• 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!

Is America finished as a republic?

Is America finished as a republic?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • I guess so

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • I guess not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • Total voters
    19
Ok...well then, doesn't the tea-party movement at the very least threaten to destabilize that trend towards fascism? I mean, the only way to limit government is to defund it, so, who's trying to do that?

(no, I have no affiliation with the Tea-Party)

I think that the Tea Party started out as a very good idea and was then quickly captured by the body politic. I think a few things we most certainly need to give the People the proper tools to control the government is first the complete repeal of McCain/Feingold. It's even now being used the wrong way where it censors the individual but allows corporations unlimited mobility. It should be the other way around. We also need to open up the political process by allowing multiple parties at debates. We also need to have actual debates and not little staged plays for us all to watch and absorb sound bites and no real information like so many freshman business classes. I for one would love to see the League of Women Voters get back the Presidential Debates. We'd also need a real press. One that isn't this biased, entertainment based crap we have now. But one that actually reports the actions and concerns of the government to the People so that we can have good and reliable information on what the government is doing.

What we're seeing in our system now is the classic example of how government behaves when it begins to isolate itself from the control of the People it governs.
 
My question to you, in regards to your theory is whether under the scenario you assert we are now under, was this a natural progression given events and circumstances, or something planned and driven to arrive at the said conclusion?

I think it is exactly as Daniel Webster predicted

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy."
— Daniel Webster
 
I think it is exactly as Daniel Webster predicted

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy."
— Daniel Webster

You will get no argument from me that a majority in this country are intellectually lazy and ignorant.
 
What we're seeing in our system now is the classic example of how government behaves when it begins to isolate itself from the control of the People it governs.

Well, I certainly can't argue against that.
 
Which raises the question of why one would bemoan a movement away from democracy.

Because it will more likely than not end in a bad place. There are plenty of horrible forms of government, few good ones. And the good ones need constant upkeep from the People. We can sit on our laurels and do nothing as the government slowly degrades over generations. The pursuit of freedom and liberty is never ending, it requires constant input of energy and vigilance and an educated people. These are necessities for a free state. I do bemoan movements away from our Republic because those movements usually entail loss of freedom. I want to be free, everything else is secondary.
 
Because it will more likely than not end in a bad place. There are plenty of horrible forms of government, few good ones. And the good ones need constant upkeep from the People. We can sit on our laurels and do nothing as the government slowly degrades over generations. The pursuit of freedom and liberty is never ending, it requires constant input of energy and vigilance and an educated people. These are necessities for a free state. I do bemoan movements away from our Republic because those movements usually entail loss of freedom. I want to be free, everything else is secondary.

But if that input of energy and vigilance and an educated people isn't there, and if we agree it is required....
 
But if that input of energy and vigilance and an educated people isn't there, and if we agree it is required....

It's still worth the effort. It's still worth striving for. It's still worth getting pissed off about when the government acts against our rights and liberties. Freedom is always going to be worth the effort.
 
I think oligarchy and meritocracy would probably be a better system, instead of having Fox News and MSNBC mold public opinion, which in turn molds policy. It just smacks of hypocrisy when people bemoan the intelligence of the random voter and then demand more democratic policies, structures, and institutions. Why? So the dumb can lead us? We should probably start with education first, if that's what we're dedicated to sticking with.
 
A Republic is run by intellectuals and attempts to protect the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, America in the past decade or so has turned into an all-out populist Democracy, where the majority feels it can essentially do whatever it wants.
 
Sure. Modern day conservatism is nothing more than thinly veiled fascism. Though it's not just the "conservatives" which engage in fascism. The Republocrats themselves are quite good at it.

Conservatives = fascism :roll:
 
Conservatives = fascism :roll:

Not the form which actually adheres to the political philosophy of the days of yore. Currently the movement is used instead to excuse gross expansion of government, interventionist wars, and acts against the rights and liberties of the People. You can make faces all you want, but reality trumps your fantasies.
 
Not the form which actually adheres to the political philosophy of the days of yore. Currently the movement is used instead to excuse gross expansion of government, interventionist wars, and acts against the rights and liberties of the People. You can make faces all you want, but reality trumps your fantasies.

That's a bit of an ironic statement coming from a libertarian. :2razz:
 
But the majority can be held hostage by the unethical, tyrannical minority as we have seen in the senate, going back years now. Placing anonymous blocks on legislation is an example of that.

That is true, what I'm hoping for is that since we've tried the simple majority system, why not try this.

I'm trying to get a grasp on what you mean by contributions? Personally volunteering to work on roads, trash pick up, etc...

Yes, something of that nature but not necessarily those things.

How do we measure facts? What kind of facts?

I think we should use things like tested true economic principals, political theory, material like that.


I understand it's in concept form, but could you please clarify to this point?
1. If you do away with districts, does that mean each state is not separately represented?
2. Does congress cease to exist?

The House congress would be replaced with a Party Congress.
There would be multiple parties of equal strength, none would have more power than another, no matter the membership they hold.

I'd like to see the President appointed by a unanimous vote of all Party seats and Senate, which represents the states.

Yes, it does make things more complicated and somewhat drawn out, but I think it would be for the best.

Unethical according to you? I know the argument you are making, I've seen it before.

Wouldn't you agree, that a business person voting for a member of Congress because they support some kind of corporate welfare, is unethical?
 
Yes, something of that nature but not necessarily those things.

I think we should use things like tested true economic principals, political theory, material like that.

Interesting. I see problems with both requirements, like setting up new bureaucracies to administrate and how do disabled citizens satisfy requirements.


The House congress would be replaced with a Party Congress.
There would be multiple parties of equal strength, none would have more power than another, no matter the membership they hold.

I'd like to see the President appointed by a unanimous vote of all Party seats and Senate, which represents the states.

Yes, it does make things more complicated and somewhat drawn out, but I think it would be for the best.

How would the congress be chosen? I don't understand what mechanism would ensure parity?

Wouldn't you agree, that a business person voting for a member of Congress because they support some kind of corporate welfare, is unethical?

Everyone votes their own self interest. I don't see how that is unethical. What we have now is kind of a free market approach to government, no? Of course it's completely mucked up by corporate money and influence. I would support reforms that would take corporate money out of our elections by publicly funding candidates. Period. No outside money of any kind. No 527's or what have you either. No soft money. That would eliminate the bought and paid for politician.

I think anyone who cares enough about government to actually vote, should have a voice in it. so I can't agree with what you've put forward, but it's an interesting discussion. Thank you. :)
 
Yes, because currently America is not a republic. Hopefully that will change in the future.
 
Interesting. I see problems with both requirements, like setting up new bureaucracies to administrate and how do disabled citizens satisfy requirements.

Depends on the disability.
A physical disability could allow for waiver or something not definitely demanding.
Mental, depends entirely on the ability of the person.

How would the congress be chosen? I don't understand what mechanism would ensure parity?

So each party gets a seat or a limited and equal council of seats, Dem party seat(s), Republican seat(s), Socialist seat(s), so on and so forth.

The representative of each seat is elected by their party members.

Everyone votes their own self interest. I don't see how that is unethical. What we have now is kind of a free market approach to government, no? Of course it's completely mucked up by corporate money and influence. I would support reforms that would take corporate money out of our elections by publicly funding candidates. Period. No outside money of any kind. No 527's or what have you either. No soft money. That would eliminate the bought and paid for politician.

I think anyone who cares enough about government to actually vote, should have a voice in it. so I can't agree with what you've put forward, but it's an interesting discussion. Thank you. :)

Voting for your self interest, which can harm another, is unethical.
Whether it be in monetary terms or otherwise.

We wouldn't be ok if a judge and jury accepted bribes to vote a certain way in a criminal or civil case.

It should be the same for elections.
 
Harry said:
Voting for your self interest, which can harm another, is unethical.

I'd say that to be true for elected officials. I think that its necessary for a person to vote their "own conscience" at the polls. Self interests are hard to separate from common interests or collective interests at times.

Even if people were voting for a candidate out of self interest, I'm not sure how that actually harms another because as for many voters, there could be as many self interest. The likelihood would be slim to none at that degree, but people who see the actions of a political figure hurting them personally... We are a vengeful bunch. That's why parties are voted in like ping pong balls batter across the net.

So in the end, I'm not sure where the unethical part comes in.

I'd say that people who are worried about harming others when they vote...might even lean toward being a socialist or maybe communist. People in this nation just aren't conditions to think about the whole society. It's all about individualism. Its about ME! ME! ME! That's the American way.

Isn't that the reason our welfare system has gotten into such a mess?
 
I'd say that to be true for elected officials. I think that its necessary for a person to vote their "own conscience" at the polls. Self interests are hard to separate from common interests or collective interests at times.

Even if people were voting for a candidate out of self interest, I'm not sure how that actually harms another because as for many voters, there could be as many self interest. The likelihood would be slim to none at that degree, but people who see the actions of a political figure hurting them personally... We are a vengeful bunch. That's why parties are voted in like ping pong balls batter across the net.

So in the end, I'm not sure where the unethical part comes in.

I'd say that people who are worried about harming others when they vote...might even lean toward being a socialist or maybe communist. People in this nation just aren't conditions to think about the whole society. It's all about individualism. Its about ME! ME! ME! That's the American way.

Isn't that the reason our welfare system has gotten into such a mess?

Short term self interest, definitely the problem.
It doesn't require much more thought than, what's in it for me.
This is unethical, whether it is purposeful or not.

Long term self interest requires intelligence and considerations for the negative side effects of legislation.
 
Short term self interest, definitely the problem.
It doesn't require much more thought than, what's in it for me.
This is unethical, whether it is purposeful or not.

Long term self interest requires intelligence and considerations for the negative side effects of legislation.

Harry, I agree somewhat with your comment. I threw in a pretty big dose of sarcasm, which was a bit much, I guess. But my slightly exaggerated point...what you posted is probably the way it should be, but I think that the culture of politics has derailed common sense, honesty for many, the foundation of what it means to be a Republic... It's a mess.

Thanks for your comment. Sorry I used your post for as a spring board or sounding board to voice my frustrations. My apologies.
 
Back
Top Bottom