Is America a democracy? I dont think so.

Excellent. A form of democracy ........ or as I would specifically describe the U.S. as an ever-increasing Fascist nation with a fair (but not overwhelming) amount of Democratic principles still functioning. But as another example (so not to confuse) I consider North Korea a Fascist nation with very few Democratic principles functioning.

The point is (and I think you may agree) that any nation with functioning democratic principles is a form of democracy but not necessarily A DEMOCRATIC NATION.

 

Exactly - It is kind of scary that you would have folks try to claim that a Republic and a Democratic system are "mutually exclusive" .

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basic principles on which this nation was founded and civics.

 

Everyone's knowledge of the U.S. is being affected by current events. Whatever you or I knew about the U.S. yesterday should (if we are honest and earnest) be affected by what happens today.

Alas, to your disadvantage, because you haven't the slightest idea from where I get my perceptions. I am an international person and I am not (by any means) restricted to what you call "my local media" but I suspect very strongly that you are. I say this because you display a blanket opinion on matters which is characteristic of a tunnel-vision sort of lack of understanding, as opposed to an open mind that judges incidents on their own individual merits. Example: You rely on my nationality to draw conclusions about my knowledge and perceptions. So very petty.

 

My dear friend Giftedone, this point has been the cause of many headaches. I've heard it all a thousand times. One American on some other discussion forum told me that Sweden is no Democracy. And his reasoning ..... because Sweden has a Monarchy! The guy must have got his knowledge from watching Errol Flyn movies.

 

I wish I had saved the link but someone posted a test from 1910. ... Grade 8. The questions involved many areas but the average student today would fail miserably - especially in geography. Was questions like what is the capital of Denmark and so on.

In an episode of " are you smarter than a 5th grader" the question was "What is the capital of Hungary". Now hey ... not everyone remembers the capitals of all countries.

This person's response "Is that a Country" ?

 

No, You. Do. Not.

TANF or TEMPORARY Aid to Needy Families (Formerly AFDC or Aid to Families with Dependent Children )

is hard limited to FIVE YEARS. After that you get NOTHING, Nada, Zip, Zilch. You people all love Gingrich so, why do you so constantly dismiss his major achievement and Legacy?

 

A representative democracy is a republic like the US, where the representatives represent the people. You can have republics like Venice and San Marino where only the elites, the "Great Famlies" are even represented. These shade over into oligarchies but most of these are based on a Royal Family and are thus actually Monarchies. All Monarchies are actually oligarchies in the end..

Direct Democracy is like the New England Town Halls, Everybody comes and everybody votes. The US is a Constitutional Republic democratically based. The Constitution gives our Republic a very defined structure and carefully enumerated powers it is not supposed to exceed, but the people, everybody, are the final source of power and legitimate authority over even the Constitution itself. However, the document is still diligently designed to remove the people from actual power over the most fundamental precepts by several levels

 

LOL! I can promise you one thing .... you're going to like this video:

 

Good golly ... Please God - let it be that this gal was joking.

 

The "idea" that representative voting for certain government officials, called "democratic" or whatever, which the Framers included in their frequent references to and definitions of "the republic" makes the U.S. governing form some hybrid form of "Democracy" is what's pure gibberish.

 

Is that what American politicians are doing?

Oh my!!! You're getting your world knowledge from Errol Flyn movies.

 

No, I think it's the real thing.

 

Perhaps you have never heard the term "Consent of the Governed" but, I assure you that this is something the founders had in mind.

We have a "democratic process" in this nation. Authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" as opposed to "Divine right/God" "Bloodline" in this nation. The idea that we use a democratic process to elect our leaders - but are not a "democracy" is silliness.

You are hung up on the definition of "pure democracy" - we are not a Pure Democracy in that:

We are not a Totalitarian Dictatorship - where the people have no say. We use a democratic process to elect our leaders and thus are a form of democracy.

 

You STILL aren't getting it, it was IRAN'S money!

 

1. To the people who didn't make it to even middle school political studies - the US is both a republic and a democracy.

2. The US is classified by the EIU for the second year in a row as a "flawed democracy". You can see the full list here

 

So you are okay with your tax dollars going to subsidize for profit corporations but not for maintaining public works like roads and infrastructure and social services? Who are the biggest beneficiaries of corporate welfare with tax dollars? The big three auto makers, aerospace companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin and the big energy companies. What is GM doing with your tax dollars? Laying people off and closing plants.

How the heck is that creating jobs or stimulating the economy? All they are doing is using public money to write off their losses at taxpayer expense while privatizing their profits to shareholders. Nice scam if you can get it.

So what you are saying is that welfare to increase social capital, maintain a basic standard of living or for roads and infrastructure is bad because of poor people, often working poor, living on the "government tit" while taxpayer subsidy to corporations is okay because they create jobs. Really?

"Even worse, there is a big problem with deals such as this: unless the cost per job is quite low, they rarely payoff. To see why such deals make no economic sense, let's go through some numbers.

A $50,000 per year job produces perhaps $2,500 per year in state tax revenue and another $2,500 in tax revenue for local governments. When government gives away $100,000 per job, it would take 20 years at $5,000 per year in tax revenue to get the $100,000 back. However, the accounting gets worse in two ways: the government spending is likely to occur at the start of the time period so we need to account for the time value of money and those workers are also causing the government to spend money so not all of that $5,000 can truly be used to offset the tax breaks.

Politicians may try to convince voters (and taxpayers) that bringing in one major employer creates other jobs at companies supplying the first one, business support services such as printers and accountants, and local restaurants and shops. However, given the numbers we just went through, even a major employer like an automaker will not attract and support enough other jobs to make the numbers favorable for taxpayers. When politicians give away six-figure sums of taxpayer money to attract a new employer, don't think of it as an investment in the local economy. It is better thought of as a vote-buying scheme funded not with campaign contributions but with taxpayer dollars."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...re-terrible-deals-for-taxpayers/#de8dd806eff6

 

...and especially unsustainable as a governing form. It's not just "I think," nice try. I'm in very good company. The Revolutionaries and Framers believed the exact same thing. If you can find one of them espousing Democracy as an actual prospective governing form for the U.S., as opposed to including some democratic elements within a Republic, I'd sincerely love to see it, as I've never found such in all my travels and reading.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101026172726AABCwtN

This is important because as the product of their times and circumstances, the Framers were perhaps the most astute, politically and historically aware negotiators and draftsmen in human history at the time. Their way of life in the New World required it to function on commercial and governmental levels. I would not want to sit across the table from any of them, even those I disagree with in certain respects, in an adversarial negotiation. They sat around hashing this stuff out daily, their whole lives, and I would instantly and certainly take their word on matters of political history and governing forms over most any Complex denizen's today.

Also would love to find any credible political philosophy (not social science or crit theory garbage, credible, serious political philosophy) that even includes "Democracy" as a sustainable form of government. Here's a nice casual explanation of the issue via video I have linked several times with -0- comments from forum Complex-LW:

Fallacious semantic nullities in political philosophy and especially in the U.S. history of political philosophy, fine in casual, colloquial or idiomatic conversation. Intolerable and dishonest in flagrant attempts of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, Marxist/socialists, crit theorists, progressives, legal activists, and others when trying to purposefully deceive and miseducate people, especially the young and impressionable. The definition of "republic" as linked above in the Framers' quotes, ALREADY INCLUDES a voting franchise in the people. There is no need whatsoever to try to muddy the waters by tacking "Democracy" onto our governing form or some bastardization. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not any form or hybrid of Democracy.

Want more? Look at the oaths taken by the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congressmen and other government, there is no "Democracy" or "popular sentiment" in there because our country's principles that demand loyalty are based on the rule of LAW, not men, a central statute that is very tough to change by design, not any notions, hybrids or variants of "Democracy":

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Not preserve and defend the will of the people, the Democracy, the representative democracy, the hybrid democracy, the constitutional democracy or even the Republic, but the Constitution. Whatever that oath is, it's NOT forwarding Democracy or some hybrid of it as the governing form. This is an extremely important distinction in ascertaining exactly what the governing form of the U.S. is and what it obviously is not.

On a state level? or especially local? Limited referenda are fine. Dissent can move and vote with its feet without being cast out altogether. But no, not on a national level.

That's enough queries answered for one post. We aren't in a classroom, and I'm not a student awaiting more penny ante Socratic Dialogue, especially not on -this- forum. Do you have any of your own thoughts to add and substantiate?

 

Dealt with, and even more thoroughly refuted, in the above longer post. The Constitutional Republic already includes representative elections and voting in the people. There is no need whatsoever to ignorantly or purposefully try to conflate the Constitutional Republic with any hybrid or variant of Democracy as the governing form.

Stating that there are "democratic processes" within our Constitutional Republic is not at all the same as claiming that our governmental form is some form or hybrid of Democracy. You and others apparently fail to grasp that very simple distinction... or are intent on purposeful muddying and deception.

 

No one has ever disputed that the error is commonplace and often repeated by statists. It is, after all, a persistent lie narrative aimed at confusion and disinformation for decades by power-hungry collectivists/redistributionists who control both the education establishment and the mainstream media.

But the fact remains that the form of government in the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not any form or hybrid of Democracy.

 

So to is a "Liberal Democracy", a democracy.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Italy, Ireland, the United States).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

 

Come up with anything published to support your assertion or are we still limited to the thoughts bouncing around in your head for evidence of your assertions?

 

What are you trying to say here? The term "Democracy" applies to each and every aspect of governing. If your government applies even a minimum of Democratic principles then the government is ....... what? If you don't like the term "some form of Democracy" or "hybrid Democracy" then you can call it what you like. How about "banana Democracy"? What difference does it make what you call it?