Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?

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


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


Yep.


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


Undefined buzzword. Dismissed.


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 that your posture in a debate is somehow elevated by regurgitating the stupid things your slave-masters have instructed you to believe.


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


Nope.


Nope.


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

Money has everything to do with it.

You see, you didn't grasp my point, labor is the ULTIMATE source of the value of money. You're just looking way past it, on the surface, where in modernity that fact got buried.


Money doesn't wield anything. Your thought-masters' comments are stupid.
Money is power. You can buy people with it to do your bidding. Trump does it, lots of rich people do it.
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.
Fuck you. If you can't accept my statement at face value, that makes you a smug prick fuckwit.
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?


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

So I'll ask ... what is so bad about making America great again?
I don't answer loaded questions.
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.


... 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.
You're deluded.
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".


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.



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



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

Oh, the smugness of certainty—nothing says 'I'm terrified of being wrong' quite like pretending there's no other side to the story. It's almost adorable, really, how you think shutting down debate makes you look strong when all it does is highlight your fear of actual discourse. Keep clinging to that one-track mind; it’s the surest way to prove you’ve got nothing else to offer.

See, you don't really debate. A serious debater will consider another's argument, what you do is cram your viewpoint down other's throats, as if you are God and you are right no matter what.

There's a simple term for people like you, the term is 'fuckwit'.

Now fuck off. I'll find someone who is serious, if not, I won't bother.
 
Desperate mischaracterizations are all you have.


Such as ...?


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


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

As if.

I found the correct term for guys like you:

SOCIOPATH

Now, you may or may not have all the traits common to sociopath, but given your propensity for anarchy or oligarchy, or vulture capitalism, or libertarianism (they are wack) whatever the fuck you believe in, if anything at all., you do lack the one clear quality that comprises all sociopaths, and that's empathy.

Which is why you are voting for Trump, because he IS a sociopath, a malignant narcissist type.

Without empathy, you will never see that there is a middle ground between the right and the left, the sweet spot.

Where does a pendulum rest?

Dead center.

But, without empathy, that center will forever elude you.

You will remain stupid.

And there's no point in discussing anything with you on the subject of politics.
 
I've been saying that America is seen and known as being a Constitutional Republic for some time now.
It certainly is in line with what our founders agreed upon, and that we/America is in no way to be
considered a democracy, or a socialist run democracy.


You've been saying lots of things...mostly bullshit stuff that sounds like a kid throwing a tantrum because his Mommy won't buy him a toy he wants.

Grow the fuck up.

The leftist twats don't care. They use the term "democracy" not because it means anything to them or they care about it, but because they think it disparages trump and his supporters. Remember words have "fluid" meanings with leftists. They don't care that America isnt a democracy. They hate America and would hate it all the more if it actually was a democracy.

Same goes for you, Twat.
 
Doing away with the electoral college would be even better.
Yup...that would be better.

The asshole minority MAGA scum would never win a presidential election from that point on. Your hero, Trump, used to advocate for doing away with the Electoral College early on...until someone finally educated him.

Only morons think the Electoral College helps progressives...and hurts people like you.
 
labor is the ULTIMATE source of the value of money.
Nope Labor is just another commodity.

Fuck you. If you can't accept my statement at face value, that makes you a smug prick fuckwit.
OK, ummm, eat shit dickwad, ummm, while you have your head jammed up your ass.

I don't answer [easy, straightforward ] questions.
FTFY. Most Marxists are EVASIVE cowards, so I'm not surprised.

Oh, the smugness of certainty—
You have me pegged.

nothing says 'I'm terrified of being wrong' quite like pretending there's no other side to the story.
Nope, although I would be interested to learn what it's like to be mistaken.. Would you care to share your expertise?

It's almost adorable, really, how you think shutting down debate makes you look strong
Have you already forgotten that you are the one who refuses to answer even easy questions and who struggles for lame excuses?

...when all it does is highlight your fear of actual discourse.
I'm not the one who is tripping over his own tail between his legs. If you'd only stop cowering in the corner and join the conversation, you'll likely survive just fine.

See, you don't really debate. A serious debater will consider another's argument
That's exactly what I did before I rejected yours. You must have missed that while you were cowering away from all of my direct responses.

what you do is cram your viewpoint down other's throats,
Yes. I do that because the correct answer otherwise has an extremely bitter taste.

as if you are God and you are right no matter what.
Sure, if you find it easier to look at it that way.

Now fuck off. I'll find someone who is serious, if not, I won't bother.
... says the coward as he's fucking off, EVADING all serious discussion.
 
Doing away with the electoral college would be even better.
That would be very bad. The DNC would make four key States totally WOKE and would then force WOKE onto all the other States as they never again lose another election. The voices of all the other States would be forever silenced.

Very bad idea.


As a counter-balance voters should be required to pass literacy and civics tests.
... tests that are totally WOKE, developed directly by the DNC at the DNC, tests that must be "passed" in order for anyone to be able to vote.

No, thanks.
 
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.
It's the Athenian Democracy that created this confusion among MAGAs. However, you are even MORE confused than the typical MAGA. Because the Athenian Democracy DID, in fact, have a constitution. It was written by Aristotle!
 
Well, depends.
Nope. The definition stays the same. No dependencies.
All 'republic' is is a nation of elected or appointed leaders,
Redefinition fallacy. A republic is government by law (a constitution).
as opposed to a monarchy, most have a constitution,
All republics 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.
A dictatorship is not a republic. Dictatorships have no constitution.
Representative democracies do.
Democracies have no representatives.
If you don't think so, you are ignoring history of the term.
No. You are ignoring the meaning of words and trying to redefine them.
Public use is the basis of definitions. You don't get to redefine them, either.
I am not redefining them. DON'T BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!
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.
It IS what you are doing. You cannot discard your fallacies that way!
You can appeal to authority to.......
1. Buttress your argument
2. Use more authorities to further buttress your argument
False authority fallacy.
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.
Word games. False authority fallacy.
So, what is the source for your claim? If it is only yourself, I'll take the Britannica over you, sorry.
The Britannica does not define any word. False authority fallacy.
I wasn't. Fallacy fallacy.
Blatant lie. False authority fallacy.
Representative democracies do.
Democracies have no representatives. There is no such thing.
You must be confused.
DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!
There are representative democracies, AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies'.
Remember, it's a descriptive term.
Democracies have no representatives. There is no such thing.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Dictionaries don't define any word. False authority fallacy.

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?
WRONG. The United States was never a democracy. Democracies have no representatives and no constitutions.
The word democracy most often refers to a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.
Democracies have no representatives.
What is a democratic system of government?
A democracy is government by popular vote. There are no representatives and no constitution.
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.
There is no "direct" or "indirect". There is a democracy, or there is not.
*************************

If you want argue otherwise, fine. You are wrong, and let's just leave it at that.
Assumption of victory fallacy. False authority fallacies. Redefinition fallacies.
 
It's the Athenian Democracy that created this confusion among MAGAs.
MAGA isn't a person. Redefinition fallacy.
However, you are even MORE confused than the typical MAGA.
MAGA isn't a person. Redefinition fallacy.
Because the Athenian Democracy DID, in fact, have a constitution.
Athens had no constitution when it was a democracy. Democracies have no constitution.
It was written by Aristotle!
Aristotle did not write what did not exist. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR ILLITERACY ON ARISTOTLE OR ANYBODY ELSE!
 
Money has everything to do with it.
No, it doesn't. Money is not a vote. Money is not God.
You see, you didn't grasp my point, labor is the ULTIMATE source of the value of money.
Right out of Marx.

No. Money only has value because people accept it as a medium of barter.
You're just looking way past it, on the surface, where in modernity that fact got buried.
Not a fact. Learn what "fact" means. It does NOT mean Universal Truth.
Money is power.
Money is not power. It is a medium of exchange use to facilitate barter.
You can buy people with it to do your bidding.
You mean 'hire people'? So?
Trump does it, lots of rich people do it.
So?
Fuck you. If you can't accept my statement at face value, that makes you a smug prick fuckwit.
You are not God.
I don't answer loaded questions.

You're deluded.
The question isn't loaded.

Oh, the smugness of certainty—nothing says 'I'm terrified of being wrong' quite like pretending there's no other side to the story. It's almost adorable, really, how you think shutting down debate makes you look strong when all it does is highlight your fear of actual discourse. Keep clinging to that one-track mind; it’s the surest way to prove you’ve got nothing else to offer.

See, you don't really debate. A serious debater will consider another's argument, what you do is cram your viewpoint down other's throats, as if you are God and you are right no matter what.

There's a simple term for people like you, the term is 'fuckwit'.

Now fuck off. I'll find someone who is serious, if not, I won't bother.
 
Nope Labor is just another commodity.
No, the easy way to understand it is to reduce it to it's simplest elements.. You work, produce something, and you trade it for something you need, where someone else needs what you produced. What is happening, at it's essence, is labor being traded for labor. In a more complex society, the bartering becomes cumbersome and money is invented to facilitate this process. But money doesn't alter the simple principle. Since the world has become more complex, this principle is easily lost, and the notion that money is derived, in ultimate terms, from labor, it becomes obfuscated, but labor is the ULTIMATE source of value for money. The process, the journey to where money achieves value on which everyone agrees to it's value, is a journey, but that journey started with labor. There really is no way around that fact. It's an inescapable fact.

Now, if you can't see that, then your credibility is in question. but, don't feel bad, some very intelligent people cannot see it. I do beleive the monetarists see it.
OK, ummm, eat shit dickwad, ummm, while you have your head jammed up your ass.
Whatever. Sticks and stones, etc.
FTFY. Most Marxists are EVASIVE cowards, so I'm not surprised.
Fuck you.
You have me pegged.
Easily.
Nope, although I would be interested to learn what it's like to be mistaken.. Would you care to share your expertise?
If you were sincere,, sure. But, of course, given the tone, manner and caliber of your comments, you are disingenuous. I'd say you are actually lying. You're a liar.
Have you already forgotten that you are the one who refuses to answer even easy questions and who struggles for lame excuses?
Have you noticed that you traffick in questions with an assumed premises, 'loaded questions'? Have you noticed that you fail to query before jumping to conclusions. Have you noticed that you are wearing shit diapers and you can't smell it? Why bother with people like you? Of course,. that didn't occur to you. There is no obligation on any forum to respond to every point. There is especially no obligation to respond to the smug pricks (like you) of the world, and the world if full of them. Since Trump, they crawled out from under the logs of society, and, in Trump, they found their champion. When Buckley was alive, he did a magnificent job of keeping them on the sidelines (particularly, the Birchers).
I'm not the one who is tripping over his own tail between his legs. If you'd only stop cowering in the corner and join the conversation, you'll likely survive just fine.
Moot point, see above.
That's exactly what I did before I rejected yours. You must have missed that while you were cowering away from all of my direct responses.
Oh yeah, piss off.
Yes. I do that because the correct answer otherwise has an extremely bitter taste.
Dream on.
Sure, if you find it easier to look at it that way.


... says the coward as he's fucking off, EVADING all serious discussion.

No, there is no point in debating those who are smug. Only morons believe the election was stolen (I've been reading your pasts comments), and smart people know that Trump is a threat to US National Security. But,. you won't listen, you think you got it all figured out. You don't understand what 'proof' actually is., That's off point, off topic, but I needed to confirm who you are.

You have my permission to commence digging your shit hole and remaining there. I don't evade serious discussion. I've been on many forums for some 25 years going back to the 90s. Before the internet, going back to my teen years in the 60s. I've seen sooo many boring smug pricks like you in my life, and can smell you a mile way (that's a metaphor given that you are, no doubt, metaphor challenged), you are nothing, you are shit.

So pester someone else who has you confused with someone intelligent.

If you actually believe you are sincere, feel free to prove me wrong. But, I can smell a shit poster, just remember. A shit poster is not the same as a troll. A troll knows his posts are shit, but does it anyway just for kicks. I don't sense you are a troll, just a shit poster. A shit poster actually believes his shit smells good and is smug cocky about it (and that is where the 'shit' exists) when it is painfully clear to intelligent people it stinks
 
As if. I found the correct term for guys like you: SOCIOPATH
Let the pivot begin. I realize that I wasn't supposed to notice, but I did. My bad.

Now, you may or may not have all the traits common to sociopath, but given your propensity for anarchy or oligarchy, or vulture capitalism, or libertarianism (they are wack) whatever the fuck you believe in, if anything at all., you do lack the one clear quality that comprises all sociopaths, and that's empathy.
So you realize that you can't justify your assertion that labor is somehow the "ULTIMATE value of money" ... so you are trying to find a graceful way to flee from the conversation ... and by "graceful" I mean "throw up a smokescreen of distractionary insults" in an abrupt change of topic, i.e. the only way you know how.

Which is why you are voting for Trump, because he IS a sociopath, a malignant narcissist type.
Somewhere along your Marxist reaming, you were infected with TDS, precluding you from being rational on this topic. All you can do is babble in your raving. The good news is that when you flee in panic, you don't kick up nearly as much dust as I had imagined.

Without empathy, you will never see that there is a middle ground between the right and the left, the sweet spot.
I'm directly in the center, with the Constitution as my roadmap. You are so far to the left that I can't see you from where I'm standing, which explains why you can't see anything that you need to be seeing.

By the way, you are not a psychologist. Ask me how I know.

Where does a pendulum rest?
Not in the pit.

And there's no point in discussing anything with you on the subject of politics.
At least not until you learn something. That won't happen while you have others doing your thinking for you.
 
It's the Athenian Democracy that created this confusion among MAGAs.
What is the confusion among those who wish to make America great again (2nd time asking) and how did Athenian democracy cause it?

However, you are even MORE confused than the typical MAGA.
How is the desire to make America great again somehow a "confusion"? (3rd time asking)

Because the Athenian Democracy DID, in fact, have a constitution. It was written by Aristotle!
So how was Aristotle able to confuse those who wish to make America great again?
 
Back
Top