Fight with American ignorance, Part 1: US is a Republic, it is not a Democracy

[frankfurter + 562]

44 minutes ago, Geoff Guenther said:

People everywhere are getting this absolutely wrong and much of this is subversion of the English language by people trying to engage peoples' tribal instincts.  To have a proper conversation on this, we HAVE to return to simple definitions, understanding that everyone has a slightly different take.

Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
vs.
Monarchy or Dicatatorship: a form of government with a monarch at the head.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives [or referenda].
vs.
Authoritarianism: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

You can have a democratic republic (i.e. the US and Germany) or a democratic monarchy (i.e. Canada and the UK).  The main difference is that legally the power sits with the people in the first instance and with the queen in the latter. There is no fundamental disagreement between having a republic and having a democracy.

What ALL of these countries have set up is a constitution limiting the power of the leaders.  The constitutions are fraying in some cases but they are there.

Lets flip this on its head and talk about authoritarian examples of both. Authoritarian dictatorships are easy - all we do is look at fascist Germany and Italy to see how they bent the constitutional, democratic rules to gain power and then killed the democratic process to have absolute control.  Any banana republic with a military general is roughly the same.

Authoritarian republics are interesting because they begin with a Lenin or Mao or Maduro who come to power with an anti-monarchist and maybe anti-corporate agenda. Usually they end up banning meaningful elections as well, and it is very quickly difficult to discern their leadership from the authoritarian dictatorship.

 

The key in all of these is not just to have a constitution, but to have people who understand the constitution and are not willing to allow it to be subverted. The constitution is not enough. Once the people of a country have been corrupted to a significant level it becomes just a piece of paper that they will do away with.

respectfully, you are entirely incorrect in your definitions.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

respectfully, you are entirely incorrect in your definitions.  

Please provide the definitions which you consider to be correct.

[frankfurter + 562]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

China is neither a Republic nor a Democracy.

 

The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 

North Korea is neither a Republic nor a Democracy.

 

The official name of Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran

Iran is not a Republic.  (or a Democracy)

 

Misnomers.

 

True: China is not a democracy as most Westerners would define democracy. But China is a republic, technically; strange as that may seem. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

58 minutes ago, Geoff Guenther said:

People everywhere are getting this absolutely wrong and much of this is subversion of the English language by people trying to engage peoples' tribal instincts.  To have a proper conversation on this, we HAVE to return to simple definitions, understanding that everyone has a slightly different take.

Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
vs.
Monarchy: a form of government with a monarch at the head.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives [or referenda].
vs.
Authoritarianism: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

 

13 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

respectfully, you are entirely incorrect in your definitions.  

 

9 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Please provide the definitions which you consider to be correct.

 

7 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

True: China is not a democracy as most Westerners would define democracy. But China is a republic, technically; strange as that may seem. 

 

Proper definitions are important for productive debating.

I will reiterate.  If you think the definitions above are incorrect, please provide the definitions which you consider to be correct.

Republic:

Monarchy:

Democracy:

Authoritarianism:

 

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

77 million Americans have a criminal record.  That's 1 in 3 or 66%.  Considering that 22% of Americans aren't even adults yet, they are still considered children. While there is overlap between children and people with criminal records, 10% of Americans are under the age of 10.  I think we can agree that it's highly unlikely for people under the age of 10 to have a criminal record. That means that about 73% of Americans (over the age of 10) have criminal records. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/barriers-to-work-individuals-with-criminal-records.aspx and https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

That "criminal record" means "have been arrested" for felonies or a misdemeanor that the state asked the FBI to keep on file. 

In 1965 that number was 22%, now it's 66%. 

Half of black males and 40% of white males in America have been arrested for something by the age of 23. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just-facts-many-americans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas

Call it a democracy, a republic, a federalist state, a commune or whatever you want. When you are more likely to get arrested by the age of 23 than to get a degree (at any point in your life) does it matter what it's called. 

The incarceration rate in America (737 per 100,000 according to BBC, 635 according to Wikipedia) is higher than Russia.  It's 5x higher than China. China has the same incarceration rate (about 110 per 100,000) as Canada. We are 50% higher than Cuba. Twice as high as IRAN. 

If the definition of a POLICE state is action taken by the POLICE against citizens, then tell me how we are anything but a police state? Fear and intimidation. Draconian laws. Are we special? Are Americans a special type of human that is 2-7 times more likely to offend the state than ANY other nation on Earth? NO. We live in a state that locks people up. At any given time 5-7% of Americans are locked up or under state control (probation and parole). 

Do you want to call it a Democratic Republic or a Federalist Republic or a Constitutional Democracy?  It's a police state. Add to that the fact that over a $1 trillion of public funds each year goes to the Military and Intelligence organs of our country... more than the next 10 countries COMBINED... and you have a MILITARY POLICE STATE. 

Vote for whoever you want. They aren't going to change that fact.  We live in an Oligarchy, Military/Police, Consumerist State. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. According to our actual record the Constitution is more likely to put you IN Prison than keep you out.  They don't have a constitution in China and they have 1/5th the number of people locked up. 

Freedom CAN be measured. It's measured in how many people have none.

"Only criminals get locked up." and "Only slaves are in slavery" AS long as it isn't you, then AMERICA!

So... let's see... CHILDREN don't get to participate (22%) and Felons don't get to participate (8% of the US population and 33% of the African American Population). Illegal immigrants don't get to participate (about 3.5%). 

These are all "members of society" for your Democracy definition.  So 33% of our society cannot "select their leaders." That's right in line with the 3/5th rule for slaves to be counted as citizens. 

You have to register... which reduces that number any more... with the required Identification... which reduces the number any more.... IF you do all that then you get to pick between George Bush or Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton. The alternative to those choices are Donald Trump, Sanders and Michael Bloomberg. 

These are your choices.  When they get elected... 75% of what Donald Trump has accomplished has been declared ILLEGAL or BARELY legal or EXTRA-Legal... because it has been against the real powers that run America.  So, yea... let's pretend that the literal definition of the word is what "really" matters. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

14 minutes ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

Vote for whoever you want. They aren't going to change that fact.  We live in an Oligarchy, Military/Police, Consumerist State.

This discussion is about what we would like our country to be. Everyone knows there are problems, but rather than whinge about every little niggle, it's useful to try to agree on an end state. 

Half the reason the US and UK are in virtual civil wars today is that people have corrupted the language so that left and right talk straight past each other. 

I don't agree with Tom on a whole bunch of things, and God knows he doesn't agree with me, but both of us can have a polite debate and even come to agreement IF we are using the same language. Otherwise we simply get triggered off words we are told should trigger us, like "socialism" or "fascism" or "abortion".  

Message boards like this feed off disputes, but become powerful when people of very diverse viewpoints learn to talk sensibly with each other, and that includes common definitions.

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

... Most people often mistakenly refer to our nation as the greatest democracy on earth.  They are mistaken because we are not an absolute democracy; we are a constitutional republic.  That is what makes our nation great, for if we were merely a democracy, we would be anything but great.  And to the extent that we no longer function as a constitutional republic, that greatness is rapidly ebbing away.

Why did we need a constitution?  Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?

A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections.  In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition.  They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):

 

An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Thus, a constitution that limited and divided the power of government was necessary to preclude elected officials from imposing tyranny on the people.  This is why they adopted a constitution with limited enumerated power, divided and checked across several branches and levels.  ...

 

... Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution prescribes that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”  ...

If this was the purpose of The Constitution then it failed miserably. Instead of "Dividing Power" it MULTIPLIED power. At this point we have hundreds of overlapping agencies, branches, enforcement, regulation etc. that have destroyed every form of freedom in America except some basic freedom of speech.  assembly and the press.  But these are 18th Century rights in a 21st Century world.

We do not have digital rights, privacy rights, rights against non-prosecutorial police action. Companies can mine your life and sell it. You have to sign away your rights in order to use basic online resources like email and the internet. Law Enforcement agencies charge or threaten to charge people with massive sentences in order to get them to simply sign away smaller portions of their lives because defending yourself is too expensive. They know that.  Bush didn't care about the Civil Legal rights of detainees or people that were investigated in the US. for terrorism because he knew he would never actually charge them in a court of law and have them stand trial.  If there is no trial then were do you get to assert your rights?  Nowhere!

So, the rights you need are nothing even close to the 18th century rights you were given. The "limited government" of the 18th Century has turned into the technological and police state of the 21st century. But gay people can get married, so I guess it's OK. 

So what does that make us?  A Republic? or a Democracy? Because if we get that word right then all the problems go away.

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

1 hour ago, Geoff Guenther said:

This discussion is about what we would like our country to be. Everyone knows there are problems, but rather than whinge about every little niggle, it's useful to try to agree on an end state. 

Half the reason the US and UK are in virtual civil wars today is that people have corrupted the language so that left and right talk straight past each other. 

I don't agree with Tom on a whole bunch of things, and God knows he doesn't agree with me, but both of us can have a polite debate and even come to agreement IF we are using the same language. Otherwise we simply get triggered off words we are told should trigger us, like "socialism" or "fascism" or "abortion".  

Message boards like this feed off disputes, but become powerful when people of very diverse viewpoints learn to talk sensibly with each other, and that includes common definitions.

I understand Civility it's when people do things in a way you agree with. If they don't then they are uncivil. But you remain "civil."

Please tell me how discussing the difference between a "Democracy" and a "Republic" make any type of difference to anyone?  Sorry, that's uncivil.  OK. please feel free to continue your definition discussion.  I'll stay out of it. See, you have used "courtesy" (is the right use of the word) to "silence" (not sure if that one's right) "free speech" (I read that one in the Constitution somewhere...) But let's not talk "past each other." That's not useful.... Please, Democracy... What's the Greek root of the word? That would be helpful.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

6 minutes ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

I understand Civility it's when people do things in a way you agree with. If they don't then they are uncivil. 

Please tell me how discussing the difference between a "Democracy" and a "Republic" make any type of difference to anyone?  Sorry, that's uncivil.  OK. please feel free to continue your definition discussion.  I'll stay out of it. See, you have used "courtesy" (is the right use of the word) to "silence" (not sure if that one's right) "free speech" (I read that one in the Constitution somewhere...) But let's not talk "past each other." That's not useful.... Please, Democracy... What's the Greek root of the word? That would be helpful.

Please continue discussing the proper temperature of the tea while the Titanic you are sitting on sinks.

 

[SERWIN + 749]

18 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I think it's mostly just confusing political and financial ideologies.

You can be financially conservative (pro business, value self monetary independence) while simultaneously being very liberal on other social matters (abortion, gay rights, trans, etc.)

The thing that stupid republicans don't understand is that "women's health clinics" or "safe injection sites" actually save the country money by crime and disease prevention.  Many claim to be financially literate but let their "values" interfere with that...

 

Sorry, but safe injection sites have just made it easy to do drugs that are illegal, and needles are all over the place now, and women that use those "health clinics" as birth control, well lets see what those hoes will do without them for a while. Prove that either of these things is a good thing please.

And I happen to be one of those "stupid Republicans" to which you refer, and no, safe injection sites is an ignorant idea put forth by ignorant people, and abortion has nothing to do with being a "women's health clinic", it has everything to do with killing a defenseless child that was created by someone too lazy or stupid to get birth control according to their sexual behaviors. The American Medical Association has determined that life begins with a heartbeat, and an unborn child has a heartbeat. And an "expectant mother" isn't "expectant' at all, she IS a mother to a fetus already...   Just take a look at what those Demons have done in the parts of our country they RULE over, everything is a mess. From taxes out of control to crimes being committed with no consequences, to giving CHILDREN rights to healthcare decisions without having to tell the parents anything about it....HMMMM

[Bob D + 562]

PotAto  Potato

 

[Bob D + 562]

Stupid Republicans??  

Ahhh the open mindedness of left!

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ahh yes the irony!

And the Soviet Socialist Republic.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

I understand Civility it's when people do things in a way you agree with. If they don't then they are uncivil. But you remain "civil."

Please tell me how discussing the difference between a "Democracy" and a "Republic" make any type of difference to anyone?  Sorry, that's uncivil.  OK. please feel free to continue your definition discussion.  I'll stay out of it. See, you have used "courtesy" (is the right use of the word) to "silence" (not sure if that one's right) "free speech" (I read that one in the Constitution somewhere...) But let's not talk "past each other." That's not useful.... Please, Democracy... What's the Greek root of the word? That would be helpful.

It is vital to know the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a pure democracy. The latter can become quickly corrupted and it then becomes a dictatorship. A good constitution is only valuable if it is followed because good people perpetuate its principles and authority. America has the best constitution bar none. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 2/23/2020 at 6:18 PM, Marcin2 said:

Tom you are different because you understand why you use different than globally accepted definition.

Majority of people do not.

There should be a basic course, at US junior high , just 2 hours spent on explanation what all these defnitions mean, and why they are used. But accepting what these words really mean.

There should be definition at Merriam Webster:

Republic : AmEng : How US citizens call their democracy, stressing that it is not democracy.

and another one:

Democracy with Chinese characteristic: ChineseEng: Authocratic and at times dictatorial form of governance with CCP as the absolute power. All 3 branches of government: judiciary, legislative, executive are subordinate to CCP.

Many Civil liberties are nonexistant.

 

Everything Tom said is what I and my Republican friends subscribe to; and we did learn about these things in Junior High. Who the hell are you arguing against? Maybe I'm just not noticing the ignorance.

Edited February 25, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

16 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

Please tell me how discussing the difference between a "Democracy" and a "Republic" make any type of difference to anyone? 

Clearly, you have never dealt with business contracts.  Normally, at the beginning of every business contract, the relevant words and nomenclature are defined as they are used specific to that contract.  This mini definitions list can go on for many pages. 

A clear understanding is needed of the terminology and nomenclature as used in that specific contract, before someone who is legally authorized to sign the legally binding contract, will be willing to sign.

No, I'm not a lawyer.  But properly defining words does matter.

If you do not see the importance of clearly defined terminology and nomenclature, then we probably cannot have a productive debate, as we cannot even agree on what the hell topic we are discussing.

I totally get that you want to rail against the hidden banker cabal that pulls the strings on much of the politics in the U.S. and the world.  I have been on the chans and "alternative" sites for years, long before coming to this forum.  4chan's /pol/ has been comped for at least 2 years, and 8chan was killed off.  Alex Jones is controlled opposition, same as Corsi.  They make me roll my eyes.  I prefer to present my ideas to be at least somewhat compatible for people who mostly read mainstream media.  Otherwise I will come off as a wild-eyed tin-foil loon who walks around with a sign that says "The End Is Near".

Railing against cabals has nothing to with properly defined terminology.

So ... discussing the differences between a Republic and a Democracy may be educational for those who never had a civics class in high school.

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Republic : AmEng : How US citizens call their democracy, stressing that it is not democracy.

If you go back to definitions.  A republic is where the public holds the seat of power, as opposed to a monarchy where the king does.  It has an impact on how the legal system is run.  In Canada and the UK you will see the government sue someone and it is "The Crown vs the defendant".  In the US it is "The People vs the defendant".  It has nothing to do with whether it is a democracy or not.

The US is an imperfect representative democracy where the power nominally sits with the people.  The US has not made the effort to educate its citizens in civics, so will likely never approach the democracy in Switzerland that approaches the ability to make decisions through referenda.  The UK tried ONCE to do things through a referendum and that has just about destroyed the country.

In the old days, the right wing were the monarchists and the left wing were the republicans.  Both wings, however had their democracy vs totalitarian factions.  

One of the places where the US has gone astray is that it places FAR too much power in the hands of the president.  Presidential powers approach that of the kings of 250 years ago.  All other western powers have moved beyond that and the President/King becomes little more than a figurehead.  Partially because of this, the President is looked upon as a saviour.  If you talk to Trumpers and Bernie Bros, it is hard to get a word of sense out of them.  The President was not placed there by God unless you are a theocracy like Iran.

Start with where we all agree, and like Tom said, use terminology that doesn't drive away the others.  The west is in a crisis right now, but screaming during a fire only helps people to panic - it doesn't get people out of the building safely.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

America has the best constitution bar none. 

In your opinion

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

In your opinion

I think he meant that tongue in cheek. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

10 minutes ago, Geoff Guenther said:

I think he meant that tongue in cheek. 

Nope I'm pretty sure he is being sincere, only Ron can tell us for sure though.

The second amendment leaves a lot to be desired IMO as it accounts for tens of thousands of deaths annually. We have debated this already so I don't want to start it up again, just my opinion.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 2/24/2020 at 11:45 AM, frankfurter said:

Shall we add some entropy?  

The true name for China is the Peoples Republic of China.

Something to ponder? 

 

A rose, by any other name, is still a rose.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Nope I'm pretty sure he is being sincere, only Ron can tell us for sure though.

The second amendment leaves a lot to be desired IMO as it accounts for tens of thousands of deaths annually. We have debated this already so I don't want to start it up again, just my opinion.

Without trying to start a bun fight Rob...

As I have said before, regarding other topics, it is always dangerous, and usually counter-productive, to apply ‘your’ morales or cultural values to other peoples or cultures.

If you were not born in America or raised within the American culture, it is doubtful that you would ever understand the value of the Second Amendment to many Americans or the attraction of keeping and bearing arms. This is not something new, but something that has been woven into the American mindframe for about two centuries.

I, myself, refrain from making value judgements on things like blood pudding or haggis....😂

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

25 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Without trying to start a bun fight Rob...

As I have said before, regarding other topics, it is always dangerous, and usually counter-productive, to apply ‘your’ morales or cultural values to other peoples or cultures.

If you were not born in America or raised within the American culture, it is doubtful that you would ever understand the value of the Second Amendment to many Americans or the attraction of keeping and bearing arms. This is not something new, but something that has been woven into the American mindframe for about two centuries.

I, myself, refrain from making value judgements on things like blood pudding or haggis....😂

No you should on these they're disgusting!!😂

Yep I did just say it was just my opinion and agree with your sentiment about other cultures etc, it's dangerous ground I appreciate that!

I don't agree with bull fighting but it seems important to the Spanish for some reason.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

39 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

No you should on these they're disgusting!!😂

Yep I did just say it was just my opinion and agree with your sentiment about other cultures etc, it's dangerous ground I appreciate that!

I don't agree with bull fighting but it seems important to the Spanish for some reason.

Good analogy!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

If you go back to definitions.  A republic is where the public holds the seat of power, as opposed to a monarchy where the king does.  It has an impact on how the legal system is run.  In Canada and the UK you will see the government sue someone and it is "The Crown vs the defendant".  In the US it is "The People vs the defendant".  It has nothing to do with whether it is a democracy or not.

The US is an imperfect representative democracy where the power nominally sits with the people.  The US has not made the effort to educate its citizens in civics, so will likely never approach the democracy in Switzerland that approaches the ability to make decisions through referenda.  The UK tried ONCE to do things through a referendum and that has just about destroyed the country.

In the old days, the right wing were the monarchists and the left wing were the republicans.  Both wings, however had their democracy vs totalitarian factions.  

One of the places where the US has gone astray is that it places FAR too much power in the hands of the president.  Presidential powers approach that of the kings of 250 years ago.  All other western powers have moved beyond that and the President/King becomes little more than a figurehead.  Partially because of this, the President is looked upon as a saviour.  If you talk to Trumpers and Bernie Bros, it is hard to get a word of sense out of them.  The President was not placed there by God unless you are a theocracy like Iran.

Start with where we all agree, and like Tom said, use terminology that doesn't drive away the others.  The west is in a crisis right now, but screaming during a fire only helps people to panic - it doesn't get people out of the building safely.

We are in danger of losing the rights in our constitution because of our deep state bureaucracy. President Trump has been attacked by them since before he ever won the Republican nomination. He has been spied upon and lied about. Those who have done the dirty work have gone without punishment. He has had crazy left wing judicial attempts to hinder him in anyway they could. He has even had a ridiculous impeachment.  The efforts continue. Still, you think the President has far too much power. Imagine if he had any less power. I would say that the deep state administrative bureaucracy has far too much power.