Is the US a democracy?

[peach174]

Jefferson clearly called our form of government a Democracy

A republic has SOME attributes of a democracy.

That does not make our Federal Constitutional Republic a "democracy."

Damn. You DO adamantly insist on refusing to learn OR to ever be honest. You dishonest little hack.

Yep !
She hacked off the ending of Jefferson's' letter that she posted.

 

[Ropey]

Tell us why you need to be taught (again) the 9th grade level basics of our govt.

This is why you don't ever waste time proving anything to TM, she refuses to learn. It's wasting time.

Bottom line... is she has no capacity for learning.

No desire. The capacity is there by the proof of how far she will go to further purposeful error.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone posted a fake commentary by Jefferson. Until we can figure out if he said it, then I am not worried about a fake. As far as complaining about losing a vote closely, that is not 'mob democracy', that is crying about getting your ass whipped. Slink off.

Good thing Mob Rule doesn't work, especially for everyone other than white males.

Logical fallacy and a sexist slur.

 

[Peach]

There is no conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, one does not "mix" the two, there is nothing "strange" about a government being both a republic and a democracy, and the fact remains that Rome was not a democracy at all.
__________________

Madison argued against PURE democracy as he termed it; the US House is and WAS elected by popular vote; evidence the Founders want a Democratic Republic. Jefferson ran on the Democratic Republican ticket.

 

[The T]

This is like claiming that a car is a strange mix between a four-wheeled vehicle and something made of metal. There is no conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, one does not "mix" the two, there is nothing "strange" about a government being both a republic and a democracy, and the fact remains that Rome was not a democracy at all.

Son? Take it up with the historians...or in your case? The revisionists.

He'd have to. For to CLAIM that there is supposedly "no conflict" between a republic and a democracy is facially false.

There IS, as I have noted, some overlap. But that's FAR from saying (at least accurately) that there's no "conflict."

OF COURSE there's a conflict.

Yes there is. No doubt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"republicanism" as understood by the Founders was a government by elected represenetation. The electorate chose the representatives democratically, then the representatives ran the government. We do it that way today. For instance, voters elect a school board, who select the Superintendent. For instance, voters elect a city commission who select a City Manager. The voters elect Electors who choose the President.

We have a democratic Republic, which is what the Founders designed.

 

[Liability]

There is no conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, one does not "mix" the two, there is nothing "strange" about a government being both a republic and a democracy, and the fact remains that Rome was not a democracy at all.
__________________

Madison argued against PURE democracy as he termed it; the US House is and WAS elected by popular vote; evidence the Founders want a Democratic Republic. Jefferson ran on the Democratic Republican ticket.

Incorrect.

Rome was an admixture or an aristocratic republic and (to a lesser extent) a democratic based republic.

Even the largely disreputable Wiki gets that much correct.

* * * *
The class struggles of the Roman Republic resulted in an unusual mixture of democracy and oligarchy. The word republic comes from the Latin res publica which literally translates to public business. Roman laws traditionally could only be passed by a vote of the Popular assembly (Comitia Tributa). Likewise, candidates for public positions had to run for election by the people. However * * * *

-- Democratic elements of Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

Take it up with the historians

I have already done so. I suggest you do the same. When you find a reputable historian who will agree with you that the Roman Republic was in any sense a democracy, get back to us, please.

I have and so what now?

There is a difference...ROME belived in slavery. So does this Government albiet one was out in th open and ours is generational to pay off debt those yet to be born had nothing to do with...

Oh, and I like how you lopped of the rest of my quote. How incredibly disingenuous of you...but I expect no less from you.

 

[naturegirl]

Someone posted a fake commentary by Jefferson. Until we can figure out if he said it, then I am not worried about a fake. As far as complaining about losing a vote closely, that is not 'mob democracy', that is crying about getting your ass whipped. Slink off.

Good thing Mob Rule doesn't work, especially for everyone other than white males.

Logical fallacy and a sexist slur.

Whoosh!! That went over your head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Volleyed cleanly and you missed return!

 

[naturegirl]

Nope Starkey, it hit the net, didn't quite make it over, sorry!! Game point!!

 

[Dragon]

I have and so what now?

Let's hear who that was, please. And a quote from him or her to that effect would also be a good one.

There is a difference...ROME belived in slavery.

That has nothing to do with whether Rome was a democracy. Athens believed in slavery, too, and Athens WAS a democracy. In all cases, voting is a privilege of citizenship, and slaves were not citizens. If Rome had had a democracy restricted to Roman citizens as Athens did, the fact that the society also practiced slavery wouldn't keep me from recognizing that it was a democracy. What keeps me from doing that is the fact that it wasn't one.

 

[Dragon]

Yes there is [a conflict between republic and democracy]. No doubt.

What conflict exactly would that be?

 

[Liability]

Yes there is [a conflict between republic and democracy]. No doubt.

What conflict exactly would that be?

In a republic the will of the people as expressed by the majority does not necessarily -- on that basis -- become the law of the land.

That can lead to "conflict."

The majority has spoken but been denied.

Conflict.

And, by the way: many of us consider that a good thing under the proper circumstances.

 

[The T]

Yes there is [a conflict between republic and democracy]. No doubt.

What conflict exactly would that be?

Liability eloquently answered it HERE. I have nothing to add except you dig yourself into a hole. But what to expect from a self-professed Commie as yourself?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope Starkey, it hit the net, didn't quite make it over, sorry!! Game point!!

Your fail.

 

[Liability]

Nope Starkey, it hit the net, didn't quite make it over, sorry!! Game point!!

Your fail.

Stop arguing with the umpire. The ruling stands.

You failed.

 

[Dragon]

Liability eloquently answered it HERE.

He's on my ignore list. If you want to use his words, that's fine, but quote them, don't just link them.

 

[peach174]

Yes there is [a conflict between republic and democracy]. No doubt.

What conflict exactly would that be?

A Republic is small limited government, where the people are served rather than regulated, represented rather that ruled.

A Democracy is a large government, with entitlements to the people and where the people and businesses are regulated.

As Plato warned in his Republic that as a rule, tyranny arises from democracy.

We need to get away from the Democracy that we have become and get back to the Republic, that we are suppose to be.

The conflict is - Republic-small government and Democracy - large government.

 

[The T]

Yes there is [a conflict between republic and democracy]. No doubt.

What conflict exactly would that be?

A Republic is small limited government, where the people are served rather than regulated, represented rather that ruled.

A Democracy is a large government, with entitlements to the people and where the people and businesses are regulated.

As Plato warned in his Republic that as a rule, tyranny arises from democracy.

We need to get away from the Democracy that we have become and get back to the Republic, that we are suppose to be.

The conflict is - Republic-small government and Democracy - large government.

The romans were a mix of both. Dangerous, and unprincipled...geared toward keeping the masses happy, and the elites in charge...unless they were murdered...even the Caesars.