Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

And the Winner is...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Isn't that behind a paywall?
    Don't think so.

    Source: Trump's Supreme Court pick has expressed doubts about investigating or prosecuting a sitting president



    • Brett Kavanaugh, who President Donald Trump nominated to replace the retiring Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, previously contributed to a 1998 report that made a case for President Bill Clinton's impeachment.

    • This experience has shaped Kavanaugh's belief that presidents should not be indicted or distracted by investigations while in office.

    • "Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable," he has said.

    • Kavanaugh instead believes impeachment is the proper way to deal with a president's serious and "dastardly" misbehavior.


    Donald Trump's pick for a seat on the Supreme Court is Brett Kavanaugh, a man who holds strong opinions on whether a president should be indicted or impeached.

    A Yale Law graduate, Kavanaugh started his career as an associate counsel with special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, where he helped draft the report that recommended Clinton should be impeached for having an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

    The report laid out 11 possible grounds for impeachment, including how misleading the public and lying to staff amounted to obstruction of justice. These findings have become particularly relevant as special counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the Russia investigation, considers actions Trump has taken that could possibly be considered obstruction of justice.

    But despite his experience co-authoring the report, or rather because of it, Kavanaugh has become an ardent supporter of a president's power.

    In 1998, Kavanaugh wrote extensively on the matter of impeaching a president, writing that independent counsel investigations can take "too long," easily become "politicized," and investigations can go beyond their original scope. He also seemed unconvinced that a president can even be indicted while in office.

    "Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable," he said.

    Over a decade later, Kavanaugh reiterated this belief in the Minnesota Law Review saying, "a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office."

    He also said criminal investigations affecting a sitting president are "time-consuming and distracting" and should be deferred until after the end of a president's term.

    "Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President," Kavanaugh wrote.

    He added: "In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel... The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility."

    Trump said on Monday evening that he does "not ask about a nominee's personal opinions." But Kavanaugh's thinking on the power of the Oval Office and risks of investigating a president is clear, and experts believe he would not support a case that requires Trump, or any other president, to be subpoenaed or indicted.

    Though Kavanaugh does not support investigating a sitting president, the one issue that could still trouble Trump is the judge's belief in the role of impeachment.

    "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available," Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009. "No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress."




    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    So Kavanaugh believes that we should impeach first then prosecute.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      His assertion is so inaccurate and ill-informed, it turns out to be an outright lie.

      See here.

      Well, it's Tassman, so...
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
        I'm hoping somehow the GOP manages to pick up a few seats in the Senate, and then someone throws a bucket of water on Ginzburg so she joins her sister in Oz. Then we can put Barrett in there. THAT will be a YUGE ideological shift, for decades.
        Play nice.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          That's because the whole group of them were okayed by the Federalist Society, and we all know what that means. Well, I guess rogue doesn't know.
          This has got to be one of the absolute worst arguments out there.

          A) Trump promised conservative nominees.
          2) Do you expect he'd get recommendations from NARAL? ACLU? NAMBLA?
          C) For extra points - do you even have a clue what federalism is?
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            This has got to be one of the absolute worst arguments out there.

            A) Trump promised conservative nominees.
            2) Do you expect he'd get recommendations from NARAL? ACLU? NAMBLA?
            C) For extra points - do you even have a clue what federalism is?
            Of course to the Left judges who try to follow the original intent of the Constitution are evil. After all it is a "living document" to them, so you can pour any meaning you like in. Like they did with Roe V Wade.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Sheesh, you people must never look outside of the box you're in do you? Always need to be spoon fed. It's no wonder our democracy is at risk!
              We don't have a democracy...never have. Why do you get this wrong every time? Sheesh!
              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                We don't have a democracy...never have. Why do you get this wrong every time? Sheesh!
                Not this nonsense again. First, even if JimL's use of "democracy" was wrong (and it is not, which I will get to in a moment), that's completely irrelevant to his point. Granted, I find his point to be silly, but trying to nitpick the meaning of a particular word does not actually address his message. Perhaps you found it sufficiently silly of a point that a nitpicking is all it warranted, but that only works if the nitpicking is correct.

                "We" (if you mean Americans) do in fact, live in a democracy. Grab any recent dictionary and look the term up and you will see the country qualifies. For example, "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Wow, that sounds... exactly like our system of government.

                Perhaps, in the past, the term "democracy" had a more narrow meaning than it does today and referred solely to direct rule by the people, excluding the possibility of elected representation. But the meaning of words shift over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes strikingly (perhaps the most dramatic example is "egregious" which now means the opposite of what it originally did). Whatever the meaning of any term in the past was, it's the present definition that matters when using it in the present, and the present definition of democracy absolutely does describe the United States.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  Not this nonsense again. First, even if JimL's use of "democracy" was wrong (and it is not, which I will get to in a moment), that's completely irrelevant to his point. Granted, I find his point to be silly, but trying to nitpick the meaning of a particular word does not actually address his message. Perhaps you found it sufficiently silly of a point that a nitpicking is all it warranted, but that only works if the nitpicking is correct.
                  It IS technically correct. The US is a Representative Republic. Yes, I did find his post silly to the point of needing to be nitpicked.

                  "We" (if you mean Americans) do in fact, live in a democracy. Grab any recent dictionary and look the term up and you will see the country qualifies. For example, "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Wow, that sounds... exactly like our system of government.
                  Maybe by that VERY broad definition, but, the non-elected officials like the appointment of Federal and Supreme Court Justices, and the Presidential Electorate College move us away from even a representative democracy.

                  Perhaps, in the past, the term "democracy" had a more narrow meaning than it does today and referred solely to direct rule by the people, excluding the possibility of elected representation. But the meaning of words shift over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes strikingly (perhaps the most dramatic example is "egregious" which now means the opposite of what it originally did). Whatever the meaning of any term in the past was, it's the present definition that matters when using it in the present, and the present definition of democracy absolutely does describe the United States.
                  Let's see what our Pledge of Allegiance says:

                  I pledge allegiance to the flag
                  Of the United States of America
                  and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands
                  One nation under God, indivisible with
                  Liberty and Justice for all.

                  Hmmm...the writer of the pledge disagrees with you.
                  "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                  "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                    It IS technically correct. The US is a Representative Republic. Yes, I did find his post silly to the point of needing to be nitpicked.

                    Maybe by that VERY broad definition, but, the non-elected officials like the appointment of Federal and Supreme Court Justices, and the Presidential Electorate College move us away from even a representative democracy.

                    Let's see what our Pledge of Allegiance says:

                    I pledge allegiance to the flag
                    Of the United States of America
                    and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands
                    One nation under God, indivisible with
                    Liberty and Justice for all.

                    Hmmm...the writer of the pledge disagrees with you.
                    A chance to repost my rant over whether the U.S. is a democracy or a republic

                    Our founding fathers had every opportunity to create a democracy but did not choose to do so. Why? Because they were utterly repulsed by the idea recognizing it for what it is. That is why they established a republic instead.

                    Let's take a quick peek at what some of them had to say about it shall we

                    Source: James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10


                    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 they have been violent in their deaths.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    In the same document Madison, regarded as the "Father of the Constitution" as well as author of and biggest supporter of our Bill of Rights, stated that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” It is in essence mob rule.

                    Source: John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence


                    Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the 1st Amendment


                    A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is towards licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Gouverneur Morris, signer and Penman of the Constitution, in a 1814 speech


                    We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate ... as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism… Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: John Marshall, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court


                    Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal treatise


                    It may generally be remarked that more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, in a 1789 letter to John Adams


                    A simple democracy ... is one of the greatest evils.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Edmund Randolph, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention


                    ...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found in the turbulence and follies of democracy.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury


                    "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    IIRC, the last words that Hamilton penned were "our real disease is Democracy."

                    Source: Noah Webster, in his 1801 “American Spelling Book”


                    In a democracy ... there are commonly tumults and disorders… Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: John Quincy Adams in a speech celebrating the Jubilee of the Constitution


                    The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    And from his father...

                    Source: John Adams, in a letter from 1814


                    Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    In his highly influential Thoughts on Government Adams stated unequivocally that "There is no good government but what is republican" and that was the form of government that was established. After the Conventional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been wrought to which he famously answered: "A republic, if you can keep it."

                    The word "democracy” appears absolutely nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."[1]

                    In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The Electoral College and Senate representation come to mind. The Bill of Rights enumerates individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is totally undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor.

                    Instead of a democracy which they viewed as merely another form of tyranny our founders gave us a republic, with a representative form of government. Democracy is rule by majority or mob rule (often expressed as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's going to be had for dinner), whereas a representative Republic is based upon the rule of law -- the Constitution.

                    The latter recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals (the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike) while the former is only concerned with group wants at any given moment. As I said -- mob rule or maybe a "mobocracy."

                    The great American author James Fenimore Cooper put it another way:

                    Source:

                    It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    In closing I'll note that the founding fathers never used the words" republic" and "democracy" interchangeably like we do today. They carefully studied various forms and systems of government from throughout history in order to establish a system of government that would best deter any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority.

                    Maybe things would be different if every elected official was required to memorize what the founding fathers had to say or even how the U.S. Department of War (superseded by the U. S. Department of Defense) training manual (No. 2000-25), published in 1928, which every American soldier once carried, defined Democracy.:

                    Source:

                    A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of ‘direct’ expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.” The manual went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strengths and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They ‘made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.’

                    © Copyright Original Source
















                    1. Think of it this way, does our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag say "to the democracy for which it stands"? Or do we sing the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                      It IS technically correct. The US is a Representative Republic. Yes, I did find his post silly to the point of needing to be nitpicked.
                      And a representative republic is a democracy. So it is not technically correct that the United States is not a democracy.

                      Maybe by that VERY broad definition, but, the non-elected officials like the appointment of Federal and Supreme Court Justices, and the Presidential Electorate College move us away from even a representative democracy.
                      That "very broad" definition is straight from a recent dictionary, specifically the Oxford Dictionary. All other dictionaries consulted give similar definitions. The United States is, by the modern definition of the term, a democracy. It's a democracy. Unless you want to make an argument for descriptivist meaning rather than prescriptivist, but that fails as well because according to descriptivist meaning the US would count.

                      I suppose someone could put forward the argument the US is really an oligarchy because the "true" power in elections lies in the hands of the rich, but that's a separate matter and isn't what I expect you are arguing.

                      Let's see what our Pledge of Allegiance says:

                      I pledge allegiance to the flag
                      Of the United States of America
                      and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands
                      One nation under God, indivisible with
                      Liberty and Justice for all.

                      Hmmm...the writer of the pledge disagrees with you.
                      Ignoring the fact that the pledge of allegiance was written over a century ago, and by someone who had some rather odd ideas to begin with, in what way do they "disagree" with me? Something can both be a republic and a democracy; in fact, by modern definitions of the words, if something fulfills the definition of republic, they fulfill the definition of democracy.

                      Your argument is akin to "disproving" the claim that tigers are quadrupeds on the basis of someone referring to tigers as cats, ignoring the fact that a cat is a type of quadruped and there is therefore no disagreement or contradiction between those statements.

                      But even setting all of that aside... guess what? The writer of the pledge of allegiance referred to the United States as a democracy in other writings! If Francis Bellamy is such an authority on word meanings that his reference to the US as a republic inherently makes it one, then his description of it being a democracy should also.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        And a representative republic is a democracy. So it is not technically correct that the United States is not a democracy.

                        That "very broad" definition is straight from a recent dictionary, specifically the Oxford Dictionary. All other dictionaries consulted give similar definitions. The United States is, by the modern definition of the term, a democracy. It's a democracy. Unless you want to make an argument for descriptivist meaning rather than prescriptivist, but that fails as well because according to descriptivist meaning the US would count.

                        I suppose someone could put forward the argument the US is really an oligarchy because the "true" power in elections lies in the hands of the rich, but that's a separate matter and isn't what I expect you are arguing.

                        Ignoring the fact that the pledge of allegiance was written over a century ago, and by someone who had some rather odd ideas to begin with, in what way do they "disagree" with me? Something can both be a republic and a democracy; in fact, by modern definitions of the words, if something fulfills the definition of republic, they fulfill the definition of democracy.

                        Your argument is akin to "disproving" the claim that tigers are quadrupeds on the basis of someone referring to tigers as cats, ignoring the fact that a cat is a type of quadruped and there is therefore no disagreement or contradiction between those statements.

                        But even setting all of that aside... guess what? The writer of the pledge of allegiance referred to the United States as a democracy in other writings! If Francis Bellamy is such an authority on word meanings that his reference to the US as a republic inherently makes it one, then his description of it being a democracy should also.
                        See Rogue's post above yours. He said much better than I did.
                        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          A democracy doesn't use representation - a republic does. The US is a democratic republic in form - it is neither a true democracy nor a true republic.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            A chance to repost my rant over whether the U.S. is a democracy or a republic
                            Oh, this again. You've posted this repeatedly, and I have repeatedly shown how it's a bad argument. But sure, let's go through it again.

                            Our founding fathers had every opportunity to create a democracy but did not choose to do so. Why? Because they were utterly repulsed by the idea recognizing it for what it is. That is why they established a republic instead.

                            Let's take a quick peek at what some of them had to say about it shall we
                            I won't include all the quotes because the issue with them is all the same: How do quotes from people centuries ago mean anything in regards to definitions? As I've pointed out, words shift meaning, and the word "democracy" has a more expansive meaning now than it does then. These quotes of yours, and therefore your entire post, mean absolutely nothing in regards to the modern meanings of those words. You might as well argue that Donald Duck is homosexual because he's referred to as "gay" in The Three Caballeros (released when the word simply meant "happy").

                            Your post may be have merit as an argument as to why we have elected officials rather than deciding everything via referendum, but that is a completely separate topic than what a particular word means.

                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            See Rogue's post above yours. He said much better than I did.
                            All he did was repeat the claim that I had already refuted. If my point is "pulling out quotes from centuries ago doesn't mean anything because of definition shift" then pulling out more quotes from centuries ago doesn't mean anything.

                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            A democracy doesn't use representation - a republic does. The US is a democratic republic in form - it is neither a true democracy nor a true republic.
                            Every modern dictionary I have consulted states that democracies can, in fact, use representation.

                            Let's consult Merriam Webster, for example. According to it, democracy is:
                            "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

                            And a republic is:
                            "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"
                            (there are other definitions for both provided, but these are the ones relevant to our interests)

                            Based on these definitions, the relationship of "republic" and "democracy" (in their modern definitions) is that a republic is a kind of democracy. Democracy includes government directly by the people or indirectly through their representatives. A republic is only the variety that is done via representatives. One will find this relation to be the same if one examines how other dictionaries define the two terms. Though in terms of application in the real world, they are essentially synonyms because as far as I know, every democracy in the world is a republic.

                            Of course, someone may ask what the proper term would be for the "original" definition of democracy, i.e. the idea of everything being decided directly by the people by majority. Even if the term democracy is no longer that narrow, there's still reason to want a way to refer to such an idea. "Direct democracy" is likely the best term to describe that.
                            Last edited by Terraceth; 07-11-2018, 11:24 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Oh, this again. You've posted this repeatedly, and I have repeatedly shown how it's a bad argument. But sure, let's go through it again.

                              I won't include all the quotes because the issue with them is all the same: How do quotes from people centuries ago mean anything in regards to definitions?
                              Yeah, let's not listen to those who were involved with forming the country and what they thought about democracies as opposed to republics.

                              Just because folks are ignorantly trying to conflate the two does not make it so.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Yeah, let's not listen to those who were involved with forming the country and what they thought about democracies as opposed to republics.
                                Well, at least you replied, even if you seem to not actually understand the point. Let's go through it again.

                                The problem is that words shift in meaning. "Myriad" used to mean exactly 10,000, but nowadays doesn't have any specific number connected with it and instead refers to a generically large number. In this case, when they talk about how democracy is bad or the US isn't one, what they are really talking about is what we would now refer to as "direct democracy". Simply put, due to word shift, they are using the word in a different fashion than nowadays, and thus their writings cannot be used as a defense for the modern definition of a word. Indeed, this would be true for any word--attempting to ascertain the modern definition of a word based on old writings simply doesn't make sense. Their writings may be useful in refuting things like the idea that the majority should always win in a debate, but that is a separate issue from what particular words mean.

                                Again, look up the word "democracy" in any notable modern dictionary and you will see something that well describes the government of the United States. Heck, it doesn't even need to be a modern dictionary, the word shift occurred quite a while ago. One can find dictionaries or other sources even in the 19th century that give definitions of democracy that adequately describe the United States government.

                                Just because folks are ignorantly trying to conflate the two does not make it so.
                                It is true that republic and democracy are not synonyms, but they do (in modern definitions) have similar meanings, and in terms of describing actual governments are mostly interchangeable for the simple fact that republics are by far the preferred form of democracy.

                                It is not "ignorant" to use a word according to its current definition rather than insisting on an out-of-date definition from several centuries ago.
                                Last edited by Terraceth; 07-12-2018, 01:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                306 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X