Democracy V Republic

ipsofacto · Nov 21, 2018

"Democracy" refers to where the power is vested. The power is given to the people. Democracy is easily contrasted to a monarchy where the power is in one person. "Republic" is virtually the same thing, but refers to the government as representatives of the people. The distinction is somewhat meaningless and only the subject of debate when Republicans want to argue about nothing.

Rich2018 · Nov 21, 2018

Individual said:
...I disagree...

Which city/state/country was too big or too small for Representative Democracy to function?

...the 10th amendment had nothing to do with slavery, and the 14th amendment resulted in ending slavery in all the States....

It was stated that as the USA is a republic and has a Constitution, then a minority cannot be oppressed by a majority (unlike a democracy where seemingly mob rule prevails)

However the existence of slavery in the USA would seem to disprove this
As would the incarceration of Japanese -Americans in 1941/42
As would the near extermination of the Native American peoples

This is not to damn the USA, just to say that the USA's status as a "Republic" and its "Constitution" do not afford any special protection to anyone.

...the Supreme court is but 9 persons, who can either apply the Constitution as written or by a democratic majority consisting of 5 persons in a Nation of over 325,000,000 meet the political expediency of the party under whom they were appointed...

It is made up of 9 people - of which only 5 are required to pass a judgement on the interpretation of the Constitution

It has on multiple occasions twisted the wording of the Constitution in order to meet political expediency

Any study of the law, will make you suspicious on language.

...and just above you admitted that just 5 people are able to make the ultimate decision....

Ultimately the people hold sway

However they are notoriously hard to mobilize

It is why we have a Republican President and consequently an ultra conservative SC

...the UK government is quite different, so I don't even attempt to make comparisons with our form of government....

How and in what way is the UK government different ?

Yes there are minor details...but both the UK and USA are representative democracies

The UK is a parliamentary democracy meaning the the head of state is NOT the head of the government. That's one big difference
The UK head of state is not elected but chosen by birth right. Really a small difference

The point was made that in a democracy the majority always wins...as I pointed out this is NOT the case in the UK or any Western democracy

...our country, the U.S.A. is a republic, comprised of 50 republics (States). A democratic process is used as the means of selecting representatives to all our governments local, State, and Federal.

It matters not if Irish, Germans, and French agree or disagree with me on our government.

Sorry it matters not what your own personal opinion is.

Germany and Ireland call themselves democracies AND republics.

Who are you to tell them they are wrong.

Or more directly, what is your authority to label any nation's government. (do you have a degree in politics? or political science? Have you published any books or papers? Or are you just some guy on the internet with an uninformed opinion(s) ?

Rich2018 · Nov 21, 2018

ipsofacto said:
"Democracy" refers to where the power is vested. The power is given to the people. Democracy is easily contrasted to a monarchy where the power is in one person. "Republic" is virtually the same thing, but refers to the government as representatives of the people. The distinction is somewhat meaningless and only the subject of debate when Republicans want to argue about nothing.

I think you're confused

The USSR was a a republic (or technically a union of many republics), the PRC is a republic as is North Korea.

Being a republic doesn't have any meaning with regard to the people it governs.

The USA, Ireland, Germany etc are Constitutional republics....meaning they operate with observance of the law/constitutions.

Individual · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
No, I was asking if you agree to that premise

Do you ?

All I can agree to rationally is that there are good and bad people of every race and nationality.

Rich2018 said:
It sounded as if you were saying exactly that

Perhaps you're reading my words with your own intent of meaning?

Rich2018 said:
So what are you saying with regard to explaining the different propensities for policemen to kill suspects ?

I've not seen a 'propensity for police to kill suspects'.

Rich2018 said:
And it can't be because police in the UK are not armed - because many are.
Moreover police in most European countries are armed yet do not kill their people at anything like the rate (up to 70 times higher) than US police do

Why are US police so deadly ?

Perhaps a bolder, more aggressive class of criminals in the U.S.?

Rich2018 said:
Did I say that we should ban matches?

What have matches to do with the thread topic?

Rich2018 said:
What would be your solution if your found your children (if you have any) playing with fire ?

Never had that problem.

Rich2018 said:
Arguing against logic usually promotes such thoughts

Commenting on how far off topic your posts are becoming, obviously they lack any logic worth responding to.

Rich2018 said:
Correct

Society rules by fear.

If you do not fear the consequences of your actions, there's no motivation to stop you doing them.

Siding with the police and giving them "carte blanche" to kill anyone they want is a dangerous position to take.

As the Roman poet Juvenal wrote, "Who will guard the guards themselves?"

You should have stopped writing after the first word.

Individual · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Which city/state/country was too big or too small for Representative Democracy to function?

It works reasonably well when powers of government are kept primarily in the hands of the governed, who apply limits upon each successively higher level of government.

Rich2018 said:
It was stated that as the USA is a republic and has a Constitution, then a minority cannot be oppressed by a majority (unlike a democracy where seemingly mob rule prevails)

However the existence of slavery in the USA would seem to disprove this
As would the incarceration of Japanese -Americans in 1941/42
As would the near extermination of the Native American peoples

This is not to damn the USA, just to say that the USA's status as a "Republic" and its "Constitution" do not afford any special protection to anyone.

Slavery existed throughout the world long before the U.S. became a Nation, and our Constitution was not written with intent to ensure its permanence.
Japan declared war on the U.S. at the time.
The Indian wars ended long ago, and they were just the earlier immigrants to North America, originating elsewhere.

Rich2018 said:
It is made up of 9 people - of which only 5 are required to pass a judgement on the interpretation of the Constitution

It has on multiple occasions twisted the wording of the Constitution in order to meet political expediency

Any study of the law, will make you suspicious on language.

The words of the Constitution read with the application of exegesis rather than eisegesis is how our Supreme court should apply it, allowing Congress and/or the people/States to call for amendments when found necessary, and such amendments should be made in clear and concise words, leaving little need for interpretation, and understood by all.

Rich2018 said:
Ultimately the people hold sway

However they are notoriously hard to mobilize

It is why we have a Republican President and consequently an ultra conservative SC

Even when mobilized, they have a difficult time getting politicians to listen to them. And the the middle class, just don't have the free time to petition their government as most have to work and care for their families.

Rich2018 said:
How and in what way is the UK government different ?

Yes there are minor details...but both the UK and USA are representative democracies

The UK is a parliamentary democracy meaning the the head of state is NOT the head of the government. That's one big difference
The UK head of state is not elected but chosen by birth right. Really a small difference

The point was made that in a democracy the majority always wins...as I pointed out this is NOT the case in the UK or any Western democracy

I have no interest in discussing other Nations government. Perhaps we should all stick to making changes in our own governments and allow others to govern as their citizens find acceptable.

Rich2018 said:
Sorry it matters not what your own personal opinion is.

Germany and Ireland call themselves democracies AND republics.

Who are you to tell them they are wrong.

Or more directly, what is your authority to label any nation's government. (do you have a degree in politics? or political science? Have you published any books or papers? Or are you just some guy on the internet with an uninformed opinion(s) ?

I have no opinion on other countries governments, other than I don't care to have them impose theirs upon mine.
I'm no different than you, simply stating my opinions of what I find/feel is wrong with our own government.
My words were "It matters not if Irish, Germans, and French agree or disagree with me on OUR government." I made no comment at all on what they call their own governments. Try replying, in a civil way, only to what I've written if you wish me to respond. I don't care to waste my time or yours if we cannot find something we can agree on to promote change beneficial to all.

Rich2018 · Nov 22, 2018

Individual said:
All I can agree to rationally is that there are good and bad people of every race and nationality....

But the the spread of these good/bad people, employed as policemen, are evenly distributed across the Western world, why would there be more police (per capita) in the USA willing to kill ?
And it's not just one year...it's year after year.
Up to 70 times more willing.

There's a bigger answer other than there are good and bad people in every walk of life.

...I've not seen a 'propensity for police to kill suspects'....

C'mon I've given you an example

The stats show many, many examples...

Here's another:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/minneapolis-police-shooting-justine-damond.html

And another:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-...georgia-police-officer-is-shot-killed-by-cops

They are not hard to find on the 'Net.

...perhaps a bolder, more aggressive class of criminals in the U.S.?

Bolder ? What do you mean ?
Why would US criminals be "bolder" why would they have more courage ?

More aggressive ? I've already pointed out that London, England is a more violent place than pretty much any US city, yet the Metropolitan police kill a tiny fraction that US police kill.

You're just avoiding the obvious answer.

...what have matches to do with the thread topic?

You asked if matches should be banned remember ?

The question I asked, and that you evaded, was "What would be your solution if your found your children (if you have any) playing with fire ? "

...commenting on how far off topic your posts are becoming, obviously they lack any logic worth responding to....

How can you talk about logic when you simply evade any question that's too uncomfortable to answer ?

But if it's not worth your time, go ahead and find a topic that you're more comfortable debating.

...you should have stopped writing after the first word.

You should have stopped writing

LOL

Rich2018 · Nov 22, 2018

Individual said:
It works reasonably well when powers of government are kept primarily in the hands of the governed, who apply limits upon each successively higher level of government....

Works "reasonably well" now ?

To remind you:

I said that Representative Democracy works well in any size of government

You said "I disagree"

I then challenged you answer "Which city/state/country was too big or too small for Representative Democracy to function?"

Again you evade questions when cornered

...slavery existed throughout the world long before the U.S. became a Nation, and our Constitution was not written with intent to ensure its permanence...

How do you know that the drafters of the US Constitution indented regarding slavery?
You make another claim but cannot back this up.
The fact is that a large minority in the USA were held in servitude for decades - despite the existence of the Constitution.
Even after the abolition of slavery, why was a Civil Rights movement necessary ?
Why was a minority segment of the US citizenry oppressed and discriminated against when they had the protection of the Constitution ?
So saying that the Constitution protects the minority against the majority is factually and obviously wrong.

...Japan declared war on the U.S. at the time....

I am talking about Japanese-Americans. That is to say US citizens. Do you really not know anything about what happened ???

Germany declared war on the USA did you know that ? How many German-Americans were rounded up and incarcerated ?

Was the rounding up of US citizens with Japanese heritage an example of mob rule ?

...the Indian wars ended long ago...

They ended WELL AFTER the establishment of the US Constitution. Or do you have trouble remembering dates from your high school history class?

How did the "trail of tears" happen...or the Sandcreek and Wounded Knee massacres happen when the US Constitution existed to prevent the oppression of minorities?

Have you even heard of these events ? Were they yet more examples of mob rule prevailing in a republic ?
Again this is not to damn the USA, many countries have episodes they'd prefer to forget but making ignorant comments that democracies produce mob rule and the oppression of minorities in republics is somehow impossible is just stupid and naive.

...the words of the Constitution read with the application of exegesis rather than eisegesis is how our Supreme court should apply it, allowing Congress and/or the people/States to call for amendments when found necessary, and such amendments should be made in clear and concise words, leaving little need for interpretation, and understood by all....

As we have seen, it is virtually impossible to exercise clear and concise laws - especially if the language used dates back to the 18th century

If you want evidence of this, ask yourself why there are SC rulings with a 5:4 split.

If the language was clear, why are not all SC ruling 9:0 ?

...even when mobilized, they have a difficult time getting politicians to listen to them....

The people don't need politicians to listen to them if they are mobilized and have the power to un-elect them.

The recent mid-term elections had the HIGHEST voter turn out in more than a century...but it was still less than 50% !!!!!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...fused-with-australia-any-time-soon-2018-11-21

Studies show that the people least likely to vote are the lower middle/working class and the poor....those most likely to vote are the wealthy

This is why the USA elects right wing politicians

...I have no interest in discussing other Nations government...

You want to discuss political terms without considering the rest of the world...except of course the "mob rule" allegedly practiced in ancient Greece ?

Only what happens in the USA is important - you really are a caricature "little american"

You're a bit like saying that you're only interested in scientific experiments performed in the USA....scientific experiments in the rest-of-the-world that contradict and disprove one done in the USA are of no interest.

You cannot argue with someone who willfully dons blinkers to protect himself from the truth.

Individual · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
But the the spread of these good/bad people, employed as policemen, are evenly distributed across the Western world, why would there be more police (per capita) in the USA willing to kill ?
And it's not just one year...it's year after year.
Up to 70 times more willing.

There's a bigger answer other than there are good and bad people in every walk of life.

C'mon I've given you an example

The stats show many, many examples...

Here's another:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/minneapolis-police-shooting-justine-damond.html

And another:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-...georgia-police-officer-is-shot-killed-by-cops

They are not hard to find on the 'Net.

Bolder ? What do you mean ?
Why would US criminals be "bolder" why would they have more courage ?

More aggressive ? I've already pointed out that London, England is a more violent place than pretty much any US city, yet the Metropolitan police kill a tiny fraction that US police kill.

You're just avoiding the obvious answer.

You asked if matches should be banned remember ?

The question I asked, and that you evaded, was "What would be your solution if your found your children (if you have any) playing with fire ? "

How can you talk about logic when you simply evade any question that's too uncomfortable to answer ?

But if it's not worth your time, go ahead and find a topic that you're more comfortable debating.

You should have stopped writing

LOL

The thread topic is Democracy V Republic.

You're right, I probably should have stopped responding to you. If you wish to debate about police shootings, crime, other countries forms of governments, etc. perhaps you should create a thread on such topics and find others who wish to debate with you. I'm not really interested in spending time on such subjects when there are other subjects needing more attention.

Individual · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Works "reasonably well" now ?

To remind you:

I said that Representative Democracy works well in any size of government

You said "I disagree"

I then challenged you answer "Which city/state/country was too big or too small for Representative Democracy to function?"

Again you evade questions when cornered

How do you know that the drafters of the US Constitution indented regarding slavery?
You make another claim but cannot back this up.
The fact is that a large minority in the USA were held in servitude for decades - despite the existence of the Constitution.
Even after the abolition of slavery, why was a Civil Rights movement necessary ?
Why was a minority segment of the US citizenry oppressed and discriminated against when they had the protection of the Constitution ?
So saying that the Constitution protects the minority against the majority is factually and obviously wrong.

I am talking about Japanese-Americans. That is to say US citizens. Do you really not know anything about what happened ???

Germany declared war on the USA did you know that ? How many German-Americans were rounded up and incarcerated ?

Was the rounding up of US citizens with Japanese heritage an example of mob rule ?

They ended WELL AFTER the establishment of the US Constitution. Or do you have trouble remembering dates from your high school history class?

How did the "trail of tears" happen...or the Sandcreek and Wounded Knee massacres happen when the US Constitution existed to prevent the oppression of minorities?

Have you even heard of these events ? Were they yet more examples of mob rule prevailing in a republic ?
Again this is not to damn the USA, many countries have episodes they'd prefer to forget but making ignorant comments that democracies produce mob rule and the oppression of minorities in republics is somehow impossible is just stupid and naive.

As we have seen, it is virtually impossible to exercise clear and concise laws - especially if the language used dates back to the 18th century

If you want evidence of this, ask yourself why there are SC rulings with a 5:4 split.

If the language was clear, why are not all SC ruling 9:0 ?

The people don't need politicians to listen to them if they are mobilized and have the power to un-elect them.

The recent mid-term elections had the HIGHEST voter turn out in more than a century...but it was still less than 50% !!!!!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...fused-with-australia-any-time-soon-2018-11-21

Studies show that the people least likely to vote are the lower middle/working class and the poor....those most likely to vote are the wealthy

This is why the USA elects right wing politicians

You want to discuss political terms without considering the rest of the world...except of course the "mob rule" allegedly practiced in ancient Greece ?

Only what happens in the USA is important - you really are a caricature "little american"

You're a bit like saying that you're only interested in scientific experiments performed in the USA....scientific experiments in the rest-of-the-world that contradict and disprove one done in the USA are of no interest.

You cannot argue with someone who willfully dons blinkers to protect himself from the truth.

If you have nothing productive to say which might promote bringing about needed change in our government, then grow up first, learn to communicate with others civilly, and then maybe you'll find others who will spend time conversing with you productively.

Rich2018 · Nov 22, 2018

Individual said:
...the thread topic is Democracy V Republic....

Last time I checked, yes

....you're right, I probably should have stopped responding to you. If you wish to debate about police shootings, crime, other countries forms of governments, etc. perhaps you should create a thread on such topics and find others who wish to debate with you. I'm not really interested in spending time on such subjects when there are other subjects needing more attention....

Actually the topic of US police shootings has been discussed in the Gun Control section

I didn't bring it up in this thread, though I did comprehensively answer the poster who did.

By all means feel free to decide which topics are most deserving of discussion ... to you

...if you have nothing productive to say which might promote bringing about needed change in our government, then grow up first, learn to communicate with others civilly, and then maybe you'll find others who will spend time conversing with you productively.

Debunking people who state flsehoods as fact, as you have done, is never unproductive.

You are the one who have taken a confrontational approach making false claims with no evidence.

You are the one who self confessed to dismissing the rest of the world teaches...you are like a fundamentalist Christian who closes his eyes to science saying you don't care what science shows...

I've shown you to be wrong in every incorrect thing you've said. But keep your eyes closed if you prefer and believe whatever you want - you're still wrong.

ipsofacto · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
I think you're confused.

I am not confused. And I never read past a personal attack or ad hominem attack.

Rich2018 · Nov 22, 2018

ipsofacto said:
I am not confused. And I never read past a personal attack or ad hominem attack.

I was being delicate.

So I'll re-phrase and say you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry if you felt your hominems were attacked.

Individual · Nov 22, 2018

ipsofacto said:
"Democracy" refers to where the power is vested. The power is given to the people. Democracy is easily contrasted to a monarchy where the power is in one person. "Republic" is virtually the same thing, but refers to the government as representatives of the people. The distinction is somewhat meaningless and only the subject of debate when Republicans want to argue about nothing.

Although it would appear this threads topic "Democracy V Republic" was NOT created by a Republican.

ipsofacto · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
I was being delicate.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Not going to bother reading your posts. You clearly are here to insult others.

Rich2018 · Nov 22, 2018

ipsofacto said:
Not going to bother reading your posts.

You just did.

ipsofacto · Nov 22, 2018

Individual said:
Although it would appear this threads topic "Democracy V Republic" was NOT created by a Republican.

Don't know about the author. From my experience the only people worrying about these meaningless labels are Republicans. It's like people who call the Nazis socialists because of the word in their party name, National Socialists.

Rich2018 · Nov 22, 2018

ipsofacto said:
Don't know about the author. From my experience the only people worrying about these meaningless labels are Republicans. It's like people who call the Nazis socialists because of the word in their party name, National Socialists.

The Nazi party had it's origins in workers movements

Its full name was the NSDAP

National Socialist German Workers Party

And yes it was more than a little socialist in nature.

Though the word socialist means all things to all men.

Nazi Germany was also a republic.

Individual · Nov 22, 2018

ipsofacto said:
Don't know about the author. From my experience the only people worrying about these meaningless labels are Republicans. It's like people who call the Nazis socialists because of the word in their party name, National Socialists.

Maybe we should try discussing issues related to making changes to how our government works, with intent to reach a consensus among voters regardless of party affiliation?

gfm7175 · Nov 22, 2018

Rich2018 said:
You're not listening

Direct democracy works only in SMALL groups. ie: much smaller than a city - so NO government involved

It doesn't even work in small groups...

Rich2018 said:
It's been working well enough in the USA for over 200 years
It's worked just fine in the UK for centuries
It's working just fine in Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands....etc

None of those are Democracies. There are no Democracies in existence ATM...

Rich2018 said:
Oh so what part of the Constitution prevented slavery ?

No part prevented it... The 13th and 14th Amendments abolished it and naturalized former slaves...

Rich2018 said:
How long was the USA a republic before slavery was made illegal ?

About 89 years and 5 months...

Rich2018 said:
Why didn't the Constitution protect those enslaved up to that point ?

Because it had no language concerning slavery up 'till that point...

Rich2018 said:
I mean if the USA was a republic and if people can't be oppressed in a republic ... how did slavery exist ?

The USA was a Republic. People CAN be oppressed in a Republic. Slavery existed wherever there was no Constitutional language concerning slavery and where people wanted it.

Rich2018 said:
While you're at it, why was a Civil Rights movement necessary if the USA was a republic ?

Because people can be just as oppressed under a Republic as they can be under any other form of government...

Rich2018 said:
I suggest you read some history of your OWN country before making assertions about what a republic does or does not do.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one trying to revise history, not me.

Rich2018 said:
Then you're clearly unaware of the Supreme Court's rulings on gun ownership and the penalty for failing to complete a census form to name but two times it has twisted the words of the Constitution - the "interpretation" of which is it's main function BTW

I'm aware of their rulings. The fact that they ruled doesn't mean that they had the power to do so under the Constitution... They have no power of interpretation... point me to constitutional language granting them such power...

Rich2018 said:
Again I suggest you read up on the history of your OWN country.

Again, I am not the one trying to revise history. Continued Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Nope, the people rule

No, the Constitution does...

Rich2018 said:
The people can change the Constitution....the people can rip up the Constitution and write a new one from scratch.

Yes they can change it... UNDER the rules mentioned in Article 5 of the Constitution... And no, they can't just "rip it up"...

Rich2018 said:
Again read the Constitution,

Inversion Fallacy. YOU'RE the one unfamiliar with it...

Rich2018 said:
It details exactly how the whole Constitution can be scrapped and replaced with another one.

No, it doesn't. Article 5 DOES, however, detail how it can be AMENDED...

Point me to this "scrapped and replaced" language "contained" therein...

Rich2018 said:
Nope, "demos" means "people" not "men"

Semantics... men in that case means people...

Rich2018 said:
The first three words of the Constitution are "WE THE PEOPLE..."

Correct... so?

Rich2018 said:
It is in the people's name that the Constitution (and any law passed in the USA) is enacted

Yes people created the document... but ruling power was transferred from the people of each state to the document. The document is what rules, not any person or people.

Rich2018 said:
Rule by the people is NOT mob rule.

Yes, it is... that's what a Democracy is.

Rich2018 said:
Mob rule doesn't exist in any stable government - ever.

Correct. Democracies always dissolve into some other form of government...

Rich2018 said:
If you claim mob rule exists, tell me where and when. Your silence will be deafening.

I don't claim it exists. It doesn't exist anywhere. There are no Democracies in existence atm...

Rich2018 said:
Wrong it most definitely is

No, it is not... The UK is an Oligarchy, NOT a Democracy.

Rich2018 said:
"The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy based on universal adult suffrage. It is also a constitutional monarchy..."

Government in the United Kingdom |UK Democracy

False Authority Fallacy. No holy link has authority over the definition of the word "Democracy". That word was defined by Ancient Greece...

gfm7175 · Nov 22, 2018

...continued from above...

Rich2018 said:
Your personal opinion is irrelevant -

I have yet to offer my personal opinion in this response to you... This is all recorded history...

Rich2018 said:
If you want to make some wild claim that the UK is not a democracy, then please quote a reputable source.
NB: Your opinion is NOT a reputable source

I have already provided you a reputable source. That source is Ancient Greece...

Rich2018 said:
Shouldn't be hard to name one then...
Dodge noted

Nothing was dodged and I already named the source for the definition of the word Democracy...

Rich2018 said:
Again you give YOUR worthless opinion as fact

I gave no opinion of my own in this response, and a fact is not a universal truth nor is it a proof of any kind... a fact is predicate agreed upon by all parties involved in a particular conversation... that's all a fact is... facts don't even have to be true in order to be facts...

Rich2018 said:
Yes it is...and it always has been.

Revisionist History... the USA has always been a Federated Republic.

Rich2018 said:
To be precise it has always been a Representative Democracy

Still wrong... it has always been a Federated Republic which democratically elects its representatives... Democratically electing representatives is NOT Democracy...

Rich2018 said:
A democracy is not mob rule.

It quite literally is... this term was defined by Ancient Greece. Stop denying and revising history...

Rich2018 said:
Ireland and Germany for example state that they are republics AND democracies

Irrelevant. They don't have authority to define those words...

Rich2018 said:
...deleted 'you don't understand' and 'you're ignorant' mantras...

Rich2018 said:
They say they are

So?

Rich2018 said:
They are right... deleted 'you don't understand' mantra...

No they are wrong.

Rich2018 said:
There are or can be multiple layers in a democracy

Irrelevant.

Rich2018 said:
The USA for example is a democracy and has a multi-layered structure of mixed government

Wrong. It is a Federated Republic. Federated means "several layers"...

Rich2018 said:
The USA was created as a Representative Democracy in the form of a Republic

Paradox. Irrational reasoning... you've given numerous different assertions of what the USA is within this comment alone... you need to choose one and discard all others to argue rationally...

Rich2018 said:
The only difference was that the head of state was elected rather than chosen by birth right

Wrong. I have described the differences already...

Rich2018 said:
When a country adopts a representative form of government - it is called a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

No, it is not. It is called a representative form of government. Republics can also be representative... so can Oligarchies...

Rich2018 said:
Go look it up.

"Google it" mantra dismissed...

Rich2018 · Nov 23, 2018

gfm7175 said:
It doesn't even work in small groups...

Yes it does

Rock groups usually work this way for instance

...None of those are Democracies. There are no Democracies in existence ATM...

Yes they are. They are ALL democracies. Specifically they are Representative Democracies

Just because you don't know the meaning of the word doesn't change this.

The Republic of Ireland and German call themselves democracies...as does Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and all the rest mentioned.

Now who should anyone believe? The countries themselves or some guy on the internet ?

Your personal opinion is worthless.

...no part prevented it... The 13th and 14th Amendments abolished it (slavery)...

Yes they did....as you said about 89 years after the ratification of the US Constitution.
It was stated by multiple posters that the fact that the USA is a republic means that a majority cannot oppress a minority. Slavery proves this a lie.
Even after these amendments, why was a Civil Rights movement needed ?
Why were blacks discriminated against ?
Why were armed soldiers required to ensure blacks could attend school ?

...because it had no language concerning slavery up 'till that point...

So up to that point, the Constitution failed a large segment of the population.
Are you not grasping this?
Being a republic and having a constitution, doesn't make a country "special" in any way concerning the protection of minorities.
Some posters hurl wild accusation that democracy is "mob rule". But what else was slavery, racial discrimination ?

...people CAN be oppressed in a Republic....people can be just as oppressed under a Republic as they can be under any other form of government...

I'm glad we can agree on this and of course other systems of government allow oppression of minorities

This is not to bash the USA, all countries have episodes they're not particularly proud of. The point is that the USA's form republican of government is not some holy grail of political process

...Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one trying to revise history, not me....they ruled doesn't mean that they had the power to do so under the Constitution... They (the SC) have no power of interpretation...

Erm

The role of the SC of the USA is to interpret the Constitution

Allow me to correct you:

"The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

I'm not an American and yet I know far more about your own government (the judiciary being but one branch of it) than you do?

...again, I am not the one trying to revise history. Continued Inversion Fallacy....

You should stick to your own fallacies. Try learning a bit about the Constitution of the USA

...No, the Constitution does...yes they can change it... UNDER the rules mentioned in Article 5 of the Constitution... And no, they can't just "rip it up"...

You've already shown you don't know much about the Constitution. It openly claims in the first three words in whose name it is written

The people rule the USA, not some piece of paper.

The people have the power to change the Constitution or indeed rip it up and start again...who says so? Why the Constitution itself.

Whatever form of words you want to use...rip it up, scrap it, replace it....the Constitution can be repealed if you want a legal term and replaced with a whole new one.

...inversion Fallacy. YOU'RE the one unfamiliar with it...

As shown above, YOU are the one not familiar with the Constitution

Rich2018 · Nov 23, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...No, it doesn't. Article 5 DOES, however, detail how it can be AMENDED..point me to this "scrapped and replaced" language...

After a brief search:

"...there is, however, the concept of the Amendment Convention as noted in Article 5. The power or limits of such a convention are unknown because there has never been one. It is thought, however, that a Convention would be able to propose any change to the Constitution it decided to, including full replacement...."

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

Again you know little about your own country's constitution

I think you're guilty of being wrong fallacy.

...semantics... men in that case means people...

No "demos" means literally "people"

...Correct... so?

Not "we the men"

...yes people created the document... but ruling power was transferred from the people of each state to the document. The document is what rules, not any person or people....

A law is the will of people.

Laws do not rule people, people rule the law. If a law is bad or is no longer fit for purpose, people (the legislature and executive) repeal it and pass new law(s)

And as explained to you above, judges interpret the law. Have you never heard of test cases or "set a Precedent" ?

...yes, it is... that's what a Democracy is....

No.

You keep saying this but give no examples ...indeed there are more cases of "mob rule" in the USA than in other democracies

You have shown you don't actually know what a democracy is...and you don't know what a republic is

...democracies always dissolve into some other form of government...

No

Mob rule doesn't exist in any stable government - ever.

Again you don't know what you're talking about, you're just parroting ignorant nonsense. Go ahead and give me an instance of "mob rule" (other than the instances listed above in US history)

...there are no Democracies in existence atm...

The UK is a democracy, so is Ireland and Germany and Canada

They say they are democracies

What is YOUR authority to dispute that ???

Note: Personal opinion is worthless.

...the UK is an Oligarchy, NOT a Democracy....

Go ahead and explain that one - I need a good laugh.

Did you know that every member of the UK cabinet is elected by the people ?
Whereas every member of the US cabinet is appointed by the President ?

You've now shown you know nothing about the UK political system either.

UK cabinet:

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

Every member is an MP (that means Member of Parliament - ie: they are periodically elected NOT appointed)

I'm growing tired of schooling you.

...false Authority Fallacy. No holy link has authority over the definition of the word "Democracy". That word was defined by Ancient Greece...

Go ahead and post a link the the entity you claim as "ancient Greece" and their definition of "democracy".

The UK is a democracy. It says so itself.
Your "holy" opinion is meaningless and worthless.

Rich2018 · Nov 23, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...I have yet to offer my personal opinion...

Let's see...

You offered a personal opinion that the UK is an oligarchy not a democracy
You opinionated that there are no democracies in existence anymore...and that Germany and Ireland (amongst others) are not democracies, despite their claims to the contrary
You opinionated that democracy = mob rule
You also opinionated that the term "democracy" was defined by "Ancient Greece" as if that was some historical country
You opinionated that courts do not interpret the law
You opinionated that the law rules the people

In fact it goes on....in all your stated opinions you never back up any with any source material. So you have NO authority on the topic at all.

I think I've already asked you, but do you have any schooling in politics or political science because you really don't understand any basic political terms.

...I have already provided you a reputable source. That source is Ancient Greece...

LMAO

That is NOT a source

But just for a laugh, go ahead and post a link to this "source"

...nothing was dodged and I already named the source for the definition of the word Democracy...

Go ahead an name one then...name any one.
And FYI, Ancient Greece was NOT a country...it never had a government. So give a government and a date to support you (so far worthless) opinion.

...I gave no opinion of my own in this response...

You refer to "Ancient Greece" like it was a government. You've not shown you know anything about ancient Greece...so it's just an ignorant personal opinion. Not based on facts and not backed up by sources.

Give a source. Do you know what a "source" is ?
A book, a peer paper, even a web page. Actually at this point I'd probably accept anything except your personal OPINION.

...revisionist History... the USA has always been a Federated Republic....

Yes...and a Representative Democracy

It's why the lower house in Congress is called the House of Representatives !!!

...democratically electing representatives is NOT Democracy...

Wrong

Why don't you do yourself a favor and research what "Representative Democracy" means?

...it quite literally is... this term was defined by Ancient Greece. Stop denying and revising history...

It quite literally isn't. Do you know what "Mob Rule" is in Greek ? I didn't think so, so now you don't know what the word "literally" means.

"Ancient Greece" never existed as a political entity so it never "defined" anything.

How old are you ?

...irrelevant. They don't have authority to define those words...

Neither do you or your mythical country of "ancient Greece"

You said Republics have multi layers...so do democracies...such as the USA.

...So?...they are wrong...

So they count for more than the ignorant opinion of some kid on the internet

....Wrong. It is a Federated Republic. Federated means "several layers"...

The USA is a Federal Republic...so is Germany.
BOTH are democracies ... specifically they are Representative Democracies

All governments are multi-layered.

If you doubt this, name me one that isn't.

...you've given numerous different assertions of what the USA is within this comment alone... you need to choose one and discard all others to argue rationally...

A country can be a republic AND a democracy
You do not believe this but the USA is an example of this. So is Germany and Ireland. Germany and Ireland specifically state they are both republics and democracies. Everything I have said I can back up ... you say many things you cannot.
A democracy is a form of government, a republic is not. The basic problem is that you (like several other posters on here) do not understand basic political terms.

...wrong. I have described the differences already...

No, you've not stated any criteria for a republic or a democracy. You've given no actual sources - books/links etc.

The only criteria I can remember you giving about "democracy" was that it was "mob rule" - whilst conveniently forgetting that there are many cases of mob rule in the USA's past.

...no, it is not. It is called a representative form of government. Republics can also be representative... so can Oligarchies...

Go and look up "Representative Democracy". Seriously Google it.

Republics can be representative Democracies - the USA is a good example of one.

Oligarchies can NOT be representative democracies...or representative anything. BY DEFINITION. You'd know this if you had any schooling in politics.

gfm7175 · Nov 24, 2018

Rich2018 said:
...deleted Argument by Repetition Fallacy...

I already countered all of those points. My counterarguments still remain unaddressed.

gfm7175 · Nov 24, 2018

Rich2018 said:
After a brief search:

"...there is, however, the concept of the Amendment Convention as noted in Article 5. The power or limits of such a convention are unknown because there has never been one. It is thought, however, that a Convention would be able to propose any change to the Constitution it decided to, including full replacement...."

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

False Authority Fallacy. Holy Link ignored on sight... This arbitrary website is not an authority over the US Constitution. I told you to point me out where IN THE CONSTITUTION it says this... Hint, it doesn't... It says that the Constitution can be AMENDED, not replaced.

Rich2018 said:
Again you know little about your own country's constitution

Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
I think you're guilty of being wrong fallacy.

There is no such fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
...deleted continued 'semantics games'...

Rich2018 said:
A law is the will of people.

Laws do not rule people, people rule the law. If a law is bad or is no longer fit for purpose, people (the legislature and executive) repeal it and pass new law(s)

And as explained to you above, judges interpret the law. Have you never heard of test cases or "set a Precedent" ?

No, they do not. They have no such Constitutionally granted power. Point me to the specific language in the Constitution granting judges such power...

Rich2018 said:
No.

You keep saying this but give no examples ...indeed there are more cases of "mob rule" in the USA than in other democracies

You have shown you don't actually know what a democracy is...and you don't know what a republic is

I gave you an example already... Ancient Greece was a Democracy. There are no surviving Democracies at the moment...
Inversion Fallacy. YOU don't know the definitions and where the definitions originated from. You deny history...

Rich2018 said:
No

Mob rule doesn't exist in any stable government - ever.

...deleted 'lack of intelligence' and 'parroting' mantras... Go ahead and give me an instance of "mob rule" (other than the instances listed above in US history)

Correct that mob rule doesn't exist in any stable government ever. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE NO DEMOCRACIES IN EXISTENCE TODAY... They don't work...

I already gave you an instance. Ancient Greece was a Democracy, but it dissolved as all Democracies do...

Rich2018 said:
The UK is a democracy, so is Ireland and Germany and Canada

No, they are not.

Rich2018 said:
They say they are democracies

Good for them.

Rich2018 said:
What is YOUR authority to dispute that ???

History. These forms of government were defined by Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. They defined the terms Republic and Democracy.

Rich2018 said:
Note: Personal opinion is worthless.

I'm not inserting my opinions into anything.

Rich2018 said:
Go ahead and explain that one - I need a good laugh.

Did you know that every member of the UK cabinet is elected by the people ?
Whereas every member of the US cabinet is appointed by the President ?

You've now shown you know nothing about the UK political system either.

UK cabinet:

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

Every member is an MP (that means Member of Parliament - ie: they are periodically elected NOT appointed)

As I've ALREADY said, "democratically elected" and "Democracy" are TWO... COMPLETELY... DIFFERENT... TERMS... THAT... MEAN... TWO... COMPLETELY... DIFFERENT... THINGS...

Government officials can be democratically elected under numerous different forms of government (including Republics and Oligarchies, NOT just Democracies)... The democratic election of representatives is IRRELEVANT in this discussion...

Rich2018 said:
I'm growing tired of schooling you.

Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Go ahead and post a link the the entity you claim as "ancient Greece" and their definition of "democracy".

Makes no difference... No 'holy link' legitimizes or delegitimizes history...

Rich2018 said:
The UK is a democracy. It says so itself.

They are wrong. They deny history.

Rich2018 said:
Your "holy" opinion is meaningless and worthless.

This is not my opinion. This is history...