Democracy

[iguanaman]

The problem is that the Democrats are liars and cheaters.
The Democrat Partys voter fraud crimes violate every ones right to vote.

LOL The problem is that in America evidence is required to indict election fraud and there is none. You can't just say there is fraud because you are a sore loser. You must have had terrible parents.. You support a man that holds the record for lies as President too.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Democracy is a system of government where power is held by the people and exercised through a system of representation

That is actually a Republic. Where power is exercised through representatives and not the people directly.

That is why Ancient Greece was a Democracy, and Rome was a Republic.

In a Democracy like Athens, it took a vote of the populace to decide to do things like going to war or making a peace. The people themselves had to vote for that, not representatives. That is why Athens jumped into the Greco-Persian Wars so late (the movie "300" was set in that war). The Spartans led by a king was able to jump into action, as Athens sat around and debated and voted if they should go to war or not.

The founders of the US were well aware of what Democracy itself could be like, so actually set up a Republic. Where the people vote for representatives, and they in turn are supposed to vote reflecting the will of their constituents.

 

[iguanaman]

That is actually a Republic. Where power is exercised through representatives and not the people directly.

That is why Ancient Greece was a Democracy, and Rome was a Republic.

In a Democracy like Athens, it took a vote of the populace to decide to do things like going to war or making a peace. The people themselves had to vote for that, not representatives. That is why Athens jumped into the Greco-Persian Wars so late (the movie "300" was set in that war). The Spartans led by a king was able to jump into action, as Athens sat around and debated and voted if they should go to war or not.

The founders of the US were well aware of what Democracy itself could be like, so actually set up a Republic. Where the people vote for representatives, and they in turn are supposed to vote reflecting the will of their constituents.

To be perfectly clear America is a Democratic Republic to distinguish it from other type of "Republics". Rome was not really a Democratic Republic although there was voting by the people.

The Roman Republic, while containing democratic elements, was not a pure democracy. It was a complex system that combined elements of democracy, aristocracy, and oligarchy. While citizens voted and held some power, the Senate, dominated by wealthy patricians, held significant influence. Ultimately, the Roman Republic was a hybrid form of government that evolved over time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=was...tQf4H28QWoSsCrUH-B9g&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Oozlefinch]

To be perfectly clear America is a Democratic Republic to distinguish it from other type of "Republics". Rome was not really a Democratic Republic although there was voting by the people.

It was a quite complex government.

But traces of what evolved later could still be seen in it. Yes, the aristocratic Senate had most of the power, but then you had the Tribune of the Plebs.

That was a rather powerful position, that was voted on by the plebs themselves (the population). And they had a direct voice in the Concilium Plebis (People's Assembly). And they were a critical check on the power of the Senate through the Tribune of the Plebs. And their powers and abilities were almost sacrosanct, being able to do things like summon the Senate, propose and veto legislation, and veto consuls and magistrates. And not unlike the House of Commons in the UK or the House of Representatives in the US, they held ultimate power over the "purse strings" of the Republic.

It is also in reality what the Emperor became. When Caesar was appointed as Dictator (something very different from the modern interpretation), he was granted the powers of the Tribune of the Plebes. That is why when his nephew Octavian (Augustus) became the first Emperor, one of the things he incorporated into his power was he was also the Tribune of the Plebs.

So it was "Democratic", and much of what was later refined in the UK and refined again in the US can be seen in how their government worked. I actually have long had a fascination with how it all worked, especially the Gracchus Brothers. Who each was elected as Tribune of the Plebs, and proceeded to tie the Senate into knots by vetoing their attempts at grabbing more power. Primarily through the use of their veto, legally dismissing their attempts to do things against the interests of the plebs. Even ordering the treasury locked in order to curb spending.

Julius Caesar wanted to become Tribune of the Plebs, but instead entered the First Triumvirate and ultimately Dictator. However, he did get Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) to be elected as Tribune of the Plebs. And through him was able to keep the Senate tied up because every time they voted to reverse his reforms, M. Antonius would use his power as Tribune to veto it. And under Augustus, that is the power he and later Emperors actually used in order to rule the Empire.

Which is the key difference between Rome in the Republic and Empire eras. As a Republic, the people voted their Tribune. In the Empire, the Emperor was the Tribune. And ultimately, not unlike what formed in the UK with the House of Lords (Senate) and the House of Commons (Concilium Plebis).

 

[Buster Keaton]

That is actually a Republic. Where power is exercised through representatives and not the people directly.

That is why Ancient Greece was a Democracy, and Rome was a Republic.

In a Democracy like Athens, it took a vote of the populace to decide to do things like going to war or making a peace. The people themselves had to vote for that, not representatives. That is why Athens jumped into the Greco-Persian Wars so late (the movie "300" was set in that war). The Spartans led by a king was able to jump into action, as Athens sat around and debated and voted if they should go to war or not.

The founders of the US were well aware of what Democracy itself could be like, so actually set up a Republic. Where the people vote for representatives, and they in turn are supposed to vote reflecting the will of their constituents.

In a true Democracy the minority always lose.
In a Republic the minority always has a chance to be represented.

 

[Oozlefinch]

In a true Democracy the minority always lose.
In a Republic the minority always has a chance to be represented.

This is why the attempt to push "Democracy" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan was doomed to failure.

Neither of those nations have a background in those governments, and see it as little more than "Mob Rule" and "Domination by the Majority". This is what caused Muqtada al-Sadr to essentially "revolt" against the new Iraq government in the early 2000s. He came from a minority group, and was afraid that he and his followers would be oppressed by the new Iraqi government.

What both nations actually needed was to follow the example of Japan after WWII. Restore the monarchy (which was actually popular among the population), and put in place a modern Constitutional Monarchy similar to that of the UK or Japan. Which would let the people see that there was somebody at the top that would be looking out for the interests of all, and stop any excesses of the legislative bodies not directly but through their popular support and influence.

In both the UK and Japan, the monarch actually has damned little power. But their influence can sway the population and assembly. But instead they rushed into a system of government that was alien to the cultures, and ultimately they rejected it.

 

[iguanaman]

In a true Democracy the minority always lose.
In a Republic the minority always has a chance to be represented.

Often the minority rules in Republics and the majority is repressed by the Govt. Iraq under Saddam is an example of that. I think that is far worse than majority rule don't you?

 

[Bullseye]

"Democracy is a system of government where power is held by the people and exercised through a system of representation, typically involving free and fair elections. It is often described as "rule by the people," emphasizing citizen participation and the ability to hold those in power accountable."

Donald Trump ain't nothing but an ...!

very good, and your next question is "what is a representative republic?"

 

[iguanaman]

This is why the attempt to push "Democracy" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan was doomed to failure.

Neither of those nations have a background in those governments, and see it as little more than "Mob Rule" and "Domination by the Majority". This is what caused Muqtada al-Sadr to essentially "revolt" against the new Iraq government in the early 2000s. He came from a minority group, and was afraid that he and his followers would be oppressed by the new Iraqi government.

What both nations actually needed was to follow the example of Japan after WWII. Restore the monarchy (which was actually popular among the population), and put in place a modern Constitutional Monarchy similar to that of the UK or Japan. Which would let the people see that there was somebody at the top that would be looking out for the interests of all, and stop any excesses of the legislative bodies not directly but through their popular support and influence.

In both the UK and Japan, the monarch actually has damned little power. But their influence can sway the population and assembly. But instead they rushed into a system of government that was alien to the cultures, and ultimately they rejected it.

Actually voting at all is alien to most M.E. cultures.

 

[iguanaman]

very good, and your next question is "what is a representative republic?"

The simplest definition is that one man cannot have all the power in a Representative republic. Power is divided among elected representatives. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Often the minority rules in Republics and the majority is repressed by the Govt. Iraq under Saddam is an example of that.

Iraq under Saddam was in no way a "Republic". No more than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is either democratic or a republic.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually voting at all is alien to most M.E. cultures.

No, not really. But it normally only exists up through the tribal level, not in the national level. And most of them have at least some form of parliament.

Lebanon actually had a rather interesting Constitution created in 1926. They had a Parliament that would have a 6-5 Christian-Muslim ratio. And a Christian President, but a Sunni Prime Minister. And under that constitution for almost half a century it was a rather peaceful and progressive nation in the region. But by the end of the 1970s that started to fall apart under Arab Nationalism and the increasing incursion of the PLO and other extremist organizations.

 

[Bullseye]

The simplest definition is that one man cannot have all the power in a Representative republic. Power is divided among elected representatives. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Does that apply to either republic or democracy?

 

[iguanaman]

No, not really. But it normally only exists up through the tribal level, not in the national level. And most of them have at least some form of parliament.

Lebanon actually had a rather interesting Constitution created in 1926. They had a Parliament that would have a 6-5 Christian-Muslim ratio. And a Christian President, but a Sunni Prime Minister. And under that constitution for almost half a century it was a rather peaceful and progressive nation in the region. But by the end of the 1970s that started to fall apart under Arab Nationalism and the increasing incursion of the PLO and other extremist organizations.

Yes their culture does not include a centralized Govt. which they see as a threat

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem is that the Democrats are liars and cheaters.
The Democrat Partys voter fraud crimes violate every ones right to vote.
The Democrats are not saving democracy, they are raping democracy.

"The problem is that the Democats are liars and cheaters" are one and the other two "of the above": The millions of American People - Democrats and now Independents and see Republicans are good American People who know Donald Trump are liars and cheaters!!!

 

[Revelation]

To be perfectly clear America is a Democratic Republic to distinguish it from other type of "Republics". Rome was not really a Democratic Republic although there was voting by the people.

The Roman Republic, while containing democratic elements, was not a pure democracy. It was a complex system that combined elements of democracy, aristocracy, and oligarchy. While citizens voted and held some power, the Senate, dominated by wealthy patricians, held significant influence. Ultimately, the Roman Republic was a hybrid form of government that evolved over time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=was...tQf4H28QWoSsCrUH-B9g&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

your description is closer to the Truth for what we have today.

we actually don't have a republic or a democracy, both are Fictions thrown at the sheep who may believe it. what we have is an Oligarchy with the appearance of a Republic.

start there, and then you understand the whole thing.

.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The simplest definition is that one man cannot have all the power in a Representative republic.

Actually, they can. That is what the very concept of "Dictator" was in the Roman Republic. And they appointed over 80 of them during the course of the Republic. Many of them serving 2 and 3 terms as Dictator.

One of the most famous was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, after who the city of Cincinnati is named after. He was named Dictator twice, and each time when the crisis was over stepped back into private life.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you have a problem with our government and our modern day representative democracy, don't blame the President...blame yourself.

For decades voters from both parties keep sending worthles scorrupt shitheads back to DC. they dont lead. They dont govern. They use their time to enrich themselves and run for reelection. FFS..we have politicians that have been in congress for 3 decades and their greatest legislative achievement is consponsoring legistlation to rename post offices.

Thats not an exaggeration.

The last effective congressional body we had in DC was in 1999. Since then every president has had to settle for action through executive order.

Its what you built...so its kinda silly to be pissed at the presidents because of your **** ups.

The Democrats are liars and cheaters

It seems to post "liars and cheaters" aren't true.

 

[Wry Catcher]

your description is closer to the Truth for what we have today.

we actually don't have a republic or a democracy, bth are Fictions thrown at the sheep who may believe it. what we have is an Oligarchy with the appearance of a Republic.



start there, and then you understand the whole thing.

.

Seems the Constitution in the 18th Century and that "we actually don't have a republic or a democracy" are not true. Those are true.