Quantcast
Democratic Party files lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks

Forums - Politics Discussion - Democratic Party files lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks

the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

"A democracy means that at least part of the power is in the civilian's hands, in contrast to a dictatorship where the leader/s of the country has all the powers for him/her/themselves."

dictatorships have routinely been born out of democracies... can you guess why?

 

"It is also a democracy by definition of it's word."

its actually not... its the representatives that make the decisions not the majority of people


"A republic just means that it's not reigned by a monarch in a monarchy."

so according to you there is no difference between a democracy and a republic?

because i could also make the argument that a democracy is not ruled by a monarch either

why are you playing this semantic game?

 

"A democracy means that at least part of the power is in the civilian's hands"

no, a democracy is a form of government where the general public make the decisions by majority vote

which means that if america was a democracy the citizens could choose to vote away their rights such as those of gun ownershipp

however, the constitution and having representatives make decisions influenced by that constitution prevents this from happening 

it was done as i said previously to prevent the citizens of the country from voting away essential rights in the event that they for whatever reason whether it be manipulation or stupidity choose to do so

 

but don't worry those in power are working very hard to have this all pulled back so there will be a democracy and they are putting the intellectual framework in place to have rights voted away when that happens and then if you are alive you'll get to see what true democracy is really about

I see you missed my post.  

 

There are different kinds of democracies.  The US has a representative democracy where we vote on people to vote for us.  Even the people that wrote the constitution called it that.  

This is retarded. The US is a federal republic which is a type of representative democracy. 



Around the Network

they already filed this suit.

A couple of their guys get indicted on criminal activities and they refile it...

pathetic.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

DarthMetalliCube said:

I'm still dumbfounded by how delusional the DNC has become. I'm glad I jumped ship after they rigged the primary against Bernie. That was the last straw for me. The Republicans may be evil but unlike the Dems they at least have one foot in reality.

trump is not a republican. He is a liberal, a classic liberal.

He was for gay marriage before it was cool (I have seen him in an interview say this as early as 2000 whereas Obama evolved to the position circa 2011)

He is not for small government.

 

He is for efficient government (which we are not). 

 

The reason he has no establishment support is because he is not one of them. The media ignored minor to major Obama scandals from 2008 to 2016. Now with trump they are literally creating scandals. 

 

Nothing Trump has done has lead me to believe he not doing what he thinks is in the countries best interest. You may disagree with his method, but his intention seems clear. 

He has lost a ton of personal wealth since coming into office. Which is the exact opposite of just about any other politician. He is making decisions that hurt him personally at this point. I have no choice but to believe he really is trying to best by the USA. 



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

ironmanDX said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

I see, that's what I thought he meant.



Carl is a Piplup hater and deserves to be punished eternally.

tokilamockingbrd said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

I'm still dumbfounded by how delusional the DNC has become. I'm glad I jumped ship after they rigged the primary against Bernie. That was the last straw for me. The Republicans may be evil but unlike the Dems they at least have one foot in reality.

trump is not a republican. He is a liberal, a classic liberal.

He was for gay marriage before it was cool (I have seen him in an interview say this as early as 2000 whereas Obama evolved to the position circa 2011)

He is not for small government.

 

He is for efficient government (which we are not). 

 

The reason he has no establishment support is because he is not one of them. The media ignored minor to major Obama scandals from 2008 to 2016. Now with trump they are literally creating scandals. 

 

Nothing Trump has done has lead me to believe he not doing what he thinks is in the countries best interest. You may disagree with his method, but his intention seems clear. 

He has lost a ton of personal wealth since coming into office. Which is the exact opposite of just about any other politician. He is making decisions that hurt him personally at this point. I have no choice but to believe he really is trying to best by the USA. 

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm referring more to establishment republicans/neocons when I say "repubs are evil." I definitely have some overlap with Trump in that like him, I hate the political establishment, hate the mainstream media, political correctness, also opposed to NAFTA and TPP, pro American manufacturing, etc. But that's basically where the similarities end. Tough for me to get past his buffoonery and semi-authoritarian practices and ideals as someone who would considers myself libertarian liberal (see Noam Chomsky). But if it's between Trump and Hillary, I'd take Trump in a heartbeat, which is unfortunately what the DNC forced me to do by shutting out Bernie. While I don't 100% agree with Bernie's policies and ideals he was the closest candidate I supported who had a realistic chance of winning before being colluded against.

I don't know how much what Trump's doing is for the betterment of the US rather than his own ego and brand, though you can't argue with the results with some of the stuff I'm hearing regarding unemployment, GDP, etc..

That's the funny irony of this whole thing too - the DNC whining about "collusion" when if anything, THEY were the ones colluding in the 2016 election; against Bernie..

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 23 April 2018

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
"in the Trump campaign to attack American democracy"

but america is a constitutional republic... what the fuck?

jumping the gun a little early socialists

*sigh* I know others have already addressed this but...

"Constitutional republic" is for all intents and purposes completely redundant. The vast majority of the world's nations are republics, and they all have constitutions. Having a constitution and being a republic isn't anything special, either individually or combined. It simply means that we A) Have a Constitution, which nearly every nation on Earth has a written, codified one, and B) We have a President rather than a monarch as head of state. Aside from saying that we have a governing document and specifying the nature of our head of state, saying "America is a constitutional republic" has no greater meaning. It tells us nothing about the overall structure of our government, or how or government officials are selected, or if the nation's people enjoy a broad degree of political and civil rights.

But we are a representative democracy. We vote for representatives who make and pass laws on our behalf. We have free and fair elections, therefore we are a democracy.

To summarize this in visual terms:

Also, I long ago came to the conclusion that "socialist" as American conservatives use it is little more than the political equivalent of a schoolyard insult, a word stripped of all of its original meaning in a shallow attempt to invoke the specter of the Red Scare. Bloviating blowhards like Limbaugh and the crew at Fox Noise have made it completely empty. The only people who seriously believe that there are armies of literal Marxists trying to destroy Real America™ are the small portion of the population who are diehard dittoheads who need to have their feelings and beliefs validated by some talking head on the radio or TV. But last I checked, liberals weren't demanding that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the state, or the workers directly. You can go through the streets of the bluest cities in the bluest states and see private, for-profit capitalist entities thriving everywhere. Grocery stores and big-box retailers and shopping malls and drug stores and gas stations and auto repair shops and car dealerships and movie theaters and so on and so on. Nobody's trying to turn America into a "worker's paradise" or a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Democrats have their election campaigns funded by capitalist industries as well. Liberals are fine with the market economy and private ownership of the means of production. Just because they have different opinions on matters of taxation and regulation doesn't make them the political equivalents of Eugene Debs, much less Lenin or Stalin.

Or to paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

 

o_O.Q said:

can you show me where "democracy" is mentioned in the constitution?

do you know how the people who formed america initially felt about democracy?

Regarding the first question, here's the parts of the Constitution establishing at minimum an implicit, and usually an explicit, right to vote in federal elections (relevant parts bolded & italicized for emphasis):

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" — Article I, Section I

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." — Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" — Fifteenth Amendment

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." — Sixteenth Amendment, first clause

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." — Nineteenth Amendment

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." — Twenty-fourth Amendment

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." — Twenty-sixth Amendment

 

Regarding the second question, well, most of the Founders, and other American political leaders of their era, didn't believe that the franchise should be extended to many. Mainly property-owning white males, and even then only for House members. But we are not obligated to honor and respect their beliefs on who the right to vote should be limited to. Through the amendment process, as society has evolved and progressed we have expanded the right to vote to all citizens, not just a handful of privileged white men.



Aeolus451 said:
the-pi-guy said:

I see you missed my post.  

 

There are different kinds of democracies.  The US has a representative democracy where we vote on people to vote for us.  Even the people that wrote the constitution called it that.  

This is retarded. The US is a federal republic which is a type of representative democracy. 

Not necessarily. There are, arguably, several nations with a federal system that do not have representative democracy, at least not in any meaningful way, with elections that are neither free nor fair and leadership that is often authoritarian.



Shadow1980 said:
Aeolus451 said:

This is retarded. The US is a federal republic which is a type of representative democracy. 

Not necessarily. There are, arguably, several nations with a federal system that do not have representative democracy, at least not in any meaningful way, with elections that are neither free nor fair and leadership that is often authoritarian.

That could be said of representative democracy or democracy in general. 



deskpro2k3 said:
o_O.Q said:

the point i'm making is that you're wrong... that's why there is, for example, an electoral college

 

okay grab a chair, I'm about to hit you with some knowledge.

[PDF] Democracy in the United States - Homepage | USCIS

https://search.uscis.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=uscis_gov&query=handouts

"The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy."

 

The American Heritage Dictionary

https://ahdictionary.com/

Republic: "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them" - we are that. A common definition of "democracy" is, "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" - we are that, too.

my point is that you are not distinguishing between democracy and representative democracy

when the difference in this case is vast

when you replied you replied to me previously you said that its pretty much a democracy and it appears to me that you are now acknowledging that you were wrong to say so



Shadow1980 said:
o_O.Q said:
"in the Trump campaign to attack American democracy"

but america is a constitutional republic... what the fuck?

jumping the gun a little early socialists

*sigh* I know others have already addressed this but...

"Constitutional republic" is for all intents and purposes completely redundant. The vast majority of the world's nations are republics, and they all have constitutions. Having a constitution and being a republic isn't anything special, either individually or combined. It simply means that we A) Have a Constitution, which nearly every nation on Earth has a written, codified one, and B) We have a President rather than a monarch as head of state. Aside from saying that we have a governing document and specifying the nature of our head of state, saying "America is a constitutional republic" has no greater meaning. It tells us nothing about the overall structure of our government, or how or government officials are selected, or if the nation's people enjoy a broad degree of political and civil rights.

But we are a representative democracy. We vote for representatives who make and pass laws on our behalf. We have free and fair elections, therefore we are a democracy.

To summarize this in visual terms:

Also, I long ago came to the conclusion that "socialist" as American conservatives use it is little more than the political equivalent of a schoolyard insult, a word stripped of all of its original meaning in a shallow attempt to invoke the specter of the Red Scare. Bloviating blowhards like Limbaugh and the crew at Fox Noise have made it completely empty. The only people who seriously believe that there are armies of literal Marxists trying to destroy Real America™ are the small portion of the population who are diehard dittoheads who need to have their feelings and beliefs validated by some talking head on the radio or TV. But last I checked, liberals weren't demanding that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the state, or the workers directly. You can go through the streets of the bluest cities in the bluest states and see private, for-profit capitalist entities thriving everywhere. Grocery stores and big-box retailers and shopping malls and drug stores and gas stations and auto repair shops and car dealerships and movie theaters and so on and so on. Nobody's trying to turn America into a "worker's paradise" or a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Democrats have their election campaigns funded by capitalist industries as well. Liberals are fine with the market economy and private ownership of the means of production. Just because they have different opinions on matters of taxation and regulation doesn't make them the political equivalents of Eugene Debs, much less Lenin or Stalin.

Or to paraphrase Inigo Montoya: