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

[lenski7]

not assuming anything. try to be substantive please

You mentioned 'deadly' as is the Fascistic way. Corporate rule is soulless, everything is a means to an end, it is an oligarchy, Fascism is corruption. King George, I assume you are referring to as a 'benign' monarch, put the American revolutionaries' armies to near defeat many times, and only with the assistance of France could we manage to force a surrender in Yorktown, the French also distracted the British with the usual harassment between the countries. He was not a true monarch, he was a tyrant to the colonists, he was the very form of corruption in the Monarch's position, a Monarch can have good intentions, but if he does not understand the people, he will never do right, and the understanding of the people, dies more, and more with each passing royal generation.

 

[Morality Games]

but it this specific case we have a Constitutional republican democratic mixed govt wherein the people are voting in liberals and socialists who oppose the Constitution! So we must limit the people or persuade them that socialism is evil and anti American.

Liberalism and conservatism (like all left and right wing ideologies and ideologies in general) are conscious, rationalistic permutations of deeper underlying impulses in human nature -- impulses human beings evolved because they helped us survive dangerous situations that arose in the state of nature -- and therefore are equally legitimate. Or rather, equally illegitimate.

Which is "right" is hugely situational.

 

[James972]

Liberalism and conservatism (like all left and right wing ideologies and ideologies in general) are conscious, rationalistic permutations of deeper underlying impulses in human nature -- impulses human beings evolved because they helped us survive dangerous situations that arose in the state of nature -- and therefore are equally legitimate. Or rather, equally illegitimate.

Which is "right" is hugely situational.

actually we are concerned this election season with which is right in this situation. I say freedom is right and don't see the suicidal left, having recently killed 200 million, as having a leg to stand on.

 

[lenski7]

actually we are concerned this election season with which is right in this situation. I say freedom is right and don't see the suicidal left, having recently killed 200 million, as having a leg to stand on.

You realize that not all of the left wing is the same, and not all of the right wing is the same. Would you rather a member of the Communist Party or The Democrat Party, they aren't the same, you must understand this. We have extreme right-wing nuts, like Adolf Hitler who wish to preserve their vision of life on the country forcibly, after all Conservatism involves conserving, including that of values. Anything extreme in either direction is terrible. Your opinion on the issue is, is guess what your opinion, make sure you understand that. People can have different points of view

 

[James972]

You realize that not all of the left wing is the same,

sure it is, the left always supports bigger and bigger govt while America was born out of the opposite revelation,namely, that govt has been the source of evil in human history and that those who think libsocialist govt is magical, despite having killed 200 million, are just plain stupid and wrong and illiterate.

 

[James972]

You realize that not all of the left wing is the same, and not all of the right wing is the same. Would you rather a member of the Communist Party or The Democrat Party, they aren't the same,

the Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb while he was killing 60 million and Sanders honeymooned in the USSSR and is an open communst!! Democrats are communists just far too stupid to know it.


Norman Thomas:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Only our Founders and modern Republicans prevent liberals from subjecting us to communism.
Why did you think our liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin? Why did you think Obama loved Rev. Wright and Frank Marshall Davis( communist party no. 346778)?? Why did you think Bernie Sanders, an open communist, votes with the liberals?? Why do you think liberals support 10,000 interventions in the Republican capitalist free market?





This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
--- Roger Nash Baldwin

 

[lenski7]

Snip!
--- Roger Nash Baldwin

Norman Thomas's quote, I interpret as the phobia of the word "Socialism", he knew the American people would never accept socalism because it doesn't work in our society. Though he would know they would accept a philosophy that n-RINOis more lenient, that the super rich could exist, and the poor would be subsidized, liberalism.

You also need to realize Communism is the absolute extreme of Socialism in a sense, they aren't the same, I wouldn't refer to a centrist leaning right, as an extreme right winger.

Second of all the Modern Republican does not have the values of our founders. The image of the Modern Republican is becoming an image of a RINO increasingly, what is a Rino?. He is Republican in name only, Non-RINOs like Cruz, and Mike Lee have appeared because of the outrage that occurs every-time a major law is passed. Just look at this the RINOs refuse to elect competent leadership, leadership that doesn't say "ahhh whah Obama might veto it", no you pass, and you pass, you compromise a little, and when the President just refuses to sign, with no reason, you speak about it, you let the nation know what the uncooperative side is, this eventually does add onto how people vote during elections. Would you elect a Democrat who can't work with others, or a Republican who have constantly shown the ability to compromise. Though they didn't do that, no, they didn't.

I would like your evidence what Democrats spied on our nuclear program.

It isn't exactly a Republican free market, the Republicans have put small incursions for the consumer. A true free market has absolutely no government involvement.

Sanders is not a Communist, he is a Democratic Socialist, then again you might say Hitler was as well, the difference is he is what true Democratic Socialism is, it can co-exist with other forms of government. The issue we get with Socialism is the reliance on government for basic needs as it expands, if it is kept in check (It damn near never is) it can be a small asset to the people.

The Liberals in this country are corrupt, that is the way they got the funding to get in office, that is why they support all these interventions in the free market, to tip the scales in favor of the shares they own, however we have corrupt officials in every party, I have noticed it more among the Democratic party.

Roger Nash was a Soviet Communist pawn, The New Deal was one of the biggest hits our county has taken, I'm not disagreeing with you that Communism doesn't work in the United States, it works nowhere, I'm not arguing with you Socialism doesn't work in the United States, it works in perfect circumstances like Sweden, which is now being over-run by migrants. I'm trying to get the point across, True American Liberals (statists) , Socialists, the Democratic Party, and Communists, have different ideals of the society, some more extreme than others, that is the biggest difference.

 

[James972]

Norman Thomas's quote, I interpret as the phobia of the word "Socialism", he knew the American people would never accept socalism because it doesn't work in our society.

no no no OMG!!!!he said we would wake up one day to see that we were a working socialist county if we called it liberalism during the transition to socialism. Now do you understand????

 

[lenski7]

no no no OMG!!!!he said we would wake up one day to see that we were a working socialist county if we called it liberalism during the transition to socialism. Now do you understand????

Things like that take time, even some Democrats see Sanders as too far left on occasions we have varying degrees of leftness among the left-wing parties. They have different views of what the perfect society's policy is, that is why they ran for office, so they can make changes, or keep things how they are. We aren't going to wake up to see a Socialist country in a day, or even a decade, Liberalism allows for the rich, as long as the take the horrid burden off the poor, inevitably the burden is shifted down in their wages. I'm not saying all the philosophies work from my point of view, I'm saying they aren't the same.

You also made an entire "**** post" yet never responded to the points you made I commented on.

 

[James972]

You also need to realize Communism is the absolute extreme of Socialism in a sense, they aren't the same,.

actually identical. Marx coined the term socialism as a temporary point on the way to communism so they are 100% related. Then, when socialism fails as it did in USSR and 132 other countries the socialists perfect 100% bias is to fix it with more socialism and communism, not capitalism. Now you see we say socialist are in effect communists. It has been an honor to teach this! Please pass it on for the rest of your life. Thank you.

 

[lenski7]

actually identical. Marx coined the term socialism as a temporary point on the way to communism so they are 100% related. Then, when socialism fails as it did in USSR and 132 other countries the socialists perfect 100% bias is to fix it with more socialism and communism, not capitalism. Now you see we say socialist are in effect communists. It has been an honor to teach this! Please pass it on for the rest of your life. Thank you.

Then explain to me the Nordic Model, I linked it to a Wikipedia article in case you do not understand it. Socialism can exist with other economic systems, Socialism can exist with Capitalism, would you say that the scaffold, and the building are related, would you say all governments are the same, because according to you they are all evil. The Nordic Model has Socialism and it still exists, and hasn't failed for quite a long time

I'm quoting right from the article, it contains references

"The Nordic model has been successful at significantly reducing poverty.[34] In 2011, poverty rates, before taking into account the effects of taxes and transfers, stood at 24.7% in Denmark, 31.9% in Finland, 21.6% in Iceland, 25.6% in Norway, and 26.5% in Sweden. After accounting for taxes and transfers the poverty rates for the same year became 6%, 7.5%, 5.7%, 7.7%, and 9.7% respectively, for an average reduction of 18.7 p.p.[35] Compared to the US, which has a poverty level pre-tax of 28.3% and post-tax of 17.4% for a reduction of 10.9 p.p., the effects of tax and transfers on poverty in all the Nordic countries are substantially bigger.[35] In comparison to France (27 p.p. reduction) and Germany (24.2 p.p. reduction), however, the taxes and transfers in the Nordic countries are smaller on average.[35]"

Here's a better source for explanation on the Nordic Model, and why it has preformed well in the past

You see the worst thing a country with Socialist involvement in their economy can do, is not evolve to the situation.

 

[James972]

Then explain to me the Nordic Model,

We created Europe after after ww2 and gave them an ideology, like ours, that they practice today. They have lower corporate taxes, depend less on the rich for tax revenue, and by many measures have more economic freedom than the USA. Some do a little better than the USA; most do much worse. France for example has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state.
Now do you understand?

 

[lenski7]

We created Europe after after ww2 and gave them an ideology, like ours, that they practice today. They have lower corporate taxes, depend less on the rich for tax revenue, and by many measures og business freedom have more economic freedom than than the USA.
Now do you understand?

Did you even read the bloody article, the Nordic Countries for the most part rebuilt themselves. Hell Finland, was screwed in a treaty we helped right, don't act like the United States is the only power in the entire ****ing world. Their corporate taxes are much higher, their personal taxes are higher. Hell for those in Sweden who make over 60,000 USD pay a 51% tax rate, and there is a 27 percent corporate tax, on top of regulation on corporation. Their ideology is much different than our's in a few points. Sure there is free enterprise but in Socialism free enterprise can exist. The United States does not change people's minds, look what direction Germany has fallen now, look what direction Syria has taken. Hell most the countries in the Middle East end up having people in power who hate our guts, like Iran think about the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran what direction have we set them in. We didn't make Europe today, the Europe of today, isn't the Europe that was afraid of the Iron Curtain. You also changed the topic from how Socialism, and Communism are or are not different, they are different, I see I have won that point, lite-Socialist involvement has helped the Nordic countries, yet you act like it is similar to our model. The top Federal tax rate in the United States is 35%, we see our system is backwards, our model is backwards, the Nordic Model is correct, the big business can always levy their costs onto the customer, and rake in just as much cash as before.

 

[James972]

Did you even read the bloody article, the Nordic Countries for the most part rebuilt themselves.

it makes no sense to compare to tiny nordic countries when all of Europe is sitting right there and openly socialist. If neighbors with identical beliefs cant copy them we sure cant either.

 

[lenski7]

Nordic Countries comprise roughly 26 million people. I guess we must copy the beliefs of Canada, and Mexico. Every country in the EU is sovereign, not to mention antiquated hatred between countries. Belgium has a 54.9% income tax, Bosnia and Herzegovina have a 0 to 15 percent income tax, and little government involvement. They don't all have the same philosophies on government in majority, they aren't the bloody same, and learn to recognize it. The Nordic Model may make up only 3.7% the population of Europe, but not all countries with Socialism utilize the same, you said it works in no country, it has driven them all to nothing, yet your point was refuted, and you dare say mine is invalid, I guess the minority opinion matters not, move to the UK where the 51% rule the 49%

 

[roguenuke]

Nope, it is the fault of the constitution itself. There are no limits (checks and balances?) on the power of the SCOTUS, thus whatever five of those nine robed umpires allow (or disallow) is the constitution.

There are limits to the powers of the SCOTUS. One major one is that they cannot have any say in a law til it is challenged, and usually this process takes a long time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There are limits to the powers of the SCOTUS. One major one is that they cannot have any say in a law til it is challenged, and usually this process takes a long time.

It may, or may not, take as long as actually amending the constitution. The SCOTUS also has the power to simply let lower court rulings stand or to decide that a case (plaintiff?) lacks standing.

 

[roguenuke]

It may, or may not, take as long as actually amending the constitution. The SCOTUS also has the power to simply let lower court rulings stand or to decide that a case (plaintiff?) lacks standing.

Yes they do, but there still is a process including there has to be someone to challenge a law. Many laws take a long time to get challenged due to a lot of people seeing them as not worth it.

Honestly, it's hard to claim that the SCOTUS is unchecked when much of the time the uphold a law that was put into place by another branch, either legislative or executive, or even the state, meaning it went through another person first. When they don't uphold a law, or deem it as violating the constitution, it means it is generally a check on government and more likely to open up freedoms rather then restrict them or at least is settling some sort of conflict between freedoms/rights.

They aren't making these decisions in some little bubble, arbitrarily, despite some beliefs otherwise.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes they do, but there still is a process including there has to be someone to challenge a law. Many laws take a long time to get challenged due to a lot of people seeing them as not worth it.

Honestly, it's hard to claim that the SCOTUS is unchecked when much of the time the uphold a law that was put into place by another branch, either legislative or executive, or even the state, meaning it went through another person first. When they don't uphold a law, or deem it as violating the constitution, it means it is generally a check on government and more likely to open up freedoms rather then restrict them or at least is settling some sort of conflict between freedoms/rights.

They aren't making these decisions in some little bubble, arbitrarily, despite some beliefs otherwise.

That (bolded above) is my issue with the concept of attaining standing - generally, to challenge a law one must first violate it (sufferng its consequences) in order to gain standing.

 

[Thoreau72]

Did you even read the bloody article, the Nordic Countries for the most part rebuilt themselves. Hell Finland, was screwed in a treaty we helped right, don't act like the United States is the only power in the entire ****ing world. Their corporate taxes are much higher, their personal taxes are higher. Hell for those in Sweden who make over 60,000 USD pay a 51% tax rate, and there is a 27 percent corporate tax, on top of regulation on corporation. Their ideology is much different than our's in a few points. Sure there is free enterprise but in Socialism free enterprise can exist. The United States does not change people's minds, look what direction Germany has fallen now, look what direction Syria has taken. Hell most the countries in the Middle East end up having people in power who hate our guts, like Iran think about the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran what direction have we set them in. We didn't make Europe today, the Europe of today, isn't the Europe that was afraid of the Iron Curtain. You also changed the topic from how Socialism, and Communism are or are not different, they are different, I see I have won that point, lite-Socialist involvement has helped the Nordic countries, yet you act like it is similar to our model. The top Federal tax rate in the United States is 35%, we see our system is backwards, our model is backwards, the Nordic Model is correct, the big business can always levy their costs onto the customer, and rake in just as much cash as before.

Speaking of the Nordic Model, last night in the movie theater I saw "Where To Invade Next" by Michael Moore. Not at all what I expected, the movie was very good and most informative, rather like a short college course on other societies around the world, and the Nordic countries of Norway and Finland, and Iceland, were included, as was Tunisia.

Yes, the Nordic countries do things differently, and it's very good. Finland produces the best high school students, and they don't even have homework there as we consider the term.

 

[roguenuke]

That (bolded above) is my issue with the concept of attaining standing - generally, to challenge a law one must first violate it (sufferng its consequences) in order to gain standing.

Which is one limit on the SCOTUS. It says much more about legislative bodies and their powers, than SCOTUS unchecked powers.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which is one limit on the SCOTUS. It says much more about legislative bodies and their powers, than SCOTUS unchecked powers.

That is how many (extra constitutional?) powers get added to the federal government's limited (enumerated?) list - like education. The states see the added federal funding as being more of a benefit than the initially added federal control. Once a federal power is added it is very unlikely for anyone, even the SCOTUS, to get all of that toothpaste back into the tube. Education, which is not a constitutional federal power, is now a cabinet level federal department with a annual budget of about $70 billion. That should give any federal income tax payer standing to stop that madness but I doubt that the SCOTUS would agree.

 

[roguenuke]

That is how many (extra constitutional?) powers get added to the federal government's limited (enumerated?) list - like education. The states see the added federal funding as being more of a benefit than the initially added federal control. Once a federal power is added it is very unlikely for anyone, even the SCOTUS, to get all of that toothpaste back into the tube. Education, which is not a constitutional federal power, is now a cabinet level federal department with a annual budget of about $70 billion. That should give any federal income tax payer standing to stop that madness but I doubt that the SCOTUS would agree.

Except some of us see a need for certain nationwide standards for education because we are a single country where our children could start the year in one state and end it in another. It harms our children to have states teaching vastly different things for no other reason than "states rights". States are not separate countries.

 

[Gathomas88]

It's certainly meant to be a Republic. The Left has been pushing for more direct forms of Democracy for over a century now, however, because it makes it easier for their particular brand of "Class Warfare Populism" to take root.

 

[Master PO]

Except some of us see a need for certain nationwide standards for education because we are a single country where our children could start the year in one state and end it in another. It harms our children to have states teaching vastly different things for no other reason than "states rights". States are not separate countries.

so you are for violating the constitution because of your desires for something instead of remaining true to the constitution and changing it by law...interesting.

the u.s. is a federation of states each with it own powers, the constitution itself creates federalism with the 10th amendment defining that fact.

Federalist 39- Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.