What kind of party does this?

with fewer votes from voters than his opponent

Trump was an Affirmative Action hire

 

I already gave you credit for being right about the right. There was no need to re-preach to the choir. As you are pointing out how righteous minds are blinded, you are revealing the same about your party. Dems act just like Trump.

The tantrump you posted does not address the fact that your party is no different when it comes to gaining/maintaining power. Take off the lefty lenses for a moment and ignore the letter next to their name. How many politicians cashed checks from food giants and big pharma to help them get elected? How many companies scored no bid government contracts after they handed over campaign cash? How many companies enjoy special tax breaks for towing a party line? Of course, dems would never engage in gerrymandering, right? How about filling districts with undocumented aliens?

Its all about power and control over the flow of tax dollars. What you call "philosophies" are nothing more than sales pitches that seldom match the subsequent results once power is achieved.

If you want to challenge my position, here it is.

Government should never have more power than you would want Trump to have.

 

Well, deal with this:

For a nation to be classified as a liberal democracy, it must have the following:

1. Freedom to form and join organisations.
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.

To a degree greater than not, America qualifies for that classification.

America is among the great western liberal democracies.

The EC doesn't negate this fact.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

You missed the point. He didn't free the slaves for the sake of freeing the slaves, he freed them SOLELY in order to save the Union.

If he could have saved the Union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so, and he stated that fact, explicitly,

 

Do you mean that another person with the exact same vote totals in the exact same places would NOT have won?

If not, then how are you rationalizing that it is affirmative action? Perhaps you do not understand the term?

 

Nope, He was hired by the process defined in the Constitution.

 

its a representative republic - we get to choose our rulers
its also a parliamentary democracy - the rulers vote for us
the rest is fantasy.
choosing new dictators every few years does not make this a democracy.
If you think this is a democracy what the last amendment you voted on?
R v W maybe? Did you vote on that?
Nonetheless you are stuck living with these rules you never voted on like it or not.

 

the term 'democracy' is broader than the narrow concept you are using it for.

America is listed in the list of great western liberal democracies. Why?

Because, to be on that list, the requirements (more or less) are:

1. Freedom to form and join organisations.
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.

The phrase 'Constitutional Republic" and 'liberal democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms.

All this talk of 'representative democracy' is just nitpicking.

"Democracy' is a broad concept, a way of life, and, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, A 'Republic" is any form of government that is not a Monarchy or Dictatorship, of which 'democracy' is inclusive.

Like I said before, the only persons asserting that "America is not a democracy" are those who keep losing the popular vote.

 

So what? Lincoln made it clear before 1860 that he disagreed with slavery but did not think it could be ended abruptly. It would have to die a natural death. He changed during the course of the war to understand it had be be ended, once and for all. His second inaugural address expressed his views by then very clearly.

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'​

 

In fact the constitution is "Amendable!" Interpretating the constitution however you want isn't how it's supposed to be updated. Congress is supposed to do their jobs and amend it when necessary. Thanks for playing.

 

The EC emerged as a compromise, not out of philosophical wisdom and/or inspiration.

 

You've responded to my post without the context of the remark I was commenting on. Which was...Everything you people are arguing over was decided over 200 years ago by men far more wise and virtuous than anyone we have in government today...

 

Yes, I wasn't implying he didn't oppose slavery, as slavery wasn't popular in the North, that doesn't negate the fact that he would have prefered not to have ended slavery so abruptly, if he could have saved the union without freeing the slaves. He would have preferred slavery just fading away, without causing all the abrupt chaos that was caused by the war.

Your point doesn't negate mine, actually.

 

It was basically the best compromise (of poor choices) they could come up with in order to ensure the new government was formed. It has become a blight on democracy.

 

We need to get rid of the EC, or do a workaround.

 

You spent four years hating a man you barely knew from your own pathetic mind you made enemies where none existed. All of that and you still have no idea why Trump won in 2016. Why people rejected firmly your cult of experts both neocons and Hillarycrats.
Now you see why, we are on the verge of nuclear war, runaway inflation, is eating the poor alive. And all the people you voted for have is get an electric car, you know the 21st century version of Antoinette's let them eat cake.

 

Don't need to look it up you consistent provide excellent examples.

 

A lot of the Constitution was decided by compromise.

 

I agree. And he had to make precisely that point at Cooper Union hall in order to secure support from the New York Republicans in 1860.

 

No of that defines us as a democracy. We, the United States, is a FEDERAL REPUBLIC as I have shown from the Constitution, the founding fathers and the government itself.

And again show me where at any time in our history there has ever been a national vote on ANYTHING.

Get over it and embrace the Republic for which our national flag stands.

 

Why would you want only Texas, California and New York decide who should be President of the UNITED STATES? And of course that would require a federalization of the that election controlled by the federal government for which there is no mechanism. We would all have to vote under the exact same rules, how are you going to enact that and force it on the states? How would you even get an amendment to the Constitution to enact it?

 

I just proved otherswise.

 

By getting it done.

 

Except for the fact that voting equals democracy.