or a republic?

The United States is both a democracy and a republic. Democracies and republics are both forms of government in which supreme power resides in the citizens. The word republic refers specifically to a government in which those citizens elect representatives who govern according to the law. The word democracy can refer to this same kind of representational government, or it can refer instead to what is also called a direct democracy, in which the citizens themselves participate in the act of governing directly.
What is the basic meaning of democracy?

The word democracy most often refers to a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.
What is a democratic system of government?

A democratic system of government is a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections.

*************************

If you want argue otherwise, fine. You are wrong, and let's just leave it at that.

 

[IBDaMann]

to vote is democracy.

Nope. To vote is to vote. That's why we have that word.

You can call America anything you want, but if we described it as a democracy, that would be correct.

It would be incorrect. The US is a Constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, totally precluding democracy. The majority is never allowed to infringe on the rights of the minority/individual.

If we said it was a 'constitutional republic', that would [finally] be correct.

FTFY. Yes, you got one right. I was pulling for you.

The fact that the term 'democracy' is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't negate the above.

Correct. Much of the above is negated just on the basis that it is wrong. The word "democracy" is never mentioned in the Constitution for the same reason the word "oligarchy" is never mentioned.

There are a lot of things not in the constitution that exist in society. ... Your point, therefore, that 'democracy' is not in the constitution doesn't buttress your claim.

Of course it supports what I'm saying. The Constitution is law. You can't have a law mandating something that it never mentions, especially when that something is precluded by what the law specifically mentions.

You haven't really thought this through.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yeah, nothing spells "tyrannical" like screaming for a strongman to dismantle government institutions because you didn’t like the last election's outcome.

Desperate mischaracterizations are all you have.

You traffic in tired tropes

Such as ...?

I've heard it all.

All of those who haven't learned anything presume to have heard it all.

I regret inform you that Trump will lose.

Says the dude who doesn't know the difference between a Constitutional republic and a democracy.