Hey "Progressives!"

[Rebel5soul]

Your democracy eats shit.

 

[ll74]

A republic is a democracy

 

[OralAllOver]

it's instructive to me the degree to which honesty, integrity and humility are THROWN AWAY by MAGA desperately jury-rigging their world view

 

[RoryN]

Hey "Progressives!"

Wait - you're back to "progressives"? You mean old-man BabyBoomer50s's "miserables" didn't catch on?

The Miserables

*sigh*

Detestables
Regressives
Despicables
Progressives
Miserables
Progressives (again)

I know it's a lot to ask, but can you socially-inept fucktards please figure out a term that actually sticks? Keeping track of this shit is getting exhausting.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I have been trying to find where the cliche "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" comes from. During the Eisenhower administration reactionaries wanted Eisenhower to repeal New Deal reforms. Eisenhower refused because he knew how popular those reforms were with the voters. Reactionaries decided that the voters did not matter, because the United States was not a democracy.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Your democracy eats shit.

Don't you have a Jordan Peterson clip to back this up?

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your democracy eats shit.

Why should anyone care what that crank says?

 

[Setanta84]

We're actually a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a representative democratic republic.

Public opinion literally has no impact on policy outcomes in the United States. That is kind of a problem if you think that the people rule your country in any way, shape, or form.

Benjamin Constant 's "On the Liberty of the Ancients Compared to That of the Moderns," Systemic Corruption, and Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right are good reads for wrapping your head around this

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Your democracy eats shit.

Your troll game is weak, old man.

 

[schism666]

Your troll game is weak, old man.

syphilis+dementia+alcohol=ish

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your democracy eats shit.

I enjoy investigating different opinions. What I appreciate are facts that can be documented and insights that can be drawn from those facts. Dan Smoot presented none of these. He only presented feelings. He did not explain to me why I should feel the same way.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your democracy eats shit.

Contrary to what Dan Smoot wants to believe, noting in the United States Constitution prohibits a well funded public sector of the economy funded by steeply progressive taxation, if that is that most of the voters want.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh this is making the rounds? I've seen this on my Twitter and Facebook. I thought it was just to be a coincidence that I'd seen it twice. These guys really count on people not knowing that a Republic is a kind of Democracy. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Notice that he only says true democracy once and that's what this entire thing is pretending we're talking about. Sure I hate the EC and the way our congress functions but I don't think anybody is seriously talking about eliminating Congress.

I've also yet to hear anybody tell me what famous democracies have become dictatorships. Surely if this were true people could rattle off a few without little effort.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I have been trying to find where the cliche "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" comes from. During the Eisenhower administration reactionaries wanted Eisenhower to repeal New Deal reforms. Eisenhower refused because he knew how popular those reforms were with the voters. Reactionaries decided that the voters did not matter, because the United States was not a democracy.

*chuckle* You do so sound like an associate professor at times.

While much of what you say MIGHT come to pass, it just won't come to pass in quite the way you seem to think.

The people of this nation cannot directly vote for ANYTHING related to the laws of the Federal government.

Only the congress can make law. (Thank God the court drove the final nail in the Chevron Deference coffin.) And even then only with in the confines of the Constitution.

The president cannot make law, only enforce the laws on the books. The president is NOT directly elected by the people. (A very glaring "democracy" disconnect.)

The Supreme Court acts as an arbiter as to what is law and whether it passes constitutional muster. The people can neither appoint nor remove justices. Yet another nail in the "Our Democracy" mantra.

As a related side note. The board "progressives" bemoaned the death of Chevron Deference with considerable gnashing of teeth and hand wringing. Chevron Deference was step in the direction of democracy leading to dictatorship thereby giving some weight to Smoot's observation concerning same. It, Chevron Deference, gave the administration (President) the ability to make law. An attempt to do an end run around the Constitution.

 

[73Seahawks]

Subscribed and following this.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Supreme Court acts as an arbiter as to what is law and whether it passes constitutional muster. The people can neither appoint nor remove justices. Yet another nail in the "Our Democracy" mantra.

The Supreme Court does not decree The Absolute Truth. If it did Supreme Court decisions would not be overturned later by the Supreme Court.

 

[Rightguide]

A republic is a democracy

But not a pure democracy.

 

[ll74]

But not a pure democracy.

I'm not claiming otherwise.

You dipshits are the ones who want to ignore that democracy is a part of our country

 

[MasterAnimus]

But not a pure democracy.

Explain.

 

[Hel_Books]

I have been trying to find where the cliche "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" comes from. During the Eisenhower administration reactionaries wanted Eisenhower to repeal New Deal reforms. Eisenhower refused because he knew how popular those reforms were with the voters. Reactionaries decided that the voters did not matter, because the United States was not a democracy.

If you want to define "democracy" as a system like in ancient Athens where everybody (males, excluding slaves) got together in the agora and decided policy, then no, it's a rather rare system for modern nations.

Most people are comfortable with saying they live in a "democracy" if they have elections for people in their government. I suppose technically this is a "republic" rather than a "democracy," but if it's used to contrast their form of government with that of, say, the later years of the Republic of Venice when power was concentrated in the hands of a few families, who could argue with this language?

 

[Rebel5soul]

The Supreme Court does not decree The Absolute Truth. If it did Supreme Court decisions would not be overturned later by the Supreme Court.

Never implied otherwise.

 

[JohnEngelman]

If you want to define "democracy" as a system like in ancient Athens where everybody (males, excluding slaves) got together in the agora and decided policy, then no, it's a rather rare system for modern nations.

Most people are comfortable with saying they live in a "democracy" if they have elections for people in their government. I suppose technically this is a "republic" rather than a "democracy," but if it's used to contrast their form of government with that of, say, the later years of the Republic of Venice when power was concentrated in the hands of a few families, who could argue with this language?

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 26 August 1816​

To Isaac H. Tiffany, Monticello​

Sir,

the full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still1 reserved for us...

the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost every thing written before on the structure of government: and in a great measure relieves our regret if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other antient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. my most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular controul pushed to the maximum of it’s practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure & perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.

Th: Jefferson

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0234

 

[Sean Renaud]

Explain.

A pure democracy wouldn't have all the infrastructure we do. Mayors, governors, Congress, really even a president. We would all vote or at least have the ability to vote on every single thing. Its too time consuming even for a relatively small population. Now I still want to see the numbers where this always ends up in a dictatorship but it makes sense that I'm too busy with my job and just tell Bob to handle it and we all do and eventually he has all the power. Nobody is talking about going there.

Conservatives are grand masters of misinformation and this is a prime possibly in the US the Ur Example. We are talking about different things and they are being deeply dishonest.

 

[MasterAnimus]

A pure democracy wouldn't have all the infrastructure we do. Mayors, governors, Congress, really even a president. We would all vote or at least have the ability to vote on every single thing. Its too time consuming even for a relatively small population. Now I still want to see the numbers where this always ends up in a dictatorship but it makes sense that I'm too busy with my job and just tell Bob to handle it and we all do and eventually he has all the power. Nobody is talking about going there.

Conservatives are grand masters of misinformation and this is a prime possibly in the US the Ur Example. We are talking about different things and they are being deeply dishonest.

Conservatives are masters of "do as I say..." and change the standards all the time. Including religion and democracy - change the definition as it suits them, for the occasion.

 

[HisArpy]

Conservatives are masters of "do as I say..." and change the standards all the time. Including religion and democracy - change the definition as it suits them, for the occasion.

Right.

Tell us, have you figured out the definition of "woman" yet?