comgress polarized? blame the GOP

[DiamondDave]

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

yet you neglect to keep going

'republican element of popular control'

We do not have a democracy, and whether you keep holding your fingers in your ears to ignore truth is up to you

We specifically have a constitution that protects against and prevents mob rule... and that was specifically written that way by people including one Thomas Jefferson

According to your line of reasoning, the side that gets the fewest votes would "win" elections.

That we don't is, or should be, obvious.

Certain types of governmental representatives are chosen by popular vote (but not all, going in line with the balance of power that was supposed to be set up)... but not all aspects of government can or should be done on popular whim, else the popular whim of 50.0000001% could democratically vote away the rights of the other 49.9999999%... hence why our constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority.. it is specifically why we have a republic and not a democracy, and it is what tdm cannot accept

 

[Truthmatters]

The very system they designed was designed to give the power to the most Americans while protecting the minority.

 

[Truthmatters]

That means majority rule with compromise as a main element

 

[naturegirl]

the facts show what is being done by the republican party.

they do not believe in the rule of the majority like the founders did

The Founding fathers did NOT believe in "majority rules", that is why we have the Electoral college, if we didn't, all a candidate would need to do is campaign in Chicago, New York city, and California to get elected. The whole point is to give some farmer in Iowa the same voting power as a stock trader on Wall Street. Majority rules does not work in our legal system, and thankfully does not exist in our election system. Why do you continually cherry pick facts, with disregard for the WHOLE picture when making your points? It's disingenuous.

So you claim the founders believed in Minority rule?

Sweet Jesus, we are a Republican form of government with representatives so the majority won't take over minorities.

Do you really want the majority to rule?? What would that have meant to black people and women??

The founders didn't want Majority rule................and I don't think you do either.

 

[DiamondDave]

the facts show what is being done by the republican party.

they do not believe in the rule of the majority like the founders did

The Founding fathers did NOT believe in "majority rules", that is why we have the Electoral college, if we didn't, all a candidate would need to do is campaign in Chicago, New York city, and California to get elected. The whole point is to give some farmer in Iowa the same voting power as a stock trader on Wall Street. Majority rules does not work in our legal system, and thankfully does not exist in our election system. Why do you continually cherry pick facts, with disregard for the WHOLE picture when making your points? It's disingenuous.

So you claim the founders believed in Minority rule?

The founders believed in constitutional control and oversight to prevent against mob rule and the tyranny of the majority... it is why the balance of power and the differing ways of governmental representative selection were put in place.... it is why rights and constitutional muster trumped popular whim, and should always be that way

 

[Truthmatters]

What you on the right are defending from the rights tactics is minority rule

 

[Truthmatters]

The republicans in congress are bullying their way through our laws

 

[naturegirl]

What you on the right are defending from the rights tactics is minority rule

:throwshandsup: I give up TM, you're right Majority Rules, just like the founders intended. Blacks are 3/5 human, they can't vote and neither can women.

 

[naturegirl]

 

[tjvh]

the facts show what is being done by the republican party.

they do not believe in the rule of the majority like the founders did

The Founding fathers did NOT believe in "majority rules", that is why we have the Electoral college, if we didn't, all a candidate would need to do is campaign in Chicago, New York city, and California to get elected. The whole point is to give some farmer in Iowa the same voting power as a stock trader on Wall Street. Majority rules does not work in our legal system, and thankfully does not exist in our election system. Why do you continually cherry pick facts, with disregard for the WHOLE picture when making your points? It's disingenuous.

So you claim the founders believed in Minority rule?

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what you rant about, other than the material your DNC handlers provide for you?

 

[peach174]

the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

How about reading the whole letter TM.

Sir,-In answer to your inquiry as to the merits of Gillies' translation of the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation of being preferable to ellis', the only rival translation into English. I have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own knowledge. But so different was the style of society then, and with those people, from what it is now and with us, that I think little edification can be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it; and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of the second grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government democratically, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise of fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods. The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.

MY MOST EARNEST WISH IS TO SEE THE REPUBLICAN ELEMENT OF POPULAR CONTROL PUSHED TO THE MAXIMUM.
You always leave this part of the letter out TM.
Also the part where it says, democracy is impractical beyond a Town.

 

[DiamondDave]

What you on the right are defending from the rights tactics is minority rule

No.. constitutional muster.. big difference....

 

[DiamondDave]

the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

How about reading the whole letter TM.

Sir,-In answer to your inquiry as to the merits of Gillies' translation of the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation of being preferable to ellis', the only rival translation into English. I have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own knowledge. But so different was the style of society then, and with those people, from what it is now and with us, that I think little edification can be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it; and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of the second grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government democratically, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise of fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods. The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.

MY MOST EARNEST WISH IS TO SEE THE REPUBLICAN ELEMENT OF POPULAR CONTROL PUSHED TO THE MAXIMUM.
You always leave this part of the letter out TM.
Also the part where it says, democracy is impractical beyond a Town.

Been telling the bitch that since she first posted it.... but it don't matter to the habitually lying twat

 

[regent]

The framers often used majority rule, even to ratify the Constitution.

 

[Leweman]

the facts show what is being done by the republican party.

they do not believe in the rule of the majority like the founders did

The Founding fathers did NOT believe in "majority rules", that is why we have the Electoral college, if we didn't, all a candidate would need to do is campaign in Chicago, New York city, and California to get elected. The whole point is to give some farmer in Iowa the same voting power as a stock trader on Wall Street. Majority rules does not work in our legal system, and thankfully does not exist in our election system. Why do you continually cherry pick facts, with disregard for the WHOLE picture when making your points? It's disingenuous.

So you claim the founders believed in Minority rule?

I think they wanted the electorate to be truly informed and then governed based on the majority of that.

 

[peach174]

the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

How about reading the whole letter TM.

Sir,-In answer to your inquiry as to the merits of Gillies' translation of the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation of being preferable to ellis', the only rival translation into English. I have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own knowledge. But so different was the style of society then, and with those people, from what it is now and with us, that I think little edification can be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it; and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of the second grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government democratically, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise of fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods. The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.

MY MOST EARNEST WISH IS TO SEE THE REPUBLICAN ELEMENT OF POPULAR CONTROL PUSHED TO THE MAXIMUM.
You always leave this part of the letter out TM.
Also the part where it says, democracy is impractical beyond a Town.

Been telling the bitch that since she first posted it.... but it don't matter to the habitually lying twat

All of us have been telling her this. She refuses the rest of the letter.

Why did Jefferson say he wanted to see the Republican element pushed to the max Tm?

 

[Claudette]

Truthsplatters is a left wing biased idiot.

She has no problem with filibustering as long as the Dems are doing it.

She sees nothing wrong with that asshole Reid shelving the bills the House sends over. DOA I believe were his words. Talk about tying up the Congress.

She has a problem with folks having a ID to prove they are who they say they are during an election. And of course the Reps cheat and steal elections.

She also thinks the Dems are completely innocent of any of the blame for the meltdown. They are pure as the drive snow and have the peoples best interests at heart. LOL

Oh Yeah. She's right and every right leaning poster on this board is full of shit.

She and Pelosi. Two flamming idiots of the first magnitude.

 

[peach174]

the facts show what is being done by the republican party.

they do not believe in the rule of the majority like the founders did

No TM, the majority of this nation is conservative and moderate not liberal.
Liberals rule this country now.
That is tyranny by the minority.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope they are the who the people elected

 

[naturegirl]

The framers often used majority rule, even to ratify the Constitution.

Well before the Constitution was ratified, we didn't have a republic.