Why Democrats Just Absolutely Hate Being Called .....

[JackDaniels]

That is why we are not a direct democracy.

Would you choose a direct democracy?

Do you understand what would have to happen to be a direct democracy?

The people would have to vote on everything that was done.

Lets not be stupid.

We are still a democracy and just go ahead and try and say we are not?

First of all, you are building a strawman. No one is in favor of direct democracy, so why ask others to defend it? Because you have an intellectual void.

Secondly, do you understand what a representative republic is? It's not even really representative democracy. We're a republic. Which is completely different.

STOP debating politics. You have shown yourself to be the most uneducated person on this board.

[diuretic]

I've always being one who likes to get under the skin of the collective left, and glorioski, have I found a way to rattle Democrats. You just refer to their wonderful party as the Democrat Party! Lordy, does this put a burr in their thongs.

Well .. now I think I've found out why! A buddy of mine at CNN (who, for obvious reasons, shall remain unnamed) provided me with some interesting information.

Joseph J. Ellis wrote a book called "Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation." I ordered my copy this morning. One of the Amazon.com reviews for this book says "This book is really unique in that it gives a really interesting perspective not only on the men [our founding fathers] , but the dynamic between them."

Now in that book by this renowned historian you will find some tasty information on the origination of the word "democrat." Many times I've told you that our founding fathers were none too fond of the idea of democracy, or, as they viewed it, mob rule.

Here's the quote:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

Don't you love it? Could anything better define today's Democrat Party? Get with the program folks. It's the Democrat, not the "Democratic" Party.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

I remember reading where the founders were keen to avoid the tyranny of the majority so the epithet makes sense. The worst kind of politician in a democracy is the populist, the one who will sacrifice principle for popularity (ie for votes). And I have to say on my reading of US politics there has been plenty of populism on both sides of politics over the years. Of course that doesn't make it right, but it's my observation.

[JackDaniels]

Here is a good quote for you...

"The United States is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

From An Introduction to the American Legal System

Get it through your dumbass skull...We are NOT a democracy, idiot.

[diuretic]

Is the USA a democracy?

Would you agree that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are 2 very important historical documents to our country's founding? Exactly where in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution does the word democracy appear? In our pledge of allegiance it is to a republic, not a democracy.

Still reading through so if this has been answered then apologies for bringing it up again.

There's no clash between a "republic" and a "democracy". But I do take the point that "republicanism" as a political philosophy has a very broad meaning and application. But I'm just, for the moment, looking at the context both concepts are being used.

A "republic" is more about what it's not than what it is. France is a republic, Australia is a constitutonal monarchy. France has a president, we have a sovereign. France is a democracy, so is Australia.

The United States is a republic. It has a president. It is a democracy.

[diuretic]

Actually, the Founders thought that direct democracy was dangerous, as it put too much power in the hands of the uneducated masses.

Good point. Direct democracy would be a mess too, imagine 300 million people all trying to get a word in at once! Indirect democracy is probably the only workable system in an advanced industrialised nation.

[truthmatters]

First of all, you are building a strawman. No one is in favor of direct democracy, so why ask others to defend it? Because you have an intellectual void.

Secondly, do you understand what a representative republic is? It's not even really representative democracy. We're a republic. Which is completely different.

STOP debating politics. You have shown yourself to be the most uneducated person on this board.

Maybe you should go back and read who was building the straw man?

[JackDaniels]

Still reading through so if this has been answered then apologies for bringing it up again.

There's no clash between a "republic" and a "democracy". But I do take the point that "republicanism" as a political philosophy has a very broad meaning and application. But I'm just, for the moment, looking at the context both concepts are being used.

A "republic" is more about what it's not than what it is. France is a republic, Australia is a constitutonal monarchy. France has a president, we have a sovereign. France is a democracy, so is Australia.

The United States is a republic. It has a president. It is a democracy.

Our protections of minorities (politically, not racial) in government institutions and lack of 51% passage for numerous types of legislation mean specifically we are not a traditional representative democracy. We are a Republic.

[truthmatters]

I've always being one who likes to get under the skin of the collective left, and glorioski, have I found a way to rattle Democrats. You just refer to their wonderful party as the Democrat Party! Lordy, does this put a burr in their thongs.

Well .. now I think I've found out why! A buddy of mine at CNN (who, for obvious reasons, shall remain unnamed) provided me with some interesting information.

Joseph J. Ellis wrote a book called "Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation." I ordered my copy this morning. One of the Amazon.com reviews for this book says "This book is really unique in that it gives a really interesting perspective not only on the men [our founding fathers] , but the dynamic between them."

Now in that book by this renowned historian you will find some tasty information on the origination of the word "democrat." Many times I've told you that our founding fathers were none too fond of the idea of democracy, or, as they viewed it, mob rule.

Here's the quote:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

Don't you love it? Could anything better define today's Democrat Party? Get with the program folks. It's the Democrat, not the "Democratic" Party.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

the original post



A democractic republic is a democracy.

[JackDaniels]

the original post



A democractic republic is a democracy.

Once again, you completely fail to make a valid point. You don't cite anything, and you just make uneducated statements.

Go take History 101. You REALLY need it.

[truthmatters]

A republic is a form of democracy.

How long have you been buying into that idiot talking point ?


http://tinyurl.com/25ehpv





de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

how many times do I have to post this fact?

[JackDaniels]

how many times do I have to post this fact?

That does not 100% accurately describe our political system. How stupid are you?

[truthmatters]

Cant you read?

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.

have a little honesty

[retiredman]

That does not 100% accurately describe our political system. How stupid are you?

"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government."

pretty damned close. you should quit and limit your losses.

[diuretic]

Our protections of minorities (politically, not racial) in government institutions and lack of 51% passage for numerous types of legislation mean specifically we are not a traditional representative democracy. We are a Republic.

Oh dear, I'm going to look like I'm a pedant. I'm not really.

John Stuart Mill was a wise observer and thinker. He too was aware of the potential for the tyranny of the majority in a democracy. He was right on the money. What we value is a liberal democracy, not a simple democracy. And a liberal democracy can be a republic or a constitutional monarchy with indirect representation. And on indirect representation probably the clearext exposition of it I can think of is still Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol.

[JackDaniels]

Oh dear, I'm going to look like I'm a pedant. I'm not really.

John Stuart Mill was a wise observer and thinker. He too was aware of the potential for the tyranny of the majority in a democracy. He was right on the money. What we value is a liberal democracy, not a simple democracy. And a liberal democracy can be a republic or a constitutional monarchy with indirect representation. And on indirect representation probably the clearext exposition of it I can think of is still Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol.

Here's the best way I can describe it...

Think of it like a pie chart. 10% are democratic characteristics and 90% are republican characteristics. Believe it or not, there is a huge difference.

Does the U.S. have democratic characteristics? Sure does. However, the overwhelming characteristics of a republic make it unfair to label us strictly as a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy"

Our rules of government reflect that.