(11-30-2016 03:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 01:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 12:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This election was the PRIME example of why the Electoral College is necessary and valid. It worked exactly as it was supposed to do.

you are right. the purpose of the EC is because they envisioned situations like the 2016 election.

the founding fathers thought the people couldn't be trusted to make the right choice and if they elected for someone seen as unfit for POTUS the electors could negate the people's choice.

the people arguing on behalf of the EC have virtually no idea about why the EC exists. It was created to prevent people like Trump from becoming president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

Wrong. False. Nada. Niet. NO!

The electoral college exists to preserve state's rights and power. The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic and as such the EC is absolutely necessary to ensure that every state has a say in the election. If it didn't exist, NY and CA would determine the election and none of the other 48 states would have a say.

the fact you have to use exaggerations to build your case proves you have little to work with.

also for what is the 10,000th time: The US is a democracy. The term "republic" has absolutely no bearing on whether a nation is a democracy or not.

Germany is a republic, denmark is not. Ireland is a republic, The UK is not. South Korea is a republic, Japan is not. France is a republic, Spain is not. The US is a republic, Canada is not.

Oh and then there is China, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Turkey, Russia, and South Africa who are all Republics.

We are are Constitutional Federal Republic. We are a indirect democracy at best. A true democracy means I vote on laws. In the US I vote for the people who vote for the laws, this makes us a Republic that is guided by the constitution.

CIA world factbook lists us as a Constitutional Federal Republic.
https://www.cia.gov/library/Publications...os/us.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Heres a good explanation between the two:

"A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]"

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

Someone please explain the difference to me between a pure democracy and mob rule?

(12-01-2016 11:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Someone please explain the difference to me between a pure democracy and mob rule?

Not sure if serious question but I'll bite. Mob rule involves intimidation and coercion and is not typically 'lawful'. The strongest or those with the most influence "win". Pure democracy is simply majority rules and the people decide directly on laws and policy. Since the US has representatives and senators that make law and policy, the US is not a "pure" democracy.

(12-01-2016 12:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 11:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Someone please explain the difference to me between a pure democracy and mob rule?

Not sure if serious question but I'll bite. Mob rule involves intimidation and coercion and is not typically 'lawful'. The strongest or those with the most influence "win". Pure democracy is simply majority rules and the people decide directly on laws and policy. Since the US has representatives and senators that make law and policy, the US is not a "pure" democracy.

It was a discussion starter.

The founders did not see much difference in pure democracy and mob rule.

USM: I wasn't the one who started this thread and I certainly wasn't the one who made asinine and false statements. my only participation in this thread has only been correcting others on misconceptions and not once...NOT ONCE have I ever said Trump didn't win the EC. Yet that doesn't stop you are your fellow trolls from implying I did. I find it funny that you prefer butchering facts while falsely claiming to be the one supporting facts.

200: I thought you and Fo were simply pulling my leg by moving the goal posts with the direct democracy vs representative democracy crap. it seems obvious in your attempt to define both you proved that yall understand neither. So let me explain it for you. direct democracy = the people dictate policy. representative democracy = the people select the people who dictate policy. direct democracy is democracies done without elected officials. so no you are wrong. Trump didn't win the EC with less votes because we are not a direct democracy. Trump did it that way because of the rules of our representative democracy. whether we are a DD or not has absolutely no bearing on that. also California has a component of direct democracy in their form of govt.

Fo: I have the best track record on this forum of supporting my position on the EC regardless of electoral results. I was strongly advocating against the EC in 2012 when the cons on this forum argued against it. I have done it continuously since then including the weeks before the 2016 election. you have no right to make that accusation and you should apologize for making it.

miko: The fact that you compare Obama to Trump proves your own partisanship and inability to be fair on the issues. you are also dead wrong on your other points. the big states vs small states argument wasn't a key issue for creating the EC in the first place. the way the EC protects big and small states is the result of centuries of change that make our system incomparable to the orginal format. lastly Trump can still lose the EC via faithless electors so Hamilton's words are still very much alive and well.

muff: the CIA source is pretty dumb to use. for starters it uses the "communist state" designation in place of monarchy, republic, etc. which all the other major listings fail to use. so obvious it is tailored to the needs of the CIA rather than academics. but I find your use of this very suspicious:

why did you link the US page but not the general page that lists all the nations? are you afraid it would hurt your argument as we will see the CIA doesn't use the term democracy for self governing nations? the only time it calls a nation a democracy are for territories of other nations or commonwealth countries who share govt functions with England. so it seems you want to hid that fact, the communist designations, and it's designation of calling Hong Kong a democracy which would be a bit controversial and counterproductive to the very reason cons push the democracy vs republic talking point.

why use the CIA of all sources rather than the half dozen or so that you can find on wikipedia or a basic google search? did you shy away from wikipedia/google sources because they did not fit your argument and you selectively picked the one that does?

(12-01-2016 12:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  miko: The fact that you compare Obama to Trump proves your own partisanship and inability to be fair on the issues. you are also dead wrong on your other points. the big states vs small states argument wasn't a key issue for creating the EC in the first place. the way the EC protects big and small states is the result of centuries of change that make our system incomparable to the orginal format. lastly Trump can still lose the EC via faithless electors so Hamilton's words are still very much alive and well.

Wrong. Objectively, what qualifications did Obama have prior to being elected president when you compare his experience to previous presidents? Here is what we know:

• 4 years as a US senator: Only job with national exposure. At least over 1 of those 4 years was dominated by campaigning for the presidency
• 8 years as a state senator. He worked in the legislature for a state, so that is not on a national stage. No executive experience in this 8 years.
• Balance of time was law professor and community organizer
  

There was no executive experience as a governor - which is one of the avenues to the White House. He did not even finish one term as a US senator - which is one of the other avenues typically taken. While he has government experience as a state senator, that's a far cry from being governor and honestly very weak when compared to prior candidates like HRC, McCain, Bush, Kerry, Romney, Gore, etc. There is no bias here. He simply never had the experience.

Does Trump? Of course not. In another time he's a terrible pick for president. Since Obama broke the dam regarding poor qualifications as being commander in chief, there is no recourse here. Besides, Trump has actual executive experience running an international concern. Obama never had that prior to getting the most powerful job. For you to deny that Obama's experience was grossly lacking is partisan.

if being a freaking senator isn't enough then I have no idea what else to say other than you prove your partisanship right then and there. also he didn't just teach law but constitutional law.

you just love spinning the table to your needs. you really want to say a gov prepares you better than a senator and make that arbitrary line the end all be all? palin and GJ are total moronic quacks.

anyone who considers Obama to be unqualified is a partisan hack.

(12-01-2016 12:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  USM: I wasn't the one who started this thread and I certainly wasn't the one who made asinine and false statements. my only participation in this thread has only been correcting others on misconceptions and not once...NOT ONCE have I ever said Trump didn't win the EC. Yet that doesn't stop you are your fellow trolls from implying I did. I find it funny that you prefer butchering facts while falsely claiming to be the one supporting facts.

200: I thought you and Fo were simply pulling my leg by moving the goal posts with the direct democracy vs representative democracy crap. it seems obvious in your attempt to define both you proved that yall understand neither. So let me explain it for you. direct democracy = the people dictate policy. representative democracy = the people select the people who dictate policy. direct democracy is democracies done without elected officials. so no you are wrong. Trump didn't win the EC with less votes because we are not a direct democracy. Trump did it that way because of the rules of our representative democracy. whether we are a DD or not has absolutely no bearing on that. also California has a component of direct democracy in their form of govt.

Fo: I have the best track record on this forum of supporting my position on the EC regardless of electoral results. I was strongly advocating against the EC in 2012 when the cons on this forum argued against it. I have done it continuously since then including the weeks before the 2016 election. you have no right to make that accusation and you should apologize for making it.

miko: The fact that you compare Obama to Trump proves your own partisanship and inability to be fair on the issues. you are also dead wrong on your other points. the big states vs small states argument wasn't a key issue for creating the EC in the first place. the way the EC protects big and small states is the result of centuries of change that make our system incomparable to the orginal format. lastly Trump can still lose the EC via faithless electors so Hamilton's words are still very much alive and well.

muff: the CIA source is pretty dumb to use. for starters it uses the "communist state" designation in place of monarchy, republic, etc. which all the other major listings fail to use. so obvious it is tailored to the needs of the CIA rather than academics. but I find your use of this very suspicious:

why did you link the US page but not the general page that lists all the nations? are you afraid it would hurt your argument as we will see the CIA doesn't use the term democracy for self governing nations? the only time it calls a nation a democracy are for territories of other nations or commonwealth countries who share govt functions with England. so it seems you want to hid that fact, the communist designations, and it's designation of calling Hong Kong a democracy which would be a bit controversial and counterproductive to the very reason cons push the democracy vs republic talking point.

why use the CIA of all sources rather than the half dozen or so that you can find on wikipedia or a basic google search? did you shy away from wikipedia/google sources because they did not fit your argument and you selectively picked the one that does?

I used CIA because it was convenient. The listing page also calls the US a Constitutional Republic.

Other sources including wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_o...ted_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States (look on the right hand side of the screen, in that data table, for the "Government" heading. It is between "Demonym" and "Legislature")

http://madisonproject.com/2013/09/we-the...democracy/

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4 of the US CONSTITUTION)

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands..." (Pledge of Allegiance)

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-united-...democracy/

http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding...-republic/

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/media/pd...verned.pdf (third page of document)

https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/madison

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page...io_fr.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...government

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/10/...y-Factions

https://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS...aper4.html


Im not going any further than this. That is what I did with a quick google search, you can do it yourself if you want more proof.

Officially, the US is a Constitutional Federal Republic. You can make the argument that there is democratic elements and tendencies (representative democracy and such) associated with our political system, and I would agree with you. But the system of Government itself is based off a Republican form.