Why do Conservatives prefer “Republic” over “Democracy”?
On this eve of the 82nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I now have my own cache to deliver.
Because of the dishonesty, cowardice and treachery of certain forum participants and they know who they are, I will only direct my comments to those that in my experience do not behave in this fashion. Those that I do not trust will be communicated with only in generic terms and in the third person, spoken at and not communicated with. The intent and direction of my comment will be quite clear and they are free to glean from my words what they will.
Hub pages has received less than 1 star for its “customer service”, allowing the cowardly to run roughshod over this forum certainly is one reason.
I always suspected that this “Matt” is just a computer program.
But, in the famous lyric of a ditty from the band, “The Who”, “ we wont be fooled again”.
Now back to it. I know that the Heritage is a conservative think tank, but the article link below was so compelling as to allowing a view into the thinking of conservatives and right wingers that I could not resist reading it.
https://www.heritage.org/american-found … -democracy
TAKEAWAYS from the article:
Heritage says:
Republican institutions refine views, apply a brake to impetuous decisions, inject reason into impassioned debates, and help make far-sighted decisions.
———
OK
____
Heritage says:
Republicanism depends on a plurality of factions to govern, which resist the demand for more equality and more democracy in all things.
_______
What is wrong with equality and democracy?
————
Heritage says:
Egalitarianism threatens our republic by undermining the social, familial, religious, and economic distinctions and inequalities that undergird our liberty.
_______
I would think that inequality would threaten it more so. Inequality undergirds are liberty?
The examples of ancient Greek philosophers are not really relevant as the level of knowledge available to the average citizen today is not similar to the chasm between the knowledge of the philosophers verses that of the typical laymen of ancient times.
——————-
The conservative’s argument….
American republicanism, by contrast, offers protections from the instability, rashness, impetuosity, and social and political tyranny of democratic politics because it recognizes that the majority does not equal the whole of the community. Republicanism recognizes the valid contributions to the welfare of the community by non- and even counter-majoritarian parts of the community. Indeed, justice demands that, even in a nation rooted in popular consent, non- and counter-majoritarian forces must be blended together. In this way, republicanism protects the minority from unjust majorities and secures the conditions for the political and social freedoms that are the true goal of the American revolution.
—————
Conservatives always refer to the idea of two wolves versus one sheep in voting who are we to have for dinner. Well, the “Bill of Rights” protects the sheep from being either devoured or fleeced. But that does not mean that the wolves have to accede to the wishes of the sheep in every controversial issue.
——————-
Heritage says:
Thus, in Federalist No. 39, when Madison defines a republic, he stresses that it can, but need not, be directly dependent on the consent of the governed. A republic is:
a government which derives all of its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it…. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people.17
James Madison, The Federalist No. 10, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp (accessed April 13, 2020).
—————
A good point from James Madison. Perhaps this is why the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators to bring the idea of rule by consent by the governed more toward reality, eliminating any control from unaccountable special interests. Madison is wrong as I say that “consent of the governed” is the be all and end all of our politics.
—————————-
Heritage says:
For Madison and his fellow Federalists, neither government nor society should be reducible to the will of the majority; “majority” does not equal “all.” Nor does it always equal “good.” Madison and Hamilton both knew that to preserve public goods like internal stability and political liberty, non- or even counter-majoritarian political bodies are necessary to preserve the republic from its worst vices. Or, as Martin Diamond puts it, the Founders wanted to make the republic decent despite its being democratic.18
James Madison, The Federalist No. 39, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp (accessed April 13, 2020).
————-
But are these “counter-majoritarian political bodies to prevail over the will of the majority? Who can say that these bodies do not have agendas of their own contrary to the popular will and are inimical toward it?
—————
Heritage says:
The Constitution that Madison and Hamilton defended satisfies the needs of republican liberty primarily through a legislative chamber (House of Representatives) whose smaller districts and two-year terms ensured that its numerous Members would be closely bound to their constituents and thus interested in defending the will of the people. To check this body’s potential majoritarian excesses, they borrowed from the ancient republics and devised a senatorial body that would share in legislation. By limiting Senators to two per state and granting them term lengths of six years, the smaller American Senate would have institutional incentives to behave like the aristocratic classes of old while still relying (loosely) on the people for its authority.2
—————-
That did not last long, the 17th Amendment eliminated the ability of the aristocratic classes of old represented by a Senate appointed by Governors and State Legislatures to neutralize the will of the masses of American citizens. The previous arrangement had to be destroyed as the Senate, being appointed had no obligation to the people it served at all, only the oligarchs that appointed them.
Such is my attitude toward the Electoral College. I reluctantly accept its existence as a necessary compromise toward having the Constitution ratified. Smaller states with smaller populations are entitled to a voice, but the minority of citizens cannot be allowed to consistently prevail over the majority or what remains and still be called democratic. Tumbleweeds are not people.
——————-
Heritage says:
“And we see a similar disrespect or ignorance of republican purposes in the progressive effort to extend or preserve the use of the ballot initiative in the name of more democracy against state legislatures who, in curbing the reach of such a measure, seek to recover their representative and deliberative powers.”
———————
The state legislature serves at the pleasure of the people and based on the will of the governed. It was not long ago when Rick Santorum, the notorious right winger of Pennsylvania, lamented regarding the result of the ballot initiative in Ohio where the majority of voters wanted to protect abortion rights. He said that the result was the result of pure democracy rather than representative government. I say that the partisan state legislators need to be reminded of who it is that they serve. Why does their will take precedence over the majority of the Ohio electorate?
————————-
Heritage says
“But in America, equality it is not just left to political power; all aspects of human life fall under the homogenizing influence of our addiction to egalitarianism. Indeed, the democratic assault on our Constitution’s republican character does not begin its attack politically. It begins much more subtly, gradually replacing our taste of and appreciation for distinctions of any kind—be they within our familial, educational, civic, or religious lives—with a demand, more powerful by the day, for an equality of outcome.”
———-
Yes, there are distinctions such as distinguished as part of the divine right of Kings. Are those distinctions of a few to dominate the will of the many? What distinctions that there are are to be based on merit, equally attainable by anyone. Is this society really about that basic concept yet? I doubt it.
The fundamental democratic idea is that in principle all men/citizens are equal and the expression of the will of the majority is the only correct avenue. I subscribe to that. But, We know that in reality all people are not equal in skill, education or capability. But consent of the governed does not make exceptions for the “smart”, wealthy or attractive. Regardless, you have to have my permission to rule over me, expressed through the popular vote. There is no one human so smart or so noble as to be given power and authority over the rest of us based solely on who they are. Is Trump smart? There are many of us that would question that, based solely on his stable genius he is automatically qualified for the top job? I doubt it.
What are your thoughts?"Dishonesty, cowardness, and treachery." Wow. Sounds like a lot of simmering preceded that opening. You get banned or somethin'?
To the electoral college and 'minorities' part.
I think the reasons the EC was created to get the Constitution ratified (as you described) are still valid today. The smaller states' 'minority' status and voting power are still the same.
In the context of 'states' being the pool of voters, when has the minority overruled the majority?
GAI think it was a brilliant, masterful, revolutionary government at its time.
In today's world it has been exposed, its weaknesses taken advantage of in ways no one could anticipate from the time of its inception.
Congress and the Supreme Court do not have the powers or control they once had. Government Agencies have more power and authority than our elected officials. The IRS, DOJ, FBI can destroy any person/politician it wishes in a variety of ways, they have powers never intended to be given out by the Founders.
The unseen/unelected officials that roam the halls of DC and the International Financial Institutions and Corporations that have more wealth than most Nations have more influence on our lives and our government's actions then do your Senators in Congress.
The UN & WEF united in 2019 signed a Strategic Partnership Framework outlining areas of cooperation to deepen institutional engagement and jointly accelerate the advancement towards Agenda 2030 and Great Reset goals.
The American government, Politicians and Unelected are today essentially beholden to those efforts of the UN & WEF, as most governments of the Western World are.
It is a complicated issue, because it is not merely a matter of giving the people the right to vote... making Democracy trump Republic mechanisms meant to maintain control and reason of change, rather than have it be at the knee-jerk reaction to the mob.
It may be more nefarious than that, the belief may simply be that the Democrat Party realizes it has control of key States with massive populations, these States political machinery has been corrupted and are completely under their control... and if they can throw off the restrictions put in place by the Electoral System and the Republic... they never have to worry about losing control of the system again.
The masses, historically, have been proven far easier to manipulate then the machinations of a Republic, whether it be in Roman times or today.I don't note any difference in the relative power of Congress or the Supreme Court. The IRS, FBI and DOJ, are charged with enforcing the law, there are to be no prima donnas and no one considered above the law.
The affluent have always had disproportionate share of wealth and influence in government, what else is new? It needs to be curtailed, but the Right are the most resistant in regards to this.
The mechanisms you refer to have been in place. I don't want Republic mechanisms allowing the few to dominate the many as being acceptable either.
You can keep you electoral system, but The residents of Wyoming must never have the ability to overrule a New York or California. It is presumptively of you to say that just because states are more populated, that they are corrupt. Let's face it, the real reason is that they tend to be ethnically diverse and just as Trump and MAGA alludes to, these people should not have a voice. That idea, too, from my standpoint, is dead in the water....
The machinations of a Republic must be firmly anchored in democracy or we dance with despotism and tyranny.Yes, I think we are doing a very good job of dancing with despotism and tyranny in the country today.
We both worry about some of the very same things, for very different reasons, identifying very different threats.Well, I don't think the FBI should be collaborating with all the major social media and main stream media sites to control messaging and silencing of dissent.
I don't think 50 top echelon members of the NSA/FBI/CIA should be penning their name to a paper that states the Hunter Biden Laptop is Russian conspiracy when they have it in their possession, and such a letter misinforms Americans.
I don't think the FBI/DOJ should be giving a pass to one politician for having "Confidential Documents" found at their residence while prosecuting another for the very same thing.
I don't think the DOJ, State or Federal, should be allowed to prosecute a former and current front runner for President, period, unless we are talking about the fully witnessed, filmed and documented murder of someone with their bare hands type of crime. Especially in today's world of information technology, cellphones, and corrupt institutions.
Sorry, half the country is not going to buy it. Half the country is only going to see a corrupt system prosecuting the former President on fabricated and phony charges.
Do you not recognize the fact, the reality, that to imprison or in any other way impede Trump running for President will literally bring about the demise of the "Democracy" you believe yourself to be defending?
No... of course not, and no one participating in this effort to seek "justice" against Trump does either. History repeats, what has brought down other great nations is bringing down our own.
The Democratic Party and the Establishment is working so hard to maintain its control that one has to wonder how long it can last?"The Democratic Party and the Establishment is working so hard to maintain its control that one has to wonder how long it can last?"
Very true!You and I were speaking about the "machinations of a Republic" as a desirable check on pure Democracy. That "machination" is found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
No one is above the law and I think that the charges against Trump are valid, so say "my half". Anyone who breaks the law can and should be prosecuted, I don't care who they are. Trump will get his day in court where he will have the opportunity to exonerate himself.
The Constitution has prescriptions as to who can qualify and hold the office of President. Is that not part of the "machinations inherent in the idea of a Republic? If you are under 35 years or are found guilty of stoking rebellion and insurrection against the United States, Amendment 14, Secection 3, you are disqualified from running. The Republican Right was certain to bring this principle of proscribed qualifications when accusing Obama of not being an American citizen, and face it, you can't have it both ways.
What control the Democrats have is given them by the voters, what would the Republican Right have done in its place?
------
Ken, I can always count on your challenges to give me a run for my money, I am glad that you are here....The Democratic Party and the Establishment is working so hard to maintain its control that one has to wonder how long it can last?
And what of these? Do you agree with these statements?
“Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a ‘tenfold’ increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!” “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”.
“It’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it.”
“They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason,”
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet, and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. And we have to talk to them. Maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way… Somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a LOT of foolish people.”
"We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
"Our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on [MSNBC] and make them pay for their illegal political activity,”
Gosh that pesky first amendment... Maybe someone will get rid of it someday lol. Freedom of the press only for those who are agreeable and positive?
Otherwise they are branded as “the enemy of the American people.” and should have the government "look into them" or "come down hard".
Authoritarianism is built on muzzling the press.Well we have a problem today, don't we?
The "free press" isn't really free, it has already been muzzled.
So... it appears it takes an unhinged orange man to make many in America wake up to this reality.
Then... it takes a rocket man, who also is slightly unhinged, to spend 55 billion dollars to buy Twitter, release the Twitter files, to prove it true.
So... now we have two camps in regards to "the Press"... those of us that realize they are spouting propaganda, misinformation, and indoctrination.
And the other camp that believes it is real "news" filled with honesty and integrity.
But... this goes along with the narrative across politics and society today.
You are either in with Identity Politics and all that goes with it. Or you are not in with it and still believe in the old system of Meritocracy, Free Speech and Opportunity.
The two cannot exist together... ultimately Identity Politics is doomed to fail, basing things off of feelings not facts, is not going bring prosperity, it will bring calamity.
This is how it will probably go... Trump will be jailed or sidelined in some other fashion... which is going to piss off a whole lot of people.
You and Credence and Valeant will be happy, you will have defeated the next Hitler, you will have slayed the beast and sent away the hordes of evil that supported him.
But that is not what you will have accomplished, you will have gained a few more years for the people in control that are trying to enslave us all... and either they will be successful in doing so... or... you will have brought about a wave of resentment for the system so huge, so unstoppable, that they do bring into existence the next Hitler and he does bring about the demise of the Republic once and for all.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Unlike other things, like the Ukraine war that I harped on for over a year, this is harder to predict there are more nuances and uncertainties in how it might play out.
You don't think the FBI should be trying to protect our elections from foreign interference? What you call, 'controlling of messaging and silencing of dissent?'
Then in the next paragraph, you, likely intentionally, leave out that the 50 were 'former' top echelon members of NSA/FBI,CIA and that the laptop would not have been in their possession as former members. In essence, that they should not be able to have an opinion on the matter - that they should be silenced.
And the FBI/DOJ is not prosecuting Trump 'having confidential documents at his residence.' He is being prosecuted for his refusal and obstruction in returning them when asked. This is where we have issues with those that support Trump. They claim some unequal treatment while completely misunderstanding what the man is actually charged with. Charges that stem from action that he alone took and that other reasonable men such as Pence and Biden understood were not necessary. And as an aside, I also hope he gets charged in New Jersey for openly showing them to people who didn't have clearance to view them, as he is on audio tape clearly doing. Or do you think a former president should be allowed to have and show people the nation's most sensitive secrets?
And your idea that anyone who announces a candidacy for the presidency should be immune to all laws but murder flies directly in the face of 'no one is above the law.' Which is why the left is energized - because half the country is willing to put their preferred candidate above the laws of the land. They are willing to turn a blind eye to campaign finance, fraud, and even an attempt to overturn an election where their candidate loses.
The left wants to know if the person the opposing party gives their nomination to is a criminal. They already have part of the answer when a jury of his peers found him liable for sexually abusing a woman and defaming her. A result the Republicans of the country didn't even blink at in further display of their lack of recognition that the laws of our land should govern their candidate.
The Republican Party is now gone and all that remains is a cult devoted to one man that over half the country believes committed crimes against certain states and the very country he would be charged with leading. And we believe we deserve a definitive answer to that belief before casting our vote in 2024.There is so much to attack in this one paragraph alone.
Trump is not just anyone, he is a former President, that is the front runner to be the next President. So there is a very substantial problem with a DOJ that appears to be in the pocket of the current President assailing him with 92 different felony charges across multiple states.
Biden has not minced words on his views of Putin, whom is one of the starkest examples of a politician willing to do just about anything to eliminate anyone who represents even possible opposition.
Isn't this what the Biden Administration is doing to Trump?
Isn't that what his rhetoric has been about since day one?
Trump is a threat to Democracy, all those that support him are a threat to Democracy, they are Domestic Terrorists... that doesn't leave much wiggle room to allow those people to run for election or vote, does it?
And then that last sentence really tops it off " They are willing to turn a blind eye to campaign finance, fraud, and even an attempt to overturn an election where their candidate loses. "
Well... isn't that exactly all the things Biden has been accused of?
Don't we have a far clearer record of the Biden family abusing their political position for their own enrichment?
Whereas Trump used his financial means to impose himself onto the political stage and disrupt the corruption and collusion ongoing in DC?
I like debating issues, but your opinions have always had a flawed ideological slant that makes no sense to me. In this case you accuse Trump of exactly the same things most people realize Biden is accused of doing... but he gets a pass, he gets protection, the FBI is bending over backwards to help him... but going and making up false charges on Trump for the very same thing is OK?
Also, I do get tired of you and others lumping me in with Trumpsters just because I am trying to point out the hypocrisy and tyrannical nature of what is being done to him. And thereby, the backlash that is likely to come, if those efforts against him are successful.
That is not the same as saying I am all in on Trump. Not that it appears we have an alternative, I'll take DeSantis if that is the option that is proffered instead, if they put Trump in a box and throw away the key.You are right, Trump is a former president, who is charged with committing crimes during and just after his presidency. The investigations into those crimes began long before he announced any intention of running for reelection. Just because he decide to run again, does not and should not absolve him of accountability for those crimes. And especially when those crimes were levied against the very states and federal systems of government he would be charged with protecting.
You think Biden is on par with Putin, who literally assassinates people? C'mon with that false equivalency. The Trump hyperbole seems to be extending to those who defend him now, I see. And please provide the proof that Biden has instructed his DOJ to go after Trump. One single shred of proof would do.
And yes, Trump is a threat to democracy as he tried, by alleged illegal means, to remain in power despite losing a free and fair election. Then when his plans for a soft coup did not come to fruition, he organized and incited his crowd to attack the Captiol to stop the cerification of the election results. The goal was to then make the case that the state legislatures should decide the outcome, where the GOP held the advantage and the vote of the people could have been tossed aside.
Is Biden accused by the right (without any real evidence mind you) of campaign finance, fraud and trying to overturn an election? No, the far-right is accusing him of bribery - with their main evidence being loan repayments to and from his family as some form of 'evidence,' which it is not. But which we have all read that all the main contributors from the far-right have jumped onto the bandwagon of believing that it is. We on the left see that as the joke and lies by omission that it truly is.
I don't mind debating you either, but most of your arguments are flawed by the actual facts. Such as what Trump is actually charged with in the classified documents case. When I pointed it out to you, in clear terms, the false equivalency you were trying to make should have been easily apparent. Same with the accusations against Biden and the charges against Trump. They are significantly different, although the idea that Biden stole the election, from his basement, by coordinating with multiple GOP Secretaries of State, with dementia, still makes us on the left laugh hysterically. The accusations from the right are so removed from reality that that's all we can do is laugh at them.
And you get lumped in with the MAGA crowd because you come on here and spew those same conspiracies to defend Trump. You may not prefer him as a candidate, but you're in the same media ecosystem that is radicalizing them against their own government through gaslighting and the omission of the facts that we get on the left.This narrative has been expressed, it has been told to the people, the MSM has informed America and the world.
It should NOT be up to a handful of judges to decide if Trump is guilty of any of those things at this stage, it should be left to the American people.
I recognize that you have great difficulty seeing the meaning, the intent, of what I type... we have had this problem of communicating ideas in the past. You are missing what I am saying now.
Without blood on his hands, overwhelming proof, that would convince the most die-hard American flag waiving Conservative that Trump is the things you accuse him of being and doing... the best thing the country can do... is let it go... make your case... and let the voters decide.
The ignorance and idiocy flowing from the likes of MSNBC has all but made certain that easily half the country will not believe ANY judgement brought against Trump... it will only re-affirm their beliefs of the corruption and criminality inherit in the system.
Which is fine... if your ultimate goal is either the enslavement of the American people or bringing about the evolution of the next Hitler or Stalin like leadership... if that is the goal, this is the way to go.
If its not... let the voters decide. They won't do that... because really, truly, the people currently in charge are evil, they want control, they will not give up control, staying in power is what matters... the end justifies the means.It should NOT be up to a handful of judges to decide if Trump is guilty of any of those things at this stage, it should be left to the American people.
NO! It is up to a court of law, after all we do not want to be found guilty of promoting mob rule.
I don't care who Donald Trump thinks that he is, he will have his day in court and face the charges as would any other citizen. "My" half says that the indictments and charges are quite valid.Whose law Credence?
The law of an AG who ran on promises to bring down Trump before she ever became AG?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yj0NKSsuU
Is that impartial Law... is that Justice?
Or is it the Judge, who resides over the case, that has already declared him guilty and is just going through the motions?
Why I struggle to argue this side of the debate, is I don't want a return to Trump. I'd like him out of the way myself, I think DeSantis is more capable, more articulate, and more serious.
I know, you probably dislike DeSantis just as much as Trump, you might not even see a difference between them... the problem with persecuting Trump, prior to the election, its going to convince tens of millions of Americans he was screwed by a corrupt system.
It doesn't matter whether he really was or not... its the PERCEPTION that matters... and when you are dealing with tens of millions of people, maybe even a hundred million people... if they perceive that wrong has been done, there are consequences that will come from it.Claims of Politicized law enforcement is a red herring, with you basically saying that the offenses of Jan 6 and that of Trump are to be summarily dismissed. It is merely an excuse, Ken. That is a non-starter.
Interesting, you prefer DeSantis over Trump?
While those on the Right believed he was screwed, the other half says otherwise. Reality trumps perception. Those consequences better not be another Jan 6th, or greater severity in punishment can be anticipated.
DeSantis is just another tyrannical phony, trying to imitate Trump and who just does not seem to have the knack
May justice prevail even though the heavens fall. As for "blowback", we will see.No, not in today's world it doesn't. Not at all.
Lol... Reality trumps perception... that's not what Identity Politics is based on Credence, shame on you.
The half you don't agree with have their reality. You might not agree that it is reality, but its their reality none the less.
Yeah, we have problems... real problems... Biden is incompetent and corrupt. Thats a fact... one you might not perceive, but its reality, and it trumps perception.
Trust me, the leaders in Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, see this reality just as clear as I do... which is why the world is turning on us, fast.
[EDIT]
By the Way... I told you they would put us into the Ukraine war. It appears they are threatening to do that now... it is still too early but this appears a good indicator of what is to come:
The Biden administration is openly threatening Americans over Ukraine. In a classified briefing in the House yesterday, defense secretary Lloyd Austin informed members that if they don’t appropriate more money for Zelensky, “we’ll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight Russia.”
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/statu … 5591458056
Off to do some digging, find out what is filtering through the grapevine.
'I recognize that you have great difficulty seeing the meaning, the intent, of what I type... we have had this problem of communicating ideas in the past. You are missing what I am saying now.'
I have zero difficulty in seeing what you mean. I just disagree with it, which you cannot comprehend how anyone could disagree with your views. I'd break down why, but pretty sure that could lead to another ban.
You believe, without any justification in the law, that a private citizen who happens to be a former president, or one currently running for the office, should be able to commit any crime but murder, and held to account only if that person's constituents agree that he has committed said murder. That the penalty for any and all those other crimes is to be voted against and that is it. That anyone not with that thought is an idiot, believes flawed thinking, or is evil.
I'm sorry, but in the battle of who has the flawed thinking, I'm confident where I'm standing on this one. And so far, the courts, which it is clear that most Trump defenders no longer believe in, seem to be on my side.
I can't verify if I "spew" the same "conspiracies" or not because I do not belong to a particular media ecosystem.
I use a smattering of news from whatever sources I come across, some common sense, some concept of history and past occurrences and how they may correlate to today's events.
I am not well versed in the nuances of NY Law, or the particulars of any of the cases he is involved with. And I am pretty sure that most Trump supporters are as equally ill informed in that regards.
As I said, I don't think they care. I don't think the middle-of-the-road independents or libertarians care much either.
I don't mean that they support him, I mean, they don't care about any of the things he has been brought up on... especially when one considers the corruption and crime in our politics and government today.
Trump over-valued his property... Trump committed tax-fraud... Trump tried to overturn an election... they aren't going to buy into it.
There will be consequences for taking Trump out, political consequences, that impact in ways that cannot be calculated right now, down the road."As I said, I don't think they care. I don't think the middle-of-the-road independents or libertarians care much either."
The only people that will follow Trump into hell are the hard core MAGA types and they may not be as influential as they let on.There is still a lot of time from now until November.
We might not make it there without WWIII breaking out.
Trump is only a good option, IMO, if the alternative is Biden (or Harris).
I hope, and I may even put effort into, someone else being the nominee.
We will see how DeSantis does in Iowa.
I have written off Haley because of her position on Ukraine.
No one else remaining in the race has a chance or is worth considering.
I felt DeSantis wasn't the guy either, until I watched him debate Newsom, and I watched a little of him last night in the final Debate.
IMO he should be the next President... we really need a military man for the current catastrophic times Biden has led the country into... we need someone with a connection to the costs of war, in terms of lives and tragedy, as President... to get ourselves out of the Middle East, Russian border, and Chinese border conflicts without burning the world down.
Its clear as heck to anyone that can see that Biden and this Administration is not up to the task of navigating the threats we face properly today.
Yep, i allowed myself to be blindsighted resulting in a banning. But rest assured that as Bill Maher states there are "new rules".
What is Ohio all about along several red states determined to resist ballot issues over abortion? Why cant these GOP legislators trust the electorate?New rules? Go for it bud. I can see it now . . .
'The choir room door burst open . . .
Bathed in the aura of enlightened righteousness, and with loins girded and quill held high, you sally forth to battle the many heads of the Right-wingers' hydra of misinformation, distortion, and oppression.
Come on now. That was cute. I would have gone with a 'New sheriff in town' or 'the good guy that refuses to stay down' or maybe even a 'Pheonix rising from the ashes' analogy, but I recently watch Troy and Brad Pitt seemed a perfect fit for you.
Troy has its Achilles and HP has its Cred.
In a dozen years of bantering, I have never seen any of your comments that were insulting. You just ran into someone who shouldn't be in the kitchen.
Hang in there, Willowarbor has your back:
And you know MyEsoteric will be with you:
(this was when he still had hair)
GA'The choir room door burst open . . .
Bathed in the aura of enlightened righteousness, and with loins girded and quill held high, you sally forth to battle the many heads of the Right-wingers' hydra of misinformation, distortion, and oppression.
That's cute and I will wear the shoes. I take pride in not deliberately offending people over those 12 years. The bad actors need to be kicked out of the kitchen and evicted from the house. Being the warrior that I am my task is promote superior Left oriented attitudes over the beasts from the Right. Together with like minded people we will prevail over the Dark Side, one Death Star at a time.
It is nice to be considered fundamental and appreciated as such, thank youNow I'm starting to feel like chopped liver....
Yeah, it's always a problem, somebody gets left out. But I did loop you in in a response to Cred. His thread is looking like a reunion of alumni.
Here you are, the Sentinel, a spear for the heart of the fray:
(note the headgear and cape, you're partnered with Willowarbor)
GA
You lost a lot of 'cool' points off your street cred with that post GA.
I didn't think I had any 'street cred' to lose. What did me in, the analogy of Cred as a girded warrior (that's not new, been riding him over his challenge to 'sally forth' for a while), or the sarcasm about who he was battling?
GA
Thanks, someone had to say this as it is long overdue.
I've had so many interactions with Matt that he's going to be in my wedding party. I've been so dissatisfied with Matt's rulings that I went above him and spoke with the editor-in-chief of the site.
Nice To have you back, Valeant.
Curious, what happened when you spoke to the editor-in-chief?She did what any good leader would do and backed her employee. I don't fault her, I likely crossed the line as I am oft to do.
Instead of taking your inquiry seriously she took the coward's way out, preferring to hide her head under the sand. I should not be surprised....
As a manager, I would look over the work of subordinates, particularly in the face of so many complaints to see what needs to be done better.
You are much nicer than me, because I DO fault her.
Holy cow, the woodwork is crawling. ;-)
As an aside, CNN's Dana Perino just prompted an old sailor's chuckle. In describing the debate attacks on Haley she said . . .
'It was her turn in the barrel'
My jaw dropped. As an old sailor, I only know of one meaning for that phrase. I did check the Urban dictionary to be sure, and I was right.
Maybe Dana doesn't know its origins or thinks it means something else, but it probably wasn't her best choice of analogies. Maybe she needs a 30-day timeout. I was almost offended that she would say that about Niki ;-o
Ga
If you have read Russell Kirks 10 principals of conservatism, you would know that is the basis of what the Heritage Foundation espouses.
Kirk takes the view that because inequality is a reality, then there is no sense in trying to do a damn thing about it. That was the view conservatives took back in the 1800s when slavery was popular. Since it is a fact of life, it must be what God intended. They caused a Civil War to maintain that conservative institution.
They also seem to have modified the definition of "republic" and "republicanism" to fit their belief system.
It doesn't seem their definition fits the accepted one which is "A republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives ..."
From that simple idea, the Heritage Foundation imputed a whole host of characteristics that stray far from the original idea.
Let's try "republicanism": Republicanism is a political ideology centred on citizenship in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it emphasizes the idea of self-rule and ranges from the rule of a representative minority or aristocracy to popular sovereignty
It seems Heritage cherry-picked from this definition which covers the whole gamut of possible structures. Nowhere in there does it say whether inequality is accepted or rejected.That is not what the issue is.
The issue is that smaller states, less populated states, are impacting the ability of much larger (economically and population wise) states to dominate politics and policy in the US.
States like CA and NY do not want to share power any more than Democrats want to share power in Congress with Republicans.
This is why they argue for abolishing the Electoral Process and going with the overall popular vote.
Don't worry Eso, the system is not going to allow Trump to return, they didn't allow him to make any real changes that couldn't be undone when he was in there.
In 2018 a historic amount of Republicans retired or didn't run for re-election ensuring the Dems regained control. They are playing the same game now, McCarthy resigns, Santos is ousted, Bill Johnson is retiring, McHenry is leaving.
The Republicans will lose control of the House to the Dems and they in turn will end all investigations against Biden, impeachment proceedings, J6 video releases, etc.
Then they can start some Trump Committee investigations during the next 12 months, a little election interference, no big deal.
You can relax.The problem with Kirks view with regarding inequity, it that it is usually promoted by those for whom maintaining the inequity gives a structural advantage. That, in its very nature makes it unstable and unsustainable. Of course, whatever gives you the advantage, must be what God intended.
----
A republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives ..."
Great point, that is certainly not what Republicans are harping these days. They want power and authority beyond that given by the body of citizens entitled to vote. How do I define that?
------
Ibeli ve Republicans would rather remove the idea of popular sovereignty as a bedrock principle.
That is a lot to digest, Cred. I will do some wandering with a comment, well, just because I can . . .
Regarding the forum, all one has to do is ponder who has been banned since at least 2015, perhaps better said back to thirteen years ago when I became a member here, to know who, for whatever cause, has reported them. Good cause certainly is in the mix, while vengeance also holds its own truth.
Perhaps that alone gives reasoning to the discussion of Democracy vs. Republic. Authoritarianism? Survival of the fittest? Natural selection? Divine intervention? A nefarious plot by those with the strongest need to belong and group dynamics? (Talk about groupthink) Generational? Sexism? Misandry? Evolution? Decay? Societal collapse? And, on and on . . .
“Societal collapse (also known as civilizational collapse or systems collapse) is the fall of a complex human society characterized by the loss of cultural identity and of social complexity as an adaptive system, the downfall of government, and the rise of violence.” (Key word = loss leading to the steps of grieving = Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance)
Maybe, from the big picture, the forum today emulates that of HubPages itself as a community of writers, free thinkers, the entrepreneurial spirit not only for the almighty buck, yet a message that the deep inner recesses of the complexity of individualism, an autonomous being, or perhaps a soul seeks through the freedom of expression and free speech have been stymied with the fact that limitations are placed upon that through a cost. One cannot make a profit without a cost. It is a question of what that cost is . . . and, more importantly, perhaps, what the profit is. Business 101.
Democracy vs Republic, a whole different matter, right?
"The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
[Who are the political minorities in the U.S. today? Certainly not the Republicans nor the Democrats, is it? Perhaps, as Ken has pointed out, it is the elite having control of the wealth of not nations, but of the world wielding their forces to cause change, at a cost, for a profit.
(Take a look at the formula for ‘power’ sometime when time is of avail. Science is science.)
Perhaps not. Or, other parties that are relegated to being obscure nuisances at best. Maybe lone wolves that have departed the greater society have found resolute comfort for a ‘self’ seeking a higher consciousness, a God or gods, or simply a purpose for their life.]
Most modern nations—including the United States—are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government. This comparison, therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the features of a republic."
When one does a deep dive, those two have as many similarities as they do differences. Rather than list everything sharing the differences and likeness of the two I’ll offer a link, one of several. It is:
Democracy vs. Republic by the website Difference
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
Worth a peek.Hi, TSmog, thanks for ringing in.
Your link is spot on and I am in 100 percent agreement with the role of Republic verses that of Democracy as provided in your link.
I have long since bypassed the idea of making money here. I am compelled through the exchange of ideas and opinions to participate in the forums.
My main theme is that even though there will always be hierarchies with some being more equal than others, our ultimate survival depends upon working to ameliorate those differences as having adverse effects upon the rights of others. Why is the fact that you, as an individual, are wealthy give you inordinate influence over our representatives who are there to serve the constituency that put he or she there? For example.Good points!!
On that note, I encourage anyone to peek at the website linked below. It is about lobbyist and their contributions
Top Recipients of Contributions from Lobbyists, 2024 Cycle by Open Secrets
"Members of congress spend a large part of their time looking for campaign contributions and lobbyists offer a prime target. These are the members who received the most from lobbyists who are also calling on congressional offices to influence policy."
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lob … recipients
Note: Don't forget to select by committee instead of by politician for a giggle or two.An interesting list, that doesn't tell the whole story.
What about the endorsements family members get that is not shown?
What about the 18 trademarks granted to companies linked to Ivanka Trump by China?
What about Hunter Biden’s $1.5 billion dollar deal with the Chinese-State to establish a private-equity firm in which they managed the funds over time and made huge profits?
Or Hunter's position with the largest energy company in Ukraine?
These are things rarely talked about or admitted to, certainly not officially tracked,.. they are just a different form of payoff.
Yes, Tsmog gave an excellent link.
"Many make this statement: “The United States is a republic, not a democracy”. This makes it seem like a democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive. They usually aren't; usually a republic is a type of representational democracy with some checks and balances enshrined in the constitution that safeguard the rights of minorities."
The biggest threat to our Representative Democracy has been outside forces and corruption on a grand scale.
Those threats to our Democratic Republic have heavy influence (control) over our Government today. A government that has now decided that the biggest threat to them, are those citizens within America that recognize this.
Hence, we have a President that warns that the biggest threat to Democracy are "Domestic Terrorists" aka "Trump Supporters".
But that could easily shift to "DeSantis" supporters or anyone who opposes the changes being made to America that are not supported in the Constitution nor supported by the will of the Majority.
Obscured by noble sounding verbiage, the text of the UN & WEF’s Agenda 2030 hides a hideous truth. When you look past the “sustainable development” and "carbon taxation" jargon, it’s clear they want to take away our assets from electrical appliances to motor vehicles and even property rights, they want to control our ability to purchase through CBDC, the ability to travel reserved to only those who can afford to pay the "carbon taxation" and so on.
They want to create a new serfdom, they want to recreate the CCP on a global scale, with the ability to control and observe everything you do.
Beneath WEF’s benevolent surface, it becomes clear that corporatism and, more aptly, fascism, are its modus operandi. WEF’s Board of Trustees is packed with powerful and prominent representatives from government and multinational corporations like BlackRock, Salesforce and Microsoft.
Mussolini … defined his particular brand of fascism as corporatism emerging of private and public power. Looking at it through that frame of reference essentially the World Economic Forum … is promoting a fascistic ideology around the world.
They create policies through both the public-private partnerships that are housed within the World Economic Forum and affiliated with but external to the World Economic Forum, like their partnership with the UN.
Those policies are given then to governments around the world, and many governments around the world have a lot of prominent officials who in the past have been trained by the “leadership programs” of the World Economic Forum and its affiliates. Such as Gavin Newsom in CA, and Trudeau in Canada.
As I have been stating for years now, one has to read (a lot) about Agenda 2030 and the WEF to understand what the goals are.
Agenda 2030 is aimed at reducing middle-class’ consumption of basic goods and energy, which includes limiting, with an eye toward eliminating, property rights and private ownership for future generations, along with targeting such “luxuries” as ownership of electric appliances and motor vehicles along with suburban housing and air conditioning. And most especially the ability to own Arms and present a risk to the ruling elite.
Serfdom.
A removal of Liberty and Freedom.
Control over access to resources and the ability to receive care.
So much happened with the bringing down of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, one change that occurred as a result, was the usurpation and repurposing of the United Nations.
The UN, instead of championing the public sectors of the world, as was originally intended and is how most people think of the UN, instead prioritizes the needs of the businesses of the world.
Of course, you could say similar to what America's efforts in foreign affairs has been all about for the last 30 years as well, ... little, if any, military actions we have taken the last 30 years was motivated by anything else.
Multinational corporations … over the past three decades especially, the World Economic Forum being a major part of this along with the United Nations, has pushed to prioritize corporate needs over public needs.
I can't stress enough the need for people who believe they are fighting for "freedom and rights" to come to terms with, and understand, what the WEF and UN are all about today.
My greatest disappointment and discouragement has been these Forums on Hubpages... because if I cannot find a way of convincing people on this Forum of the threat... people who ARE interested in politics, who are passionate about protecting freedom, liberty, and upward economic mobility for all who are capable of achieving it... what chance is there to get this information out to others less interested in taking the time to read and comprehend what is truly occurring?
One of WEF/Schwab’s top advisers, transhumanist Yuval Noah Harari, PhD, openly admits their goal is to do more than “just build digital dictatorships.”
“Humans are now hackable animals,” Harari said. “Humans have this soul or spirit and they have free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will – that’s over.”
Yeah... that's the goal.
Harari has made the point that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is different from past industrial revolutions because … in the late 19th century you had two classes... the exploited and the unexploited. And he says, in contrast, now the Fourth Industrial Revolution will mean there will be three classes... the unexploited, the exploited and the irrelevant.
And what do you do with things that are irrelevant?
What did the Nazis do with them?
What did Stalin do with them?
This will be no different.
Harari, at World Economic Forum meetings, says the point that technology gets into your body and is capable of surveilling your thoughts is the line that the world crosses into digital dictatorship... where the leadership will be able to know what you really think about them and what you really think about issues. And if you don’t agree, to use his words, "you’ll end up in the Gulag the next morning".
The implications of mass surveillance policies being promoted by WEF is an unconstitutional monitoring of dissent, with the intent of stamping it out. Big Tech is working with military and intelligence agencies toward this end.
This is why it makes a Big Deal that the FBI worked with all the Big Tech Social Media platforms to silence Trump and his supporters.
This is why it is such a Big Deal that they now target X/Musk for trying to maintain a platform where people can discuss what they do not want being discussed.
This is why no American should support the ongoing persecution of Trump and his supporters... you don't need to like him, them, or their beliefs... but you better understand that if you allow the mechanisms of the government silence and destroy them today... YOU will be the one targeted tomorrow.
I whole-heartedly agree, Tsmog. Let me expand on the wealth thing a bit.
It is a fact of life that the wealthy, be they individuals or corporations, will wield outsized power and influence in all aspects of life. It just goes along with the territory. The trick is for good governments to properly regulate it while not killing it. Ours often tries to follow this course against great opposition.
Bad governments try to encourage or participate in it. A great example there is Putin in Russia.
Along the same line, pure capitalism is doomed to turn into despotic rule by a few. Beneficial capitalism can only exist alongside appropriate government regulation. Our whole history has been a struggle between one side who wants no or little regulation and the other which wants appropriate (and some times too much) regulation so that the benefits from capitalism keep flowing.
Our founding fathers greatest fear was an overbearing government and/or a run-away executive with few constraints; they often railed against "democracy" in their speeches. What resulted is probably the best compromise that was possible at the time.
"Why do Conservatives prefer “Republic” over “Democracy”?
At the close of the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what it is that we have here.
He answered, "a Republic".
Good enough for me.The problem with that statement is that most of our founders were liberals, not conservatives. They strongly opposed the Conservative government in England.
https://crossworks.holycross.edu/econ_w … apers/141/These men were willing to hang for the cause of liberty, for the right of the people to self-govern & choose their own path. Nothing about any of them even hints at Big Daddy Gov, needy, liberalism!
Yet, liberals they were, most of them anyway. They were men of the enlightenment and the enlightenment was a progressive/liberal movement.
"Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to the application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society."
Conservatism was all about maintaining the status quo (think slavery) and preserving what they believed was the natural divisions between classes. Russell Kirk codifies this in his 10 Principles of Conservativism. The well known Conservative of the time, Edmund Burke, wrote that practical, constitutional liberty required that a free people be led by a “natural aristocracy” (as opposed to a hereditary aristocracy). This is, of course, totally against liberal principles but is ever present in today's conservative actions. Take for example, conservative want to protect women from themselves so they take away their right to chose. Same thing with gay people, conservatives feel a need to "fix" them since they are obviously abnormal. This was Not the mindset of most of those who signed our Constituion.
Agreed, ESO, from an 18th century standpoint, from the norm of absolute monarchies, the founding fathers were liberal. But inspite of that, the people were not trusted without reservation. The founders made sure that only certain people participated and that wealth and property remained protected.
Related Discussions
- 20
Are We Conservatives Wiser Than One of The Great Philosophers
by ga anderson 5 years ago
In reading an essay on Cicero's On the Republic I stumbled across a couple of passages that force me to consider their pertinence to our modern times.Speaking to a Democratic Republic form of government and society, (ours) ..."Yet, in this greatest of strengths also resides the deepest of...
- 182
Is the Separation of Powers BROKEN in the USA?
by Arthur Russ 4 months ago
In a true democracy there should be a separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature. No democracy is perfect, but how imperfect is the American democracy?While browsing the web in relation to a question on the Separation of Powers in the USA (in another forum) I...
- 10
Why does the definition of a democracy and republic matter?
by sean kinn 13 years ago
Why does the definition of a democracy and republic matter?I know the basic difference between a democracy and a republic - so the question is: Why does it matter? Why do some people feel that it is important to point out that most Americans believe that they live in a democracy - whereas, most...
- 44
Is Pure Democracy a Bad Thing For a Nation
by ga anderson 4 years ago
My fear starts out with the basics: Pure Democracy is no more than mob rule. Have you ever heard of the term "mob rule" used in a positive context?Pure Democracy has no allowance for minority interests. It is the essence of "Might, (as in most numbers), makes right." Is that a...
- 46
Improving U.S. Political System
by Kathryn L Hill 7 years ago
Democrats expect people to pull together to help one another in a collective way. They do not realize this system removes a certain amount of individual freedom through raising taxes. Republicans want to empower the individual by keeping taxes low. They believe individuals, (through the self-effort...
- 66
United States of Rukraine
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
The president of the United States of Rukraine would be a man who has familiarized himself with America's Declaration of Independence and it's Constitution determining what makes (made) it work, (or not work.)Each state would be converted from country-hood to statehood. The citizens of each state...