[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?

  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
xyloscissor
Because you know it's true?

btw did you bother to read what I posted and quoted, that was from Maddison, perhaps you don't know who he is? Oh brother.
Click to expand...

Because you've proven yourself to be highly irrational.

Which post and quote are you referring to?
 
Do tell the irrational part, I'm dying to know.

What am I referring to? LOL so glad you came to play, I posted a quote just a bit ago from James Madison clearly showing the disdain our founding fathers had for your beloved democracy.
 
Quite honestly this is one of the first times I've ever seen someone claiming that direct democracy is the only definition of democracy. I'll take it as a cultural difference, or at least linguistic, because almost every time I've heard the definition of democracy discussed in the Finnish propaganda machine education system it has also included indirect democracy.

Admittedly they didn't use the English language, but since the definition appears to be the same I'll leave it there.
 
There is a discussion about that @Legro in another thread, I'm trying to remember where it is but it has to do with a trial of working wage for the unemployed 👍
 
xyloscissor
Do tell the irrational part, I'm dying to know.
Click to expand...

I can even predict one in the near future, namely the way you'll respond to these definitions of liberal democracy:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/liberal-democracy/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal_democracy

http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/key-terms/liberal-democracy

What am I referring to? LOL so glad you came to play, I posted a quote just a bit ago from James Madison clearly showing the disdain our founding fathers had for your beloved democracy.
Click to expand...

Which post?
 
It is here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/fight-for-15-fast-food-protest.316431/page-18

@Legro

Really? You are that lazy @eran0004?

A pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Click to expand...

Next thing you know you'll be asking me to pump your gas for you :lol: no wait, prolly more like plugging in your prius? :P

I kid I kid :D
 
I'm not sure either, but I do know that in Finland democracy is quite a bit different than it is here in the u.s.

There are specific reasons that things work they way they do in different parts of the world, things are not universal ya know?
 
xyloscissor
I'm not sure either, but I do know that in Finland democracy is quite a bit different than it is here in the u.s.

There are specific reasons that things work they way they do in different parts of the world, things are not universal ya know?
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think that the basic income is ever going to be a success. It doesn't change the fact I've been told that both countries are at least in theory representative democracies. Even if one doesn't call it that.
 
Legro
Personally I don't think that the basic income is ever going to be a success. It doesn't change the fact I've been told that both countries are at least in theory representative democracies. Even if one doesn't call it that.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I just thought it an interesting point, maybe too far off this conversation. I will never agree that the u.s. is a democracy however. No big deal.
 
GT HP Nut
'Yeah, let's label somebody who holds a different opinion regarding a matter an oxymoron!'
Click to expand...

You...uhhh...can't label someone an oxymoron since that would make no sense. I mean really how much sense does this make "you're such a figure of speech that contradicts itself!"

eran0004
Because you've proven yourself to be highly irrational.
Click to expand...

No, he isn't being irrational. You're the one trying to claim that the United States' government is something it has never been, nor ever will be. It's a fact that the US isn't a democracy and is a republic, there's no opinion there nor interpretation.

===

In other news, Trump is so much of a racist that he's meeting with Martin Luther King III on MLK Day (or Civil Rights Day as they call it in Utah weirdly).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-martin-luther-king-jr-holiday/96632026/

Mike Pence also attended the celebration at MLK's memorial in DC.

I feel like this should be a bigger story but since it's doesn't fit with the media's angle that "Trump's a racist" it just gets a little blurb. It also not surprising that it's completely missing from BuzzFeed's news page, yet they continue to highlight the story about John Lewis who claims "Trump isn't a legitimate president" despite being based off of complete nonsense.
 
Joey D
It's a fact that the US isn't a democracy and is a republic, there's no opinion there nor interpretation.
Click to expand...
I'll accept that as soon as someone explains me how representative democracy isn't a valid term, or how a republic isn't a representative democracy.

Considering that the definition of democracy that I've been hearing and using so far includes both direct and representative democracy, which in modern world is more common power source, and I'm fairly sure there are more than one country where such definition is used, I'd be quite ready to say that there is indeed interpretation to this. This could be completely unheard definition in the US, but since there is a Wikipedia article on it I find it unlikely that it doesn't exist at all in the English language.

Either way, although the concept of democracy meaning only direct democracy is rather new thing to me, I'm more than okay to accept that there are people who think that way as long as they're aware of other part of the planet using the same word with a slightly different definition, and won't insist that the other meaning doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Legro
I'll accept that as soon as someone explains me how representative democracy isn't a valid term, or how a republic isn't a representative democracy.

Considering that the definition of democracy that I've been hearing and using so far includes both direct and representative democracy, which in modern world is more common power source, and I'm fairly sure there are more than one country where such definition is used, I'd be quite ready to say that there is indeed interpretation to this. This could be completely unheard definition in the US, but since there is a Wikipedia article on it I find it unlikely that it doesn't exist at all in the English language.

Either way, although the concept of democracy meaning only direct democracy is rather new thing to me, I'm more than okay to accept that there are people who think that way as long as they're aware of other part of the planet using the same word with a slightly different definition, and won't insist that the other meaning doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

The US was founded on principals of not being a democracy because in many ways democracy isn't a good thing. People are free to label it however they like, but the Founding Fathers made it very clear the US was to be a republic and wrote the Constitution with that in mind. I still can't understand how it's up for any interpretation when our government structure fits the very definition of a republic and all of our founding documents spell out that we are a republic.

I also know nothing of how governments work in Europe so I don't know how they label themselves or how they function.
 
eran0004
Liberal democracy is a form of democracy, just like a sports car is a form of car. The US is a democracy, and it's a liberal democracy, and it's a presidential democracy, and it's a federation, and it's a republic, and it's a federal republic. Just like you are a human, and an American, and an organism, etc. Things are very rarely just one thing.
Click to expand...
A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.
Click to expand...
A constitutional republic is a type of government in which the officials are elected by the people. The republic must govern according to the laws of the constitution, and its actions are subject to judicial review. Although many people consider it a democracy, the United States is actually a constitutional republic.

The major difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is that in a democracy, all laws and legislation are decided by a popular vote, and in a constitutional republic, the elected officials decide on legislation as representatives of the people.
Click to expand...
In a direct democracy, any an all citizens may act directly to enact public policy without the intermediary step of an elected official. In practice, this is only practical when applied to smaller groups of people. A working group, for example, may be based on this type of direct democracy.

In a representative democracy, the will of the people is to be enacted by elected officials. Free elections, the involvement of the public in all aspects of civic life, upholding human rights and the equal application of law* to all citizens are cornerstones of democratic societies.

Democracy, being based on elections, is based on the notion of majority rules. What the majority of citizens vote for should be enacted. Majority rules, however, should never mean that the minority is oppressed and so most democratic states also have a constitution which enshrines the rights of all citizens, including minorities. These are called constitutional democracies, and include most of the democratic countries in the modern world.
Click to expand...
*US citizens are not involved in everything as outlined as such. We are free to protest laws/actions we do not agree with, but the US Govt. holds the power to decide these things because we elected them to do so hence, we are not a representative democracy either.

You're once again trying to argue on the basis of literal definitions & attempting to shoe horn everything under a broad term to prove your argument (like this silly case you just presented that we are this, this, & that), despite the fact a republic & a democracy boil down 2 things in their simplest difference:

A Democracy would be run by GTPlanet members.
A Republic would be run by Moderators/Admins we elect on behalf of us.

Government: Federal presidential constitutional republic
Click to expand...
Cite definitions about democracy all you want, this what we are recognized as. Continuing to argue this will result in you being presented with this point time after time the longer this mad circle goes on that you've invested us in.
 
Last edited:
To protect the minority from the majority, that cannot happen in a democracy but as we've been saying for a while now and still worth repeating.

Why do we have an electoral college?
 
xyloscissor
To protect the minority from the majority, that cannot happen in a democracy but as we've been saying for a while now and still worth repeating.

Why do we have an electoral college?
Click to expand...
Not sure, you guys seem to ignore it and have a clearly Representive Democracy when it comes to non federal voting.
 
mustafur
Not sure, you guys seem to ignore it and have a clearly Representive Democracy when it comes to non federal voting.
Click to expand...

Do we? So you are saying our states are democracies oversee'd(is that a word? lol) by a republic united?

We don't ignore our processes, in fact we just put a man into the highest office using them.

Practices vary from state to state, but our states are not democracies either, spend a little time to read any of our state's own constitutions and you will quickly see a similar structure to our federal government full of checks and balances constructed specifically to protect the minority from the majority. The very reason for a republic over a democracy.
 
Last edited:
xyloscissor
To protect the minority from the majority, that cannot happen in a democracy but as we've been saying for a while now and still worth repeating.

Why do we have an electoral college?
Click to expand...

Honestly, xyloscissor your arguments are totally misguided - probably a result of the American education/propaganda system & a complete lack of exposure to the world outside the US. The USA, like many other countries in the world, is a democratic republic. Hardly any countries in the world have "direct democracy". Many - both "republics" & parliamentary democracies - have constitutions that limit the power of majority rule & protect minority rights.

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too. Eugene Volokh

The electoral college - in fact much of the original Constitution - was created to address the political reality on the ground at the time the Constitution was drawn up. Lots of the provisions in the original Constitution don't make much sense now - some have been changed over the decades since through amendments, but many continue due to the difficulty of making, in the face of strong vested interests, what would be entirely logical amendments. One of the most significant amendments required a civil war & the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives to come about.
 
I seem to recall the last time you lectured on the "political reality" of the United States circa ~1790, which incidentally coincided with the last time someone insisted about blurring the distinction between a Democracy and a Republic, you were told you got the specific reasoning behind one part of the electoral college's implementation backwards and you then called the person who did so an "apologist for slavery" in response.


Can we safely assume your argument is a bit better thought out this time (though you wrote it so closely to then that I'd almost expect you just copied it and edited it, so...), or can we just chalk another thing up to the "American education/propaganda system" failing compared to the obviously more enlightened foreign viewpoint?
 
Last edited:
Yes, erran004 is exactly right in his comments ... & it is most likely due to an "enlightened foreign viewpoint" because it includes some knowledge about the way political systems work in the rest of the world, rather than just repeating the same tired old cliches ad nauseam:

"like protecting the minority from the majority, that cannot happen in a democracy".

Again: hardly any countries in the world have "direct democracy". Many - both "republics" & parliamentary democracies & hybrids of the two - have constitutions that limit the power of majority rule & protect minority rights. Do you have some kind of response to this simple reality, or to the very straightforward quote I offered in my last post?

As far as the electoral college is concerned I got it backwards if you also choose to believe that the Civil War was about "States Rights", but in simply practical terms:

The 3/5 compromise was about Congressional representation, and was baked into the Electoral College by default. There's nothing really idealistic or visionary about the EC. In 1790 it was impossible to imagine a 'direct election' which aggregated every vote. Roads were often impassible, transport disorderly, and oversight unavailable. Electors initially represented a region's voters, but states wanted to maximize power, so they collected district results imprecisely, and picked a winner. Electors carried the result to Philadelphia, later D.C., for a national tally. Madison and Hamilton expected them to put a brake on electing a demagogue, but parties put a kibosh on that.

Initial conditions are so hard to break. With railroads and telegraph, the real reason for Electors vanished. The idea that the college preserves small state rights is absurd. First, small states get extra power in the Senate, where laws finalize. They get influence and protection there. The executive's job is to apply laws fairly, not give special attention to small states.

With the EC the biggest losers are California Republicans, Texas Democrats, and every other group whose votes don't count in a winner-take-all system. This is a partisan issue in the broad sense - partisans of both stripes lose."

Or to put it another way, the EC doesn't "help protect minority rights", it mostly acts as suppressor of democratic participation by making the votes of large swathes of the population irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
All these pages of time wasting arguments.

I don't care what it is called, it is what it is.

As far as the Electoral College is concerned, the founders made it very difficult to change the Constitution for a reason. It will not go away.

The Constitution of the United States is not a living and breathing document as many liberals would like you to think. It is the ultimate law of the land.

And finally, our military, and our elected officials swear an oath to defend the Constitution. Most Americans know the Constitution, and support it above all else.

Plus, we all got guns and are more than willing to defend it. ;)
 
Yup I have, I have also seen this plan in action for many years. Perhaps if you saw your way of life slowly plucked away from you over the past 20 years you would understand. I doubt it however because you probably don't respect my way of life anyway.
 
xyloscissor
Yup I have, I have also seen this plan in action for many years. Perhaps if you saw your way of life slowly plucked away from you over the past 20 years you would understand. I doubt it however because I don't respect my way of life anyway.
Click to expand...
Such as, what are you referring to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wfooshee
Electoral College: Discuss!
3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
7K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
316 317 318
Replies
10K
Views
395K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Sanji Himura
The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
11K
PocketZeven
PocketZeven
Sanji Himura
US Midterm Elections 2014
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
4K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
DK
US Congress Elections, 2016
Replies
1
Views
516
ryzno
ryzno

Latest Posts

Back