PBS Gets Citizen Question Wrong

[CrusaderFrank]

#SAD

#WEARESTILLNOTADEMOCRACYWEAREAREPUBLIC

 

[BackAgain]

That's right.

You have nothing, can source nothing.

Run along dummy.

Look. It’s obvious you don’t get anything, retard. You’re the substandard result of a crappy education.

Plus, your retardation doesn’t help.

Toddle off, now, you libturd asshole.

 

[AntonToo]

Look. It’s obvious you don’t get anything, retard. You’re the substandard result of a crappy education.

Plus, your retardation doesn’t help.

Toddle off, now, you libturd asshole.

Yep, still nothing.

Pathetic.

 

[BackAgain]

Yep, still nothing.

That’s all you have ever brought. It’s ll we expect from you.

 

[AntonToo]

That’s all you have ever brought. It’s ll we expect from you.

You have to be fucking crazy to say that considering

1. I've specifically listed academic materials on this topic I've studied from, while you can't do the same.

2. In those materials and with other links I've shown many times that America is a type of democracy, while you can produce not a single real argument or source why it isn't.

 

[BackAgain]

The new version of Chat GPT might assist our pitifully ignorant pal, Anton.2

A Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy are both forms of government that operate under a constitution, but they have important distinctions:

1. Constitutional Republic:

• Republic means the people elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf.
• Constitutional refers to the fact that this government is bound by a constitution that limits the powers of both the government and elected officials.
• In a constitutional republic, laws and policies are typically made by elected representatives, and these representatives are accountable to the people through elections. The emphasis is on protecting individual rights and the rule of law, rather than direct popular rule.
• Example: The United States is often considered a constitutional republic. While citizens vote for their representatives, the elected officials are limited by the Constitution.

2. Constitutional Democracy:

• Democracy emphasizes the rule of the majority, with the government being directly accountable to the people.
• In a Constitutional Democracy, the majority still rules, often through direct votes or elected representatives, but the constitution protects the rights of minorities and individuals.
• The difference from a constitutional republic is more a matter of emphasis on direct participation versus representative governance. In some cases, people may have more direct influence on decision-making through mechanisms like referendums or initiatives.
• Example: Germany is often considered a constitutional democracy, where citizens have significant influence in both electing representatives and occasionally making decisions through direct votes.

Key Distinction:

• A Constitutional Republic focuses on representative governance with protections for minority rights and individual freedoms.
• A Constitutional Democracy may involve more direct participation by the people in decision-making, while still being bound by a constitution that protects fundamental rights.

Both systems prioritize constitutional limits on government power but differ in the balance of representative versus direct democratic processes.

That is closer to the mark than the academic nonsense on which Anton.2 ignorantly relies.

Obviously, the two terms aren’t synonyms.
The differences are distinguishing. In the U.S., the reining-in of even our elected representatives by our Constitution prevents them from passing laws (or at least from those laws taking legal effect) when they are at odds with the limits imposed by our Constitution.

I’m afraid nobody can make Anton.2 grasp any of these things.

 

[BackAgain]

You have to be fucking crazy to say that considering

1. I've specifically listed academic materials on this topic I've studied from, while you can't do the same.

2. In those materials and with other links I've shown many times that America is a type of democracy, while you can produce not a single real argument or source why it isn't.

You don’t even grasp that the “academic” material you rely on is exactly why your education has been so deficient.

We make use of some elements of democracy. We simply are not a democracy, nonetheless. That’s no accident. Our founders and framers were generally very learned men. They noted the inherent danger of a democracy: mob rule. To avoid it, the cobbled or Constitutional republic together.

By design and on purpose; fully intentional.

We are not a democracy. Not a full democracy and not a Constitutional democracy. To be a Constitutional democracy, we’d have to be a democracy in the first place. We aren’t

 

[AntonToo]

You don’t even grasp that the “academic” material you rely on is exactly why your education has been so deficient.

We make use of some elements of democracy. We simply are not a democracy, nonetheless.

Thats not what that material said dummy.

It specifically identfies United States as a type of democracy with a specific mix of majoritarian and concensus features.

Here is same another book, by same author from 2009, with a much more explicit title for what we are talking about:



“The United States: A Different Democracy” Arend Lijphart

“The United States: A Different Democracy” Arend Lijphart | 6 | The Fu

Generally, whenever the U.S. is compared with other countries, the emphasis is on contrasts rather than similarities. Nevertheless, I would argue that even

www.taylorfrancis.com

You think you can get it THIS TIME? Nuh, you are too fucking stupid to admit the obvious.

 

[BackAgain]

Thats not what that material said dummy.

It specifically identfies United States as a type of democracy with a specific mix of majoritarian and concensus features.

Here is same another book, by same author, with a much more explicit title for what we are tlaking about:

“The United States: A Different Democracy” Arend Lijphart​

“The United States: A Different Democracy” Arend Lijphart | 6 | The Fu

Generally, whenever the U.S. is compared with other countries, the emphasis is on contrasts rather than similarities. Nevertheless, I would argue that even

www.taylorfrancis.com

You think you can get it THIS TIME? Nuh, youa re too fucking stupid to admit the obvious.

Hey retard:

I quoted it. Unlike you, I understand what it says.

Now, kindly return to your main task:

Gfy.

 

[AntonToo]

Hey retard:

I quoted it. Unlike you, I understand what it says.

Now, kindly return to your main task:

Gfy.

You didn't quote a single thing....do you even understand what the concepts of sourcing and quoting mean?

On one hand those concepts are so simple it's hard to imagine anyone not understanding them...on the other hand you claim to be doing those things when in fact you are not.

So we are back to you just being fucking crazy.

 

[BackAgain]

You didn't quote a single thing....do you even understand what the concepts of sourcing and quoting mean?

Yes I did, you utter retard. I quoted a GPT reply in full. And said so.

Damn, you’re stupid as well as ignorant.

Or maybe you’re simply committed to being dishonest.

Either way, it doesn’t matter.

Your ignorance is on full display.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes I did, you utter retard. I quoted a GPT reply in full. And said so.

I was talking about quoting actual academic work I cited dummy.

GPT is not a trusted source in itself on anything. It's an AI aid to be used as a DRAFT to help you write on topics.


Where are your SOURCES?

 

[BackAgain]

Dummy I was tlaking about quoting actual academic work.

Retard:

That’s not what you said.

You’re the simpleton ignorant twat who assumes that if some academic tome says something, it must be so.

Sorry. But you’re truly too stupid and ignorant to waste time on.

Fuck off my little cat toy.

 

[AntonToo]

Retard:

That’s not what you said.

It is EXACTLY what I said.

Here is the exchange.

BA - You don’t even grasp that the “academic” material you rely on is exactly why your education has been so deficient.
AT - Thats not what that material said dummy.
BA- I quoted it. Unlike you, I understand what it says.
AT - You didn't quote a single thing.

Tell me again you are not crazy.

So back to where we left off:

GPT is not a trusted source in itself on anything. It's an AI aid to be used as a DRAFT to help you write on topics.

Where are your SOURCES?

 

[BackAgain]

It is EXACTLY what I said.

Here is the exchange.

BA - You don’t even grasp that the “academic” material you rely on is exactly why your education has been so deficient.
AT - Thats not what that material said dummy.
BA- I quoted it. Unlike you, I understand what it says.
AT - You didn't quote a single thing.

Tell me again you are not crazy.

No it’s not what you said, ya pathetic hack retard.

Obviously, we’re talking past each other.
Just as well. You still offer nothing of any substance or consequence.

Despite your retardation I will generously give you a chance to redeem yourself:

In your OWN words - based on your OWN supposed “understanding” — explain the major and most significant difference(s) between a Constitutional republic and a Constitutional democracy.

We don’t need your verbosity. Try to demonstrate your grasp of this matter by being clear and concise.

And … go.

 

[AntonToo]

No it’s not what you said, ya pathetic hack retard.

I'm directly quoting dummy.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm directly quoting dummy.

So you admit, then, ya hack retard, that you cannot answer the question.
As expected.

 

[AntonToo]

Explain the major and most significant difference(s) between a Constitutional republic and a Constitutional democracy.

I've already explained, there is no difference of significance and any representative democracy could be called a republic and vice versa.

You say there is, so SOURCE your position to serious sources, as I have.

"I saw some website I'm not going to link to" or "here is what GPT generated for me" is not serious sourcing.

The ask is more than reasonable.

 

[BackAgain]

I've already explained, there is no difference of significance and any representative democracy could be called a republic and vice versa.

No. You haven’t explained. You have simply made an empty claim.

While it’s true that the two forms of government are similar in some ways, there are obvious differences and they are significant.

You say there is, so SOURCE your position to serious sources, as I have.

Again. You don’t get it. You gave only sources to academic shit. But a scholar saying that we are a democracy doesn’t mean that we are actually a democracy. Indeed, if you understood this topic, you’d be able to finally comprehend that the “scholar” is wrong. His academic work (or hers) is mistaken.

This is why definitions actually matter.

"I saw some website I'm not going to link to" or "here is what GPT generated for me" is not serious sourcing.

I didn’t claim it was. You claim that citing an academic tome is valid sourcing.

No. It is not. It is merely an appeal to alleged “authority.” What tube steaks, like you, fail to grasp is that the academic can be wrong, too.

The ask is more than reasonable.

No. You remain wrong.

Since you have conceded that you are unable (as well as unwilling) to distinguish between a Constitutional republic and a Constitutional democracy, there is no real point in trying to discuss this matter with a retard like you any further.

Bottom line: the form of government of the United States of American is a “Constitutional republic.”

It is absolutely NOT a “democracy” of any kind.

 

[struth]

Our country is a representative democracy.

“ it’s a Republic, if you can keep it!” - Ben Franklin

I’ll take his word for it since he was there when it was created