The Political Spectrum

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Ravenhawk, Feb 23, 2021.

  1. Ravenhawk

    Ravenhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I’d like to address the failings of what we consider the Political Spectrum. Currently, we think of the spectrum to have the ‘Left’ on one side and the ‘Right’ on the other. Many flavors of governments are on one side or the other. You have groups like Marxism, Communism, Maoism on the left and Fascism and Nazism on the Right. This includes other forms like Dictatorships, Kingdoms, and Democracies. But this spectrum becomes confusing from all these flavors. The differences are just academic, don’t get hung up on the definitions. In fact, it is not the differences that we should spend our time with. It is the one thing that makes them the same. That one thing is that all government leans toward taking more and more power from the people over time. There is no real check on this power. The only check is a dynastic failure either by insurrection or collapse (or both). These kinds of government are the most common form of government on the planet (Socialism).



    There is only one exception and it is under assault. That exception is a Constitutional Republic. That is the United States of America. We are not a democracy, even though we are referred to as such. What makes it different is that there are checks on power. Madison eloquently stated: "In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness." This is why we are the Great Experiment. In the world, a right of liberty is granted to the individual by the state. It can also take it away. Our government took a radical approach, moving away from the status quo, where government cannot infringe on liberty (can neither give nor take), but protect. Governments can do one or the other, not both (no hybrids). Because of this, the political spectrum means nothing.



    It is a matter of degree as to how much control any particular government places on its people. This is why the current spectrum is obsolete. A better representation would be to take the current spectrum, find its center and fold it at that center, one side over onto the other. So that the extreme Left and extreme Right are now side-by-side (where they truly belong). Out of convention, let’s put total government to the Left and label the Left end as “100% government control” and the Right end as “0% government control” (Anarchy). Are you with me so far? I think this is much more accurate than the old system. It now becomes a one-upmanship trying to get to total government first, sacrificing the rights of the individual.



    Every single government starts on this line somewhere and there are only three rules on this line. Rule 1 states that governments can travel to the Left (100%) or Right (0%) at some specific rate dependent on the scenario. Rule 2 states that the tendency of any government is to slide to the Left (over sliding to the Right) on the line. Rule 3 states that no government can reach the 0% end (asymptote). Doing so is an act of transformation and causes the new government to slingshot back on the line somewhere.



    And now for the caveat. Our government is the only one on the planet that places proper restrictions on itself to provide protections of individual rights and that is now endanger. Most Democracies provide only protections for its citizenry’s wellbeing (maintenance of the equipment, not looking out for the individual per se). There is a difference between a collective of individuals and a collective of interchangeable cogs.



    The following clip explains it well. You just need to watch the first 2 minutes of this 10-minute clip. It is the middle section of a larger presentation “Overview of America" produced by The John Birch Society. It is narrated by John McManus. I’d recommend anyone to watch the whole thing.



     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  2. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,253
    Likes Received:
    4,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I fail to see your point. Definitions are not what has us divided.
     
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    25,036
    Likes Received:
    9,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only ARE we a democracy. We pretty much invented what is known today as democracy. Or, rather, the framers did. If we weren't a democracy we would be a dictatorship. I know we came close with Trump but... we didn't quite get there.

    I fail to see any points in the rest of your post. The so-called "political spectrum" is made up by ideologues. It makes more sense how it's used in the U.S. Which is simply that if you lean more towards agreeing with Republicans, you are a right winger, and if it's Democrats, you are viewed as left. Other than that, left and right are artificial constructs made up by ideologues. So, in the end, anybody can define it any way they want. But it has no objective practical use in real life.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  4. Ravenhawk

    Ravenhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    3
    ?? The Point? Do you see want I’m talking about? Changing awareness. Updating the old obsolete Political Spectrum. No?



    Didn’t say that definitions are what has us divided, but definitions definitely cause confusion. What divides us is that one group wants to preserve the Constitution in its original form. The other group wants basically a Cultural Revolution so they can rewrite our history and character. Only one will win out. But that wasn’t the subject of the OP.
     
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    6,439
    Likes Received:
    4,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Birchers, yesterdays right wing nuts ( though still around ) were pretty much pushed to the sidelines during the days when Bill Buckley was the grandfather of conservativism as editor-in-chief of the National Review. If he was against something, then conservatives pretty much fell in line.
    He had enough of the ultra-right wingnut antics of the Birchers, and made sure they didn't get powerful in the GOP.

    I wouldn't trust anything coming from that group. When I was a boy, my sisters boyfriend was a bircher, and was always giving me pamphlets of conspiracy crap. As a kid, I was easily influenced, but as I matured, nah, not for me.

    On your 'America is not a democracy" ie. the opening point in your video, is flat out incorrect, it makes the FALSE DISTINCTION between a 'republic' and a 'democracy' as if one has nothing to do with the other, let's take a closer look, which I have done in a prior post on the subject:


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ocracy-and-a-republic.585167/#post-1072452511

    A republic simply means, a government of appointed or elected leaders, as opposed to a monarchy or an emperor, etc.
    So, 'republic' is a general term, it doesn't necessarily equal 'parliament' or 'American style government', you have to qualify it.
    Is it an Islamic republic republic? Or, Is it socialist republic? Is it a Democratic Socialist Republic? Is it a Fascist Republic?
    Is it a People's Republic? Is it a Unitary Republic? Is it a Federal Republic?

    Or, is it a democratic republic?

    America is a democratic republic.

    But, 'democracy is further qualified, as there are direct democracies and representative democracies.

    So, America to be precise, I would say America is a federalist representative democratic republic presiding over a union of states with their respective governments all of which is held together by a very well respected and abided by Constitution. But, note that, in America, there are many elections. There are elections for the electors/delegates (faithful to the president of choice), for the presidential nominees, for congresspersons, for US Senators, for Governors, for Attorneys General, for ballot initiatives, special elections, for education boards, supervisors, assembly persons, state senators, mayors, etc. And, in ALL of those elections, all but one are direct elections. Only in the general presidential election, is it representative, where the electorate elect electors who, in turn, select the president (jeez, it's complex, I think I got that all right). Anyway, America is all about elections, and to those who claim America is 'not' a democracy, but a 'republic', you are waving a flag, and on that flag, it shouts, 'look everyone, I'm ignorant!'. America is, and always has been, a democracy.


    If anyone hears the word 'John Birch Society', my advice to them is.......

    Run!


     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
    gabmux, Lucifer and ChiCowboy like this.
  6. Ravenhawk

    Ravenhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Then show me in our Founding Documents where it says we’re a democracy? You might also want to look at Federalist #10. If the Constitution is a new tool, then the Federalist Papers are its user manual.


    I think it was the Ancient Greeks that invented democracy, hence the Greek name. We were lumped together with the rest of the Western World as a democracy only because the Western World evolved from Solon’s writings of Ancient Greece. We utilize democratic principles for electing our political leaders, especially at the local levels, but most of the Western nations are Soft Socialists (“charters of liberty have been granted by power”) in a monarchy paradigm. Europe just can’t get away from that kind of government. These nations are still at the low end of the spectrum, but definitely moving along according to rule 2. Although, they are closer to being a dictatorship rather than a pure democracy.


    The Framers created a Constitutional Republic, specifically to not be a democracy. A Republic helps protect from factions found in democracies and the Founding Fathers were very afraid of factions. Kind of like the situation we have now with the Left. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would do today?


    And if we don’t change course, we soon will be a dictatorship. But I hope that won’t happen because there would be revolution/civil war. That would be too costly in blood and treasure. We should be able to use history to avoid this. So far, that’s not the case. Even Naomi Wolf has said that we are at Step 10 (Suspend the rule of law) of “The End of America”. I might argue that we are at step 10 but we definitely have hit many of them. All sorts of Liberals are coming forward giving warnings. A few of the woke are waking up!


    Wow?! Trump pulled us back from the cliff, if just for a short time. I’m curious, where did your misinformation come from? Give me an example of Trump being a dictator?? Don’t give a link or paragraphs, just need a sentence or two. Give just the synopsis of the charge.


    I’m not surprised. My points are clear to those with an open mind. My point is to show how and why the current spectrum is inadequate in today’s world.


    And? How the terminology evolved doesn’t really matter.


    It's far more than that. It doesn’t matter if you lean Left or Right or what flavor of government you identify with. Government is a collective, coercive power. To have faith in the government is to have faith in tyranny. All government slides toward the 100% government control end of the spectrum. Some do it faster than others. Again, it doesn’t matter if it is Fascist or Marxist. Their goal is the same, to impose power over the people. To Rob them of their natural rights.


    It’s not just terminology. Terminology is how we identify things. It has meaning. Ideologies are not artificial. Ideologies are real and deadly. Ideologies is what is used to enslave people. And only an ideologue would deflect such an OP.


    To sound the warning against tyranny has no objective practical use in real life? If a definition has become obsolete, you’d prefer not to rock the boat? The Left wants us to stay asleep. Don’t question them because they are the ruling elite. Well, what I say has merit and it challenges their agenda to keep the populace in confusion. If that makes them uncomfortable, then fine.


    If you respond, please focus on the two questions: 1) Where does it say that we are a Democracy in the Founding documents? and 2) One example of where Trump is a tyrant to the people?
     
    ButterBalls and Idahojunebug77 like this.
  7. Ravenhawk

    Ravenhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Now it’s the Rinos that we can’t let gain power in the GOP. I think that eventually, most will be primaried. I watched CPAC on Friday. Trump and Rush are the leaders of the Republican party going forward. There is no room for Rinos (Romney and Cheney were the butts of many jokes).


    You don’t have to trust someone to watch and learn. When I first watched that clip, in fact, the whole movie, and because it was labeled with ‘JBS’, I had my doubts and concerns, but I always have an open mind to new things. After watching it, my opinion of JBS has changed. It has become one of my most favored clips. I’d recommend it as a training tool for the US Constitution (US Government 101). I’ve watched a few other of their offerings. I’d say they have redeemed themselves. This clip captures the essence of the mindset of our Founders. The value is in the content and not who produced it.


    That is flat out wrong! Going back to the old reliable, Madison in Federalist #10, clearly defines the distinction between the two.


    If I had seen your post, I would have used my OP in some form to counter you.


    Not exactly. People are elected, not appointed. If representatives are appointed, then it’s not a Republic (maybe a Constitutional Monarchy?). Yes, the elected makes appointments but they should not have any authority beyond the elected.


    The term can be general. Many are confused by that. Many of the ex-Soviet Bloc states and China, etc. uses general terms like “People’s”, “Republic” “Union”, and “Democratic” in the name of that nation. Usually, it turns out to be a nation not related to any of those terms. But I believe that I qualified it when I stated that we are a Constitutional Republic.


    As I’ve said to Golem or Feynman or whatever, to show me where in our founding documents does it say that we are a democracy? You can’t. It’s not there. We are a Constitutional Republic. A republic is under the rule of law, whereas a democracy is under the rule of man. The compare/contrast of the two permeates the Federalist Papers.


    Very verbose, but this does not make us a democracy. We see the implications of voting fraud and manipulations. Iraq under Saddam, Iran, North Korea, China, and even Russia have elections with 90%+ going for the winner. But would you consider them a democracy? Just a little note: not even in a democracy do you get over 90% for one candidate. As I’ve said, we use democratic principles (whereas these other nations use the illusion of democratic principles), but we could use drawing cards to determine the winner just the same. We elect representatives to represent the people, democracy is done by direct vote. Under a republic, representatives are responsible to their constituents. In a democracy, they are responsible to the mob (or the largest faction of a mob). A Republic binds a large nation into one. A Democracy is only effective with small nations.


    That should give you a clue as to why we are not a democracy. The popular vote works well for small populations (up to several million), but not across a whole Republic. Until 1913, Senators were elected by the state legislatures (a power that needs to be returned to the states). But using the popular vote is the best thing for federal representatives, state legislatures, governors, and mayors (all local). But as you say, all but one race is determined that way. That one is the highest of all. We use the Electoral College, because the President must have the broadest appeal, not necessarily the most votes (understand the difference?). When Democrats win, it’s due to vote concentration rather than broadest appeal. What do those where the vote is concentrated (usually urban) have in common with multiple locations with fewer votes (usually rural)? Very little, so why should the smaller groups always follow the lead of the concentrated area? They have no interest in the concerns of the others. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about that. Most of this country is not concentrated. For example: Trump won ~2500 counties and Biden ~500. There are a total number of 3243 counties and county equivalents. The 25 most populated counties usually determine the outcome.


    Anyone who says that we are a democracy (other than just in general) is ignorant of the Founding Fathers.




    And that shows how open you are to new things – NOT! Me-thinks that you are too hung up on hating the JBS. I bet you didn’t view the whole thing?? It is very inspiring. But you’re right, your mind is already set on not accepting it.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    25,036
    Likes Received:
    9,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not paying attention. I'm talking about the modern concept of democracy. If we weren't a democracy we would be a dictatorship.
    Read again. I said "what is known today as democracy".

    Of course! The only alternative to that at the time would be a Monarchy. There were discussions as to whether or not we should have a King. Our forefathers chose not to. Otherwise all our heads of state would likely have been "Washington"

    I think you might have a problem with basic Politology 101. Specifically with the terminology. We are a Democratic Republic. If we weren't democratic, we would be a dictatorship. If we weren't a Republic we would be a Monarchy.

    There are democracies that are not Republics, such as Canada or the UK. And there are Republics that are not a democracy like China and North Korea. We, like France, like Mexico, ... and others, are a Democratic Republic.

    What cliff? Are you talking about immigration? In the area of the economy we were having a boom after Obama recovered us from the Bush depression. Growth was a bit slower after Trump came to power, but we were doing ok until Trump mishandled the pandemic and drove us back into the ground.

    My data is the economy. GDP, unemployment, consumer confidence, .... There have been many many threads here showing how the economy shot up after Obama implemented his economic policy. Trump basically, other than to try to make his billionaire friends and himself richer, had NO economic policy to speak of.

    You start this paragraph with "It's far more than that" and then you don't explain what more. We can talk about tyranny, about democracy, or about ideology, or marxism, nazism, fascism.... But "left" or "right" today no longer have any meaning. I wonder if they ever did.

    Answered. Obviously you didn't read what you were responding to.

    January 6
     
    Rampart and Lucifer like this.
  9. Rampart

    Rampart Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2017
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    there is so much wrong in your post that i think i'll agree with one thing - the 1 dimensional left vs right conflict model is too simple minded for any serious person to take seriously.

    the founders were not distinguishing a "republic" from a "democracy," their problem was with the dominant form of government in their time : monarchy.

    the federalist papers are only half (if that) of the founders opinions. there were antifederalists and many independent opinions. the papers themselves can be classified as "public relations." the writers (who used pseudonyms like the posters on an internet forum for a reason) continued to write in later life, examine their actions during public life before considering the constitution described in federalist papers to embody anything set in stone.

    "natural rights" are an artifact of of 18th century enlightenment simplicity. my rights are exactly what i can convince my neighbors and defend with force if necessary. .

    there is a continuum of opinions on the function of government in a free society. would you like to say that "the right" protects individual rights? i could pile on the counterexamples, but fine. i might say the we elect a government to protect our individual rights from stronger and better organized gangs and corporations. if that is not how things work, we have peaceful means to change governments and policies.
     
  10. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes Received:
    5,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would like to see a list of the actions Trump took to change the USA to a dictatorship.
     
  11. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    13,967
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If Trump had succeeded in overturning the election, having Repub legislatures install him as prez, would that qualify as a dictatorship?
     
  12. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,937
    Likes Received:
    2,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see more three different kind of states :
    "democracy", state of law and dictatorship.

    In many ancient kingdom, the power of nobility was framed by a bunch of traditions, and european during 15th century to the 18th century made a difference between a tyran and a regular king.
    A dictator tended to have strictly no bound to his power.

    I put some quote mark on "democracy", because I'm heavily doubtfull that elites of most democratic countries rule in favor of the people. I red something of my good old man Robespierre that for instance considered as fundamental the power of the people to dismiss their leaders, which they can't in most democracies. We're more giving a blank cheque for some years to a guy that managed to win the election.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    25,036
    Likes Received:
    9,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See speeches and actions leading up to and on January 6. There are many more, but this one is indefensible.
     
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    25,036
    Likes Received:
    9,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There can be democracies that follow and democracies that don't always follow the rule of law. Just like there can be dictatorships in both conditions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
  15. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    6,439
    Likes Received:
    4,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are ignorant of the founding fathers. They didnt like a direct democracy, so they compromised, and settled on a representative democracy, but that was for presidential elections. America has tons of elections, all but one are direct. America is all about democracy.

    Liberal democracy, in fact:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

    As we see, everywhere we look up the terms, the term 'Republic" is the broader term, which, given that there are Islamic republics, Calvanist Republics, Unitary Republics, republics of many kinds, INCLUDING a 'democratic republic' which America is.

    Encyclopedia Britannica:

    Republic, is a form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics. The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/republic-countries

    History of the Republic
    Before the 1600s, the term republic was used to designate any state that was not an authoritarian regime. Republic could encompass not only democratic states but also oligarchies, aristocracies, and monarchies.

    French philosopher Jean Bodin wrote a definition of the republic in his Six Books of the Commonwealth in 1576. It read, “the rightly ordered government of a number of families, and of those things which are their common concern, by a sovereign power.”

    The definition of a republic began shifting during the 17th and 18th centuries, with growing resistance to absolutist regimes and a series of revolutions. These include the American Revolution and the French Revolution. These events shaped the term to designate governments in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution.

    Even with its democratic implication, the term republic has been claimed by states whose leadership could be described as military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. This being said, 159 of the world’s sovereign states use the word “republic’ as part of their official names. However, not all these states are republics in the sense of having elected governments. For example, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, also known as North Korea, is widely considered a dictatorship and not a republic.

    Additionally, some of the world’s republics do not have “republic” as part of their names. An example of this is the United States.

    Countries with Republic Government
    There are many countries in the world with republic governments, although their types of republics vary.

    The United States is a republic. After the American Revolution and independence from Great Britain, the Constitution was written, establishing the United States as a federal democratic republic. The United States can also be classified as a “presidential republic. Every four years, American citizens over the age of 18 elect a new President and participate in other smaller elections.
    Like many other nations, the U.S. is considered a hybrid of governments and is both a constitutional democracy and a democratic republic.

    In other words, the term 'REPUBLIC" as used TODAY, in the MODERN ERA, refers simply to a government that is not a monarchy. It could be an oligarchy dictatorship, or it could be an Islamic Republic, or it could be democratic representative democracy, etc., etc., etc. Many republics today are democracies, many of which are parliamentary, and US is a 'democratic republic'..

    To be more accurate, America is a constitutional representative democracy, AKA a 'liberal democracy'.

    No serious person in political science, academia, the encylopedias, no where is America NOT thought of as a liberal democracy, which is to say, a democratic republic created as a reaction to European monarchies that were prevalent during the 17th and 18th centuries.

    The ONLY people touting this bullshit 'america is not a democracy' narrative are republicans. Why? Because they can't win the popular vote in presidential elections, so they cheat, gerrymander, make it hard for blacks to vote, etc, and go around saying, hey, 'this is justified because America is not a democracy, anyway, so any justifiable means to acquire power is acceptable to us'.






     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
  16. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe Rush died a while ago....
    perhaps his unholy spirit still lives in the Trumpists
     
  17. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,571
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US is a democratic republic.

    The type of government we have works great when people are truly interested in doing what's in the best interest of the nation. I believe the root problem is too many people only care about what's in the best interest of themselves. Whenever I see Congressional voting along party lines, this is proof that not a single one of them is voting in the best interest of the USA...this means failure! Congress is a total failure! Government is a miserable failure. This is a people problem! People too self-serving and stupid to properly do their job. And the voters who elect and reelect these failures are equally to blame.

    There's no chance that our government representatives and the voters are going to wake up and suddenly care about the best interests of the USA! We have become a pathetic citizenry and our pettiness and incompetence is driving failure in every direction...
     
  18. Ravenhawk

    Ravenhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    3
    You’re not getting it. the concept of democracy today is the very same concept of democracy in ancient times. If not, it would not be democracy. What you are confusing is the more modern and incorrect referring of what is a democracy. I believe that at some point in the first third of the 20 Century, someone used that term to describe this government and people have incorrectly thought of us as a democracy ever since then. During this period, in an act of unity in the West, all the nations were called a democracy (including monarchies and dictatorships) but that had less to do with governing and more to do with their origins. A sign of unity in a time of great upheaval. We are a Democracy in name only as a general reference. And as I said before, that reference is only because our evolution (as well as all of the West) goes back to Ancient Greece. Our roots are embedded in democracy and that does not make us a democracy. Things have changed since Solon though. Mileposts throughout history has made changes in an incremental way. The Romans took Solon’s writing and wrote ‘Duodecimo Tabulae’. Following that, there was the Edict of Milan, Magna Carta, Peace of Westphalia, English Bill of Rights, US Constitution. I’m sure you could add others, but these make my point. There is a clear progression going away from a democracy to a republic. On the face of it, this misconception was very innocuous, but how more insidious could it be? Because if more people start believing that we are a democracy, then why do we need an Electoral College, having the states run elections and state legislatures control them, or even a Bill of Rights?


    We are not a democracy because we are a Republic. A democracy will lead to a dictatorship. Only our Constitutional Republic has the breaks to keep us from going there.


    And? Democracy is what it is today as it was yesteryear. The form of government hasn’t changed. We can decry that we are a democracy but that doesn’t make it so.


    No, there were at least two alternatives, if not more. Democracy and Republic and they are not the same. I had hoped I had already made that distinction. Have you read Federalist #10 yet? Do I actually need to quote it here? I’ve basically paraphrased it.


    Correct. But they also discussed about being a democracy, which they rejected too.


    Probably not. There would have been some form of dynastic failure by now.


    I’m not the one with the problem.


    I’ve defined the terminology very clearly. It’s customary to try to understand something before attacking it.


    We’re a Constitutional Republic. Constitutional ≠ Democracy.


    Not at all. The Founding Fathers could have gone with a Socialist/Communist like government patterned after the early days of Plymouth Colony. They were perhaps the most intelligent (enlightened) men in the world of the time. They could have come up with anything. They chose what would retain the most individual natural rights and restrict the government – a Republic. Without our freedoms and liberties, we would indeed be just another democracy.


    No democracy can be a Republic, unless it evolves into one. A Republic is ruled by law. A democracy is ruled by the mob. Parliamentary governments can be democracies, but they are not Republics (even if they use the title in their name). The people vote for the party first, then select representatives. Very similar to elections in Iran, but there, it is the Supreme Leader that determines the candidates. That’s not the same representative government as we have here.


    As I’ve mentioned earlier, these kinds of countries may use terms like “People’s”, “Republic”, “Democratic”, “Union”, etc., but these nations are none of the above. Claiming to be one does not make it so. The government is defined by its constitution and its actions.


    “Democratic Republic” is an oxymoron. A Republic may use democratic principles, but that does not make it a democracy. A Democracy is never a Republic. Governing principles are completely different, as I’ve pointed out before.


    Are you serious?


    I’m talking about Socialism and what Obama did to this country and what the Left will do to it in two years before they are stopped.


    If you call that a recovery?? Every President in recent history has dealt with a recession. It usually doesn’t take all that long to recover. It’s devastating while we recover. Our economy is like a rubber ball in a pool. What happens when you try to push it down and keep it underwater? It resists and eventually returns to the surface. Obama took twice as long to recover from the recession triggered by Frank, probably so that he wouldn’t have to deal with his own recession, just retard the old one. Why let a good crisis go to waste. He used Quantitative Easing to just print more money, bringing us closer to hyperinflation. He kicked the legs out from under the economy. Chased millions out of the workforce. Put millions onto food stamps and had more fall under the poverty line. So by the time he left office, that rubber ball began to come to the surface. A million jobs were added, not because of Obama but despite him. When Trump took over, he cut all the shackles off the economy (cutting taxes and regulation) and this economy took off and soared. It became very robust. If Trump hadn’t made the economy strong, we would had never had that “V” shape recovery. We are in much better shape than many other countries because of it. Employment still needs to catchup, but it will be short-lived in the current Administration. The best way to keep a low artificial unemployment rate is to write people off after about 9 weeks of unemployment. Obummer/Bidet became very good at it.


    Obama’s growth was anemic. Trump scored recorded growth. I believe that he averaged just over 3% GDP?? New highs in the stock market, record low unemployment in all sectors, and median household income jumped. This next quarter will have erased almost all of the damage caused by the Wuhan Virus. But I suspect that with the recent action of the new President, will drive the economy into Obama era stagnation. What do you happens to the economy when cripple a nation’s energy production? Have you not noticed how gas and food prices are skyrocketing? I hope you like $7 per gal at the pump. I would expect inflation to raise its ugly head. But me and my wife both think that we just need to collapse all the way before the woke wake up.


    Your data comes from the MSM. Just as your news of St Bidet comes to you. My wife was talking with her sister the other night. Her sister loves St Bidet. My wife asked her about his cognitive decline in just the last week. And she replied that she hadn’t noticed. All she watches is the MSM. We’ve suggested that she just try Fox, OAN, or Newsmax just to get a different opinion and then compare. She is revulsed from the idea. Sad seeing people’s minds rot, especially family. But the good thing is that more and more people are waking up.


    I think I heard an estimate that Trump has lost half his wealth as President. He’s even donated his salary to charity. The point being than unlike some, he wasn’t in it to enrich himself or friends. But I think he thought it worth it because he helped millions of Americans. He had the best economy policy there was. He knew the key was to get government off the backs of business. Once he did that, the economy took off.


    If you read that paragraph, you’d see I do explain it. Your stance is so superficial that you can’t see what I’m talking about.


    That’s what I’ve been saying.


    I don’t think you’ve read what you responded to. No, you didn’t answer the question. The answer should be in a form containing all/some of the references to it in our Founding Documents. I.e. The 10th paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, clearly shows … Or Article 2, Sec 5, clause 3 states… Etc. You haven’t done that.



    I guess you were just trying to be cute. Fine. I did want a little more than that. What specifically for you, indicates that Trump was a tyrant (again all you need to do is keep it short and sweet)? I remember that day, I don’t recall anything like that. But also, if he was a tyrant, wouldn’t it have been better to give examples from the beginning of his term?
     
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    25,036
    Likes Received:
    9,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely wrong! In Athens, every single citizen was required to take an active part in the government. If they didn't, they would be fined. All laws were voted by all citizens. And basically a majority of citizens could do anything whatsoever. Modern Democracy is representative. And the things that the people can vote on, unlike in ancient democracy, have limitations.

    What makes it "incorrect"? Who decides what is "correct" and "incorrect"? I don't believe you have thought this through. What is known todays as democracy is what is known today as democracy. Languages evolve. Only dead languages don't change. The word "democracy" today does not mean the same thing it meant 300 years ago.

    If people think that that's "democracy", then that's the modern concept of democracy. The U.S., especially in the 18th, 19th and 20th century (before Trump) is what countries in the world as the model of democracy.

    I don't know what you're talking about. "Dictatorship" is the opposite of democracy. There are monarchies that are democracies (like the U.K.), and monarchies that are not (like Saudi Arabia).

    That is nonsense! "Republic" simply means "not a monarchy". That's one meaning that hasn't changed in centuries.

    Who says they are? There are Republics that are a dictatorship. Like North Korea or Cuba.

    The rest of your post seems to be about your confusion about how linguistics work. The meaning of words is not something static in a language that is alive. They are not "set in stone". When you say somebody is "gay", it doesn't mean the same today as it meant 50 years ago, for example. The same way that "democracy" doesn't mean today what it meant 250 years ago. This is why there is a different between "dead languages" (which don't change anymore) and "live languages". You need to get this straight in your mind.

    This is called "strawman fallacy". You "rebut" a statement that nobody has made. People do that to avoid responding to the argument that the other person did make.

    Yes! I call going from negative GDP to an average 2 to 3% growth "recovery". What do you call recovery? No other President, except FDR, had to deal with a recession as deep as the one Obama had to deal with. He recovered, and Trump undid that recovery (mostly by mishandling the pandemic). Numbers don't lie.

    You said "cliff" before. So... which is it? Was it growth or was it a "cliff"? Even if you think it was "anemic" (and I agree it could have been better), it was recovery. Obviously you haven't thought any of this through. You appear to just be repeating wingnut-media talking points.

    "Tyrant" is your term. Given the obvious struggle you have with the linguistics of politology, I have no idea what you mean by that. Trump was seeking to become a dictator. There are several examples of this. He was even impeached twice for it. But January 6 is the clearest and it's absolutely irrefutable.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2021
    Rampart likes this.

Share This Page