Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic

Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 6:46:20 AM)
I was just wondering. In the RNC, superdelegates are required, during the first vote to cast their ballot according to the wishes of the electorate. However, in the DNX, superdelegates are allowed to vote against the wishes of the people (DWS ""Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.") so the power, at least as I see it lies with the DNC and not the electorate. I acknowledge that on second ballots, all delegates can vote their conscience like the RNC. So if, as I intrepret DWS, why conduct a primary? Just have the DNC decide who will be their candidate.

Lucylastic -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 8:23:16 AM)
In the RNC< why are they not happy to let trump be the nominee? The DNC is super fixed on hils, they didnt figure on bernie, DWS and the DNC are both stupid and shortsighted. They have been a clusterfuck for decades, both parties. We can perfectly see the ramifications of the RNC ineffectualism which has been useless since Steele, and out of control since preibus. To me, the whole idea of primaries and "delegates" is fucked, but yes thats because im not american. I dont need to understand the system to see its fucked up.

KenDckey -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 8:46:51 AM)
Lucy, I think the RNC doesn't like Trump because he is a political outsider and brash. Personally, I think that the selection of the canidate should be by popular vote, No matter what it is. Not so sure abut the VP, but It would work. For the conentions, it would be an opportunity for the candidate to set out his (negotiated) platform.

Lucylastic -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 8:56:27 AM)
I dont see him being a political outsider at all. He has bought and paid politicians his whole life. He is part of the problem. his lil social experiment is working better than he ever thought possible. Brash? thats a bit polite isnt it? Being english and living in canada(whose last election only took 78 days which was the longest ever, costs the tax payers 443 million.) The english elections well, dumbarses keep voting in tories, so I have no sympathy. And in large part I left because tories and their never ending poor/sick/unemployed/working class people bashing. Not to mention the race ignorance.

rkfdbdsm -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 8:56:48 AM)
I consider myself a Democrat. I HATE that we have a democratic republic rather than a true democracy! Our current 2-party system, the primary delegates, and the electoral college are all anachronistic impediments to the government being "by the people". And current election "laws" make it even worse.

MasterBrentC -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 9:45:44 AM)
A true democracy could be loosely translated as "mob rule."

Lucylastic -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 9:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC A true democracy could be loosely translated as "mob rule." aaaah like trump rallies?

aupair19 -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 10:37:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC A true democracy could be loosely translated as "mob rule." Switzerland is ruled by a mob? "loosely" rather seems to apply to some screws in someone's mind

Musicmystery -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 11:01:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I was just wondering. In the RNC, superdelegates are required, during the first vote to cast their ballot according to the wishes of the electorate. However, in the DNX, superdelegates are allowed to vote against the wishes of the people (DWS ""Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.") so the power, at least as I see it lies with the DNC and not the electorate. I acknowledge that on second ballots, all delegates can vote their conscience like the RNC. So if, as I intrepret DWS, why conduct a primary? Just have the DNC decide who will be their candidate. Actually, it's have the DNC decide 1/3 of who will be their candidate, and technically, they are elected officials in theory carrying out the will of those who elected them. But in reality -- I think it blows. Let's not award the RNC sainthood -- their rules are designed to get and rally support around an early front-runner. Not the democracy of the year award there either.

thompsonx -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 11:39:16 AM)
ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC A true democracy could be loosely translated as "mob rule." Do you only open your mouth to change feet?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 11:41:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aupair19 quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC A true democracy could be loosely translated as "mob rule." Switzerland is ruled by a mob? "loosely" rather seems to apply to some screws in someone's mind I believe that a true democracy would increase voter turn-out as much as four fold. If my surmise is correct, then yes, it *would* be a matter of "mob" rule; as I'm sure Switzerland is, if it is truly democratic. I agree with an idea of a true democracy, but it would bring some issues to the fore. The reason for the Congress (or "the peoples' house") is so that people that live (for example) in Delaware that may not (for example) want sanctuary cities (in a hugely convincing plurality) don't have to have their laws (and therefore, how they live) dictated to them by the (many more) people in California. So, let's extrapolate this: If I'm correct that pure democracy would increase voter turn-out, what are the chances that Roe v. Wade would get turned over, if put on the ballot? The second amendment would get etched in stone. 300 million guns in this country aren't owned by a minority of people. One of the biggest PPL gun-o-phobes on these boards (at least used to) hold(s) a FFL. Democracy would be a more "fair" way of doing things for those that stand in the majority. The minorities would suffer. Michael

thompsonx -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 12:42:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I believe that a true democracy would increase voter turn-out as much as four fold. If my surmise is correct, then yes, it *would* be a matter of "mob" rule; as I'm sure Switzerland is, if it is truly democratic. Your understanding of "mob rule" is flawed. I agree with an idea of a true democracy, but it would bring some issues to the fore. The reason for the Congress (or "the peoples' house") is so that people that live (for example) in Delaware that may not (for example) want sanctuary cities (in a hugely convincing plurality) don't have to have their laws (and therefore, how they live) dictated to them by the (many more) people in California. Your understanding of the term "sanctuary city is flawed. So, let's extrapolate this: If I'm correct that pure democracy would increase voter turn-out, what are the chances that Roe v. Wade would get turned over, Zero if put on the ballot? The second amendment would get etched in stone. Roflmfao. 300 million guns in this country aren't owned by a minority of people. Holy shit you are ignorant. The household ownership of firearms has declined in recent decades. Table 1 (left side) shows that the 31.0% of households reported having a firearm in 2014, essentially tying with 2010 for the lowest level of gun ownership in the last 40-some years. This is a decline of about 17 percentage points from the peak ownership years in 1977-1980. [PDF] Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972-2014, GSS Take this to google to get the pdf One of the biggest PPL gun-o-phobes on these boards (at least used to) hold(s) a FFL. Democracy would be a more "fair" way of doing things for those that stand in the majority. The minorities would suffer. Everyone except the morons know that a constitution prevents that.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 12:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rkfdbdsm I consider myself a Democrat. I HATE that we have a democratic republic rather than a true democracy! Our current 2-party system, the primary delegates, and the electoral college are all anachronistic impediments to the government being "by the people". And current election "laws" make it even worse. Thank God is all I can say.

thompsonx -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 12:53:44 PM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Thank God is all I can say. This assumes facts not in evidence.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 1:39:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Lucy, I think the RNC doesn't like Trump because he is a political outsider and brash. Personally, I think that the selection of the canidate should be by popular vote, No matter what it is. Not so sure abut the VP, but It would work. For the conentions, it would be an opportunity for the candidate to set out his (negotiated) platform. Maybe we say, "Fuck the Parties!" and let everyone run, without any campaign financing coming from the RNC/DNC. Rank (1-10) everyone, according to popular vote, in each State's "primaries." Once primaries in each State are over, only the 10 candidates with the lowest ranking summation (ie. if Hillary won all 50 state's, she'd have the lowest possible summation at 50) are still in the race, and on the ballot. Top two vote-getters are Pres/VP. No more "liberal" Democrats or "conservative" Democrats. No more Libertarians. No more GOP "establishment" or GOP "Right-Wing Extremists." Just 10 candidates defining their own platforms and beliefs. It would take A LOT more for the electorate to decide how to vote, but, it just might also get the electorate A LOT more involved and educated on the politics of the US.

mnottertail -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 1:59:03 PM)
That smacks of a socio-democracy, or at the very least the English system which the Founding Fathers tried to avoid while copying. I guess the experiment is calling that one wrong and we are going to go for such a system

bounty44 -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 2:37:40 PM)
I am reminded of the first part of this ben franklin quote: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” relative to some of the other posts on the thread, i am reminded of this one, apparently a Jefferson paraphrase/conglomeration: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people." and to throw in two more cents, attributed to john adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

MrRodgers -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/13/2016 6:45:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I am reminded of the first part of this ben franklin quote: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” relative to some of the other posts on the thread, i am reminded of this one, apparently a Jefferson paraphrase/conglomeration: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people." and to throw in two more cents, attributed to john adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Madison got his way in a divided and 'balanced' govt. to protect the minority from the 'tyranny of the masses' feeling as he did and as explained going back to Aristotle, that the masses in a democracy would be at the very least politically all over the powerful/rich minority. Never it seems considering that the powerful/rich minority would for the better part of 3 centuries (here, including the king)...be all over the masses. (bounty, Adams was right and we got neither) So what we do have is the ongoing fear of too much democracy. That's why the RNC is scared shitless over the rise of a Trump because of a little too much democracy in their primaries and the DNC has super delegates to prevent a little too much democracy in their primary process. Do not fear, whoever is actually elected will not be allowed to exercise too much democracy in order to protect the powerful/rich minority. One need only look at the powerful/rich minority succeeding with the practice of govt. sanctioned ownership of another human being as chattel slavery and in fact then even after the revolution...enshrined in the constitution as that property for enumeration requirements...were 3/5 of a person. [sic]

Musicmystery -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 8:00:54 AM)
If Franklin ever said that, I'd like to see where -- other than people claiming it on the Internet. For starters, the word "lunch" originates in the 19th century -- Franklin died in 1790. "Misattribution of quotes on the Internet leads to perpetuation of ignorance." -Plato, 386 B.C. lunch lən(t)SH/ noun noun: lunch; plural noun: lunches 1. a meal eaten in the middle of the day, typically one that is lighter or less formal than an evening meal. "a vegetarian lunch" synonyms: midday meal, luncheon, brunch, light meal, snack; power lunch "my usual lunch includes soup and a sandwich" verb verb: lunch; 3rd person present: lunches; past tense: lunched; past participle: lunched; gerund or present participle: lunching 1. eat lunch. "he told his wife he was lunching with a client" take (someone) out for lunch. "public relations people lunch their clients there" Origin early 19th century: abbreviation of luncheon.

bounty44 -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 8:14:54 AM)
i agree it is often difficult to weed through what is true and false on the internet, and misattribution can be a problem and if im guilty of contributing to that, im happy to apologize and be more careful, at least in my wording. this site supports the idea of the misattribution: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin so that said---forget then if its ben franklin or not, the quote remains and its germane to the topic. but to add to your etymology of "lunch" quote: The abbreviation lunch, in use from 1823,[1] is taken from the more formal Northern English word luncheon,[2][a] which the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) reports usage of the words beginning in 1580 to describe a meal that was eaten between more substantial meals. It may also mean a piece of cheese or bread.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunch however, words originate whenever they originate, not when they appear formally in the dictionary. quote: Word Origin and History for lunch Expand n. "mid-day repast," 1786, shortened form of luncheon (q.v.). The verb meaning "to take to lunch" (said to be from the noun) also is attested from 1786: PRATTLE. I always to be ſure, makes a point to keep up the dignity of the family I lives in. Wou'd you take a more ſolid refreſhment?--Have you lunch'd, Mr. Bribe? BRIBE. Lunch'd O dear! Permit me, my dear Mrs. Prattle, to refreſh my sponge, upon the honey dew that clings to your raviſhing pouters. O! Mrs. Prattle, this ſhall be my lunch. (kiſſes) ["The Mode," in William Davies' "Plays Written for a Private Theatre," London, 1786] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lunch the word was around in franklin's time and likely had been for decades prior.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375