• 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!

Voters More Focused on Control of Congress

Linc said:
Just read a discussion on Tennessee politics where Pence butted in for highly unpopular Black in the gop primary for governor, pissing off termed-out Governor Haslam.

With such a divided field of 4 gops chewing themselves apart, the DEM Dean has a real chance. The ‘neighborhood question’ is back.

And then there’s Tennessee’s next Senator Phil Bredeson. Sending both Black and Blackburn home would be a top two-for to top. Time for me to send a bunch more $27 donations.
Click to expand...

I admire your interest for "local" (read "state) elections. I live in France, and the local elections disinterest me because I do not vote in them.
 
Nap said:
What is this "we" stuff? If I'm not mistaken, didnt you post that you have been living in France for like 10+ years?
Click to expand...

I vote in the US, and up to now, I have no representative in Congress!

"No taxation without representation". Well, as an expat (expatriate), I am taxed in both France and the US, without representation in either.

Great fun! You should try it ... !
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
I vote in the US, and up to now, I have no representative in Congress!

"No taxation without representation". Well, as an expat (expatriate), I am taxed in both France and the US, without representation in either.

Great fun! You should try it ... !
Click to expand...

If you voted, then you had an opportunity to vote for a representative and Senator which is all any citizen can do. Please don’t post BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oborosen said:
I suggest you look around before deciding to trust whatever Google wants to spew out.
Speaking bluntly, a complete democracy is Mob rule. Had that been true, then Hillary would have won the election.
Click to expand...

thanks for the suggestion.

I suggest you learn what words mean before you arbitrarily decide what they mean.
 
Lafayette said:
I vote in the US, and up to now, I have no representative in Congress!

"No taxation without representation". Well, as an expat (expatriate), I am taxed in both France and the US, without representation in either.

Great fun! You should try it ... !
Click to expand...

Sucks don't it?

I'm paying 40% taxes for the year I am here in England, though I am escaping the increase in gasoline prices in the States. And despite switching my TriCare over to the government's international system, I am also forced to pay into the British medical system here. Yet, I am not a citizen, nor a part of the British political system.
 
Last edited:
Oborosen said:
I do hope you follow your own suggestion then.
Click to expand...

Why do you do this? Nobody cares about your need to feel like you "won," especially when you are dead wrong.

Democracy literally translates to "rule by people." Democracy has three senses in modern usage...

Direct Democracy: The citizens as a whole form a governing body, and vote directly on each issue, e.g. on the passage of a particular tax law.

Representative Democracy: The citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature.

Constitutional Democracy: The powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.

This is very clear, isn't it? Which two of these three senses of democracy describes the United States of America? When you declare that the U.S. was not designed to be a democracy, you are absolutely wrong.
 
MSgt said:
Why do you do this? Nobody cares about your need to feel like you "won," especially when you are dead wrong.

Democracy literally translates to "rule by people." Democracy has three senses in modern usage...

Direct Democracy: The citizens as a whole form a governing body, and vote directly on each issue, e.g. on the passage of a particular tax law.

Representative Democracy: The citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature.

Constitutional Democracy: The powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.

This is very clear, isn't it? Which two of these three senses of democracy describes the United States of America? When you declare that the U.S. was not designed to be a democracy, you are absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg

You're making this way too easy, you know that right?

The united states, as it stands. Is not actually a democracy, as it has more in following with a constitutional republic.

You also seem to forget that no matter how many times someone repeats a definition. People always seem to screw up their implications, or their own understanding of it. Even our forefathers had heavy dislikes of a complete democracy and the history of places that ran as straight democracies, are not good.
 
Oborosen said:
View attachment 67237191

You're making this way too easy, you know that right?

The united states, as it stands. Is not actually a democracy, as it has more in following with a constitutional republic.

You also seem to forget that no matter how many times someone repeats a definition. People always seem to screw up their implications, or their own understanding of it. Even our forefathers had heavy dislikes of a complete democracy and the history of places that ran as straight democracies, are not good.
Click to expand...

I would think that simple and easily understood definitions would make it easy. Switching democracy out for republic in order to create a self-illusion where you can "win" does not change the facts.

Republic: A form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter," not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

In other words, in a republic there is a transference of power in which the public decides. How does this word translate to the U.S. not being a democracy? It seems that it should be clear enough that the U.S. is a Representative Democracy, a Constitutional Democracy, and a Republic. You are wrong. You may as well try to argue that we do not live in a country because we live in a nation.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I would think that simple and easily understood definitions would make it easy. Switching democracy out for republic in order to create a self-illusion where you can "win" does not change the facts.

Republic: A form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter," not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

In other words, in a republic there is a transference of power in which the public decides. How does this word translate to the U.S. not being a democracy? It seems that it should be clear enough that the U.S. is a Representative Democracy, a Constitutional Democracy, and a Republic. You are wrong. You may as well try to argue that we do not live in a country because we live in a nation.
Click to expand...

From WikiP and about the etymology of the word "republic" (it actually goes back to ancient Greece and it was under Rome that it's definition was clearly established):
... in Book III of his Politics (1279) Aristotle was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term politeia can be used to refer more specifically to one type ...: "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (...), government (politeia)".

Also amongst classical Latin, the term "republic" can be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or in a specific way to refer to governments which work for the public good
Click to expand...

The word is so broad in meaning perhaps it is best employed in a phrase: "democratic republic".

Much ado about nothing. (The Replicants were looking for any word whatsoever to distinguish political oversight of the nation from the word "democratic". So, they jumped onto "republic".

And Replicant-nerds on this forum continue to insist that the US is not a democracy but a republic, without understanding that both words apply ...
 
MSgt said:
I would think that simple and easily understood definitions would make it easy. Switching democracy out for republic in order to create a self-illusion where you can "win" does not change the facts.

Republic: A form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter," not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

In other words, in a republic there is a transference of power in which the public decides. How does this word translate to the U.S. not being a democracy? It seems that it should be clear enough that the U.S. is a Representative Democracy, a Constitutional Democracy, and a Republic. You are wrong. You may as well try to argue that we do not live in a country because we live in a nation.
Click to expand...

I don't need to argue, yes.

I just need to sit here and laugh as you try and wash over this as poorly as you repeatedly attempt to do.
 
Lafayette said:
From WikiP and about the etymology of the word "republic" (it actually goes back to ancient Greece and it was under Rome that it's definition was clearly established):


The word is so broad in meaning perhaps it is best employed in a phrase: "democratic republic".

Much ado about nothing. (The Replicants were looking for any word whatsoever to distinguish political oversight of the nation from the word "democratic". So, they jumped onto "republic".

And Replicant-nerds on this forum continue to insist that the US is not a democracy but a republic, without understanding that both words apply ...
Click to expand...

In this case, and as can be seen from his dismissive posts to people, he is doing it simply because he knows he was wrong. Instead of having integrity and simply moving the discussion forward, he chooses to play an immature obtuse game so that he can feel that he "won" a non-argument. It's routine behavior for him.
 
Last edited:
Oborosen said:
I do hope you follow your own suggestion then.
Click to expand...

I DID provide links to dictionaries for you.

You seem to reject dictionaries ability to provide definitions of words.

So not sure what I should use besides dictionaries to discover the defintions of words.

What do you use to come up with your novel idiosyncratic definition of 'democracy'?
A Facebook meme?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I DID provide links to dictionaries for you.

You seem to reject dictionaries ability to provide definitions of words.

So not sure what I should use besides dictionaries to discover the defintions of words.

What do you use to come up with your novel idiosyncratic definition of 'democracy'?
A Facebook meme?
Click to expand...

How it actually runs is a good starting point, but it's still not surprising that you couldn't pick that up as well.

All in all, this country isn't a true democracy.
 
Oborosen said:
How it actually runs is a good starting point, but it's still not surprising that you couldn't pick that up as well.
All in all, this country isn't a true democracy.
Click to expand...

It's not a direct democracy, but it is a democracy [as most people use the word anyway — ymmv]
 
KevinKohler said:
The solution is to keep the EC, and kill gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

The gerrymandering of the United States of America by the Banana Republicans over the last THREE Census Remaps; the 99 State and 43 Congressionals;

GOP Racial Gerrymandering now supported by this Bastardized Supreme Court should be Matched in Kind by Democrats over the next three decade remaps; an Eye for an Eye;
 
Linc said:
The gerrymandering of the United States of America by the Banana Republicans over the last THREE Census Remaps; the 99 State and 43 Congressionals;

GOP Racial Gerrymandering now supported by this Bastardized Supreme Court should be Matched in Kind by Democrats over the next three decade remaps; an Eye for an Eye;
Click to expand...

I live in Maryland, which is one of the most (if not the most) gerrymandered states of the Union. It is gerrymandered toward the Democrats, not the GOP. Gerrymandering is not a specifically-Republican phenomenon. The Democrats do it, too. It just depends on which state you're in.

I tire of these debates over whether the U.S. is a democracy or a republic. Everyone tends to use the terms "democracy" and "republic" as they see fit, anyway! Democracy can mean either a Greek-style direct participatory system, or it can mean a modern, Universal Suffrage republic. You all need to get over your little semantic debates.

Very few of what we call democracies are actual direct-style democracies. It's just not possible with large populations. However, we do have referenda and other more directly democratic means of governance at the state and local level in the U.S., though not the federal.

The U.S. (the republic we have now, under the 1787 constitution) was formalized in 1789, when modern ideas of democracy or democratic republic did not exist.

Can we get back on the subject of control of Congress, please?
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
I live in Maryland, which is one of the most (if not the most) gerrymandered states of the Union. It is gerrymandered toward the Democrats, not the GOP. Gerrymandering is not a specifically-Republican phenomenon. The Democrats do it, too. It just depends on which state you're in.
Click to expand...

It’s more than a three-to-one ratio that favors the voter suppressing GOP. You’re new and you’ll learn. Or you won’t.

Maryland is a piss-poor example of possibly one CD. The average PVI for DEMs in Maryland is HIGHER than that of the lone GOP.
 
Linc said:
It’s more than a three-to-one ratio that favors the voter suppressing GOP. You’re new and you’ll learn. Or you won’t.

Maryland is a piss-poor example of possibly one CD. The average PVI for DEMs in Maryland is HIGHER than that of the lone GOP.
Click to expand...

CD? PVI? care to explain?

gerrymandering will continue to be done in every state--regardless of which party is in power. It's far too tempting for politicians to extend their political survival through such means.
 
JimHackerMP said:
CD? PVI? care to explain?

gerrymandering will continue to be done in every state--regardless of which party is in power. It's far too tempting for politicians to extend their political survival through such means.
Click to expand...

Its not done in Iowa. Their districts are drawn by computer, and a few basic rules.
 
JimHackerMP said:
Why would killing winner-take-all help?
Click to expand...


It would give every district in a state a say in who is elected. The winner of the state would win whatever districts they win plus the 2 for the senate. The loser would just get whatever districts they win. Maine and Nebraska use this system already, and routinely divide their delegates to the electoral college. Instead of fighting for states candidates would have to fight for districts. It brings more than a few states back into play including California and New York amongst others.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It would give every district in a state a say in who is elected. The winner of the state would win whatever districts they win plus the 2 for the senate. The loser would just get whatever districts they win. Maine and Nebraska use this system already, and routinely divide their delegates to the electoral college. Instead of fighting for states candidates would have to fight for districts. It brings more than a few states back into play including California and New York amongst others.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but the districts are of course gerrymandered, and they'd be electing most of the electors, not the "+2 bonus" for winning the state-electors. You see the problem in that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom