• 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!

DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC[W:172]

ernst barkmann said:
its not in any constitution.... state or federal.

the founders do not like democratic forms of government, they are against direct and representative democracy.
Click to expand...

That was my point. The hated democracy and knew of its evils. Yet democrats think democracy is the way to go.
 
Penrod said:
That was my point. The hated democracy and knew of its evils. Yet democrats think democracy is the way to go.
Click to expand...

i hate democracy as a form of government..........KEY word......form!

i am not opposed to democracy as an element in a republic, because the people must be given a voice in government, but not as the dominate factor of a form of govertnment.
 
democrats love democracy because it is collective by its very nature.

Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism," as Karl Marx believed

Democracy is indispensable to socialism-- Vladimir Lenin

the house of representatives which the founders created is democracy, because its rule of the people...its a collective body.

the senate of the founders, is not a democracy, because it was not elected by the people, it was an aristocracy elected by states, its duty is to stop the collective capacity of the people .......from creating any collective laws.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that's not possible because you lack knowledge on a wide variety of things.


Biblical warrior?......:doh...........Jeremiah also called the "Weeping prophet"
Click to expand...


Thats why we a representative republic. The best of both worlds. The founders were wise.

I just noticed your sig. Very nice. This is what separates conservatives from progressives. They believe if the constitution does not forbid it the government can do it. But the 10th forbids most everything from the Federal government other than those powers specifically granted them in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
i see you will not provide anything to support your case again!
Click to expand...

you already admitted that this entire obsession with mixed government is to forward a repeal of the 17th Amendment. Contact me when you get five states to ratify that far right wing extremist radical pipe dream.

Now what you just read is called support for my position.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that's not possible because you lack knowledge on a wide variety of things.


Biblical warrior?......:doh...........Jeremiah also called the "Weeping prophet"
Click to expand...

I can see which half of his nickname you clearly identify with. But where does the prophet part come in?
 
ernst barkmann said:
democrats love democracy because it is collective by its very nature.

Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism," as Karl Marx believed

Democracy is indispensable to socialism-- Vladimir Lenin

the house of representatives which the founders created is democracy, because its rule of the people...its a collective body.

the senate of the founders, is not a democracy, because it was not elected by the people, it was an aristocracy elected by states, its duty is to stop the collective capacity of the people .......from creating any collective laws.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is no longer the case. One of the Progressives first moves.
 
Penrod said:
Unfortunately this is no longer the case. One of the Progressives first moves.
Click to expand...

if you read history it is the progressives of the late 1800's which pushed and promoted the idea of democracy for america, which the founders knew was a vile form of government.
 
haymarket said:
you already admitted that this entire obsession with mixed government is to forward a repeal of the 17th Amendment. Contact me when you get five states to ratify that far right wing extremist radical pipe dream.

Now what you just read is called support for my position.
Click to expand...

this did nothing but side-step, what i asked you....."you have no support for your position, just your own words".........you instead sought to talk about me........poor rebuttal!
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I can see which half of his nickname you clearly identify with. But where does the prophet part come in?
Click to expand...

another post which you sought to talk about me........poor rebuttal.

prophet-- a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
another post which you sought to talk about me........poor rebuttal.

prophet-- a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God
Click to expand...

You were finished a week ago when you admitted that all this nonsense was trying to repeal the 17th Amendment while admitting it was a lost cause. Case closed.
 
haymarket said:
You were finished a week ago when you admitted that all this nonsense was trying to repeal the 17th Amendment while admitting it was a lost cause. Case closed.
Click to expand...

no, I explained what mixed government was many times throughout the thread, you asked what would I like, I stated to repeal the 17th, to return our constitution to a mixed constitution which is what the thread mostly dealt with.

a definition of republic was provide to you, and so was one of a democracy, which you never address.

so to finish, you never produced anything, you stated only denials, you made several accusations against me [even trying to assert I was hearing voices], for stating the constitution was created as a mixed constitution, while, James Madison, John Adams, and Patrick Henry say the same thing as I do.

your desperation shines so bright.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no, I explained what mixed government was many times throughout the thread, you asked what would I like, I stated to repeal the 17th, to return our constitution to a mixed constitution which is what the thread mostly dealt with.

a definition of republic was provide to you, and so was one of a democracy, which you never address.

so to finish, you never produced anything, you stated only denials, you made several accusations against me [even trying to assert I was hearing voices], for stating the constitution was created as a mixed constitution, while, James Madison, John Adams, and Patrick Henry say the same thing as I do.

your desperation shines so bright.
Click to expand...

I gave the definition of a republic over and over and over again: A government where the people elect others to run the government in their name. That is what we have in the USA today and thus it meets the Constitutional mandate.

dictionary.com

re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state 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.
Click to expand...

Merriam Webster dictionary

re·pub·lic noun \ri-ˈpə-blik\
: a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Full Definition of REPUBLIC

1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
Click to expand...

Wikipedia

A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people and representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1]
Click to expand...


These and others saying the same thing have been previously provided.
You have admitted that this entire crusade of yours is to simply push your cause celebre of abolishing the 17th amendment. You also admit it has no chance of passage.

So what is left to even discuss with you as you already admit to backing a losing horse who is not even going to be bought by the dog food company?
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
just because you say its irrelevant does not make it so, the founders state clearly the constitution was created mixed constitution.

based on how officials were elected, and the senate has been changed because of the 17th, making it directly elected by the people, no more is it a aristocracy, meant to check federal power, congress is now a democracy, which is always at war with individual rights.

mixed government is a balance of powers, today it no longer balanced, which is why the government has expanded, and usurped state powers.
Click to expand...

so the legal opinions of every generation that has succeeded the founding fathers is somehow irrelevant?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so the legal opinions of every generation that has succeeded the founding fathers is somehow irrelevant?
Click to expand...

do you mean legal opinions of generations of the USSC?

when it comes to my opinion to the USSC on the constitution, when i take a back seat.

when it comes to the words of James Madison on the Constitution, the USSC takes a back seat.

the Constitution makes it clear the government is a mixed government because of how the government was designed in the Constitution of 1787, making it a true republic.

Madison stated is it a mixed government in federalist 40, and he also references, the father of mixed government, Polybius in federalist 63
 
haymarket said:
Sadly , the entire MOB RULE nonsense is a repeated theme among the far right who have learned to hate the will of the people as a knee jerk reflex action because they know their extremist ideas do not have public support.

Its pretty simple really - the American people do not like them so they have contempt for the American people.
Click to expand...
a great evil!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom