Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find this odd, since right wingers usually claim we are a democracy, generally when trying to defend the majority's right to impose their will on the minority (Pro 8 and same-sex marriage being a perfect of example of when they pull the Democratic nation card).
Prop 8 was about keeping the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. In other words, keeping what was already the law intact.
It had nothing to do with "a majority's right to impose their will on the minority."
Of course we're a republic, but we have democratic elements that have only gotten stronger since our founding. We're a republic in the sense that we have no king, but we are a democracy in that we elect nearly all of our leaders in the legislatures. We don't directly elect the president, but we basically do, since the Electoral college is a rubber stamp for the peoples' will.
So officially, we're a republic, but we're more of a democracy than we realize, which I believe to be a good thing--mostly.
BTW, why is referring to democrats as the "democrat party" annoying? I've never been annoyed by it.
It is annoying because the correct term is Democratic--it is an adjective modifying the noun. It is annoying because that is what the Democrats call themselves and the Republicans do it to be childish.
I’d like to begin by saying to my colleague from Texas that there isn’t a single member on this side of the aisle that belongs to the “Democrat Party.” We belong to the Democratic Party. So the party you were referring to doesn’t even exist. And I would just appreciate the courtesy when you’re referring to our party, if you’re referring to the Democratic Party, to refer to it as such.[38]
Prop 8 was about keeping the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. In other words, keeping what was already the law intact.
It had nothing to do with "a majority's right to impose their will on the minority."
Where does the Constitution define marriage as one man and one woman?
The law books banned interracial marriage for most of US history, and 96% of Americans in 1958 supported that ban. So I take it you don't believe that was a case of the majority imposing their will on the minority either right?
Because we're not a democracy, and never were? People need to get their terminology straight. We're a representative democracy
And this "representative" only spans to the idea we vote for leaders to represent the people in government. Leaders do not necessarily carry the ideas, nor the wills, of their constituents, however. They are bound by law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonexpat
I understand that we aren't a direct democracy, and it would be crazy to constantly have referendums. We are a representative democracy, which means we vote for the politicians with whom we agree, and they vote on bills in the manner we thought they would. If we don't like the job they are doing, we can vote them out.
Why are Republicans in denial about this? It has nothing to do with whether we are a Republic or not.
A liberal like me must be in "denial" as well. We are a republic. We democratically elect our leaders. Those leaders are bound by law to guide the country in whichever way they see fit. We can and have removed officials from office, but generally, these leaders do not have to carry the will of the people, and many times cannot carry the will of the people. We've had plenty of examples in here so far to demonstrate this--interracial marriage being one. Generally, civil-rights are the most obvious because our Bill of Rights is the easiest to interpret and defend, and one that is most often attacked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Yes. Any appeal to the majority to oppress a minority would be considered a tyranny of the majority. Representatives are suppose to be smart enough, and brave enough, to block such tyrannical demands.
Classes are transitory. Someone can be poor today, and rich tomorrow, or rich today, and poor tomorrow. Most Democrats consider "class" to be synonymous with "caste." In a caste, your position in society is set for life, and that is simply not the case with class.
We are supposed to be a classless society as well. Don't marginalize Democratic positions on mobility. Reality trumps your belief on this one, where upward economic mobility is quite stagnate. Generally, and overwhelmingly so, people don't spontaneously become rich without winning the lottery. Not everyone can be wealthy, and to claim that they can is a cruel fantasy. It's "The American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. It can take generations for a family to move "up," if they do at all. Mistakes for the impoverish are expensive, something not necessarily true of those slightly better off.
Social mobility doesn't exist in the United States, generally, because we don't have social classes. We have arbitrarily defined economic ones.
In addition to purposely being annoying to Democrats by calling them the Democrat party rather than the Democratic party as they have been called since their inception in the 19th century, Republicans now are so paranoid that they deny that the US is a democracy. Their mantra is, "It's a republic." Yes, it is a republic, and it is also a representative democracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. What is going on here?
I have been getting a kick out of you Democratics howling about being called Democrat. Of course, the way that looks here is just a bit silly. I can come up with some more that even you won't want to see Democratic used as a descriptive term but you set me up. Thanks. I will be glad when you Democratics ask the Congress to use that word there.
We are supposed to be a classless society as well. Don't marginalize Democratic positions on mobility.
Only Democrats bring the concept of class to society. Republicans know better. Funny how Democrats define "rich" in speeches as someone who earns $250,000 or more, yet when it comes to raising taxes those EVIL "rich" become anyone who earns above a poverty-level income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Reality trumps your belief on this one, where upward economic mobility is quite stagnate. Generally, and overwhelmingly so, people don't spontaneously become rich without winning the lottery. Not everyone can be wealthy, and to claim that they can is a cruel fantasy. It's "The American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. It can take generations for a family to move "up," if they do at all. Mistakes for the impoverish are expensive, something not necessarily true of those slightly better off.
Social mobility doesn't exist in the United States, generally, because we don't have social classes. We have arbitrarily defined economic ones.
The US is "The Land of Opportunity." It is really too bad you lack the self-esteem to see an opportunity when it comes knocking, but that is par for the course with liberals. "Woe is me, I will never amount to anything. Feed me more taxpayer money! I AM ENTITLED!"
Not everyone's "American Dream" is making a boat-load of cash. I worked hard and planned long to live where I do now, and that is my "American Dream." Which makes the liberal rhetoric of "poor" and "rich" highly subjective at the very least.
This is an issue of school grade government classes.
We aren't a democracy, the majority does not rule.
Pure democracies fail, plain and simple.
I cannot agree more. The question is why is it that people don't seem to understand the difference?
I'll be honest, when I was young, I always thought this country was a democracy. You are told that over and over in the media and everywhere else. The first time I heard the word Republic was in my 8th grade government class. My teacher was insistent on reminding everyone that this country is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
I often wonder why exactly democracy is so commonly used to define our system of government. I assume it is because what this country actually is "a republic", is so often used to describe many other types of governments that have existed. For instance the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To call America a Republic would be to lump us in with communists, fascists, socialists, etc.
America doesn't want to be associated with communists, so we don't really like being called a Republic. So over time, Democracy has really just become synonymous with "Constitutional Republic". Often-times this is referred to as "Western-style democracy".
Though, sometimes I feel that the word "Democracy" is intentional misused to confuse people about our system of government. I think the "powers in charge" don't really like fact that the majority doesn't absolutely rule. Those ruling powers tend to like to pass laws and acts that are either unconstitutional or should be(because the Supreme Court is biased to the point of near uselessness). As they evoke the word "democracy", while going on and on about poll results to justify their encroachments on liberty and property.
When you go back to the beginning of this country, you had people like Benjamin Franklin who hated the concepts of democracy, and knew the eventual result. Here is his speech to the constitutional convention.
There is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Only Democrats bring the concept of class to society.[ Republicans know better. Funny how Democrats define "rich" in speeches as someone who earns $250,000 or more, yet when it comes to raising taxes those EVIL "rich" become anyone who earns above a poverty-level income.
The US is "The Land of Opportunity." It is really too bad you lack the self-esteem to see an opportunity when it comes knocking, but that is par for the course with liberals. "Woe is me, I will never amount to anything. Feed me more taxpayer money! I AM ENTITLED!"
Not everyone's "American Dream" is making a boat-load of cash. I worked hard and planned long to live where I do now, and that is my "American Dream." Which makes the liberal rhetoric of "poor" and "rich" highly subjective at the very least.
Oh brother. In the vast expanse of this country, an individuals income of $250,000 is rich. 2% of persons in this country make that kind of money. Increased taxes focuses on these incomes and higher, with the recent "Buffett tax" discussion focusing on $1M+ earners.
If anything, conservatives want to tax those "evil" people you speak of making incomes higher than poverty-level, citing rhetoric like "expanding the tax base."
Your mindless belittling of liberals lacks any intelligent discourse. Reality shows very limited economic mobility. Reality is that of the two hundred million working adults in this country, you, only four million are making $250,000 or more. 2%. 50% make $33,000 or less. The odds of someone making 33k going to an overnight millionaire, without winning a lottery? Non-existent. Economic mobility really doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. People complain about how our children are overloaded with fantasies and role models of sports-stars and celebrities. Adults have the same ones, except we call them the Forbes 400.
And the American Dream has always been the idea or spirit that one can work himself (or herself) from rags to riches. But that doesn't happen in the United States. For every "prosperous" individual, hundreds never will be.
But, this isn't a discussion about taxes and wealth, but about democracies, republics, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what those are and how those apply to the United States government and American voters. So let's keep on topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
