America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

 

[francoHFW]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

dont know what your talking about regarding saxon england.....

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

....he freed his children at the age of 17 I believe...kind of like parents do today

Jefferson was thin-skinned. He was chided and made fun out of by friends and mocked by others for his childish beliefs -- myths, which he refused to walk away from. Jefferson believed there existed in pre Magna Cart England, a utopian Saxon ideal of liberty "self governing Saxon Boroughs" - (Rosen - The Supreme Court/Personalities- page 37). This is mentioned in many bios of the thin-skinned, little effeminate Tommie

I kind of doubt the author knows what hes talking about...ive read lot of stuff on jefferson...never read that....anyway i dont know how they were governed, do you? iceland had an early parliment type government as I understand.

I really dont care how effeminate you say he was you seem to be fixated on that

Jefferson's fantasy world is well documented. The author you question -- I'd take his research over yours any day. LOL I told you, I've read it in more than one account of Jefferson's life.

Jefferson's main idiocy was that Saxons lost a mythic liberty they never had

Effeminate in ways that are unflattering caricatures of weak men -- men afraid to battle in the open, men who would use surrogates and proxies, men who detested conflict yet fed it

Typical ignorant hater dupe. Gets one obscure talking point about a complex man and thinks he knows everything...

 

[dcraelin]

The 17th removed the State Legislatures voice..............as it was intended under the Founding principles of the Constitution. Legislatures of states know more about the effects of National laws. They know because National Laws have direct effects on all states in order to comply with the law.

The average Joe of the State doesn't know the details or EFFECTS of these new laws which is why the Senators were selected by the State Gov'ts.................and it's a hell of a lot harder to buy off a whole State Legislature than 2 Senators................

nothing to stop state legislators from lobbying and informing senators now....their voices probably carry more weight. ...prohibiting ourside money to senatorial candidates would do more to represent state interests than repealing the 17th

 

[dcraelin]

[QUOTE="007, post: 10350598, member: 1322']... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.[/QUOTE]
Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

 

[Dante]

dcraelin

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

A plebiscite, not an election. The Nazi party won free elections.

Good gawd, what's with the false choices? The regime now is a direct result of the Arab Spring. People who fail to grasp the concepts without an experience of democracy and republicanism always cause great harm with good intentions.

Direct democracy and the concept that winner takes all, that 50 plus 1 means one gets to do what one wants without recognition that a huge minority needs to be brought in. Was Egypt was better off under Mubarak?

Morsi was terrible. He brought about the coup

 

[eagle1462010]

The 17th removed the State Legislatures voice..............as it was intended under the Founding principles of the Constitution. Legislatures of states know more about the effects of National laws. They know because National Laws have direct effects on all states in order to comply with the law.

The average Joe of the State doesn't know the details or EFFECTS of these new laws which is why the Senators were selected by the State Gov'ts.................and it's a hell of a lot harder to buy off a whole State Legislature than 2 Senators................

nothing to stop state legislators from lobbying and informing senators now....their voices probably carry more weight. ...prohibiting ourside money to senatorial candidates would do more to represent state interests than repealing the 17th

Repealing the 17th would put a leash on Senators when they go against the will of the State, which is elected by the PEOPLE of that State. Senators wouldn't pass some of the laws in this country if they know they'd get fired for doing so................

And we wouldn't have career Senators now if it hadn't changed to being voted in by the people of the State.

Again, it is much easier to buy off one Senator than all the reps of a State Legislature. The whole original intent of the Senators was to be the VOICE of the State Gov't...........under the founding fathers.............as it should be today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[QUOTE="007, post: 10350598, member: 1322']... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature[/QUOTE]

subject is direct democracy or republic. Any thoughts??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

subject is direct democracy or republic. Any thoughts??[/QUOTE]

 

[francoHFW]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

 

[eagle1462010]

[QUOTE="007, post: 10350598, member: 1322']... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature[/QUOTE]
Which would have failed because it is a pure democracy. Perhaps the better term may be DIRECT Democracy.

And under that system, 50% plus one wins..................which would eventually lead to anarchy as the winning side shoves laws down the throats of almost the same population.............................It doesn't work.

The Founders created the best system.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Typical ignorant hater dupe. Gets one obscure talking point about a complex man and thinks he knows everything...

Jefferson was a very simple man really. Most importantly by far he and Madison founded the Republican party in 1793 to stand for freedom from big liberal govt. Anyone who does not know this does not his own country.

 

[francoHFW]

[QUOTE="007, post: 10350598, member: 1322']... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

subject is direct democracy or republic. Any thoughts??[/QUOTE]
Your video is total bs New BS GOP propaganda, DRIVEL.

 

[Dante]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

I've been outside in Harvard Yard when progressives and leftists tried to keep the Chinese President/Premier(?) from speaking because of Tienanmen Square. I've been to rallies where progressives and leftists have shouted down pro Israeli's at their own pro Israel rally. That is only one way of silencing speech. All things being fair, life is not fair. We lost The Fairness Doctrine.

Structural changes to our governing system is another issue entirely. That one -- the devil is in the details. You need to reach out to the other side -- behave unMorsi like

 

[dcraelin]

dcraelin

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

A plebiscite, not an election. The Nazi party won free elections.

Good gawd, what's with the false choices? The regime now is a direct result of the Arab Spring. People who fail to grasp the concepts without an experience of democracy and republicanism always cause great harm with good intentions.

Direct democracy and the concept that winner takes all, that 50 plus 1 means one gets to do what one wants without recognition that a huge minority needs to be brought in. Was Egypt was better off under Mubarak?

Morsi was terrible. He brought about the coup

I dont think morsi was given enough of a chance.......

dont understand you point about plebiscite and elections...Hitler never won, honestly, a 50% plus election.

what made the majority in america want the bill of rights?...the majority if honeslty asked is usually pretty fair....now religious conflict can be a problem as the English know also....but still ultimately the most pratical/fair way to iron things our is democracy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

yes and today we have total subversion of that concept by liberals with everyone voting regardless of qualifications and with input only from placards, signs, or 30 second TV commercials!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the GOP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

 

[eagle1462010]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the GOP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

liberals like mob rule because the mob is liberal. Liberalism was created to capitalize on the ignorance of the mob. Liberals promise welfare entitlements and the ignorant mob votes for them. It is nothing less than subversion of our Republic.

 

[francoHFW]

[QUOTE="007, post: 10350598, member: 1322']... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

subject is direct democracy or republic. Any thoughts??

Your video is total bs New BS GOP propaganda, DRIVEL.[/QUOTE]
It's not the size of government that decides whether it's RW or LW, it's the economy. Fascist RW ones are capitalist, dictators cooperating or dominating capitalism, and communist LW ones. Every WELL educated person knows that. You are ignorant and duped by new RW propaganda, see Goldberg and the shyttehead swine who made that video. "Absolute drivel"-The Economist and every other outlet worthy of respect.

 

[dcraelin]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the OP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

you seem confused!! Republicans introduced 30 balanced budget amendments to prevent exactly that!