• 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 the United States a Republic, but not a Democracy?

yes because the 35 and over crowd is more qualified than the 35 and under crowd!! Liberals want the lest qualified to vote vote for their welfare and magical govt. Do you understand now?

Well we do have 70 year old senators who have had basically life time appointments by their states, and vote the way their donators tell them to, and you are telling me age relates with qualification, it correlates but there is not a direct relation. The more important thing is the people are educated, at 35 in the 1700s most people were dead or senile, that is the difference right there, but like I said is the 100 year old senile man, more qualified than the 32 year old senator with a record of voting for his people, and having high approval ratings.
 
Last edited:

I like Jeffery Winters, myself :

"Surprisingly, the U.S. data on stratification makes us look worse than ancient Rome. The 500 wealthiest Roman senators were roughly 10,000 times as rich as the average person in the empire, who happened to be a landless farmer or a slave.

Each of the 500 wealthiest Americans is about 20,000 times as rich as the average person in the bottom 90 percent. If we focus only on financial resources, the average American in the top 500 has 40,000 times the wealth power of the median citizen."

Oligarchy and Democracy in America
 
you are telling me age relates with qualification,.

yes, a 35 year old will make a better president than a 15 year old as our Founders knew. Qualifications matter especially for voters. A political IQ test is the best way to have a sensible democracy, and not have the mob rule we have now wherein 30 second commercials help voters decide who will give them the most welfare that is stolen from their fellow citizens.


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin
 
Liberals, and Socialists have 2 different political philosophies,

The left went from communists spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb while he was killing 60 million people, to Democrats liberals progressives and socialists. They are the all the same and all the treasonous left and all 100% opposed to our founding principle of freedom from big liberal central govt. It is not coincidental the Hilary( a liberal) and Sanders (a socialist) and Alger Hiss( a communist) were all Democrats. This is like 1+1=2 because the brainwashing is so complete in America. Do you understand.
 
"Surprisingly, the U.S. data on stratification makes us look worse than ancient Rome.

inequality here is caused by liberals obviously:

1) liberals destroyed the family creating millions of poor single Mom's

2) unions drove 30 million jobs off shore

3) highest liberals corporate tax rate in world drove 20 million jobs off shore

4) liberal deficits encourage China and Japan to buy our debt rather than our products with their dollars

5) Obamacare prevents businesses from hiring and growing

6) liberals schools destroyed the schools rendering many American unfit for work
 
inequality here is caused by liberals obviously:

1) liberals destroyed the family creating millions of poor single Mom's

2) unions drove 30 million jobs off shore

3) highest liberals corporate tax rate in world drove 20 million jobs off shore

4) liberal deficits encourage China and Japan to buy our debt rather than our products with their dollars

5) Obamacare prevents businesses from hiring and growing

6) liberals schools destroyed the schools rendering many American unfit for work

Your anti-liberal prejudice is as convincing as it is accurate, which is to say not in the least.
 
Your anti-liberal prejudice is as convincing as it is accurate, which is to say not in the least.

of course if inaccurate you would not be so afraid to say why it is inaccurate!!
 
The left went from communists spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb while he was killing 60 million people, to Democrats liberals progressives and socialists. They are the all the same and all the treasonous left and all 100% opposed to our founding principle of freedom from big liberal central govt. It is not coincidental the Hilary( a liberal) and Sanders (a socialist) and Alger Hiss( a communist) were all Democrats. This is like 1+1=2 because the brainwashing is so complete in America. Do you understand.

I'm going to hazard a guess that a hero of yours is Joe McCarthy....
 
I'm going to hazard a guess that a hero of yours is Joe McCarthy....

when Joe was popular the Vinona Decripts were not public so we did not know the extent of liberal spying for Stalin while he was slowly starving 60 million to death. If you want the complete list please read "Useful Idiots"by Mona Charon.
 
The left went from communists spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb while he was killing 60 million people, to Democrats liberals progressives and socialists. They are the all the same and all the treasonous left and all 100% opposed to our founding principle of freedom from big liberal central govt. It is not coincidental the Hilary( a liberal) and Sanders (a socialist) and Alger Hiss( a communist) were all Democrats. This is like 1+1=2 because the brainwashing is so complete in America. Do you understand.

You are the reason, I loathe the under-educated conservative, you seem to have conservative points of view. You are truly the one who has been indoctrinated by extreme right wing propaganda, the Democrat party currently aligns closer to those philosophies, but they use the party as a platform to actually have a chance at getting elected. Do you not understand, Cruz is a Republican with Conservative points of view, he uses the Republican platform to get attention, just like Sanders, who has been a critic of the Democratic party at times, uses the Democratic party as his platform. though he was an independent senator.
 
You are the reason, I loathe the under-educated conservative, you seem to have conservative points of view. You are truly the one who has been indoctrinated by extreme right wing propaganda, the Democrat party currently aligns closer to those philosophies, but they use the party as a platform to actually have a chance at getting elected. Do you not understand, Cruz is a Republican with Conservative points of view, he uses the Republican platform to get attention, just like Sanders, who has been a critic of the Democratic party at times, uses the Democratic party as his platform. though he was an independent senator.

no idea what you point is. Care to try again?
 
You are the reason, I loathe the under-educated conservative,.

you you feel I'm am under educated conservative please present your best example. Thanks
 
no idea what you point is. Care to try again?

My point is that you associate the Liberal philosophy, the Communist philosophy, the Democrat Party, and the Socialist Philosophy, as all one thing, that they are all the same. It irritates me how under-educated you are on the subject yet you like to talk about what you say as fact. The Communism in the USSR, was not true Communism, true Communism works, but true Communism cannot happen in a world with greed, and prejudices, that for a fact will never change, in Communism all property is state property. The Socialist Philosophy involves society setting aside individualism and working for the community, but people still own property, they still have rights, and aren't bound by a severely rigid philosophy like Communism, in Socialism there are the rich, and poor, but the poor are subsidized by the rich, and we should be working towards a better society. American Liberalism, involves more government control, more welfare, but there can be a huge disparity between the rich, and the poor. It uses the government as a mediator for the betterment of everyone, it makes the government responsible for everyone's welfare. On all of your statements you are still yet to provide a single source. You claim Japan, is liberal, though its liberal party is more conservative than our liberal party (The Democratic Party), China is a dictatorship with Democratic aspects, it isn't Liberalism, in Liberalism there are still freedoms. The Democrat Party is almost an oligarchy, it isn't true Liberalism, and American Conservatism, and American Liberalism are flip flopped, in the rest of the world Conservative tends to mean more government, theocracy, etc. In most of the world Liberalism tends to mean more freedom, the meaning of each party, does not exactly match the philosophy it claims to represent.
 
My point is that you associate the Liberal philosophy, the Communist philosophy, the Democrat Party, and the Socialist Philosophy, as all one thing, that they are all the same.

sadly for you they are all essentially the same thing and all in theory illegal here since our Constitution created a very very limited govt. Monarchy and communism are both illegal here since they are not about limited govt. Now do you understand? The issue in world history is freedom versus government!!

Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Notice that our Founders saw freedom and govt as opposites!!
 
sadly for you they are all essentially the same thing and all in theory illegal here since our Constitution created a very very limited govt. Monarchy and communism are both illegal here since they are not about limited govt. Now do you understand? The issue in world history is freedom versus government!!

Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Notice that our Founders saw freedom and govt as opposites!!

Monarchy is hereditary rule, Communism is extreme government involvement to assure absolute fairness, unfortunately some end up more 'equal' than others. Socialism can coexist with a small government, after all Social Security is a Socialist program, and has done good for this country, the issue being the government who abuses the money going into SS. Government can insure freedom, Jefferson is not representative of all the Founding Fathers, and times have changed. This is 2016, we have way more issues with the rest of the world than we had before. A temporary suspension of freedoms happens during a Draft, you are forced to protect your freedoms, the issue is we aren't moving forward as a community, James Madison, author of the constitution's early drafts, co-author of the Federalists papers said "“The power of all corporations ought to be limited...", that is a Socialist principle, to not allow Corporate control of the people, and that the people should be in control of themselves, and to move forward the people's motives. Some Socialist principles are good, we have to understand, radical regimes in either direction lead to terrible results, anarchists are the true extreme left, Hitler was an example of an extreme far right leader. Extremes either way are terrible, Conservatives must stand in moderation.
 
Monarchy is hereditary rule, Communism is extreme government involvement to assure absolute fairness, unfortunately some end up more 'equal' than others.

you missed the point again, both were identical to our founders since they both meant huge central govt. Our founders were geniuses who studied all of history and learned that govt was the source of evil on earth. They did not care what rationale liberals used to centralize govt. Now do you finally understand?
 
"“The power of all corporations ought to be limited...".

sorry to rock your world but corporations in those days were govt monopolies!! Today just to survive they have to provide us with the best prices and products in the entire world! Making sense now??
 
sorry to rock your world but corporations in those days were govt monopolies!! Today just to survive they have to provide us with the best prices and products in the entire world! Making sense now??

Haha, sure the corporations were the government in the U.S, they were not owned by them, and the parties currently have corporate hands up their asses. The extreme rich had the capacity to run in the United States back then, they may as well automatically controlled the Senate, and the POTUS, and easily the majority of the House of Rep. through bribery of poll takers. We lived in the illusion of trust, the big corporations owned the government through bonds, they put them in massive debt. Madison was referring to the power of corporations, how they decided peoples lives, they were the source of their income, their food, their shelter. Without working an insanely poor low job in a huge corporation, you were screwed, there were no small companies of notable size. This is a Socialist principle to allow the people to control the corporations, we can argue some positions of the Founding Father's were socialist, the majority were Conservative. Just because an idea belongs to a certain ideology, doesn't make it wrong automatically, certain things work in certain places. "Glorious" dictatorships work under leaders that the majority love.
 
Haha, sure the corporations were the government in the U.S, they were not owned by them, and the parties currently have corporate hands up their asses. The extreme rich had the capacity to run in the United States back then, they may as well automatically controlled the Senate, and the POTUS, and easily the majority of the House of Rep. through bribery of poll takers. We lived in the illusion of trust, the big corporations owned the government through bonds, they put them in massive debt. Madison was referring to the power of corporations, how they decided peoples lives, they were the source of their income, their food, their shelter. Without working an insanely poor low job in a huge corporation, you were screwed, there were no small companies of notable size. This is a Socialist principle to allow the people to control the corporations, we can argue some positions of the Founding Father's were socialist, the majority were Conservative. Just because an idea belongs to a certain ideology, doesn't make it wrong automatically, certain things work in certain places. "Glorious" dictatorships work under leaders that the majority love.

could you explain this further?
 
could you explain this further?

The clause of Due Process states that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”.

This clearly means the legislature can deprive a person of property with due process of a law. The government was supposed to be made of representatives of the people, and in the case of the Senate representatives of the state (until the 17th), the house could originate bills that would deprive the person in question of property for the common good of everyone else. It was about forging a path forward for the community at large. Some could say this is a violation of property rights, and if the community is supposed to own everything under Socialism, they can deprive anyone of property if their representatives find it just, for their constituents. A major part of Socialism is community ownership, is this not community ownership?

Another clause we could use would be the General Welfare clause. “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”

This pretty much means if the government deems that it be necessary, for the betterment of the people at large, the government can spend money on it. Hamilton shared this point of view, and at the time of the ratification of the Constitution his opinion was in majority. Another part of Socialism, the betterment of most, despite the loss of a few so everyone is taken care of.
 
The clause of Due Process states that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”.

This clearly means the legislature can deprive a person of property with due process of a law. The government was supposed to be made of representatives of the people, and in the case of the Senate representatives of the state (until the 17th), the house could originate bills that would deprive the person in question of property for the common good of everyone else. It was about forging a path forward for the community at large. Some could say this is a violation of property rights, and if the community is supposed to own everything under Socialism, they can deprive anyone of property if their representatives find it just, for their constituents. A major part of Socialism is community ownership, is this not community ownership?

Another clause we could use would be the General Welfare clause. “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”

This pretty much means if the government deems that it be necessary, for the betterment of the people at large, the government can spend money on it. Hamilton shared this point of view, and at the time of the ratification of the Constitution his opinion was in majority. Another part of Socialism, the betterment of most, despite the loss of a few so everyone is taken care of.

Hamilton and Madison state the federal government has no powers concerning the people lives, hamilton in federalist 84 and Madison in 45

the senate before the 17th is a non collective body, created to prevent the collective capacity of the people from making collective laws.
 
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

What does this statement mean?

That ideologues want to enforce their will on people when they can't secure agreement with their beliefs.

Is it true?

Political society is a realm of personal vision, will, and values, not facts and figures. It's only as true as your will is strong.

Should it be true?

No. People "should" live in a state of anarchic harmony.

Failing that, the excesses of democracy are generally less bad than the excesses of republics.
 
you you feel I'm am under educated conservative please present your best example. Thanks

Every breath you take, every post you make demonstrates your lack of understanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom