These Trump supporters say US isn’t a democracy. And they’re okay with it (Read 2857 times)

Flapp_Jackson

Q pointed it out, why don't you claim he is making up bullcrap too?

From the dictionary:
Republic
a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Democracy
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


I stated we are a constitutional democratic republic. Do you disagree with that characterization?

What you stated was:
A republic is a form of democracy therefore it is a democracy. Being a subset of democracy doesn't mean we are no longer a democracy.

Yes, in extreme forms a democracy could create mob rule, but that is not inherent.


This is demonstrably false based on the FACTS I posted.

Why are you now trying to change your comment to argue about dictionary definitions and "a constitutional democratic republic"?  Do you always move goal posts, or is that a tactic you only use here?

Let me spell out why your comment is bullcrap.  A republic is a NOT a form of democracy therefore it is NOT a democracy.

Thus far you've not apologized for spewing that bullcrap, so stop whining that you're the only one having bullcrap called on you.

A republic is a representative form of government.  That's the ONLY part of your bullcrap you seem to understand.

HOW the representatives are selected MAY be through democratic elections, but in the VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICS, they are chosen through other means.

You seem to miss the point that the US government is not the only form a republic may take.  While ours has a couple of democratic features in that representatives and electors are voted on to represent the voters, that in no way makes our republic a democracy.  Far from it.  Electors are party loyalists who MAY cast electoral votes for the candidate that state's popular vote selected.  However, the 2016 election showed Hillary having more electors defect from her than any presidential candidate in the past century. 

Then there's the case that's happened more than once where the president elected is not the candidate with the most popular votes. 

both of those examples blow your theory out of the water that "a republic is a form of democracy".  You can't call what we have a democracy when the results defy the poplar vote.  It's inconsistent with the definition you posted.

Maybe you should go back and read your posts BEFORE submitting.  You might save yourself and the rest of us a whole lot of arguing.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

We aren't talking about rights of other "members of the public," but rights which government agencies do not recognize.

So, you're telling us parental rights exist, but there's no clearly defined right anywhere in the law.  Doesn't sound like a right -- more like an opinion based on assumptions.

You're no better than the libtards who claim everything they want from government is a right.

Healthcare
food
shelter
a guaranteed income without employment
student loan forgiveness
on-demand abortion without limits
climate change agenda items

and on and on.

Just because you believe a right exists doesn't make it so.  Unless the constitution or statutes protect said rights, you have no such legal rights.

As far as parental rights, those are enumerated in law not as rights, but as administrative guidelines.  You can make medical choices for your children or decide what religion they will be raised in.  Those are not rights as much as legal responsibilities and permitted choices in how to raise them.  First amendment covers the latter -- religion. 

You can't commit murder ... of anyone.  So your straw argument doesn't apply as a some kind of reverse parental right -- something a parent can't do. (We won't go into the millions of children killed by their mothers prior to birth.)

Instead of arguing, try understanding for a change.  You enjoying giving your 2 cents in every discussion, yet more often than not, you're just posting to feel involved.

Are you making the case that there is no such thing as parental rights? If so you would be wrong, there are multiple legal cases recognizing this unenumerated right.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/#:~:text=Santosky%20is%20the%20first%20Supreme%20Court%20case%20to,court%20proceeding%2C%20they%20retain%20constitutionally%20protected%20parental%20rights.

If you want to split hairs by playing silly definition games where you toss out the whole concept of unenumerated rights just so you don't have to concede a point to me then you do you but your opinion isn't in line with reality.

eyeeatingfish

What you stated was:

This is demonstrably false based on the FACTS opinion I posted.

Fixed it for you.

Flapp_Jackson

Fixed it for you.

As you post yet another opinion without offering a shred of supporting information.

 :sleeping:
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

As you post yet another opinion without offering a shred of supporting information.

 :sleeping:

Just like you?

Flapp_Jackson

Just like you?

i realize you have a short attention span.  Go back and try to read my comments again. 

Obviously you either skipped them or have no retention -- or comprehension.

I'm not going to repeat what I said just because you enjoy arguing and lying about me.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

i realize you have a short attention span.  Go back and try to read my comments again. 

Obviously you either skipped them or have no retention -- or comprehension.

I'm not going to repeat what I said just because you enjoy arguing and lying about me.

You gave me an explanation of your opinion.

This is all a pointless dispute, even if a republic isn't a form of democracy as Q suggested, the USA is a democracy. It would be false to say we were not democratic just because we are a republic.

Flapp_Jackson

You gave me an explanation of your opinion.

This is all a pointless dispute, even if a republic isn't a form of democracy as Q suggested, the USA is a democracy. It would be false to say we were not democratic just because we are a republic.

Nobody said that except you just now.

A republic IS NOT a form of democracy.

I gave you documented facts.

Go back and read.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=53776.msg483408#msg483408

And quit moving goal posts.

A republic is a form of democracy therefore it is a democracy. Being a subset of democracy doesn't mean we are no longer a democracy.

Yes, in extreme forms a democracy could create mob rule, but that is not inherent.

IOW, you believe all republics are democracies (is a form of democracy).

I provided sourced information to the contrary.  Most republics on planet Earth who call themselves republics and which have been called republics based on historical fact have little to no democratic processes at all. 

Republics can, and do, exist even without democratic characteristics, processes or tendencies.

Therefore, it is not true that "a republic is a form of democracy," nor is it true that "it (a republic) is a democracy."  Both of your definitions are false, wrong and/or BS.

To repeat: you made that up. 


« Last Edit: July 09, 2024, 11:21:15 AM by Flapp_Jackson »
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Nobody said that except you just now.

A republic IS NOT a form of democracy.

I gave you documented facts.

Go back and read.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=53776.msg483408#msg483408

And quit moving goal posts.

IOW, you believe all republics are democracies (is a form of democracy).

I provided sourced information to the contrary.  Most republics on planet Earth who call themselves republics and which have been called republics based on historical fact have little to no democratic processes at all. 

Republics can, and do, exist even without democratic characteristics, processes or tendencies.

Therefore, it is not true that "a republic is a form of democracy," nor is it true that "it (a republic) is a democracy."  Both of your definitions are false, wrong and/or BS.

To repeat: you made that up.

Go scold Q if you have a problem with him saying a republic is a form of democracy.

I don't make things up. Taken from the Miriam Webster dictionary:
Republic
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Sure sounds a lot like a democracy...

Democracy
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

well look at that, nearly identical definitions.



Bottom line, the USA is a democracy. It is also a republic.

Q

Go scold Q if you have a problem with him saying a republic is a form of democracy.

I don't make things up. Taken from the Miriam Webster dictionary:
Republic
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Sure sounds a lot like a democracy...

Democracy
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

well look at that, nearly identical definitions.



Bottom line, the USA is a democracy. It is also a republic.

Fascism is a form of socialism.

Socialism is a form of democracy.

In accordance with EEF's argument, fascism is democracy.


See now dumb that is?

You keep regurgitating the same nonsense day after day with no sources aside from a dictionary definition; same dictionary, mind you, that redefined multiple definitions to coincide with the political agendas of the left.

You failed your debate against multiple individuals because you're pulling opinions out of your ass that you have yet to substantiate with any evidence or primary sources.

You lost, get over it. You're not changing any opinions by constantly posting the same bullshit in every response.

hvybarrels


You keep regurgitating the same nonsense day after day with no sources aside from a dictionary definition; same dictionary, mind you, that redefined multiple definitions to coincide with the political agendas of the left.



It's difficult for people who have been indoctrinated by corporate media to start thinking for themselves.

Living in Liberal Lala Land means we have a lot of work ahead of us helping others to understand what went wrong after it all falls apart, but that's the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again. 


If you get lost in the woods start talking about politics and someone will show up to argue with you.

changemyoil66

Fascism is a form of socialism.

Socialism is a form of democracy.

In accordance with EEF's argument, fascism is democracy.


See now dumb that is?

You keep regurgitating the same nonsense day after day with no sources aside from a dictionary definition; same dictionary, mind you, that redefined multiple definitions to coincide with the political agendas of the left.

You failed your debate against multiple individuals because you're pulling opinions out of your ass that you have yet to substantiate with any evidence or primary sources.

You lost, get over it. You're not changing any opinions by constantly posting the same bullshit in every response.


BBUUUUURRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN (In Travis Kelso voice)

hvybarrels

Fascism is actually defined as an unholy alliance between the corporations and the state

Mainstream media are actually Fascist News Networks
If you get lost in the woods start talking about politics and someone will show up to argue with you.

eyeeatingfish

Fascism is a form of socialism.

Socialism is a form of democracy.

In accordance with EEF's argument, fascism is democracy.


See now dumb that is?

You keep regurgitating the same nonsense day after day with no sources aside from a dictionary definition; same dictionary, mind you, that redefined multiple definitions to coincide with the political agendas of the left.

You failed your debate against multiple individuals because you're pulling opinions out of your ass that you have yet to substantiate with any evidence or primary sources.

You lost, get over it. You're not changing any opinions by constantly posting the same bullshit in every response.

So are you backing away from your comment that a republic is a form of democracy?

BTW, fascism is not a form of socialism and socialism is not a form of democracy so yes that was pretty dumb.

Odd you are so quick to dismiss the use of a dictionary given the fact that the issue being debated rests on the very definition of words. But sure, lets toss out Mirriam Webster.
Cambridge
Democracy - A democracy is a country in which power is held by elected representatives.
Republic -  a country that is governed by elected representatives and an elected leader

Collins
Democracy is a system of government in which people choose their rulers by voting for them in elections.
A republic is a country where power is held by the people or the representatives that they elect. Republics have presidents who are elected, rather than kings or queens.

Britannica
Democracy 1 a [noncount] : a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
Republic : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Need more dictionaries?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2024, 11:30:27 AM by eyeeatingfish »

Flapp_Jackson

So are you backing away from your comment that a republic is a form of democracy?

Isn't that what you were arguing over and over? 

Are you now blaming Q for you being wrong?

Leave it to you to argue over what someone else may have posted just to argue.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Isn't that what you were arguing over and over? 

Are you now blaming Q for you being wrong?

Leave it to you to argue over what someone else may have posted just to argue.

Try to pay attention, my main argument was that the USA is both a democracy and a republic.

I agreed with Q's statement that a republic is a form of democracy. You haven't proven me wrong, you only claimed it.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2024, 11:31:36 AM by eyeeatingfish »

Flapp_Jackson

Try to pay attention, my main argument was that the USA is both a democracy and a republic.

I agreed with Q's statement that a republic is a form of democracy and I supported my claim. You haven't proven me wrong, you only claim it.

i proved you wrong.

A republic is NOT a democracy -- by definition.  The fact that a company changed their definition to envelope how the US operates is irrelevant.

A republic BY definition is a government that does not have a monarch, dictator or tyrant in charge.  There are politicians who represent the will of the people (in theory) rather than the will of one ruler.  This is normally accomplished by drafting a constitution which details the make-up and function of the representatives.

How those representatives are chosen is where the definition branches out.  A democratic republic elects its representatives through a public vote.  However, as I already posted, most republics' representatives are selected by the heads of state, by the lawmakers, or simply as a matter of the individual's status.

You're arguing that since a cardinal is a bird, it follows that all birds are cardinals.  Just because a few republics incorporate a democratic representative selection process IN NO WAY implies that all republics are a democracy.

Go read the actual source documents, not just the first result on your Google search.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

i proved you wrong.

A republic is NOT a democracy -- by definition.  The fact that a company changed their definition to envelope how the US operates is irrelevant.

A republic BY definition is a government that does not have a monarch, dictator or tyrant in charge.  There are politicians who represent the will of the people (in theory) rather than the will of one ruler.  This is normally accomplished by drafting a constitution which details the make-up and function of the representatives.

How those representatives are chosen is where the definition branches out.  A democratic republic elects its representatives through a public vote.  However, as I already posted, most republics' representatives are selected by the heads of state, by the lawmakers, or simply as a matter of the individual's status.

You're arguing that since a cardinal is a bird, it follows that all birds are cardinals.  Just because a few republics incorporate a democratic representative selection process IN NO WAY implies that all republics are a democracy.

Go read the actual source documents, not just the first result on your Google search.

You proved nothing.

I took definitions from 4 different dictionaries all making my point. You seem to have selected some other definition of the word republic. (we may be arguing past each other)

Read the source documents? You mean the original use of the word in Latin?

Flapp_Jackson

You proved nothing.

I took definitions from 4 different dictionaries all making my point. You seem to have selected some other definition of the word republic. (we may be arguing past each other)

Read the source documents? You mean the original use of the word in Latin?

I'm done with you.  You just want to argue.

Can't teach a pig to sing.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

changemyoil66

If we were a democracy, wouldn't it state so in the Constitution or like document?  What it does state is that we're a republic. Weird how it would state that, but not democracy.  I mean, even the Pledge of Allegiance states republic and not democracy.

Definitions can change over time, but the articles of paper that our founding fathers wrote doesn't change.

We can adopt parts of other types of things, but that doesn't make us it.  They're going after Trump (political opponent) like how communist do.  1 party controls majority of the media, fact checkers have a agenda and political side, etc...Does that mean the US is a communist country?