President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

I generally hate walls of text but I think I should post this. Consider it informative and only read it if you are curious.  I don't believe there is any political slant to this.  It simply informs.

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

[136 or 142]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.47e69728592e

Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

By Eugene Volokh

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “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” â€" we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” â€" we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

So, at least one law professor disagrees with what you cited (and agrees with me that the two aren't mutually exclusive.)

I don't even understand the point of this entirely academic, and as far as I'm concerned, meaningless argument, but I do think it probably has something to do with what this person in the comment section wrote:

Eugene,

"America is a republic, not a democracy" almost always comes from the lips and keyboards of the same halfwits who write "The Democrat Party." Often people who belonged to the John Birch Society, but you're probably too young to remember that...

In 1969 I was helping shepherd a group of Congressmen, junketing HEW, now HSS, Committee members, around London, and our jitney drove past the bottom of Macaulay Road, and the crèche I had attended when I was three and four.

I was able to point out a magnificent old oak tree to them and tell them its history: "That's where the Royalists hanged the Chartists, democrats and republicans, in 1848." Intelligent people all, not the sort of Congresswhiners you get today, not a single one thought it was two groups of Chartists.

Cheers, "

I also hear this same ridiculous argument only from Republicans (and mostly those on the far right.) I think most Americans know how their government and how elections operates and don't care if it's a democracy or a Republic, even if the two even are mutually exclusive.

I think this is more evidence that backs up what I wrote above.  Republicans as a whole have gone from championing practical intellectual giants like Milton Freedman to engaging in pedantry that their governmental system isn't a democracy but is a Republic.

[WOTR]

First, I should say that I appreciate the response.  Second, I should probably say that while my first post was serious- now I am just being a jackass...

We were also a mighty Republic once and not so long ago.  Now, look at what we are doing to our country...

It sure sounds like you wish there was somebody who would "make America great again."   

[Yorkshire pud]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.47e69728592e

Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

By Eugene Volokh

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “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” â€" we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” â€" we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

So, at least one law professor disagrees with what you cited (and agrees with me that the two aren't mutually exclusive.)

I don't even understand the point of this entirely academic, and as far as I'm concerned, meaningless argument, but I do think it probably has something to do with what this person in the comment section wrote:

Eugene,

"America is a republic, not a democracy" almost always comes from the lips and keyboards of the same halfwits who write "The Democrat Party." Often people who belonged to the John Birch Society, but you're probably too young to remember that...

In 1969 I was helping shepherd a group of Congressmen, junketing HEW, now HSS, Committee members, around London, and our jitney drove past the bottom of Macaulay Road, and the crèche I had attended when I was three and four.

I was able to point out a magnificent old oak tree to them and tell them its history: "That's where the Royalists hanged the Chartists, democrats and republicans, in 1848." Intelligent people all, not the sort of Congresswhiners you get today, not a single one thought it was two groups of Chartists.

Cheers, "

I also hear this same ridiculous argument only from Republicans (and mostly those on the far right.) I think most Americans know how their government and how elections operates and don't care if it's a democracy or a Republic, even if the two even are mutually exclusive.

I think this is more evidence that backs up what I wrote above.  Republicans as a whole have gone from championing practical intellectual giants like Milton Freedman to engaging in pedantry that their governmental system isn't a democracy but is a Republic.

France is a republic too; borne from the overthrow of the monarchy. As was the old USSR. France has elected representatives chosen by the electorate;  the USSR most certainly did not. Congo too is a republic...

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

France is a republic too; borne from the overthrow of the monarchy. As was the old USSR. France has elected representatives chosen by the electorate;  the USSR most certainly did not. Congo too is a republic...

Christ on a cracker, Stephanie. Do you ever stop being tedious?

[136 or 142]

Christ on a cracker, Stephanie. Do you ever stop being tedious?

The whole debate is tedious.  Why single Yorkshire Pud out?

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

The whole debate is tedious.  Why single Yorkshire Pud out?

He knows why, and believe me, sonny, you don't want to get caught in the middle.

[Yorkshire pud]

The whole debate is tedious.  Why single Yorkshire Pud out?

Because he's never forgotten the time we were playing 'dress up',  and I accidentally rifled through his underwear drawer and decided to try on his brand new Victoria Secrets silk g string and bra. The bitch really lost it!

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Because he's never forgotten the time we were playing 'dress up',  and I accidentally rifled through his underwear drawer and decided to try on his brand new Victoria Secrets silk g string and bra. The bitch really lost it!

Given your propensity for excessive and uniquely noisome perspiration, who wouldn't lose it?  If 25 or 6 to 4 had known about that, he wouldn't have been so quick to leap to your defense.

[Yorkshire pud]

Given your propensity for excessive and uniquely noisome perspiration, who wouldn't lose it?  If 25 or 6 to 4 had known about that, he wouldn't have been so quick to leap to your defense.

I need all the friends I can get on this cesspit of debased fetidness; and I'm dealing with my excessive sweating, deal with it.

[21st Century Man]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.47e69728592e

Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

By Eugene Volokh

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “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” â€" we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” â€" we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.....

There you go again.  Making everything political.  I suggest you google Democracy vs. Republic.  I merely want to point out the differences not score political points yet you constantly have to be condescending towards everybody that differs with your opinion.  You present yourself as an arrogant elitist who can never be wrong about anything.  I don't give a shit if you are a liberal or conservative.  Arrogant pissants are not relegated to any particular ideology.  If you were conservative, you'd no doubt still be a pissant.

I'll end with these direct quotes.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)


"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."
â€" James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.


“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
â€" Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Lawyer, Secretary of the Treasury & Secretary of State

“A simple democracy is the devil's own government.”
â€" Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) Founding Father& signer of the Declaration of Independence

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”
â€" John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[136 or 142]

There you go again.  Making everything political.  I suggest you google Democracy vs. Republic.  I merely want to point out the differences not score political points yet you constantly have to be condescending towards everybody that differs with your opinion.  You present yourself as an arrogant elitist who can never be wrong about anything.  I don't give a shit if you are a liberal or conservative.  Arrogant pissants are not relegated to any particular ideology.  If you were conservative, you'd no doubt still be a pissant.

1.Except you didn't merely want to point out the differences, you said that the United States was a Republic and not a Democracy, and I replied that the U.S can be and is (according to the law professor) both, because they aren't mutually exclusive.

I have no idea why you felt the need to point that out and then post from the links other than, as that commentator wrote, your quote of 'the United States is a Republic and not a democracy' is a common line delivered by teabaggers. However, in so doing, to the degree that that discussion was political, you made it so.  (Yes, I suppose that's just a variant of 'you started it' but you did, I just responded.)

2.I could be condescending, I don't know. You were the one who made the tedious point and I replied to it because I assumed that used that line because I wrote "that's how it works in a democracy" (which the United States is, even if it is also a Republic.) Anyway, if you don't like my condescending attitude (I don't know if I have one or not, but if that's how you perceive it then I do to you) then I'm sure there is a safe space to which you can hide from me.

3.Elitist?  elitist, politically correct... got any other meaningless memes mostly used by the far right that you want to throw at me?

4.Since you took the trouble to tell me that you find me condescending, I'll go to the trouble to tell you that I find your holier-than-thou I'm wonderful because I've found God routine to be rather obnoxious.

So, you've found God. Good for you. That doesn't make your shilling for discredited  or dishonest right wing politics or policy any less losing.

So, you can put that in your pipe and choke on it.

[SredniVashtar]

How do you exist without making a profit?

The London Guardian is notoriously unprofitable, it posts consistently large losses but it still keeps going. I think they have some endowment or other that keeps them afloat, although it doesn't stop them begging for money like Falkie.

[Yorkshire pud]

The London Guardian is notoriously unprofitable, it posts consistently large losses but it still keeps going. I think they have some endowment or other that keeps them afloat, although it doesn't stop them begging for money like Falkie.

They also shed journos and replace with zero hours interns.

[albrecht]

They also shed journos and replace with zero hours interns.

At least they have some interns or people. From the bad grammar, misspelling,  errors like homonyms, and reliance on reporting off of other reports, or simply reprinting government/corporate press releases, I'm increasingly becoming convinced that our 'new' is using some AI to generate articles and not even outsourcing to interns or to 3rd world countries.

[Yorkshire pud]

At least they have some interns or people. From the bad grammar, misspelling,  errors like homonyms, and reliance on reporting off of other reports, or simply reprinting government/corporate press releases, I'm increasingly becoming convinced that our 'new' is using some AI to generate articles and not even outsourcing to interns or to 3rd world countries.

Funny you say that; I'm sure I read something the other day about a newspaper doing something similar. But I'm damned if I know what or where I read..damn.

[albrecht]

Funny you say that; I'm sure I read something the other day about a newspaper doing something similar. But I'm damned if I know what or where I read..damn.

I think I saw that somewhere also but not sure where? Wired maybe? For years many noticed news simply rehash some government or corporate talking points or press release or read from the same script. But now even in print or online news is often horribly written or repetitive or reporting on someone else's report. Not sure if it is no editors, rush to get the new out first, or going to AI but it is awful. I also don't like how everything going to video or formatted for iPads. What is wrong with the written word, actually sources and references, etc? All sound-bites and videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dJxiDkcjA

[Yorkshire pud]

I think I saw that somewhere also but not sure where? Wired maybe? For years many noticed news simply rehash some government or corporate talking points or press release or read from the same script. But now even in print or online news is often horribly written or repetitive or reporting on someone else's report. Not sure if it is no editors, rush to get the new out first, or going to AI but it is awful. I also don't like how everything going to video or formatted for iPads. What is wrong with the written word, actually sources and references, etc? All sound-bites and videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dJxiDkcjA

Don't get me started on 'dumbing down'...I'll be here all fucking night!

[starrmtn001]

Full Speech: Donald Trump Speaks to African American Church in Detroit 9/3/16

https://youtu.be/sfZDKWo2LxE

[Yorkshire pud]

Full Speech: Donald Trump Speaks to African American Church in Detroit 9/3/16

https://youtu.be/sfZDKWo2LxE

Awwwww; bless him.. The acting lessons are coming on...

[albrecht]

Awwwww; bless him.. The acting lessons are coming on...

I just find it interesting  that in these modern, politically-correct times that nobody bats an eye about so many organizations preceded by 'African-American,' 'Latino,' 'Women's' etc whether as churches, schools, political organization, social organizations, professional organizations, charities, or caucuses. Replace that with 'white' and there would be riots and uproars so much condemnation.

[Yorkshire pud]

I just find it interesting  that in these modern, politically-correct times that nobody bats an eye about so many organizations preceded by 'African-American,' 'Latino,' 'Women's' etc whether as churches, schools, political organization, social organizations, professional organizations, charities, or caucuses. Replace that with 'white' and there would be riots and uproars so much condemnation.

I have a similar cringing feeling about the song 'Young gifted and black'.. Would it be balanced with 'Old fucker who is thick as shit and used to be white, but is covered in sores'? Too long a title?

[WOTR]

Full Speech: Donald Trump Speaks to African American Church in Detroit 9/3/16

https://youtu.be/sfZDKWo2LxE

I don't care if it is Trump or Hillary- churches are not where you should be making speeches.  Nice separation of church and state.  I'm not somebody who believes in taking away tax exempt status from churches until I see shit like them openly allowing a candidate to use the podium to perpetuate their propaganda.

I know that ministers often times try to influence who their "flock" will vote for- but you cannot get any more biased than inviting a candidate to give a speech.

I hope his congregation enjoyed their time praising their god and listening to his word.  (insert puke emoticon here.)

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't care if it is Trump or Hillary- churches are not where you should be making speeches.  Nice separation of church and state.  I'm not somebody who believes in taking away tax exempt status from churches until I see shit like them openly allowing a candidate to use the podium to perpetuate their propaganda.

I know that ministers often times try to influence who their "flock" will vote for- but you cannot get any more biased than inviting a candidate to give a speech.

I hope his congregation enjoyed their time praising their god and listening to his word.  (insert puke emoticon here.)

I've never got the whole necessity that the President elect has to mention god in nearly everything they say.  The pool is automatically reduced because openly atheist candidates are recused solely because they don't believe in god. As if they're somewhat lacking in moral fibre; because all the bad people are atheists and all the good ones religious zealots. Of course.

[21st Century Man]

1.Except you didn't merely want to point out the differences, you said that the United States was a Republic and not a Democracy, and I replied that the U.S can be and is (according to the law professor) both, because they aren't mutually exclusive.

I have no idea why you felt the need to point that out and then post from the links other than, as that commentator wrote, your quote of 'the United States is a Republic and not a democracy' is a common line delivered by teabaggers. However, in so doing, to the degree that that discussion was political, you made it so.  (Yes, I suppose that's just a variant of 'you started it' but you did, I just responded.)

2.I could be condescending, I don't know. You were the one who made the tedious point and I replied to it because I assumed that used that line because I wrote "that's how it works in a democracy" (which the United States is, even if it is also a Republic.) Anyway, if you don't like my condescending attitude (I don't know if I have one or not, but if that's how you perceive it then I do to you) then I'm sure there is a safe space to which you can hide from me.

3.Elitist?  elitist, politically correct... got any other meaningless memes mostly used by the far right that you want to throw at me?

4.Since you took the trouble to tell me that you find me condescending, I'll go to the trouble to tell you that I find your holier-than-thou I'm wonderful because I've found God routine to be rather obnoxious.

So, you've found God. Good for you. That doesn't make your shilling for discredited  or dishonest right wing politics or policy any less losing.

So, you can put that in your pipe and choke on it.

Tell me. Where was I proselytyzing about religion? Just because I mentioned God in an offhand way? Am I not allowed to do that or would you like to curtail my freedom of speech?

As for the terms I use,  I don't give a rats ass if the far right or far left uses them.  I use them in my own manner.  I call a spade a spade.

I see you completely ignore my quotes why the founders found democracy deplorable.  I guess it is best for you to pretend they don't exist.
Your rhetoric on this board is poisonous. You seek to divide not unite just like your political bosses.  That is deplorable.  You would rather have us fight amongst ourselves in order to accentuate our differences and find no common ground. 

Let us fight about stupid petty things and miss the big picture.  That is what you would like.  Meanwhile the globalists, corporatists and statists consolidate their power and control our lives more and more each day.  Well fuck that.  I want no part of that. 

And might I suggest you educate yourself about the differences between a democracy and a republic.  Or is reading from the Founders own lips that detestable to you, Canuck?


Edit:  Do you consider the Founders too ultra right wing for your taste?  That is who I follow.  I do not follow nor am I a member of any right wing organization. I am simply a concerned American.

[starrmtn001]

Tell me. Where was I proselytyzing about religion? Just because I mentioned God in an offhand way? Am I not allowed to do that or would you like to curtail my freedom of speech?

As for the terms I use,  I don't give a rats ass if the far right or far left uses them.  I use them in my own manner.  I call a spade a spade.

I see you completely ignore my quotes why the founders found democracy deplorable.  I guess it is best for you to pretend they don't exist.
Your rhetoric on this board is poisonous. You seek to divide not unite just like your political bosses.  That is deplorable.  You would rather have us fight amongst ourselves in order to accentuate our differences and find no common ground. 

Let us fight about stupid petty things and miss the big picture.  That is what you would like.  Meanwhile the globalists, corporatists and statists consolidate their power and control our lives more and more each day.  Well fuck that.  I want no part of that. 

And might I suggest you educate yourself about the differences between a democracy and a republic.  Or is reading from the Founders own lips that detestable to you, Canuck?


Edit:  Do you consider the Founders too ultra right wing for your taste?  That is who I follow.  I do not follow nor am I a member of any right wing organization. I am simply a concerned American.

[136 or 142]

Tell me. Where was I proselytyzing about religion? Just because I mentioned God in an offhand way? Am I not allowed to do that or would you like to curtail my freedom of speech?

As for the terms I use,  I don't give a rats ass if the far right or far left uses them.  I use them in my own manner.  I call a spade a spade.

I see you completely ignore my quotes why the founders found democracy deplorable.  I guess it is best for you to pretend they don't exist.
Your rhetoric on this board is poisonous. You seek to divide not unite just like your political bosses.  That is deplorable.  You would rather have us fight amongst ourselves in order to accentuate our differences and find no common ground. 

Let us fight about stupid petty things and miss the big picture.  That is what you would like.  Meanwhile the globalists, corporatists and statists consolidate their power and control our lives more and more each day.  Well fuck that.  I want no part of that. 

And might I suggest you educate yourself about the differences between a democracy and a republic.  Or is reading from the Founders own lips that detestable to you, Canuck?


Edit:  Do you consider the Founders too ultra right wing for your taste?  That is who I follow.  I do not follow nor am I a member of any right wing organization. I am simply a concerned American.

1.You can mention God all you like just as I can criticize you for it all I like.  You don't seem to have brought it up lately, but I think you used to very frequently.  You've now moved on to a different sort of being holier-than-thou.

2.I've already said that I don't care about this discussion of this alleged important difference between a democracy and a republic, I referred to it as 'tedious and pointless.'  So, that's why I had no interest in what the Founders said on the matter.  I've also already quoted that law professor as saying the United States is a representative democracy, which I completely agree with.  I honestly have no idea why you think this is so important, but I don't give a rat's ass about it.

Anyway, this is supposed to be a thread about Donald Trump.  While as always you can do what you like, I suggest you start up your own thread if you wish to continue making this point which is obviously important to you.  I'd be interested in seeing how many views or replies you get.

3.There you go again with the self righteousness.  Now you want us to unite but previously you posted the lie that Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican (which you at least admitted was false) and the half truth that Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK (without mentioning that he completely renounced his former membership.)  In fact, and I only learned this after our discussion, he so changed his views that even the NAACP mourned his death:

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/

I think if you wanted to genuinely unite your fellow Americans you would have said something more to the effect of "even Robert Byrd was able to outgrow his racist beginnings."

You say you call a spade a spade and don't care if they're left or right, and 'not belonging to any right wing organization' I call that bullshit.  All you do is use memes created by the far right (I also never said you belonged to any right wing organization, I said all you do is quote from right wing organizations or right wing memes.)
1.The Robert Byrd thing
2.The Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican lie
3.As I posted a comment showing earlier, this whole 'the United States is a Republic and not a democracy' is a far right wing conservative talking point.

I'm sure there are more that you've quoted but I didn't debate them with you at the time, so I don't remember them and I don't care to go through your previous posts.

Maybe, like Robert Byrd, you've changed your ways and no longer fall for these far right talking points, but it will take some time before you've convinced me of that (not that I expect you to be concerned.)

I suppose it's possible from reading this post that you've know moved on to falling for the right wing conspiracy theorists (so maybe you've switched to listening to Glen Beck instead of Rush Limbaugh) as your comment about the dangers of the 'globalists, corporatists and statists' shows.  I would just point out that it was your hero Ronald Reagan (or maybe he's now your ex-hero) who was the one who started turning these things into a problem by attacking unions, deregulating and embracing free trade deals.

4.As to my 'poisonous posts' I'd say that I don't go out of my way to be confrontational, but I also call a spade a spade, and I like being blunt. 

As elitist and condescending as I may be I would never put myself in the same league as the Founding Fathers, but I can also quote them, I have the same attitude as John Adams which is why I like being blunt:

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
John Adams

[Juan]

Political speeches have long been a custom in black churches, probably because that was the only place black people could get away with politics. Also, the minister being the most educated person in the community added to it.

[136 or 142]

Political speeches have long been a custom in black churches, probably because that was the only place black people could get away with politics. Also, the minister being the most educated person in the community added to it.

Darn, I actually have to agree with Juan on something.  I agree with the concern over the separation of church and state, but I also agree with Juan with the practical reason for holding these speeches in black churches and that practicality should take precedence over principle.

[chefist]

Darn, I actually have to agree with Juan on something.  I agree with the concern over the separation of church and state, but I also agree with Juan with the practical reason for holding these speeches in black churches.

How quickly does "Correct the Record" pay? Are they a good group to work for? Just curious, someone asked me how they could make some pocket money on the side...

Thanks...