• 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
Canell

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian


What's your say? :roll:
 
You haven't heard?

I'm in charge.
 
I am not a fan of Ron Paul's politics, but you gotta admire the guy for his honesty and consistency, and that was a hell of a speech.
 
MistressNomad said:
I am not a fan of Ron Paul's politics, but you gotta admire the guy for his honesty and consistency, and that was a hell of a speech.
Click to expand...

I think hes nuts and has a third wheel whirling around in his head. If I consistently said there should be no law and govt and we should go back to the wild west and whoever draws the fastest wins, id be consistent and nuts
 
lpast said:
I think hes nuts and has a third wheel whirling around in his head. If I consistently said there should be no law and govt and we should go back to the wild west and whoever draws the fastest wins, id be consistent and nuts
Click to expand...

That's why I don't like his politics.

But what's cool about Ron Paul is he is very ethically consistent. I happen to think his political ethics are wrong, and in some cases, yes, perhaps they are also nuts. But he always uses due process, and his political philosophy is nearly perfectly consistent. A rare quality in a politician, and I wish I saw it in one I could agree with but I still respect him

And in this case, I think he's right. Whether you agree with his extreme libertarian interpretation, a maintaining of checks and balances is something I think we can all agree on, and here he is right.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is the only real Conservative remaining. Remember what Franklin said: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
 
The United Ceased to be a republic when the 17th Amendment was ratified.

That as nearly 100 years ago.
 
How long does someone who hates the federal government have to work for the federal government before it becomes a little inconsistent?
 
Nanten Janubi said:
How long does someone who hates the federal government have to work for the federal government before it becomes a little inconsistent?
Click to expand...

Hey technically doesn't. He's just thinking like he's back around the turn of the 19th century, and applying the Constitutional concept in a very inflexible way. It's not compatible with the modern world, but it would be if this were about 250 years ago.

He's focused on being a Constitutionalist to the point that he cares more about that than intelligent policy, basically. What sucks is that even his position, which is as purist as it gets, is still subject to interrpretation.

Missing the forest for the trees.
 
Canell said:


What's your say? :roll:
Click to expand...


Not quite dead yet, but the Republic is on life support. The more and more ignorance we address politics with, the faster the Republic will slip through our fingers. It's very much becoming a closed off system with an established aristocracy. As government power grows, freedom decreases. And for quite some time we've turned a blind eye to the unfettered growth of government and its continued attacks against our freedom. The Republic is dying, do not be fooled into thinking otherwise. And we're letting it die. We've grown fat and lazy and dependent upon the government, and we have let the Republic fall into ruin. The ideals of the founders are being buried as we speak.
 
Canell said:
So, what exactly are the US today?
Click to expand...

It's very similar to the old monarchy's of Europe. We have slightly different structure in government, so instead of birth we allow the people to vote and choose from the 2 presented candidates since the rules are really well set up to keep any other candidates from being presented in the same way. We have a declining middle class, an emerging aristocracy to whom government gives everything at our expense. It's not so much the "everyone is equal, everyone can participate" idealism of the founders where the classes, while present, weren't written in stone. That was an effect of the old Republic. The new imperial form is more static and closed off. The rich are better because they're rich and the poor suck so shut up and don't complain.
 
MistressNomad said:
That's why I don't like his politics.

But what's cool about Ron Paul is he is very ethically consistent. I happen to think his political ethics are wrong, and in some cases, yes, perhaps they are also nuts. But he always uses due process, and his political philosophy is nearly perfectly consistent. A rare quality in a politician, and I wish I saw it in one I could agree with but I still respect him

And in this case, I think he's right. Whether you agree with his extreme libertarian interpretation, a maintaining of checks and balances is something I think we can all agree on, and here he is right.
Click to expand...

MN, I agree with you about Rep. Paul's consistency.

I live just outside of Ron Paul's district. When people take the time to research his "genuine" beliefs - it normally freaks people out - including me. And being the good "so-called open minded" Independent that I claim to be, I must confess that I have voted for Libertarians for major offices, but I really did so out of frustration over the alternatives not cutting it for me.

But really, Ron Paul is really very interesting to listen to. Some things he says, like you've pointed out MN, it's just hard to disagree with some of his stances. Well, let me say that FOR ME Rep. Paul can be right on with identify problems and offering solutions for some issues.

Thanks...
 
Ron Paul is right. The Federal Reserve has no checks and balances. It is merely the banking cartel ripping off the American tax payer. The President has become more powerful than Congress and the freedoms we have enjoyed are slowly slipping away. Every American who is born is born thousands of dollars in debt, all in the name of justice....
 
I think it's an inevitable behavioral response.

The more comforts people have to more often they take them for granted and require more.

I believe this largely started in the 1900's with the finalization of universal suffrage.
(no this is not meant to be an attack against women but against universal suffrage in general.)
We allow people to vote who do not have to justify their opinions with facts or reasonable logical conclusions.

Another interesting point is that through the universal education of children, we've perpetuated popular myths or seriously debated issues as facts with a slant, they seem to all defend big government.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think it's an inevitable behavioral response.

The more comforts people have to more often they take them for granted and require more.

I believe this largely started in the 1900's with the finalization of universal suffrage.
(no this is not meant to be an attack against women but against universal suffrage in general.)
We allow people to vote who do not have to justify their opinions with facts or reasonable logical conclusions.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there should be a test to qualify to vote?
 
Gina said:
Are you saying there should be a test to qualify to vote?
Click to expand...

There should be multiple objective measures.

I find it unethical that people who directly benefit or could directly benefit (monetarily and service) from a program or legislation, get to vote for those who promise to implement that legislation.

It's wrong ethically.

Knowledge testing, contribution to society, things of that nature, should be done before any person could vote.

Or, we should redesign the representation system.
Instead of representation by district, each party should get equal representation and the people should vote for their representative.
No more party X wins over Y, Z
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
There should be multiple objective measures.

I find it unethical that people who directly benefit or could directly benefit (monetarily and service) from a program or legislation, get to vote for those who promise to implement that legislation.

It's wrong ethically.
Click to expand...

Then neither side could vote because each gains direct benefit. Tax cuts are just as much a direct benefit as welfare.

Knowledge testing, contribution to society, things of that nature, should be done before any person could vote.

Or, we should redesign the representation system.
Instead of representation by district, each party should get equal representation and the people should vote for their representative.
No more party X wins over Y, Z
Click to expand...

Who decides which knowledge or contribution to society is good enough to convey the right to vote?

I don't think your concept of equal representation is so equal. One party will still prevail over the other, just is a bigger pool of voters? Or do I misunderstand?

In suggesting this, are you doing away with the concept of one man, one vote? Or taxation without representation?
 
Gina said:
Then neither side could vote because each gains direct benefit. Tax cuts are just as much a direct benefit as welfare.
Click to expand...

Some tax benefits are just as unethical, I totally agree.
I do not think our system works.

It's severely broken because we have completely discarded what a republic is supposed to be.
Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.

Gina said:
Who decides which knowledge or contribution to society is good enough to convey the right to vote?

I don't think your concept of equal representation is so equal. One party will still prevail over the other, just is a bigger pool of voters? Or do I misunderstand?

In suggesting this, are you doing away with the concept of one man, one vote? Or taxation without representation?
Click to expand...

Edit: Contributions should be made on volunteering to preserve the common institutions of the society, roads, trash pick up, etc.
The most complete review of facts should be done before using a testing measurement.

The amount of people voting is immaterial.
Each party has an equal seat, but only 1 seat or a council of seats.
It's still in concept form but it could take a lot of the unethical money problems out of the system.

One person, one vote should be tossed away.
There is no reasonable justification for all the votes because many people come to their conclusions for unethical reasons.
 
Last edited:
America is going to became a Socialistic Dictatorship without any Industry and Islam as the State Religion.
 
How can it be socialist[ic] if there is no production to own the means of?
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some tax benefits are just as unethical, I totally agree.
I do not think our system works.

It's severely broken because we have completely discarded what a republic is supposed to be.
Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.
Click to expand...

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.

Edit: Contributions should be made on volunteering to preserve the common institutions of the society, roads, trash pick up, etc.
The most complete review of facts should be done before using a testing measurement.

The amount of people voting is immaterial.
Each party has an equal seat, but only 1 seat or a council of seats.
It's still in concept form but it could take a lot of the unethical money problems out of the system.
Click to expand...

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

How do we measure facts? What kind of facts?

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?

One person, one vote should be tossed away.
There is no reasonable justification for all the votes because many people come to their conclusions for unethical reasons.
Click to expand...

Unethical according to you? I know the argument you are making, I've seen it before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom