Bush II & Friends turned the country into a torture state. Nevertheless he was democratically re-elected, by a greater margin than before.
During the 2012 election Republican candidates Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum each called for torture to resume. Mr. Romney's advisers privately urged him to call for a resumption of torture. (Presumably Ron Paul thought that torture is an issue that should be left to the states.) Not only did this not cause a scandal or hurt their chances within the Republican Party, but there wasn't a hint of a scandal about it by the Democrats or the general public.
Democracy doesn't fix everything. Sociopaths and demagogues can still be democratically elected. When the majority democratically elects a torturer, they don't cease to be a democracy.
Nope. Canada for example, a Parliamentary Democracy, votes in representatives. "Members or Parliament" (MPs) at the federal level, and others at the provincial and municipal level. Canadians don't get a direct vote for a Prime Minister; their representatives, the MPs, do.
Not having a monarch is what makes a country a Republic.
We don't control anything the federal government does at all.
Nonsense. You have elections. You can force those you disagree with out of power (and use the threat of that to change laws) to the extent that ANY democracy can.
And as Benjamin Franklin is attributed as saying when someone asking him what we had.
You might want to actually READ the page you link to.
The choice was republic vs. monarchy, not republic vs. democracy. "Republic" means no monarch. A democracy can be a republic, or it can have a monarch.
Again, the US is a republic AND a democracy. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Your Franklin quote does not contradict this.
The US is a republic. The US is a democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Republic means "no monarch."
Which is why your definition of representative republic and representative democracy are effectively the same. (Non-republic democracies have constitutions too.)
No "FACTS" and the dictionary are what makes the statement untrue.
The facts, er, "FACTS" say that the US is a democracy. The dictionary says that the US is a democracy.
Wikipedia: United States: Government and politics: The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".
As for the rest, as I said, it's not a perfect democracy.
The US is a democracy. That you can find someone doesn't happen to mention this (nor does it contradict the fact), does not make it untrue.
Few if any democracies involve the citizens directly voting on laws. Instead they vote in representatives (city councilors, congressmen, members of parliament, etc.) to do the job for them. If you don't like their decisions, you vote them out in the next election.
Well, sure. But you also need to understand that criticizing Trump - and his supporters - doesn't make one a "hardcore super-liberal. There are plenty of conservatives on the right with a very low opinion of Trump and the alt-right.
Likewise there are plenty of people on both sides who think that anyone labelling Trump critics as "hardcore super-liberal", are the ones who are undiagnosed retards.
And yet for all the accusations that Obama was an America-hating foreign-born commie Marxist socialist Muslim - including such accusations by Trump himself.... Obama didn't go to war with Fox News, let alone the press as a whole.
But if false equivalence is all you have left to defend Trump with, good luck with that.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
Fire and Fury doesn't even cover the current administration's entire first year. Now what incentive will Wolff have to write sequels?
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bush II & Friends turned the country into a torture state. Nevertheless he was democratically re-elected, by a greater margin than before.
During the 2012 election Republican candidates Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum each called for torture to resume. Mr. Romney's advisers privately urged him to call for a resumption of torture. (Presumably Ron Paul thought that torture is an issue that should be left to the states.) Not only did this not cause a scandal or hurt their chances within the Republican Party, but there wasn't a hint of a scandal about it by the Democrats or the general public.
Democracy doesn't fix everything. Sociopaths and demagogues can still be democratically elected. When the majority democratically elects a torturer, they don't cease to be a democracy.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Canada for example, a Parliamentary Democracy, votes in representatives. "Members or Parliament" (MPs) at the federal level, and others at the provincial and municipal level. Canadians don't get a direct vote for a Prime Minister; their representatives, the MPs, do.
Not having a monarch is what makes a country a Republic.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. You have elections. You can force those you disagree with out of power (and use the threat of that to change laws) to the extent that ANY democracy can.
You might want to actually READ the page you link to.
The choice was republic vs. monarchy, not republic vs. democracy. "Republic" means no monarch. A democracy can be a republic, or it can have a monarch.
Again, the US is a republic AND a democracy. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Your Franklin quote does not contradict this.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US is a republic. The US is a democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Republic means "no monarch."
Which is why your definition of representative republic and representative democracy are effectively the same. (Non-republic democracies have constitutions too.)
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The facts, er, "FACTS" say that the US is a democracy. The dictionary says that the US is a democracy.
Wikipedia: United States: Government and politics: The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".
As for the rest, as I said, it's not a perfect democracy.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
Few if any democracies involve the citizens directly voting on laws. Instead they vote in representatives (city councilors, congressmen, members of parliament, etc.) to do the job for them. If you don't like their decisions, you vote them out in the next election.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re:
It is not however a flawless, perfect democracy.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re:
On the post: Want Anybody's Personal Details From Aadhaar, India's Billion-Person Identity Database? Yours For $8
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re:
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re:
Likewise there are plenty of people on both sides who think that anyone labelling Trump critics as "hardcore super-liberal", are the ones who are undiagnosed retards.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Right, "mild criticism". -- Just don't ever claim that "work of fiction" is more!
When private citizen Donald Trump - on election night 2012 - demanded a march on Washington to overthrow the newly reelected President, everyone could laugh at him. He was just a silly nutjob, well-known for birther claims and other wingnuttery.
As President, that same silly nutjob must be taken seriously.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My comment stands.
On the post: The Gorilla Channel Satire Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Banning Fake News
Re: The worst fake news is from NYTimes or WashPo. -- You still believe the "Trump-Russia collusion"!
Wikipedia: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
127 citations.
Wikipedia: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
393 citations.
C'mon. Read.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Gorilla Channel Satire Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Banning Fake News
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re:
But if false equivalence is all you have left to defend Trump with, good luck with that.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Charles Harder: when you want to send the message āIām rich, amoral, vengeful, and thin-skinned.ā
Next >>