The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic

[Curried Goats]

Specifically spell out exactly how Trump is destroying the Republic.

From where I sit, he is restoring the Republic to be a government of, by and for the people that the Founders intended.

The Founders only intended it for white people. Did you mean to tell on yourself or are you just ignorant about the type of society the Slaver Founders created?

 

[cnm]

That didn't happen during the Founding you fucking Dipshit.

No, the founding was when chattel slavery was legitimised.

 

[Curried Goats]

Thank the merciful gawds someone watched it so I didn't have to.

I love watching their dipshit sources of information. It's always good for a laugh.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Constitution assigns power to the federal government.

For what the Federal Government can and can not do.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

That didn't happen during the Founding you fucking Dipshit. Also this is known, rhetorically, as a red herring. We weren't talking about the deaths of anybody. We were talking about how those fucking morons over at PragerU were fantasizing about how the slaver Founders imagined themselves to be avoiding tyranny by staying away from that dastardly direct democracy. Slavery though..... cool beans.

And in less than a 100 years after the founding over 300,000 men died and slavery ended.

 

[Curried Goats]

And in less than a 100 years after the founding over 300,000 men died and slavery ended.

And created in its wake an Apartheid State where Black Americans were second class citizens and had little legal recourse for the violence they faced at the hands of angry whites during Jim Crow. That however still has nothing at all to do with the stupid video from the morons at PragerU who imagine that the Slaver Founders avoided tyranny by dodging the bullet of of direct democracy. It's laughably stupid.

 

[cnm]

For what the Federal Government can and can not do.

As I understand it, the fed govt. could do nothing until power was assigned to it.

 

[cnm]

I love watching their dipshit sources of information. It's always good for a laugh.

Yes. Some federalist loon comes up with a tortured new meaning for words as it's the only way he can make the argument that the US is not a 'pure' democracy so it can't be a democracy at all.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No it didn't. The Constitution is set changes come in the form of Amendments.

Nope. Madison vs Marbury changed that.

 

[busybee01]

Spells it out so almost anyone can understand the type of Government the United States of America is and has always been.

The United States is a republic with democratic elements to it. Representatives are elected democratically.

 

[0311]

Spells it out so almost anyone can understand the type of Government the United States of America is and has always been.

If it's on YouTube it must be true.....NOT!!!

 

[Crepitus]

Spells it out so almost anyone can understand the type of Government the United States of America is and has always been.

Our republic is a form of Democracy.

Everybody but you tRumplings knows that.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders only intended it for white people. Did you mean to tell on yourself or are you just ignorant about the type of society the Slaver Founders created?

The Founders to a man were opposed to slavery but acknowledged that it existed. They had to allow it in order to get all the states to agree to the social contract that became the U.S. Constitution. They also provided a means to change whatever needed to be changed in the Constitution for the public good.

And in the years that passed, it was most the efforts of honorable WHITE people that ended slavery, many at risk of their reputations, their fortunes, their very lives. And it would be mostly honorable WHITE people that ended segregation and voted for equal rights for all.

People with intellectual honesty know and understand and appreciate the history. Those with a dishonest agenda never seem to have that ability.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. The white male property owning people. I agree, it is quite obvious.

See my Post #53

 

[Foxfyre]

He’s ignoring the rule of law and pretending that, as president, he had broad powers that don’t appear in the Constitution.

Exactly how is he ignoring the rule of law and pretending he has broad powers that don't appear in the Constitution? Put that into your own words and if you make a specific accusation, I will expect verification via a reliable, credible source.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your gaze is shuttered by your prejudices that limit your ability to understand.

Providence gave us a constitution that could respond to the changing dynamic of our history's events.

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here. See my Post #53

 

[Curried Goats]

The Founders to a man were opposed to slavery but acknowledged that it existed. They had to allow it in order to get all the states to agree to the social contract that became the U.S. Constitution. They also provided a means to change whatever needed to be changed in the Constitution for the public good.

And in the years that passed, it was most the efforts of honorable WHITE people that ended slavery, many at risk of their reputations, their fortunes, their very lives. And it would be mostly honorable WHITE people that ended segregation and voted for equal rights for all.

People with intellectual honesty know and understand and appreciate the history. Those with a dishonest agenda never seem to have that ability.

That's a cute story but not really a reflection of reality. It's a frail white fairytale. Many of them were directly engaged in slavery (25 of the 55 delegates who signed the Constitution owned slaves) and the ones who didn't worked with the ones who did to create the American Slave State. It is quite the imagination to fantasize slavers being opposed to slavery. As for how much credit is owed to the American Slave and Apartheid States for finally ending their abuse of others, let me ask you a question in a similar vein. How much gratitude and thanks should a wife show her husband who finally decided to stop his abuse?

I don't thank abusive and vampyric societies for ending their abuse and parasitic exploitation of others. That type of servile mentality isn't in me. Maybe in you but that's for you to say.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a cute story but not really a reflection of reality. It's a frail white fairytale. Many of them were directly engaged in slavery (25 of the 55 delegates who signed the Constitution owned slaves) and the ones who didn't worked with the ones who did to create the American Slave State. As for how much credit is owed to the American Slave and Apartheid States for finally ending their abuse of others, let me ask you a question in a similar vein. How much gratitude and thanks should a wife show her husband who finally decided to stop his abuse?

I don't thank abusive and vampyric societies for ending their abuse and parasitic exploitation of others. That type of servile mentality isn't in me. Maybe in you but that's for you to say.

Nice diversion. I stand by my Post #53. Dispute it with any honest credible source that you can find. (You'll be a long time looking though.)

 

[Curried Goats]

Nice diversion. I stand by my Post #53. Dispute it with any honest credible source that you can find. (You'll be a long time looking though.)

The credible refutation of your claims that the Founders were against slavery is the fact that many of them owned slaves and they created a society and government that perpetuated, protected and profited off of slavery. Moron.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Exactly how is he ignoring the rule of law and pretending he has broad powers that don't appear in the Constitution? Put that into your own words and if you make a specific accusation, I will expect verification via a reliable, credible source.

He is opposing the judges who are correcting his errors, yes?