• 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!

From WashPo: Europe fell hard for Obama

Master PO said:
i will let James Madison make the point by showing you from the federalist 10

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Madison says that if we have a republican form of government, then our government will have less factious combinations [special interest groups who control government]to deal with.

BUT if our government is democratic in its FORM, then these factious combinations will be dreaded,[ feared], because they cease control of the the government.

by having the 17th we have moved away from a republican form of government to a more democratic form of government, and allowed factious conditions [special interests] to enter it and take control.


by removing the 17th, we return to a republican form and make it very difficult for factions[special interest] to control the federal government
Click to expand...


What is it that you think is so different between a "republic" and a "democracy". And, stop repeating what Madison said more than 200 years ago that is highly irrelevant today. The "Americans" of which he was a member (very uneducated) are not the Americans of today. We have evolved. (I hope.)

Here's some help:
*Democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
*Republic - a state/nation in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

There is very little difference in the above two definitions, and they certainly do not contradict one another.

Moreover, I have great respect for ALL the founding fathers, who put their lives on the line. (With a particular penchant for Jefferson.)

But, people like you carry them as baggage and bring them out whenever one trifles with the present system of governance in the US, which needs serious change. (Particularly as regards the Electoral College and gerrymandering being outlawed.)

It must be updated to keep up with the times. Thinking back more than two-hundred years when confronted with present problems is always wise but never foolproof in terms of changes that inevitably must be made for a country to move on.

To cope with the future, we need to foresee/understand that future. And it is certainly not in the distant past that we will find much relevance ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
I have great respect for ALL the founding fathers, with a particular penchant for Jefferson.

But, people like you carry them as baggage and bring them out whenever one trifles with the present system of governance in the US, which needs serious change. (Particularly as regards the Electoral College and gerrymandering being outlawed.)

It has to be updated to keep up with the times. Harking back more than two-hundred years when confronted with present problems is always wise but never foolproof in terms of changes that inevitably must be made for a country to move on.

To cope with the future, we need to foresee/understand that future. And it is certainly not in the distant past that we will find much relevance ...
Click to expand...


making changes can be the wrong thing to do, and that was what was done with the 17th when it moved America away from a republican form to a more democratic form

people cannot complain that special interest run our government, and in the same breath advocate for a democratic form of government, which is filled with special interest.
 
Master PO said:
making changes can be the wrong thing to do, and that was what was done with the 17th when it moved America away from a republican form to a more democratic form.
Click to expand...

You still have not explained the difference between a "democracy" and a "republic" ...
 
Lafayette said:
It is asinine to condemn an entire people, and sarcasm as a rebuttal is useless.

Merkel is a fine, intelligent lady and will surely be elected to another term, which she has just announced. Her intelligence as a researcher needs no corroboration. (Of course, you might prefer Donald Dork?)

She'd do wonders as PotUS. But I suspect she would not even want the job.

Maybe, if her Veep was Obama ... ;)
Click to expand...

Merkel is an idiot, and she's ****ing up Germany.
 
Lafayette said:
When sarcasm enters into the debate, I leave.

I'm done with you ...
Click to expand...

That does not sound like sarcasm it sounds like an observation backed up by Merkels actions.
 
Lafayette said:
You still have not explained the difference between a "democracy" and a "republic" ...
Click to expand...


A Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word).62 "What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements."


federalist 40- THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution


Mentality between republic and democracy

Aristotle does not use the word democracy and republic interchangeably; neither does Socrates in Plato's Republic.

Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." 21 Thomas Jefferson beseeched his countrymen to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the constitution".

A democracy's mentality is that the people are sovereign and have become a law unto themselves wherefore the phrase vox populi, vox dei. The mentality of Despotism, as it can be seen in the Asian kings of the Pharoahs, Babylonians and Persians, Alexander the Great, his successors and the Roman Emperors starting with Julius Caesar, is that the king or Emperor makes the law so he is God. For the Spartan mindset, the Law, the golden mean, is to rule not men collectively or singly as the Spartan King advises Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae, to wit, "The point is that although they're free, they're not entirely free; their master is the law, and they're far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they do whatever the law commands...". A man's obedience, loyalty, and fidelity lie in the law and not in persons; the Spartan mindset being, "I'm obedient to the law but under no man".

Aristotle notices that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws."

When the law loses respect, Aristotle says in V vii 7 that "constitutional government turns into a democracy". And in that situation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fear the possibility that "Tyranny, then arises from no other form of government than democracy." Then, democracies are no more than ochlocracies. In more recent times, Huey Long said that when fascism came to the United States it would call itself "democracy".
 
The American Republic

The history of mixed government in America goes back to the chief founders of New England. The early Massachusetts government was predominantly aristocratic. John Cotton and John Winthrop had an aversion to democracy. The Puritan preachers strongly believed that Scriptures only approved monarchy and aristocracy. "At best, Winthrop and his friends believed in what they called 'a mixt aristocracy'". 24 (See section below on "Occurrences of the word".)

When the Articles of Confederation failed, a constitutional convention was convened to bring about a better form of federal government on 25 May 1787. Well schooled in the Classics, the convention members had a deep distrust of democracy. Governor Robert Morris of Pennsylvania believed that the Senate should be an aristocratic body composed of rich men holding office for life. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, declared that he "abhorred" democracy as "the worst of all political evils". Edmund Randolph, the governor of Virginia, believed that Virginia's Senate was designed as check against the tendencies of democracy. John Dickinson, another delegate, strongly urged that the United States Senate would be structured as nearly as possible to the House of Lords. 25 Finally, Alexander Hamilton wanted the American government to mirror the British government and also proposed that the Senate be styled along the same lines as the House of Lords. 26

Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." 27 Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." 28

"All agreed that society was divided along class lines and the "'the most common and durable source of factions'" was "'the various and unequal distribution of property'", as Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10. The common philosophy accepted by most of the delegates was that of balanced government. They wanted to construct a national government in which no single interest would dominate the others. Since the men in Philadelphia represented groups alarmed by the tendencies of the agrarian interests to interfere with property, they were primarily concerned with balancing the government in the direction of protection for property and business." 14

(For more information, see: United States Constitutional Convention)
Threefold structure

The tri-political concept of government and the tripartite form of mixed government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) can be seen in the United States Constitution.

The Presidency is the element of the monarchical office. The United States Senate is the representation of the aristocracy. 42 The House of Representatives is the element of democracy, representing the people. The Senate was originally intended to be the representative body of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, as well as a representation of state's interests, as a corporate entity, in the Federal Government. Madison said, "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress." 29 Senators were appointed by their respective State legislatures and were not voted on by the people. The Senate was originally designed to check the House of Representatives and the Presidential office and be the "guardian of the constitution".

This is the original principle of a bicameral legislative house; i.e. the senate and the representatives. In Article III, sec 4, it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." This means that all the state governments must have a bicameral house with the upper house being the seat of the aristocracy, not elected by the people.
Destruction of the upper house
 
Republics are converted to democracies by reformers and leaders who modify the constitution whereby the powers of the upper house, i.e. the Senate, are restricted and demoted.

Aristotle remarks that around 480 B.C., the Athenian polity was by slow stages growing into a democracy and about 462 B.C., the senate, the Council of the Areopagites, was stripped of its powers and the constitution relaxed turning the polity into a democracy.45

In modern times, "The abolition of the Senate, however, is a reform which American socialists demand in common with the Socialists of several countries. Thus we find the British Social Democratic Party, the Belgian Labor Party, the French Socialist Party and several other Socialist parties, demanding the abolition of the Senate, or, in England, the House of Lords". 41

In America, the XVII amendment in 1913 fundamentally changed the character of the American government. It starts by saying that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,..."

It demolished the fundamental "checks and balances" that mark a republican form of government. The people elect both the Senators and the Representatives. In classical terminology and definition, the U.S. form of government was changed from a republic to a democracy.

In Britain, the House of Lords was also nullified when the law was changed making it possible that the Parliament (the assembly of the people) could overrule any veto of the House of Lords. The monarchy and the House of Lords are empty figureheads devoid of any real power. In classical terminology, Britain today is a democracy for the common people are the dominant factor.



no scource, for this info
 
Master PO said:
A Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word).62 "What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements."


federalist 40- THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution


Mentality between republic and democracy

Aristotle does not use the word democracy and republic interchangeably; neither does Socrates in Plato's Republic.

Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." 21 Thomas Jefferson beseeched his countrymen to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the constitution".

A democracy's mentality is that the people are sovereign and have become a law unto themselves wherefore the phrase vox populi, vox dei. The mentality of Despotism, as it can be seen in the Asian kings of the Pharoahs, Babylonians and Persians, Alexander the Great, his successors and the Roman Emperors starting with Julius Caesar, is that the king or Emperor makes the law so he is God. For the Spartan mindset, the Law, the golden mean, is to rule not men collectively or singly as the Spartan King advises Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae, to wit, "The point is that although they're free, they're not entirely free; their master is the law, and they're far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they do whatever the law commands...". A man's obedience, loyalty, and fidelity lie in the law and not in persons; the Spartan mindset being, "I'm obedient to the law but under no man".

Aristotle notices that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws."

When the law loses respect, Aristotle says in V vii 7 that "constitutional government turns into a democracy". And in that situation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fear the possibility that "Tyranny, then arises from no other form of government than democracy." Then, democracies are no more than ochlocracies. In more recent times, Huey Long said that when fascism came to the United States it would call itself "democracy".
Click to expand...

Thank you, well done.

But, for all practical purposes, I see no difference between the two ...
 
Lafayette said:
Thank you, well done.

But, for all practical purposes, I see no difference between the two ...
Click to expand...

because in original constitutional law the federal government of how officials are elected is supposed to be a mixed.

MIXED GOVERNMENT BELOW:

The constitution states the house will be elected by the people = Democratical

The constitution states the senate will be appointed by the state legislatures = Aristocratical

The constitution states the president will be elected by the electoral college......or electors of the states = Monarchical

this Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical is whats know as a Republican form of government

this is also a separation of powers of the constitution, it creates a balance of power so that tranny cannot exist.

if you throw the government out of balance, then you can get tyrannical laws created.


if you elect the president, senate, and house by a direct vote of the people that makes the government Democratical ,Democratical ,Democratical

you have changed the Republican form of government to a democratic form of government, which the founders sought to avoid, because democratic forms of government are not good and stable governments.

by doing this, this allows all laws to be created in the interest of only 1 entity, by having it mixed, all laws created is in the interest of 3, the states, the people, and the union.

when laws are made in everyones interest [3], then they are good laws because everyone is represented.
 
coldjoint said:
That does not sound like sarcasm it sounds like an observation backed up by Merkels actions.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm - that's all fools are good for ...
 
Lafayette said:
Yep, that's why they're gonna reelect her ...
Click to expand...

No the reason she will be re-elected is because they receive misinformation from their media. With any luck it will be exposed as it was here for pushing an agenda that would ruin this country. Same goes for Germany. Multiculture is a huge failure.
 
American said:
Merkel is an idiot, and she's ****ing up Germany.
Click to expand...

Germany has run up a huge budget surplus yet again, almost equal to 9% of GDP so that is "****ing up Germany?"

I'm not talking about Govt surplus but national surplus... not that it's apparently good for the rest of us. Guess that's another reason why Frau Merkel and Germany come in for such vitriol.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Germany has run up a huge budget surplus yet again, almost equal to 9% of GDP so that is "****ing up Germany?"

I'm not talking about Govt surplus but national surplus... not that it's apparently good for the rest of us. Guess that's another reason why Frau Merkel and Germany come in for such vitriol.
Click to expand...
Her CDU is currently polled between 34 and 36 pct (depending on polling organisation). That is definitely less than in its heyday but still makes it (at least currently) the strongest party (the Social Democrats as the second strongest come in at a "mere" 22 pct).

AfD come in at 12 pct.

Since the failure of Italy's Renzi, 50 pct of the polled hold the debt crisis of Italy to represent a high peril for the stability of the common European currency (43 pct do not).

62 pct are enthusiastic over having the Euro (€) and 60 pct think it will in the long run be successful.

Where assessment of one's own (individual) circumstances are concerned, 77 pct find that 2016 was a good year for them and this figure corresponds with previous years, the refugee and migrant issue as well as that of terrorist attacks having made no dent whatsoever.

However:
58 pct of Germans hold the policy on refugees and their integration to be the most important current issue with 50 pct considering Merkel to be doing a fair job of addressing the issue (45 pct think she isn't), worries being primarily of economic nature.

As such (see paragraph titled "Flüchtlinge: Die Befürchtungen der Deutschen") 60pct fear that expenditures caused will lead to spending cuts in other areas (39 pct don't), the second biggest fear being "related crime" where 52 pct expect the overall crime rate to rise on account of refugee numbers (45 pct don't). The issue of German cultural and societal values being threatened by refugees has 66 pct not sharing into that fear (30 pct do).

"Zukünftiger Kurs der CDU" (desired future course to be sailed) has 27 pct of all and 29 pct of CDU/CSU followers calling for a more conservative stance, 37 pct of all and 49 pct of party followers holding no great changes to be necessary. 26 pct of all and 17 pct of party followers wish for a course less conservative.

https://www.zdf.de/politik/politbarometer/politbarometer-vom-09-dezember-2016-100.html

As one can see, the question that overrules every other is personal economic situation and the development so far doesn't make any sizeable number clamouring about how things have been screwed up to date.

Figures differ only slightly in comparison to other polling organizations, the trend nevertheless finding confirmation.

There's no poll available on trans-Atlantic busy-noses poking into what they have no knowledge of and subsequently shooting off at the mouth. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Chagos said:
~ the question that overrules every other is personal economic situation and the development so far doesn't make any sizeable number clamouring about how things have been screwed up to date ~
Click to expand...

Always the most pertinent question. Second is the question of envy which informs the vitriol Germany faces so often.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Always the most pertinent question.
Click to expand...
yeah, "Grub first, morality (ethics) can wait" (Brecht)
Second is the question of envy which informs the vitriol Germany faces so often.
Click to expand...
Which is, with displayed abundance of ignorance on Germany and its affairs, really quite puzzling. I mean if it's already so screwed up, what's there to be envious over?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Germany has run up a huge budget surplus yet again, almost equal to 9% of GDP so that is "****ing up Germany?"

I'm not talking about Govt surplus but national surplus... not that it's apparently good for the rest of us. Guess that's another reason why Frau Merkel and Germany come in for such vitriol.
Click to expand...

Germany?s Trade Surplus Signals Trouble Ahead - WSJ

And I doubt she's had little to do with that. German women being raped is directly her fault.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Germany has run up a huge budget surplus yet again, almost equal to 9% of GDP so that is "****ing up Germany?"

I'm not talking about Govt surplus but national surplus... not that it's apparently good for the rest of us. Guess that's another reason why Frau Merkel and Germany come in for such vitriol.
Click to expand...

That is really sweet, the government is doing better than the people.
 
American said:
~...........................And I doubt she's had little to do with that................~
Click to expand...
So she had lots to do with it?

Double negatives can be so treacherous. :2razz:
 
American said:
Germany?s Trade Surplus Signals Trouble Ahead - WSJ
Click to expand...

Why post a dead link?

American said:
And I doubt she's had little to do with that. German women being raped is directly her fault.
Click to expand...

The migrant crisis is not the only thing she as leader of the German economy and government is responsible for. The German economy has grown hugely and now has a huge trade surplus with the rest of the world. I repeat - it's a situation most leaders would die for.

coldjoint said:
That is really sweet, the government is doing better than the people.
Click to expand...

Up to your usual standard I see.
 
coldjoint said:
No the reason she will be re-elected is because they receive misinformation from their media. With any luck it will be exposed as it was here for pushing an agenda that would ruin this country. Same goes for Germany. Multiculture is a huge failure.
Click to expand...

You are soooo out-of-touch with what is happening in Germany.

Enough of your blathering-in-a-blog ...
 
Chagos said:
Her CDU is currently polled between 34 and 36 pct (depending on polling organisation). That is definitely less than in its heyday but still makes it (at least currently) the strongest party (the Social Democrats as the second strongest come in at a "mere" 22 pct).
Click to expand...

The Germans are not the Hungarians, who are rabid about the Muslims not getting into their country.

Like the rest of the Traditional Western Europe they will find an accomodation that goes something like this: The Syrians can stay and be retrained with a skill. The Germans need workers because German women are reluctant to leave the work-force and are not having enough kids to replenish it.

The rest, and this means particularly the Africans, must be stopped in Libya. As there are even fewer jobs available to them in Europe. They are allowed to stay and once bored with doing absolutely nothing, if they ask, they will be given plane tickets for a flight back to Africa.

It is conceivable that Trump (unlike Obama) will agree to land-forces in Syria to crush ISIS in Raqqa, its home-base. It will look good in the post-presidency book he will write once out of the White House. (It will cost only two/three hundred American troop lives - not bad. Mattis will handle it - no problem.)

Thank you Vladimir Putin who started all this because he wants to protect his sole naval-port on the Med, in Latakia. Home town of a certain Bashar Assad, head of the minority Shiite group in Syria dropping Russian-made bombs on the civilian population of Alep to retake the eastern part of town under Sunnite control. (Vladimir is Donald Dork's new friend.)

Expect Bashar to be invited to the White House. After all, when the war is over (and that will be soon enough, because Putin has other problems back in Russia), Syria will want to rebuild its devastated hotels. With the Sunnite-rebels in Alep now defeated, Russia will pull the plug on military intervention in Syria.

Lot's of business potential in Russia and the Middle-east for Trump Enterprises ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
The Germans are not the Hungarians, who are rabid about the Muslims not getting into their country.

Like the rest of the Traditional Western Europe they will find an accomodation that goes something like this: The Syrians can stay and be retrained with a skill.

The Germans need workers because German women are reluctant to leave the work-force and are not having enough kids to replenish it.

The rest, and this means particularly the Africans, must be stopped in Libya. As there are even fewer jobs available to them in Europe. They are allowed to stay and once bored with doing absolutely nothing, if they ask, they will be given plane tickets for a flight back to Africa.

It is conceivable that Trump (unlike Obama) will agree to land-forces in Syria to crush ISIS in Raqqa, its home-base. It will look good in the post-presidency book he will write once out of the White House. (It will cost only two/three hundred American troop lives - not bad. Mattis will handle it - no problem.)

Thank you Vladimir Putin who started all this because he wants to protect his sole naval-port on the Med, in Latakia. Home town of a certain Bashar Assad, head of the minority Shiite group in Syria dropping Russian-made bombs on the civilian population of Alep to retake the eastern part of town under Sunnite control. (Vladimir is Donald Dork's new friend.)

Expect Bashar to be invited to the White House. After all, when the war is over (and that will be soon enough, because Putin has other problems back in Russia), Syria will want to rebuild its devastated hotels. With the Sunnite-rebels in Alep now defeated, Russia will pull the plug on military intervention in Syria.

Lot's of business potential in Russia and the Middle-east for Trump Enterprises ...
Click to expand...

It sounds like liberal/progressives/undisclosed forgot to tell the germans about the robots taking over all the jobs which removes the need for workers in lib la la land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom