Is America a democracy? I dont think so.

Statists, scholars, historians, authors, dictionaries and encyclopedias.

 

Asked and answered multiple times in the thread, you are being purposefully obtuse. The governing form in the U.S. as a matter of irrefutable legal fact and history is a Constitutional Republic. Finito. The end, as a matter of 6th grade civics (provided it hasn't been historically revised by Complex, Marxist/socialist, collectivist, progressive fraudsters in whatever propaganda textbooks...). Anyone claiming otherwise has the burden to demonstrate and evidence, not the other way around, and that burden, as always when discussing things with obvious, self-interested gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer MSM Complex denizens, remains UNMET in post after post.

Yes, if you want to call something a "Democracy" or some chimerical, fabricated hybrid of that, in a government where the term appears NOWHERE in the founding documents, oaths of office, legislative history, commentary debating ratifying the Constitution in many pamphlets, regulations, rules, where the creators of the government specifically and unanimously spoke AGAINST Democracy (quoted prior), where the REAL form of government already includes representational voting, then the burden of that FANTASY is on YOU and YOURs, and has been unmet. Get busy.

"Democracy," "hybrid Democracy," "partial Democracy," is as a matter of historical record a political state that the Constitutional Republic was PURPOSEFULLY and exquisitely crafted to PREVENT. Also an irrefutable fact of American history.

Anyway, have made my case. 90% of it including the numerous facts, quotations, strands of reasoning I have posted accompanying have not been addressed or refuted in any meaningful way. Par for the course on this forum.

Many in this thread need to read the Federalist Papers because it is painfully obvious few if any of you ever have or are remotely familiar with it. It is the best possible resource for determining EXACTLY what the governing form in the U.S. is and is not. If you do so (as if lulz) you will find that the term "republic" is used exclusively to describe our government, and already includes what you are trying to inaccurately shoehorn as "democratic" elements. You will find the very -few- mentions of "democracy" in the Federalist Papers to be universally derogatory as a DANGER to be guarded against.

So keep calling a whale a fish or a "fish-mammal" or a "hybrid fish" or whatever, after having the error clearly demonstrated. That's on you and the state of your awareness.

 

Errol knew his ****, Tyrone Power was alright but the real authority was Francis Bushman. Seriously, c'mon willya, nearly everybody is constitutional nowadays, that's true (though where is Old Blighty's? And please don't try to trot out Magna Carta) but all monarchies have oligarchic features, even England has it's House of Lords

 

I am not sure what you are responding to? I was responding to the post about Swiss gives gun to their citizens.

 

No, you're just not listening very well.

Frankly, everything. The Founders of this nation, the Framers of the Constitution, looked at all the forms of government that had come before and evaluated the flaws and strengths of all of them, and wanted to create a nation where the inalienable rights and liberties of the people were protected from all the potential abuses of government. They saw (and expounded upon) how democracy was a fatally flawed style of government, and they sought to eliminate its weaknesses in our unique form of government.

That is not true. You simply are not comprehending what I am actually saying.

What are you even talking about? I never said any such thing. Our level of democracy is low because we are NOT a democracy! The more dishonest people seek to blur the lines between democracy and what the Founders of this nation were seeking to create, and it is they that are poisoning what this nation is supposed to be.

Yeah, that's not accurate either. It depends on where in the United States you are (every state is different) and the states with the least freedom tend to be the ones bending over backwards to emulate Europe.

No, this isn't about titles, nor is it about "goalpost shifting". This is about laws and differences in forms of government. What is inexcusable is the attempts to blur the lines and twist the definitions to fit an agenda that undermines Freedom and Liberty.

 

Our constitutional republic involves a democratic process = a form of democracy. Not sure I can dumb it down any further for you.

 

Hence the term "democracy" ?! - you should be putting this question to the the one in democracy denial.

 

You didn't answer the question. Would any other president in the history of the republic have released that money? Would Kennedy, who supported a free Vietnam? Would Truman, who supported a free South Korea? Would that fool Carter, who allowed the Arab countries to nationalize the oil wells and allowed Panama to nationalize the canal, have authorized the release of that money? He's the one who supported sanctions in the first place! No other president in history would have released that money to an avowed enemy of this nation. It was the act of a traitor.

 

You have a bunch of flawed ideas, but this one jumped out at me in particular... how exactly does anyone in western Europe have greater freedom than someone in the US? I suspect, but will wait to hear, that your definition of "freedom" has nothing to do with liberty and a great deal to do with government provided support. Two freedoms that exist in the US and nowhere else on earth: freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Those two by themselves assure that Americans are the most free people on earth.

Yes, we are a flawed democracy, because the will of the people does not rule. We have specific safeguards in place to assure the rights and freedoms of individuals to stand against the rule of the people. Sometimes that means the elites in Washington take a long time to get the message that the people want change, such as right now with the immigration crisis. But we put up with that as a means of protecting the minority against mob rule.

 

It might be more understandable if you would only read what the transaction entailed and why it was done. It just can't be over-simplified because it's more complex that just simply saying, "it was their money being returned with interest."

In November 1979, Iran’s revolutionary government took 52 Americans hostages at the U.S. embassy, and the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with Tehran. Who could forget that incident? Those people were held hostage in Tehran for 444 days! In retaliation, Washington froze $12 billion in Iranian assets held on our shores. The hostage crisis was resolved in 1981 at a conference in Algiers, and the U.S. returned $3 billion to Iran, with more funds going either to pay creditors, or into escrow. The two nations also established a tribunal in the Hague called the Iran United States Claims Tribunal to settle claims both leveled by each government against the other, U.S. citizens versus Iran, and vice versa.

The major issue between the two governments was a $400 million payment for military equipment made by the government of the Shah of Iran, prior to the 1979 uprising that topped him. The U.S. banned delivery of the jets and other weapons amid the hostage crisis, but froze the $400 million advance payment. The Pentagon handled arms purchases from foreign countries. Defense took care of the details. So the $400 million scheduled purchase was a government-to-government transaction. The U.S. government was holding the money. That’s why it was so difficult to resolve.

By 2015, the issue stood before a panel of nine judges, including three independent jurists, who were reportedly near a decision on binding arbitration. According to Obama administration officials, the U.S. was concerned that the tribunal would mandate an award in the multiple billions of dollars. The Iranians wanted $10 billion, but it was estimated that the tribunal would have awarded them $4 billion. That’s what the lawyers were saying. It’s not as much as they wanted, but a lot more than we paid.

So instead, the U.S. negotiators convinced Iran to move the dispute from arbitration to a private settlement. The two sides reached an agreement in mid-2015, at the same time as the U.S. and Iran reached a comprehensive pact on curtailing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The financial deal called for the U.S. to refund $1.7 billion to Tehran, consisting of the original $400 million contract for military equipment, plus $1.3 billion in interest.

Is that a little clearer now?

 

What are you on about? You know the definition of "Democracy" and you ought to be aware that it is a philosophy with tangible application. You also know (if the thorns on your exterior aren't on high alert) that the term "Democratic" is applicable on an individual basis. Any political task at hand can be dealt with by "Democratic" means while others may not. It is up to you if you, yourself consider a whole nation a "Democratic" one or not. But it is generally acknowledged (for the purpose of international understanding and appraisal) that terms such as "Flawed Democracy" be applied to those nations where the application of Democratic principles are less prevalent than others.

The 'whale called fish' (as you say) is in the naming of nations such as the Deutsche Demokratische Republik or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea where the title is merely a propaganda tool with as much validity as a pile of weapons of mass destruction in Irak. But they are just as free to name their country anything they like as you are free to ravage the definition of Democracy within your conscience.

 

You just do not get it. FIRST You seem to think there is a wall that separates Democratic anything from whatever you think a Republic is. SECOND The U.S. does not resemble whatever it did when it proclaimed itself independent. Whatever these founding uncles off yours said or did has nothing to with it. So I remind you that you are deafened by titles just as much as others who believe Stalin was an anti-Fascist just because the Soviet Union defeated the Nazis.

 

Lord in heaven! We've got a live one here, Pilgrim!

How many examples do you require?

Government-provided support is a matter of quality of life, ie. Socialist-Democratic principles. Freedom is something else.

Let us dispense with bearing of arms first. We, in Europe, are free to use our fists (if necessary) but we have laws (against firearms) & protectors of them in the form of a police force whereby protection is a matter of course. We also have core Socialist principles so that criminal activity is far less a necessary option for our citizens. We don't need guns!

Now, this one makes me roar in laughter. I don't even know how to approach you with such silliness. I am sorry, but if you believe in pixies then it would be impossible for me to explain to you that Leonard Nimoy's ears were only pasted on.

On the subject of "freedom", how are you coping with travel to Cuba or North Korea or Vietnam or Rhodesia? Funny how a nation of freedom that exists nowhere else in the world can be subject to "loss of citizenship" by travelling to some other nation and/or working for the government -including serving in their military.

 

Oranges are round. Bananas are not. I guess one of them isn't a fruit? Republic is spelt with an "R" while Democracy is spelt with a "D". They don't fit into the same bushel? Naw, that wasn't any more dumbed down than your original attempt. I guess we're stuck with it.

 

America doesn't have a monolithic political system. It has many different political systems operating at different levels: federal, State, and local. The federal system is self-explanatory: It's federal. The various State systems could be described as republics. And most local governments are democratic. But the local scale is the only scale at which genuine democracy can take place, which is why attempts to turn the US federation into a "democracy" are misguided. The US is fine as a federation. That's the only form of government that makes sense for 50 States spread out across a large territory. If one really wants to make America more democratic, then they should support the decentralization of political power down to the local level where ordinary people actually have a chance to exert influence over important political issues. Generally speaking, most political issues should be decided at a local level. And there used to be a time, not that long ago, where most people understood that.

 

Like between 1861 and 1865?

 

Speaking of America's democracy, at Point de Grenelle in Paris I overheard American tourists bitching, "The nerve of the French copying our statue! If it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German!"

 

That's rich on so many levels. Not only do they not know their own history - as in if not for the French the US would still be under British Rule - and of course the fact that the statue was a gift from same.

 

This is partially true. The main form of Gov't the founders were trying to avoid was theocracy. The main purpose of classical liberalism was to develop a secular system of Gov't. Authority of Gov't was to come from "consent of the governed" rather than "Divine Right/God".

The second principle (as you mention) was that essential liberty is supposed to be "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

In terms of democracy.. what they wanted to avoid was law on the basis of 50+1 or Simple Majority Mandate. This is referred to in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority". The bar for messing with essential liberty is supposed to be "overwhelming majority" .. at least 2/3rds.

It is true. Essential liberty in Europe is greater than in the US in general.

Nope - our democracy (input of the people with respect to law) is low because both Red and Blue hate the founding principles - and SCOTUS for that matter.

Perhaps you have heard the slogan "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" .. Did bells not ring - and canaries in the coal mine of totalitarianism not sing - when it became your "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty ?

Surely you know what Founder Franklin had to say "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

The citizens are now on their knees and cowering in corners in fear - "begging" to give up essential liberty for security - over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking".

 

It's good that we can laugh about it anyway.

 

Not sure I understand the question.

 

Not exactly. And carrying a loaded weapon in public without a permit - which ain't easy to get - is patently illegal. None of that 'open carry' BS with the Swiss. They're not stupid.

 

So you don't think there is any situation where openly carrying a firearm could be reasonable or appropriate?

 

Unless you're licensed armed security or law enforcement? No. I like the Swiss solution. As much as the NRA crowd uses the Swiss as an example they should too.

 

The US was supposed to be a federation first and foremost. And it still retains some of the characteristics of a federation. Whether the US federation can be styled a "democracy" or a "republic" is just a semantic dispute. It's probably neither, since "democracy" and "republic" imply a monolithic political entity. But the US, at least in theory, was never consolidated into a single polity. The States are still STATES, not provinces in an empire.