[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[xyloscissor]

Such as, what are you referring to?

You could at least respect the fact I hit reply before my post was ready to post, or do you like having that sentence not make sense to make me look bad? I mean it was what up that way for 20 seconds?

It can start out very simple, say seatbelt requirements to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[mustafur]

You could at least respect the fact I hit reply before my post was ready to post, or do you like having that sentence not make sense to make me look bad? I mean it was what up that way for 20 seconds?

It can start out very simple, say seatbelt requirements to operate a motor vehicle.

Well explain to me how i am going to know, The post hasn't changed now though either.

 

[xyloscissor]

Well explain to me how i am going to know, The post hasn't changed now though either.

What happens to me sometimes is that my cursor jumps around while I'm typing so I have to back peddle til the words look write then reset the cursor due to a sensitive touch pad, so what you quoted is missing a few words that would make the sentence legible, something like "I think you don't" whatever, so I simply edited it in a quicker format to make sense.

Anyway, I am telling you that from the time I was 20 I've seen my rights erode and it's always done in the name of democracy. Let us take this simple seatbelt example.

Does it matter to you if I wear one? If so why? Here is the answer as I see it, you cannot save me from myself and I'll do what I please so why is that a law? Because of health care costs, so let's go down that road. I can't afford it maybe so the democracy does not want to pay the bill, I didn't ask to be treated though did I? This is how it starts so now I'm saved from myself twice when I never asked to be in the first place.

That was a bit rushed, I hope you understand my point of view. It is a socialist ideology and I don't like it one bit, neither did our founding fathers. There is one part of the constitution always quoted to defend this approach and it is.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] asAlexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]

That clause is used to justify socialist behavior mainly by democracy supports in the U.S.

 

[mustafur]

What happens to me sometimes is that my cursor jumps around while I'm typing so I have to back peddle til the words look write then reset the cursor due to a sensitive touch pad, so what you quoted is missing a few words that would make the sentence legible, something like "I think you don't" whatever, so I simply edited it in a quicker format to make sense.

Anyway, I am telling you that from the time I was 20 I've seen my rights erode and it's always done in the name of democracy. Let us take this simple seatbelt example.

Does it matter to you if I wear one? If so why? Here is the answer as I see it, you cannot save me from myself and I'll do what I please so why is that a law? Because of health care costs, so let's go down that road. I can't afford it maybe so the democracy does not want to pay the bill, I didn't ask to be treated though did I? This is how it starts so now I'm saved from myself twice when I never asked to be in the first place.

That was a bit rushed, I hope you understand my point of view. It is a socialist ideology and I don't like it one bit, neither did our founding fathers. There is one part of the constitution always quoted to defend this approach and it is.



That clause is used to justify socialist behaviour mainly by democracy supports in the U.S.

If you want to do down what is socialist then basically an existing government is number 1, by just saying this is socialist therefore bad you have to be consistent.

I agree though on what your saying of the Nanny state removing the ability of choice to save your self from your own stupidity, but what if you did want to be saved how are you going to work out either way if your not in a ability to consent.

Lets be clear here though without someone giving you rights you have none, you don't have ownership of diddly squat if there is no one there to recognise that you indeed do, that would fall under occupying.

 

[eran0004]

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

R E P R E S E N T A T I V E
D E M O C R A C Y

is what that is called. Very few, if any, democracies around the world let the people be directly in charge. Typically you elect someone to represent you in your national parliament / congress. Republics also elect their head of state (and head of government if it's a presidential republic, like the USA).

The term liberal democracy was coined to describe the western democracies, that has a strong focus on protecting the rights of the citizens. The term was practically molded after the United States.

Being a republic does not exclude you from being a democracy. Democracies around the world are either republics (which is probably the most common form) or monarchies.

But if you don't accept this definition of democracy, what would you say that a democracy is? Which, if any, countries around the world would you say are democracies? Are there or has there ever been any liberal democracies out there or is it a term that was coined to describe something that doesn't exist?

 

[xyloscissor]

Lets be clear here though without someone giving you rights you have none

What?

Moving past that, whatever that is...

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

[mustafur]

What?

Moving past that, whatever that is...

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Maybe I went a bit far ahead, but usualy Utilitarian talk points come in that that point I was disputing that logic.

 

[xyloscissor]

The ends justify the means? I'll never agree with that.

I was simply speaking of liberty and how much so democracy in any form takes it away.

 

[UKMikey]

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=12096

 

[xyloscissor]

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=12096

There is this crazy idea some of us have regarding size and scope of government, it requires a responsible people to be pulled off and we can clearly see that is not the case.

That was a good read, anytime I can see Jefferson and Madison ideas given in an unbiased form is a good day 👍

 

[Com Fox]

Just found this, does this seem fake to you: http://www.betootaadvocate.com/worl...r-learning-of-protests-against-him-in-sydney/

 

[xyloscissor]

 

[McLaren]

But if you don't accept this definition of democracy, what would you say that a democracy is?

Already been quoted.

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.

At no point, has the US been recognized as a democracy regardless of having democratic traits.

Government: Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic

I'm done entertaining these definitions you keep bringing up that could literally define any country in the 1st world as having numerous forms for govt. Broad terminology is the entire base of your argument.

 

[eran0004]

Already been quoted.

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.

So according to you there are no democracies in the world, is that right?

 

[McLaren]

So according to you there are no democracies in the world, is that right?

The US is not a recognized democracy.

 

[xyloscissor]

So according to you there are no democracies in the world, is that right?

Trying to pin someone into a corner regarding the existence of a pure democratic country is futile in this case, we are speaking of the great ol U.S. of A and we are NOT a democracy we are a constitutional republic.

Thank God

 

[UKMikey]

That was a good read, anytime I can see Jefferson and Madison ideas given in an unbiased form is a good day 👍

It's nice to know that unless I've interpreted it wrongly, the article supports the idea that you can refer to the US as a democracy without being considered a nutter.

I have been involved in writing a new voluntary framework for state social studies standards. A conservative blogger named Shane Vander Hart reviewed a draft, writing, “I noticed that on pg. 29 it is mentioned we live in a constitutional democracy when in fact we live in a constitutional republic. It is troubling that those writing this document couldn’t get something as basic as that right.”

It is debatable whether the United States is a democracy, but you aren’t making a factual error if you use the word that was preferred by virtually all 20th century presidents.

First of all, even if the US was not founded as a democracy, the 15th, 17th, 19th, and 24th amendments to the Constitution, the state constitutions, two centuries of legislation, and Lincoln’s interpretation of the Civil War as a struggle for government “by the people” have made us a representative government on the basis of one person/one vote, which is a reasonable definition of a democracy.

Second, it is not clear that the founders intended a republic in contrast to a democracy, if we look past the words (whose meanings vary depending on the writer and the time) and think instead about the underlying ideas.

Madison wrote of a “pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” He was thinking of Athens and other Greek city states. He did not recommend this model: “Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Note that Madison says “such democracies,” referring to the “pure” type, which is small and direct. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of other types of democracy. He calls his own preferred form of government a republic, which is (a) representative and (b) very large. He considers both features as definitive and essential to success. If a republic’s representatives were directly chosen by the people on the basis of one person/one vote (as ours are today), that would fit most definitions of a “democracy,” although it would no longer be the pure and original type. It would still meet Aristotle’s criterion that “the partnership (koinonia) of democracy is based on numerical equality” (NE 1241b). Thus we could say that Madison co-founded a republic that became a democracy with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

 

[UKMikey]

Whether or not the US is a democracy at least we can say it supports democracy in other countries.

https://www.state.gov/j/drl/democ/

 

[eran0004]

The US is not a recognized democracy.

And yet the US is mentioned as an example in almost every definition of what a liberal democracy is.

Try defining representative democracy in such a way that it doesn't apply to the US.

Trying to pin someone into a corner regarding the existence of a pure democratic country is futile in this case, we are speaking of the great ol U.S. of A and we are NOT a democracy we are a constitutional republic.

Hang on, constitutional republic? But you said you were a federal republic. You can't be two things at the same time, that would be absurd! /sarcasm

The facts are: You elect the president and you elect the congress. By doing that you have a system of representative democracy. By protecting certain rights and liberties of the people, you are also a liberal democracy.

 

[McLaren]

And yet the US is mentioned as an example in almost every definition of what a liberal democracy is.

Doesn't matter, we are not recognized as such.

Government: Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic

Done responding to you b/c the above is all you will be given.

 

[xyloscissor]

It's nice to know that unless I've interpreted it wrongly, the article supports the idea that you can refer to the US as a democracy without being considered a nutter.

Of course, it's not being a nutter and as I've already stated in this thread we do have some democratic tendencies. It will always be extremely important to some of us not to be labeled as one for the reasons I've already given in this thread as well as others.

I'm not a nutter for saying what I say and I know I am technically right in saying so.

 

[UKMikey]

This one is confusing. Is it saying that the US has full democracy or that it is a full democracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_index_by_country_.282015.29

 

[xyloscissor]

Maybe it depends on how many different definitions of the word there are

I can assure you with all honesty that we are not a democracy however, it's not because I don't want us to be mind you, it's because we are not. It is very true that I don't want us to become one which is slowly happening and is why some of us become angered.

What you should do is read our constitution start to finish(it's short) with the very question in your mind as you do, that way you can decide in an unbiased and whatever else manor 👍

 

[UKMikey]

Provided we're talking about representative democracy (and not pure or direct democracy) it seems there is a little wiggle room for both interpretations if I read this article correctly.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Are a Democracy and Republic Mutually Exclusive?
There are many who make this statement: “The United States is a republic, not a democracy”. This makes it seem like a democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive. They usually aren't; usually a republic is a type of representational democracy with some checks and balances enshrined in the constitution that safeguard the rights of minorities. A "pure" democracy would imply the rule of the majority in every sphere of life, without such safeguards.

Is the United States a Democracy or Republic?
The U.S. is a republic. Though it is now common for people, including American politicians, to refer to the U.S. as a "democracy," this is shorthand for the representational republic that exists, not for a pure democracy. The republic continues to be mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 and later adopted by Congress in 1942 as an official pledge.

 

[xyloscissor]

Last time I checked as I've already stated, we do not pledge allegiance to a democracy so something has to give. Our government was founded as a republic there is no denying that there simply is not.

I'm beginning to think you are one of those types wishing to take away my liberty in the name of democracy, I've tried my best to be nice to you and explain how it goes but...

Read the constitution and stop with all this other nonsense, using wiki and whatever other google hit you can find to further your agenda whatever it may be.

 

[Legro]

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.

The question of interpretation comes from the definition of the word 'democracy', which has been defined in two rather different ways in this very discussion. Those who wrote the US Constitution had a different definition of democracy than Northern Europe in the 21st century. By the former definition it's absolutely certain that the US is not a democracy, it won't change that it is by the latter. An argument in which neither sides can agree on the definition of a key word in the argument and one side is so certain that their definition is the correct one that they won't even bother to address the question of the definition is exactly what happened here. Whether the US is a republic or not wasn't even questioned and yet there are more than a few posts that are defending that it is due to the obvious difference in how the word 'democracy' is interpreted.

 

[eran0004]

Doesn't matter, we are not recognized as such.

It does matter. If you fit the definitions of what a democracy is, then you are a democracy.

 

[xyloscissor]

Which we don't, there for we are not

Why on earth let me ask is it so important to a few of you to call the greatest republic the world has ever seen a democracy? It's getting so silly that this thread is beginning to lose any meaningful meaning at all.

I want an answer, no one would take this much effort over a name for no reason. Remember that blue dress?

I'll just go ahead and answer the question for you because I don't ask questions I don't already know the answer to.

Hillary Clinton lost the election but she won the popular vote, there for the u.s. as a democracy needs to hand her our mob rules crown.

There it is folks, trust me

The most distasteful part of that to me is the desire to influence the youth around here who may not yet have an education or a chance to form an informed opinion. I hate that so much it's most likely the reason I hang around these threads to begin with.

 

[Legro]

No one is saying that the US is a 'democracy' although there are a few who have said that it is a 'democracy' but that doesn't mean that they called it a 'democracy'.

Should we just agree that the US is in fact an attack helicopter and get over it?

 

[xyloscissor]

I hope so, but this agenda is really bothering me a great deal, I know what it is all too well.

If Trump had won the popular vote but lost the election these very same people would be praising our great republic.

fact.