• 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!

The Big Question is about Democracy

I fully understand what you are saying and I do not truly have a good argument against it. Nonetheless, gerrymandering has made the electoral college unfair to begin with and that was a change that was made to the constitution. It does not represent the state itself but the make up of the state determined by those that were in charge at some point and changed it.
Again, gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential voting.
Luckyone said:
By the same token, it is also evident that our forefathers could not have predicted the scenario that is seen now but if they had been able to foresee it, I doubt they would have allowed the electoral college to be what it is now.
What are you talking about?
Luckyone said:
I do not have a suggestion as to how to change it. It should be changed though and likely by an unbiased panel of representatives or by bi-partisan agreement to get rid of the unfairness of it. There is no way that a state with less than 1 million should have the same determining power over a state with 40 million, especially when the needs of each state are so completely opposed.
Point is: The EC is NOT unfair; it gives small states a small chance of effecting the result. Remember electors are apportioned based on the number of Representatives and Senators - so large states still have an advantage.
Luckyone said:
Using a fantasy example, imagine there being 52 states and 90% of the population living in only 2 of those states, meaning that 35 million people would decide what what 350 million must do. That almost sounds like a dictatorship instead of a democracy.
Uh, no. those two states would have a huge majority of votes in the EC. Congressional districts, and therefore the majority of electors as apportioned by population.
 
Part (1) of (2) ...

It is very simple and the reason for my last post. Trump has used every single tool available to him without any concern whether it is morally correct or not.
Void Argument. What tools? What are you even talking about?

Not paying taxes for years for someone as rich as he is, is morally wrong.
He pays taxes... Maybe not as much as you'd like him to pay, but he does pay them. He also takes advantage of the tax code to his benefit, but that is not immoral to do... Don't like it? Change the tax code...

Paying taxes is what makes us be able to live in a wonderful nation.
WRONG. The word you are looking for is Capitalism.

I can see that as an individual person he might not want to pay for his individual benefit
Correct. Same with anyone else... What's your point?

but as a President he represents all of us
Okay.

and his actions
What actions, precisely?

and lack of desire to show his taxes
He is not obligated in any way to show any of his tax returns. Neither was Obama, neither was Bush, neither was Clinton, etc...

is like him saying to all of us that is the way to act.
It IS the way to act... It is a good thing to find ways to save money. Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one way to do so...

If everyone acts that way, we would not have a nation.
WRONG. Paying less in taxes would not destroy our nation in any way...

Since you are applauding his actions,
I am not applauding all of his actions; just the ones we have been discussing so far... let's keep context here...

it does suggest that you support such actions and what they represent.
I support attempting to save money (and being smart with money). Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one such method of doing so. That represents being responsible, another action which I support.

I gave an example regarding lawyers since the reality is that they follow the law and generally do not allow moral standards to interfere with their job.
Okay.

Since they often represent reprehensible people and those that want to do wrong but get away with it
In some cases, yes... In other cases, no...

and you seem to like Trump doing something like that,
He's not doing wrong by taking advantage of the tax code.

it would suggest you like lawyers and hate those that don't or can't take advantage of our laws.
Bulverism Fallacy. My supposed motives are irrelevant.

I like the practices of some lawyers; I dislike the practices of other lawyers. I hold no hate towards those who don't or can't take advantage of our laws.

There is a legal standard and a moral standard and generally they are not in the same corner.
Okay... I wouldn't say "generally", but yeah, there are numerous instances where they aren't. Abortion is one such example of this...

I prefer a moral standard.
Me too.
 
Part (2) of (2) ...

If I was a lawyer, I would likely be a prosecutor
So you're only going to take cases in which you think the defendant is guilty, like you are getting at below?

or if defending someone, I would only represent someone I consider innocent.
Sounds like your law business is going to fail miserably, or like you might get fired by your employer for insubordination... Either way, it doesn't sound like you would be a successful lawyer by any measure...

I would not ever represent someone that was legally correct but morally incorrect.
See above. I just choose to not be a lawyer, personally...

You seem to support the former per your defense of Trump.
The former is the job of a lawyer. Their job is to properly represent their clients per laws currently on the books. If they have a moral issue with doing so, then they probably shouldn't be a lawyer, as they probably wouldn't be a successful lawyer that way.

He always uses the law for his benefit
As does anybody else... Even you... Do you pay more in taxes than what the law requires you to (per your [or your tax preparer's] understanding of it)? Why or why not?

but I have never seen him apply moral standards to anything,
I have. He has done so regarding the abortion issue. He has also done so in the immigration issue (aka 'we have the moral right to defend ourselves and our citizens').

like when he separated mothers from their children but did not even keep records of where they were so they could get reunited in the future. That was an example of being legally correct but totally morally wrong.
He did not separate any mothers from any children.
 
It is both a democracy and a republic.
Paradox. It is not possible for a country to be both, as those forms of government conflict with each other. In a Democracy, people rule the country (rule by mob). In a Republic, a document of law (a constitution) rules the country. These forms of government were created (and thus defined) around 5th century BC by Athens [Democracy] and Rome [Republic].

A republic is simply any state, democratic or undemocratic, that doesn't have a monarchy.
Wrong. It is any state that is ruled by a Constitution. Ancient Rome has defined what a Republic is.

A democracy is where the citizens of a state select their leadership through free and fair elections (making them part of the political process)
That is known as "democratically electing" representatives. Democratically electing representatives can happen in various forms of government and is NOT the same as Democracy [the form of government]. In our Federated Republic, we choose to democratically elect representatives.

Democracy (the form of government) is where people rule, NOT a constitution. It is mob rule. Ancient Athens has defined what a Democracy is. There are no Democracies in the word today, as they all quickly collapse (typically into an Oligarchy).

and where human rights are respected.
Human rights don't have to be respected in a Democracy. Heck, they don't even have to be respected in a Republic, or even in our Federated Republic (if we were to amend our Constitution).

There are democratic non-republics (like Great Britain, Japan, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries),
Great Britain is an Oligarchy. I'm not familiar enough with the other governments listed to say what they are...

and non-democratic republics (like Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, and Iran).
Russia is an Oligarchy, and so is China. North Korea is a Dictatorship. I'm not familiar enough with Syria or Iran to say what they are...

The federalism aspect just refers to the United States having sub-national governmental bodies.
You're on the right track, but not quite correct... The USA is a Federated Republic because it consists of several layers of Republics (such as at the State level, for example)...
 
It's nothing to do with democratic process. It's more to do with the executve and legislative branches trying to work around the constraints put on them by the Constitution. The last three Presidents have all been guilty of this. Trump is just clumsier and more obvious in how he goes about it.
 
What Democratic process has Trump thrown away? Name and date... lay it out.

None, of course. The worst thing about the system right now is the undue influence of money and lobbyists, especially on Congress. Ironically, Trump was self financed so the people complaining about money driving political decisions should actually be happy we had a guy who didn't need anyone's money.
 
The USA is not a Democracy.

Gee golly Wally, I was just watching Lindsey Graham from yesterday and he says "we are a democracy".
 
Part (1) of (2) ...


Void Argument. What tools? What are you even talking about?


He pays taxes... Maybe not as much as you'd like him to pay, but he does pay them. He also takes advantage of the tax code to his benefit, but that is not immoral to do... Don't like it? Change the tax code...


WRONG. The word you are looking for is Capitalism.


Correct. Same with anyone else... What's your point?


Okay.


What actions, precisely?


He is not obligated in any way to show any of his tax returns. Neither was Obama, neither was Bush, neither was Clinton, etc...


It IS the way to act... It is a good thing to find ways to save money. Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one way to do so...


WRONG. Paying less in taxes would not destroy our nation in any way...


I am not applauding all of his actions; just the ones we have been discussing so far... let's keep context here...


I support attempting to save money (and being smart with money). Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one such method of doing so. That represents being responsible, another action which I support.


Okay.


In some cases, yes... In other cases, no...


He's not doing wrong by taking advantage of the tax code.


Bulverism Fallacy. My supposed motives are irrelevant.

I like the practices of some lawyers; I dislike the practices of other lawyers. I hold no hate towards those who don't or can't take advantage of our laws.


Okay... I wouldn't say "generally", but yeah, there are numerous instances where they aren't. Abortion is one such example of this...


Me too.

Look, there is one thing you did not take into consideration and that is the Trump is supposed to represent the USA as a leader and not as just a citizen. He is supposed to set the guidelines for the whole population which includes morally and ethically as well as economically. He is supposed to be the father that guides us and that we want to be like.

Taking advantage of the "badly written" tax laws may be legal but it is not ethical or moral. In addition, his failure to show his tax returns as all other presidents have done suggests that there is something he is doing there that is also morally and ethically wrong, which is not something that IRS will check on.

The very first thing he should have said when he took office is that he would work toward changing those tax laws as they were written in a way that rich people could take advantage of them to pay less taxes than the not rich. He said nothing like that and has not worked to change them.

I understand he has not "broken" any laws but if what he wants is what is best for the nation, he should do what is best for the nation and not just what is best for him and all his rich buddies.

He is not a president that represents only the rich, he represents the rich, the middle class and the poor and he should work toward having a system that is equal for all, not just for the rich, of which he is one of them.

Evidently by your answers, you seem to support his doing what he is doing, which is not working toward an equal solution for all.
 
And Schumer called for NO HEARINGS FOR ANY GW BUSH nominees, in Jan., 2007.

And? "Elections have consequences".


The OP claims are just more DOUBLE STANDARD/HYPOCRISY from the DUPLICITOUS LEFT...


Hypocritical and Duplicitous left?

You mean like "Mexico will pay for it?

That kind of hypocrisy and duplicity?


Hah!
 
It's nothing to do with democratic process. It's more to do with the executve and legislative branches trying to work around the constraints put on them by the Constitution. The last three Presidents have all been guilty of this. Trump is just clumsier and more obvious in how he goes about it.

Fair.

However, then you must hold congress accountable for their seceding their power and proper constitutional role giving it away to to the executive branch as they have for quite a number of years now.

This whole border security / illegal immigration issue is a fine example of how congress fails to act, pretty much forcing the executive branch to act.

The duplicity and hypocrisy is that when the executive branch does act, does take the action, then congress, and others of the opposing party fight it in the courts. Well, they had their chance to do what was needed to be done, and they blew it. Should have made a better deal that would have actually addressed the problem in the first place.
 
Some lawyers are fine, some lawyers are real slimeballs... Not sure how this pertains to our discussion...


Their job is to defend their clients.


Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.


Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.


Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.


Insult Fallacy.


Are we going to talk about anything of substance, or are you going to continue attacking my character and supposed motives?



You have fallacy-itis, get thee to a doctor !
 
Paradox. It is not possible for a country to be both, as those forms of government conflict with each other. In a Democracy, people rule the country (rule by mob). In a Republic, a document of law (a constitution) rules the country. These forms of government were created (and thus defined) around 5th century BC by Athens [Democracy] and Rome [Republic].

That may be true by archaic, ancient definitions, but, by the modern understandings of the terms, it's extremely easy for a country to be both a republic and a democracy.

Wrong. It is any state that is ruled by a Constitution. Ancient Rome has defined what a Republic is.

Once again, I think you're using an archaic definition. Have you heard of the term "constitutional monarchy?" These are non-republics with constitutions. Canada and Great Britain, for example, both have constitutions, but they're not republics.

That is known as "democratically electing" representatives. Democratically electing representatives can happen in various forms of government and is NOT the same as Democracy [the form of government]. In our Federated Republic, we choose to democratically elect representatives.

Democracy (the form of government) is where people rule, NOT a constitution. It is mob rule. Ancient Athens has defined what a Democracy is. There are no Democracies in the word today, as they all quickly collapse (typically into an Oligarchy).

So, there are no democracies in the world today? Once again, you're using an archaic, ancient definition. There may be no "direct democracies" left, but "representative democracies" are everywhere.

Human rights don't have to be respected in a Democracy. Heck, they don't even have to be respected in a Republic, or even in our Federated Republic (if we were to amend our Constitution).

I would recommend skimming Wikipedia's definition of democracy.

Great Britain is an Oligarchy. I'm not familiar enough with the other governments listed to say what they are...

In what way is Great Britain an oligarchy? Later, you say China and Russia are oligarchies are well. How are their governments similar?

Russia is an Oligarchy, and so is China. North Korea is a Dictatorship. I'm not familiar enough with Syria or Iran to say what they are...

A country can be both an oligarchy and a dictatorship. There's no sharp line between systems of government.
 
Part (2) of (2) ...


So you're only going to take cases in which you think the defendant is guilty, like you are getting at below?

Prosecutors only prosecute when they think or have evidence that the defendant is guilty.


Sounds like your law business is going to fail miserably, or like you might get fired by your employer for insubordination... Either way, it doesn't sound like you would be a successful lawyer by any measure...

Here is where you and I differ totally. To you money and economics is your #1 goal. To me, money and economics are important but not as important as morals, ethics, principles, and humanity. As such, whether I make money at being a lawyer or not, is not the point. The point is that I can sleep at night and I know that when I die, I will not be going to hell because I helped someone that has to moral reason to not pay for his sins to not pay for his sins. I know lawyers are just doing their job, but when you know your client is guilty and you defend him, you are committing a sin in God's eye. Evidently, that is unimportant to you. It is all about making money right?


See above. I just choose to not be a lawyer, personally...


The former is the job of a lawyer. Their job is to properly represent their clients per laws currently on the books. If they have a moral issue with doing so, then they probably shouldn't be a lawyer, as they probably wouldn't be a successful lawyer that way.
. The key phrase is "represent their clients", which means they decided to take the case because there was a fee given. I have yet to see any lawyer represent a guilty client without a fee being involved. And yet, I have seen many lawyers represent innocent clients and charge no fee. Simply stated, this is selling your soul for money.


As does anybody else... Even you... Do you pay more in taxes than what the law requires you to (per your [or your tax preparer's] understanding of it)? Why or why not?

Perfect example of what should be done is the following"

Warren Buffett pays only what he needs to pay and does take advantage of the tax laws as they are written. Nonetheless and given that he has morals, ethics, principles and humanity (which Trump does now), he gives Billions of dollars in donations to worthy causes. Simply stated, he gives back to the population what he is not paying in taxes. What does Trump do? He sets up a non-profit charity organization and uses it to pay for his own things and does not give one red cent to the poor and the ones that need help. Buffett is someone that does what the law gives him but also gives morally and ethically. Trump, having no morals and ethics, is a taker everywhere he can. And you support a President being a taker and not a giver?


I have. He has done so regarding the abortion issue. He has also done so in the immigration issue (aka 'we have the moral right to defend ourselves and our citizens').

It is so funny that his stand on abortion and immigration is so tied in to his political survival. He was once against abortion. in fact, in 1989 he co-sponsored an abortion rights fund raising dinner. In addition, for close to 20 years (and probably more) he has not been anti illegal immigration as all his companies have been known to hire illegal immigrants and keep them for years. This is not his beliefs but his policies for re-election and to maintain his base. It is morally reprehensible that he changes his beliefs based on which way is most likely to get him elected. He once not too long ago praised Hillary and he was a Democrat. Now he denigrates Hillary and is a Republican. Wow, he sure can change him mind on a dime depending on what benefits him, can't he?


He did not separate any mothers from any children.

Yes he did and worse, did not keep track of where the parents and the children were kept so they could reunite after they were let go.
 
Last edited:
Again, gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential voting.



That's misleading to say that. Gerrymanderingi does have an indirect effect on presidential elections, in that it is showable that the higher number of competitive races a voter has on their ballot, the more likely they are to turn out to vote. Gerrymandering has the effect of reducing the number of competitive races (that is, in fact, the whole point of gerrymandering), thereby suppressing turnout which tends to benefit republicans, which is one of the reasons they do it.
 
That may be true by archaic, ancient definitions, but, by the modern understandings of the terms, it's extremely easy for a country to be both a republic and a democracy.
Those definitions still apply today as much as they did back then...

Once again, I think you're using an archaic definition. Have you heard of the term "constitutional monarchy?" These are non-republics with constitutions. Canada and Great Britain, for example, both have constitutions, but they're not republics.
That definition still applies today as much as it did back then...

So, there are no democracies in the world today? Once again, you're using an archaic, ancient definition. There may be no "direct democracies" left, but "representative democracies" are everywhere.
That definition still applies today as much as it did back then...

I would recommend skimming Wikipedia's definition of democracy.
False Authority Fallacy. Wikipedia does not own any word, nor does it define any word. Also, I typically dismiss Wikipedia on sight whenever it is used as a source, as I do not find it to be a valid source of anything. It is typically incorrect and/or incomplete, and it can be edited by virtually anyone. In short, Wikipedia means nothing to me.

In what way is Great Britain an oligarchy? Later, you say China and Russia are oligarchies are well. How are their governments similar?
An Oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee. That's how those countries that you listed operate... Canada is another example of an Oligarchy.

A country can be both an oligarchy and a dictatorship. There's no sharp line between systems of government.
No they can't. A dictatorship only has one person who is the dictator, such as is the case in North Korea... An oligarchy has a group of people who rule over the rest of the people ("dictatorship by committee").
 
That's misleading to say that. Gerrymanderingi does have an indirect effect on presidential elections, in that it is showable that the higher number of competitive races a voter has on their ballot, the more likely they are to turn out to vote. Gerrymandering has the effect of reducing the number of competitive races (that is, in fact, the whole point of gerrymandering), thereby suppressing turnout which tends to benefit republicans, which is one of the reasons they do it.
LOL, nicely twisted. I realize "gerrymandering" is still on libs laundry list of reasons Auntie Hilary, which makes it easier than facing the reality of the situation. Given the number of Dems that unseated incumbent GOPers in the last election I gotta give the ol' gerrymandering complaint a big nothingburger.
 
An Oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee. That's how those countries that you listed operate... Canada is another example of an Oligarchy.

Do you have a source for Canada and Great Britain being oligarchies (or "dictatorship by committee")? Are there any countries in the world today that you would consider to be "republics" other than the United States when Republicans are in power? Do you have a source for the typology of governments that you are using? Some types of governments, like "oligarchy," aren't really formal terms.
 
Do you have a source for Canada and Great Britain being oligarchies (or "dictatorship by committee")?

The very definition of Oligarchy.

Are there any countries in the world today that you would consider to be "republics" other than the United States when Republicans are in power?
The USA is a Republic even when Democrats are in power... Any country which is governed by a Constitution (rather than any person or group of people) is a Republic.

Do you have a source for the typology of governments that you are using?
History.

Some types of governments, like "oligarchy," aren't really formal terms.
So?
 
The very definition of Oligarchy.


The USA is a Republic even when Democrats are in power... Any country which is governed by a Constitution (rather than any person or group of people) is a Republic.


History.


So?

So, maybe not by Constitution but in practice, more and more, These United States are and are becoming an Oligarchy. But, in fact we are supposed to be a "Democratic Republic".

UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a democratic republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives.
 
The very definition of Oligarchy.

Canada and Great Britain are clearly not "dictatorship by committee." According to the latest Freedom House's Freedom in the World report, Canada and the United Kingdom both have better freedom/democracy rankings than the United States (they both have the best possible "score" of double 1s, while the United States has a "score" of 1 and 2 [the worst a state can do is double 7s]). Both Canada and Britain are known for their free and fair elections. How are they "oligarchies?" Who is the oligarchical group in each country?

The USA is a Republic even when Democrats are in power... Any country which is governed by a Constitution (rather than any person or group of people) is a Republic.

Virtually every country on Earth has a constitution (possibly every single one). Canada and Great Britain are governed by constitutions, albeit uncodified ones.

Once again, do you have a source for the typology of governments that you are using?

Edit: formatting
 
LOL, nicely twisted. I realize "gerrymandering" is still on libs laundry list of reasons Auntie Hilary, which makes it easier than facing the reality of the situation. Given the number of Dems that unseated incumbent GOPers in the last election I gotta give the ol' gerrymandering complaint a big nothingburger.


Of course you don't, it favours the right.


I wouldn't expect any high mindedness from a right winger. The slime is just fine, with you guys.

Oh, youi want to bring up a few districts gerrymanderd by the left (compared to hundreds by the right) ? Okay, let's do the slime pissing contest, I'm ready when you are.
 
Fallacies do not make for rational reasoning... I will typically call out irrational reasoning wherever I see it.


If you had a clue about logic, and the application of it, you might have a point.


Killfile, in you go
 
Back
Top Bottom