• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homelessness among US children at all-time high

TheDemSocialist said:
From a capitalist perspective or a socialist?

I think clearly when need to a more social democratic mode as a startl. We need to go back to economics before trickle down. I think we do need a bigger social welfare state. We need to being to raise the tax rate on the upper income levels. We need a reinvest in our infrastructure. We need to regulate banks more.
Click to expand...

Can you perhaps provide some kind of timeline here so that I have some idea what economic time period you want to return to?
 
ernst barkmann said:
that's you plan, raise taxes and increase welfare.

you should have just said you wish to turn America into Europe.
Click to expand...

Well yes. I do believe the USA should become much more of a social democracy.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well yes. I do believe the USA should become much more of a social democracy.
Click to expand...

well OK, however i am on the opposite end i want it to be a republic based on the Roman republic as the founders created.

mean to block collective legislation.

power back to the states, and federal having few and defined powers as the founders wanted it to me.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well OK, however i am on the opposite end i want it to be a republic based on the Roman republic as the founders created.

mean to block collective legislation.

power back to the states, and federal having few and defined powers as the founders wanted it to me.
Click to expand...

A social democracy is not anti-republic...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
A social democracy is not anti-republic...
Click to expand...

a democracy is not true republic.

democracy puts all direct power into the people...one single enity......this kind of action causes majority rule..ie tyranny.

a republic separates direct power, the people have some the states have some, which prevents tyranny.

the founders constructed a republic based on the Roman republic, it only has 1 single element of democracy.
 
ernst barkmann said:
a democracy is not true republic.

democracy puts all direct power into the people...one single enity......this kind of action causes majority rule..ie tyranny.

a republic separates direct power, the people have some the states have some, which prevents tyranny.

the founders constructed a republic based on the Roman republic, it only has 1 single element of democracy.
Click to expand...

A republic is a country that doesn't have a monarchy. That's what a republic is.

The Soviet Union was a republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic aka USSR. Nazi Germany was a republic. England isn't a Republic but a monarchy, they have a queen, some times a king.
 
ernst barkmann said:
a democracy is not true republic.

democracy puts all direct power into the people...one single enity......this kind of action causes majority rule..ie tyranny.

a republic separates direct power, the people have some the states have some, which prevents tyranny.

the founders constructed a republic based on the Roman republic, it only has 1 single element of democracy.
Click to expand...

A republic is a country that lacks a monarchy. What you are talking about is the idea of federalism. Federalist states delegate power to sub-regional governments such as the U.S. or Canada. A unitary state does not though it may grant very limited powers to sub-regional entities, France or the Netherlands would be example of this.
 
Last edited:
APACHERAT said:
A republic is a country that doesn't have a monarchy. That's what a republic is.

The Soviet Union was a republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic aka USSR. Nazi Germany was a republic. England isn't a Republic but a monarchy, they have a queen, some times a king.
Click to expand...

sorry no that's not correct...

the founders knew of the roman republic, these types of government which call themselves republics today did not exit in 1787.

France had its revolution in 1789, which was a democratic movement, ..called themselves a republic because they threw off the monarchy, however it was not a true republic, but the term stuck in history, and all kinds of government now are calling themselves republic , which is not true.

our government and the structure of the roman republic is the same..it is a mixed government -federalist 40

a democratic republic is an oxymoron to the founders
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no that's not correct...

the founders knew of the roman republic, these types of government which call themselves republics today did not exit in 1787.

France had its revolution in 1789, which was a democratic movement, ..called themselves a republic because they threw off the monarchy, however it was not a true republic, but the term stuck in history, and all kinds of government now are calling themselves republic , which is not true.

our government and the structure of the roman republic is the same..it is a mixed government -federalist 40

a democratic republic is an oxymoron to the founders
Click to expand...

France was (albeit not for long) but is now both a republic and democratic. That is why they call themselves la republique francaise yet have a strong very centralized democratic government. Again the idea you are talking about is federalism.
 
US Conservative said:
In our convo downstairs, you said you didn't understand how the left was authoritarian.

Read your statement again, and rethink this.
Click to expand...

It's done legally - via legislation. Look, there is a reason we are called progressives and you are called conservatives. My group is constantly looking at the current situation and past events and saying, "how can we use all of this to move forward and make a better future". And conservatives look at today and look back and say, "we need to go back to that because that was working".

And there is probably something good in that - you can't move forward too fast because not all progressive policies are correct and they need to be thoroughly vetted. But you can't sit there and continue idling or going backwards as well.

So quit playing the victim. We're all working for the same thing, we just have different ideas of what that thing should be.
 
Carjosse said:
France was (albeit not for long) but is now both a republic and democratic. That is why they call themselves la republique francaise yet have a strong very centralized democratic government. Again the idea you are talking about is federalism.
Click to expand...

sorry no... i am not talking about federalism, the separation of state and federal powers,......... i am taking about mixed government

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.


federalist 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
 
whysoserious said:
It's done legally - via legislation. Look, there is a reason we are called progressives and you are called conservatives. My group is constantly looking at the current situation and past events and saying, "how can we use all of this to move forward and make a better future". And conservatives look at today and look back and say, "we need to go back to that because that was working".

And there is probably something good in that - you can't move forward too fast because not all progressive policies are correct and they need to be thoroughly vetted. But you can't sit there and continue idling or going backwards as well.

So quit playing the victim. We're all working for the same thing, we just have different ideas of what that thing should be.
Click to expand...

Listen to yourself-who are YOU to tell ANYONE how fast they need to move? How is that your role?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no that's not correct...

the founders knew of the roman republic, these types of government which call themselves republics today did not exit in 1787.

France had its revolution in 1789, which was a democratic movement, ..called themselves a republic because they threw off the monarchy, however it was not a true republic, but the term stuck in history, and all kinds of government now are calling themselves republic , which is not true.

our government and the structure of the roman republic is the same..it is a mixed government -federalist 40

a democratic republic is an oxymoron to the founders
Click to expand...

If we use Wikipedias definition of a Republic, you have a argument.

>" A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical and medieval period of Europe many states were fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the city of Rome between it having kings, and emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism", in America, is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius[clarification needed] and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.

Republics became more common in the Western world starting in the early 19th century, eventually displacing absolute monarchy as the most common form of government. In modern republics the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government..."<
continue -> Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What about the UK, they have a Queen ?

From the Wiki talk page from above.

>" Actually the UK is both a "Constitutional Monarchy" and a "Representative Democracy". These two terms describe separate, but related, aspects of the UK, the former the method by which sovereignty is derived and the latter the way power is exercised. The USA is a "Constitutional Republic" and a "Representative Democracy" (and a whole load of other terms which are needed to properly describe it!). It is (or has become, I'm not 200 years old!) common for right-leaning people to claim the USA is *only* a Republic and *not* a democracy, but this seems to be to be purely for partisan reasons. It must help psychologically if the name of your political party matches that of your country's system of government. In reality, the Republican and Democrat names of the two US parties means pretty much zero. It's not like the Democrats are against Republicanism or the Republicans are against Democracy. It's silly. It really really is. "<
Talk:Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:attn1: -> Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Webster's:

>" re·pub·lic noun \ri-ˈpə-blik\
: a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Full Definition of REPUBLIC

1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3
: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia "<
Republic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


republic -- Encyclopedia Britannica


DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLIC?

>" Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and republic—left the answer unclear. Both terms had been applied to the assembly-based systems of Greece and Rome, though neither system assigned legislative powers to representatives elected by members of the dēmos. As noted above, even after Roman citizenship was expanded beyond the city itself and increasing numbers of citizens were prevented from participating in government by the time, expense, and hardship of travel to the city, the complex Roman system of assemblies was never replaced by a government of representatives—a parliament—elected by all Roman citizens. Venetians also called the government of their famous city a republic, though it was certainly not democratic."<
democracy :: Democracy or republic? -- Encyclopedia Britannica
 
APACHERAT said:
If we use Wikipedias definition of a Republic, you have a argument.

>" A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical and medieval period of Europe many states were fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the city of Rome between it having kings, and emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism", in America, is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius[clarification needed] and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.

Republics became more common in the Western world starting in the early 19th century, eventually displacing absolute monarchy as the most common form of government. In modern republics the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government..."<
continue -> Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What about the UK, they have a Queen ?

From the Wiki talk page from above.

>" Actually the UK is both a "Constitutional Monarchy" and a "Representative Democracy". These two terms describe separate, but related, aspects of the UK, the former the method by which sovereignty is derived and the latter the way power is exercised. The USA is a "Constitutional Republic" and a "Representative Democracy" (and a whole load of other terms which are needed to properly describe it!). It is (or has become, I'm not 200 years old!) common for right-leaning people to claim the USA is *only* a Republic and *not* a democracy, but this seems to be to be purely for partisan reasons. It must help psychologically if the name of your political party matches that of your country's system of government. In reality, the Republican and Democrat names of the two US parties means pretty much zero. It's not like the Democrats are against Republicanism or the Republicans are against Democracy. It's silly. It really really is. "<
Talk:Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:attn1: -> Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Webster's:

>" re·pub·lic noun \ri-ˈpə-blik\
: a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Full Definition of REPUBLIC

1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3
: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia "<
Republic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


republic -- Encyclopedia Britannica


DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLIC?

>" Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and republic—left the answer unclear. Both terms had been applied to the assembly-based systems of Greece and Rome, though neither system assigned legislative powers to representatives elected by members of the dēmos. As noted above, even after Roman citizenship was expanded beyond the city itself and increasing numbers of citizens were prevented from participating in government by the time, expense, and hardship of travel to the city, the complex Roman system of assemblies was never replaced by a government of representatives—a parliament—elected by all Roman citizens. Venetians also called the government of their famous city a republic, though it was certainly not democratic."<
democracy :: Democracy or republic? -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Click to expand...

i will give you tons of information here on what i have said.....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a.html
 
Last edited:
APACHERAT said:
I like quoting the Federalist Papers at times.

I need to read it again, it's been years since I read it.
Click to expand...

when you quote the founders, then you cannot be wrong, because they created the Constitution, whereas if you give your own opinion on it, ..it just your opinion.

which is why i always refer to the founders on the Constitution when discussed in the forum
 
ernst barkmann said:
when you quote the founders, then you cannot be wrong, because they created the Constitution, whereas if you give your own opinion on it, ..it just your opinion.

which is why i always refer to the founders on the Constitution when discussed in the forum
Click to expand...

Well, it gets dangerous when you use a small quote to prove a point. A good example is when people try to say this is a Christian nation and then quote them on their views on God.
 
whysoserious said:
Well, it gets dangerous when you use a small quote to prove a point. A good example is when people try to say this is a Christian nation and then quote them on their views on God.
Click to expand...

very true, which is why you have to do a lot of reading, and don't half quote.
 
ernst barkmann said:
when you quote the founders, then you cannot be wrong, because they created the Constitution, whereas if you give your own opinion on it, ..it just your opinion.

which is why i always refer to the founders on the Constitution when discussed in the forum
Click to expand...

You do know that Barak Obama doesn't like the founding fathers of our nation.

I think it's a leftist thing.
 
APACHERAT said:
You do know that Barak Obama doesn't like the founding fathers of our nation.

I think it's a leftist thing.
Click to expand...

i am sure he does not, people on the left do not like them, because they feel the founders did not live by their words, however many times they are confused, because they quote the Constitution......which only creates federalism...

'instead they should be looking at the states for the issues they have with the founders they are not happy about.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am sure he does not, people on the left do not like them, because they feel the founders did not live by their words, however many times they are confused, because they quote the Constitution......which only creates federalism...

'instead they should be looking at the states for the issues they have with the founders they are not happy about.
Click to expand...

I mean, Hamilton wasn't my favorite, but I don't see why many would not like them. Everything is best in context, and in context, they were so far ahead of their time. And I doubt that Barack wouldn't see or acknowledge that.
 
whysoserious said:
It's done legally - via legislation. Look, there is a reason we are called progressives and you are called conservatives. My group is constantly looking at the current situation and past events and saying, "how can we use all of this to move forward and make a better future". And conservatives look at today and look back and say, "we need to go back to that because that was working".

And there is probably something good in that - you can't move forward too fast because not all progressive policies are correct and they need to be thoroughly vetted. But you can't sit there and continue idling or going backwards as well.

So quit playing the victim. We're all working for the same thing, we just have different ideas of what that thing should be.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why both terms are worthless. People that call themselves progressives rarely have new ideas and people that call themselves conservatives are not always for how things are or were in the past. For that matter, many progressives spend a considerable amount of time defending the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom