• 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!

Obama: We're still working on our democracy

I disagree with you on all three counts.
Of course you do.
-Nothing- about democracy necessitates the inclusion of -any- of those things -- so, no.
Show that a system of government where decisions are made according to the will of the people must, as part of its nature, include things like due process, protection from unreasonable searches, and protection from cuel and unusual punishment, and that absent same, it is not a democracy.

Equivocation.
I stated that The Obama is continuig the Bush-era policies that you deride.
Your response, summed up, is 'yes, well....'
That's equivocaton.

The nature of our democracy, what's wrong with it, what's been done to fix it, and what will be done to fix the rest is very much of substance.
Please state the -exact- nature of your disagreement with this, as given the importance you supposedly place on democracy and its supposed necessary relationship between it and the things you mentioned, it would very much seem like these things should be important to you.

Again, get some substance and let's see where that takes us.
As illustrated, substance is staring you in the face -- and so, its clear that when presented with substance, you just run from it.
 
Without due process, freedom is hindered. If the government can arrest and hold without due process, it has too much power to assure freedom no matter how people vote. If a government can ignore rule of law, then freedom and democracy can be ignored, and hence they become meaningless. You only have the freedom you can defend.

You're not asking a question based on democracy here, but are instead attacking Obama's comment, playing a silly partisan game. Something that really sought to address democracy would start by discussing freedoms and powers and civil liberties and not attach it to any president. You have brought nothing of substance to the table. Nothing in Obama's comments mean anything that should offend or bother anyone.
 
Without due process, freedom is hindered. If the government can arrest and hold without due process, it has too much power to assure freedom no matter how people vote.
False premise, that these things are necessary for democracy to exist.

So long as the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented, there is democracy.

Due process? Not -necessarily- a part of that.
Protection from unreasonable search? Not -necessarily- a part of that.
Protection from unusual punishment? Not -necessarily- part of that.

Freedom and democracy, see, are not necessarily related.

You're not asking a question based on democracy here, but are instead attacking Obama's comment, playing a silly partisan game.
Is that what you call it when someone questions The Obama and His pontifications? How DARE I?

Something that really sought to address democracy would start by discussing freedoms and powers and civil liberties and not attach it to any president.
That might be applicable if it were contextually relevant.
Instead, we're discussing something -The Obama- said about the state of Democracy in the US, the problems -The Obama- sees as connected to same and what -The Obama- has supposedly done fo fix those problems.

And you will note that the discussion started with -questions- regarding same.

You have brought nothing of substance to the table.
I have brought plenty - you're just running from it.
 
False premise, that these things are necessary for democracy to exist.

So long as the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented, there is democracy.

Due process? Not -necessarily- a part of that.
Protection from unreasonable search? Not -necessarily- a part of that.
Protection from unusual punishment? Not -necessarily- part of that.

Freedom and democracy, see, are not necessarily related.

I quite disagree. If these things can be done, you cannot be assured freedom or democracy. Both, though separate, require sound rule of law to exist. Where the law is not respected, neither can be assured.


Is that what you call it when someone questions The Obama and His pontifications? How DARE I?

No, that's what I call anything that lacks substance no matter who it is directed at.



I have brought plenty - you're just running from it.

No, you brought silliness in the pretense that it was substance. It isn't. Sorry.
 
I quite disagree.
You can disagree all you want, but unless you can show a necessary lrelatiuonship between democracy and the things you cite -- that is, how, exactly, democracy cannot exits unless these things are present -- then your disagreement is meaningless. You have not done this -- and, in fact, you cannot becasue said necessary relationship does not exist.

If these things can be done, you cannot be assured freedom or democracy.
All that is necessary to 'assure democracy' is, as I already noted, that the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.

Freedom? Other than to vote, there's nothing regarding democracy that necessitates any such thing. You can be an absolute slave, and as long as the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.
Both, though separate, require sound rule of law to exist. Where the law is not respected, neither can be assured.
To the extent that the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented. There is no other requirement.

No, that's what I call anything that lacks substance no matter who it is directed at.
And, as noted, there's all sorts of substance - you're just running from it.

No, you brought silliness in the pretense that it was substance. It isn't. Sorry.
If that's how you plan to continue avoiding the issue, since you really dont have any other respone, then continue to do so -- the fact that you're running away doesnt change.
 
You can disagree all you want, but unless you can show a necessary lrelatiuonship between democracy and the things you cite -- that is, how, exactly, democracy cannot exits unless these things are present -- then your disagreement is meaningless. You have not done this -- and, in fact, you cannot becasue said necessary relationship does not exist.


All that is necessary to 'assure democracy' is, as I already noted, that the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.

Freedom? Other than to vote, there's nothing regarding democracy that necessitates any such thing. You can be an absolute slave, and as long as the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.

To the extent that the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented. There is no other requirement.


And, as noted, there's all sorts of substance - you're just running from it.


If that's how you plan to continue avoiding the issue, since you really dont have any other respone, then continue to do so -- the fact that you're running away doesnt change.

No, voting alone is not effort. In Saddam's Iraq, people vote. They vote in Iran. The vote in Communist Russia as well. Democracy depends on more than voting. It depends on rule of law.

And no, you have noted no substance concerning Obama's comment. None. There is no issue to avoid, which is my point. It's a simple point that should not require all this back and forth. Obama made a simple statement that should be universally agreed with, as we are always working to improve. There is no substance in your complaint.
 
No, voting alone is not effort.
In Saddam's Iraq, people vote. They vote in Iran. The vote in Communist Russia as well. Democracy depends on more than voting.
You didnt read what I said:

All that is necessary to 'assure democracy' is, as I already noted, that the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.

Implicit in this that the people voting may vote for whatever they want, and as such, none of your examples apply. nor do anything to support your position.

None of this in any illustrates the -necessity- for democray to include those things you claimed. Other than to vote, there's nothing regarding democracy that necessitates any such thing. You can be an absolute slave, and as long as the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.
It depends on rule of law.
Which, again, does not necessitate any of those things you claimed.
And no, you have noted no substance concerning Obama's comment.
Keep running away.
 
You didnt read what I said:

All that is necessary to 'assure democracy' is, as I already noted, that the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.

Implicit in this that the people voting may vote for whatever they want, and as such, none of your examples apply. nor do anything to support your position.

None of this in any illustrates the -necessity- for democray to include those things you claimed. Other than to vote, there's nothing regarding democracy that necessitates any such thing. You can be an absolute slave, and as long as the people vote for whatever issue at hand, and that said vote is recognized and implemented.

Which, again, does not necessitate any of those things you claimed.

Keep running away.

But the do apply. If the law can be ignored, then nothing can be assured. You may be OK today, but as the precedence has been set that the law is secondary, then someone else can ignore your vote and do as they please, and democracy is like that of Iran and NK. When laws don't apply, nothing is assured.

Not running, answering. ;)
 
But the do apply. If the law can be ignored, then nothing can be assured.
The only "law" that is -necessary- in a democracy is that there is an actual vote, and that the results of that vote are recgonized and implemented.

You dont need protection from unreasonable seziures for that.
You dont need protection from unusual punishement for that.
You dont need due process for that.

Not running, answering.
You don't want to have to address the issue, so you take the sohpomoric tack of simply delcaring the issue unsubstantive.
That's running.
 
The only "law" that is -necessary- in a democracy is that there is an actual vote, and that the results of that vote are recgonized and implemented.

You dont need protection from unreasonable seziures for that.
You dont need protection from unusual punishement for that.
You dont need due process for that.


You don't want to have to address the issue, so you take the sohpomoric tack of simply delcaring the issue unsubstantive.
That's running.

You are mistaken. Where rule of law is ignored, there are no assurances, anywhere.

What is lacking in substance is lacking in substance. You can't change that being mad about it. ;)
 
You are mistaken. Where rule of law is ignored, there are no assurances, anywhere.
And what you fail to comprehend is that the only "rule of law" necessary in a democracy is that the elections be free and the results recognized and implemented; the only real question at this point is if this failure to comprehend is deliberate.

Due process, protection from unreasonablke search and unusual punishment - or even "freedom" in general - are NOT necessary in order to have a democracy; it is imposible for you to show the necessary relationship between these things and democracy because said necessary relationship does not exist.

What is lacking in substance is lacking in substance
Keep running!
 
No democracy is perfect. There's always room for improvement. I think America needs to scrap it's two party system, it just doesn't seem like it works.

I think proportional representation is the closest thing we can get to true democracy at this point
, it allows for so many parties to get in, and get their views across, rather then having two bloated political machines that do nothing but bash eachother instead of getting **** done.

And when seats in congress start becoming filled up by members of National Socialist Movement, will that make you happy that representative democracy has created an illiberal legislature?
 
No democracy is perfect. There's always room for improvement. I think America needs to scrap it's two party system, it just doesn't seem like it works.

I think proportional representation is the closest thing we can get to true democracy at this point, it allows for so many parties to get in, and get their views across, rather then having two bloated political machines that do nothing but bash eachother instead of getting **** done.
For crying out loud, did you ever read what the founders said about democracies? You want something close to democracy. This is just getting to be unbelieveable. We don't have a two party system by law, so how will you scrap it? :doh
 
the issue here is what The Obama thnks is a problem, and how He has improved the situation, as claimed.

But, you apparently aren't interested in actually discussing THAT.

The answers you seek can be found with Mr. Obama. However, it appears that you are less interested in getting the answers you seek from the only person that has them, than you are in complaining about him.




Tip: The "The Obama" crap pegs you as a partisan hater from the git go. If you really wish to have a grown-up discussion, you'll have to act like a grown up, first.
 
And what you fail to comprehend is that the only "rule of law" necessary in a democracy is that the elections be free and the results recognized and implemented; the only real question at this point is if this failure to comprehend is deliberate.

Due process, protection from unreasonablke search and unusual punishment - or even "freedom" in general - are NOT necessary in order to have a democracy; it is imposible for you to show the necessary relationship between these things and democracy because said necessary relationship does not exist.


Keep running!

you can't abide by one law and break others without losing faith in all laws. I'm sorry, but you have it wrong. Once you start ignoring rule of law, nothing is certain.
 
The answers you seek can be found with Mr. Obama. However, it appears that you are less interested in getting the answers you seek from the only person that has them, than you are in complaining about him.
Just looking for answers to perfectly legitimate questions.

Tip: The "The Obama" crap pegs you as a partisan hater from the git go.
A "partisan hater"? Thats -your- idea of grown-up discussion?
:rofl
 
you can't abide by one law and break others without losing faith in all laws. I'm sorry, but you have it wrong. Once you start ignoring rule of law, nothing is certain.
What part of "the only "rule of law" necessary in a democracy is that the elections be free and the results recognized and implemented" do you not understand?

The fact thay you have failed to demonstrate the --necessary-- relationship betwen democracy and the protections you listed illustrate beyond any doubt that YOU have it wrong.
 
What part of "the only "rule of law" necessary in a democracy is that the elections be free and the results recognized and implemented" do you not understand?

The fact thay you have failed to demonstrate the --necessary-- relationship betwen democracy and the protections you listed illustrate beyond any doubt that YOU have it wrong.

What you don't seem to understand is that you are wrong with that assertion. That is not the only law needed. When rule of law is violated, the government loses legitimacy. When it does, all laws become a concern because nothing stops the government from breaking them if it can get away with breaking any other law. Laws are meaningless if they can be broken at will.
 
What you don't seem to understand is that you are wrong with that assertion. That is not the only law needed.
Yes, yes it is; your statement to this effect demostrates a willfull mis-understanding of the term.

So, at this point, its clear you are simply trolling.

:2wave:
 
Well, I'm not having a discussion with a grown up, now, am I? :doh
Your ad-hom has been noted.
When you have something worthwhile to add, please let me know.
 
Yes, yes it is; your statement to this effect demostrates a willfull mis-understanding of the term.

So, at this point, its clear you are simply trolling.

:2wave:

No, it's not, and it is you side stepping the point. You're free to do so, but that too is noted. ;):2wave:
 
No, it's not, and it is you side stepping the point.
Really? OK....

Democracy:
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Thus, the only "rule of law" inherent to democracy is that the elections be free and the results of same recognized and implemented.

Prove that, given the definition, democracy cannot exist w/o due process or preotection from search/seizure/unusual punishment.
 
Really? OK....

Democracy:
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Thus, the only "rule of law" inherent to democracy is that the elections be free and the results of same recognized and implemented.

Prove that, given the definition, democracy cannot exist w/o due process or preotection from search/seizure/unusual punishment.

Again, you're skipping over the point. You can't be sure the law that makes them free and recognized will hold if laws can be ignored. Democracy requires we have faith in the laws. If we don't, they are meaningless. And we lose faith when laws can be broken to suit any particular leader.
 
Again, you're skipping over the point.
On the contrary -- I have addressed it directly.
Democracy requires just one rule of law, as described and as demonstrated.
Faith in THAT law is all that is necessary for there to be democracy
Prove otherwise, as per your claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom