Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?

Feynman Lives! said:
Clearly you didn't.
Click to expand...
He did. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Feynman Lives! said:
If you had, you would QUOTE what reveals to you that the poster is a marxist, and tell us WHY that points to an anti-capitalist, communal society as described by Marx.
Click to expand...
RQAA
Feynman Lives! said:
But now it's clear you won't so.... Don't bother.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Feynman Lives! said:
Oh... and always remember....

“If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can.” -Karl Popper​

Click to expand...
Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
That's an excelent explanation.
Click to expand...
Redefinition fallacies are not an explanation. Redefinition fallacy.
Feynman Lives! said:
We should point out that the framers made the distinction of Republic vs Monarchy as opposites because those were the two options considered when establishing this nation.
Click to expand...
There are many systems of government. False dichotomy fallacy.
Feynman Lives! said:
Their criticism of direct democracy was a thought experiment. There wasn't really much debate about it because it was a form of government that hadn't existed for over a thousand years.
Click to expand...
The last attempt was CHAZ, in Seattle. That democracy dissolved into a brutal oligarchy in less than a year.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
The Republic of the Congo is a Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...
The constitution must outline the power/freedoms of the indivual and be forthwith adhered, not merely a ceremonial item on display.

Geeko Sportivo said:
Meanwhile the United States is the only country in the entire FREE WORLD, where a majority of voters can still lose the election to a minority of voters.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The electors are the voters and the majority wins.

What you meant to say is that in the US, the Constitutional republic prevents the majority from infringing on the rights of the individual/minority.
 
IBDaMann said:
The constitution must outline the power/freedoms of the indivual and be forthwith adhered, not merely a ceremonial item on display.


Incorrect. The electors are the voters and the majority wins.

What you meant to say is that in the US, the Constitutional republic prevents the majority from infringing on the rights of the individual/minority.
Click to expand...
I only care about what a majority wants!

The people decide what we want- NOT SOME INDIVIDUALS LIKE DONALD CHUMP AND J.D. PUSSY BOY!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I only care about what a majority wants!
Click to expand...
Nope. You care about your individual liberties, your freedom, your family, your security, safety, etc.... just like most people in the republic ... which is why they want a republic. It's why they want those precious Constitutional amendments.
 
EdwinA said:
Gee, that must be why Democrats are so opposed to them, along with requiring ID's, cuz their base is so literate and educated. lol keep hope alive, even if it means lying in public.
Click to expand...
The 5 states with the poorest education rates are West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansa and Oklahoma. What do republicans win those states by, 25%?
The 5 states with the highest education rates are Massaachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut and Colorado. When was the last time Republicans won one of those?

It is practically impossible to commit voter fraud not to mention only a fucking idiot would try, showing a ID is a waste of time.
 
IBDaMann said:
I'm not going to spin my wheels for your amusement.
Click to expand...

Clearly!

I've seen it a thousand times: somebody says another is a Marixst or a communist, and then they can't explain WHY. What it is in that they said that "revealed" them as Marxist.

That confirmis that they don't even know what "Marxism" is. But it's even simpler: ANYBODY who accuses another of being a communist, marxist, socialist, .... UNLESS the person has DECLARED that they are, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Having debated many times with actual Marxist, I have never met a single one who would HIDE the fact that they are Marxists. So it's just a ploy to not address what the other person is saying.

So, bottom line, if you EVER see anybody saying something like "You're a marxist!" you can safely assume that they have no clue what marxism IS.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
ANYBODY who accuses another of being a communist, marxist, socialist, .... UNLESS the person has DECLARED that they are, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
You have just explained that you are, in fact, desperate for me to teach you to spot a Marxist. I also see that you are desperate for a refresher in English grammar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top