RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,751
|
Post by RWB on Nov 14, 2024 5:25:15 GMT
not like you so called Progressives don't have your own nutcases like AOC Drunken Nancy Pelosi the terrorist loving twins Omar and Talib AND just like you if I was a democrat I wouldn't want them representing me either. BUT thank God I'm not a low IQ can't think for myself democrat. Ummm, I'm not a democrat. You wanna do that one over? ROFLMAO sure your not |
|
|
|
Post by greebnurt on Nov 14, 2024 5:36:11 GMT
Ummm, I'm not a democrat. You wanna do that one over? ROFLMAO sure your not Are you on drugs? You realize that when you register to vote, you're not required to check any box for party affiliation? You dont even have to check independent. You can simply leave it blank. Also, FYI, I voted for more Republicans last week than I did republicans. I'm talking in the local level. I cant stand our mayor and voted for the Republica candidate instead, who unfortunately lost. Am I left leaning? Of course. But I have my eyes open, as opposed to having partisan blinders on like you do. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being such a partisan douche. Wake tf up. |
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,751
|
Post by RWB on Nov 14, 2024 5:40:25 GMT
Are you on drugs? You realize that when you register to vote, you're not required to check any box for party affiliation? You dont even have to check independent. You can simply leave it blank. Also, FYI, I voted for more Republicans last week than I did republicans. I'm talking in the local level. I cant stand our mayor and voted for the Republica candidate instead, who unfortunately lost. Am I left leaning? Of course. But I have my eyes open, as opposed to having partisan blinders on like you do. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being such a partisan douche. Wake tf up. LOL you can't even keep your lies straight LOL |
|
|
|
Post by greebnurt on Nov 14, 2024 5:41:22 GMT
Are you on drugs? You realize that when you register to vote, you're not required to check any box for party affiliation? You dont even have to check independent. You can simply leave it blank. Also, FYI, I voted for more Republicans last week than I did republicans. I'm talking in the local level. I cant stand our mayor and voted for the Republica candidate instead, who unfortunately lost. Am I left leaning? Of course. But I have my eyes open, as opposed to having partisan blinders on like you do. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being such a partisan douche. Wake tf up. LOL you can't even keep your lies straight LOL What lies? Explain your comment |
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,751
|
Post by RWB on Nov 14, 2024 5:43:15 GMT
LOL you can't even keep your lies straight LOL What lies? Explain your comment explain how you voted for more Republicans than Republicans your words not mine 🤔 |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 14, 2024 14:21:14 GMT
Oh, so the people who were at the Constitutional Convention developing our government (people like Hamilton) didn't know what they were talking about?That's the argument you really want to go with.  No one said that, strawman. During such events, lots of folks say "Let's add this" or "How about this idea in the document", but much of that winds up in the trash heap. I based what we are on the final product, our Constitution, not on the coffee time rhetoric from the debates beforehand. Then maybe you should clarify statements like this - "The great pains by the Founders taken to avoid democracy..." - when the plain evidence in front of your face says otherwise. So what you have are quotes that are not part of the Constitution while I center my conclusion on what remained in the Constitution. Electors rather than direct voting for President and the appointment of Senators by the legislatures are pretty strong evidence that "great pains" were taken to avoid democracy in direct contact with the Federal government. You have multiple people specifically saying the Constitution - as written - is a democracy (and that is based on their understanding of democracy from influences such as Montesquieu). You may not agree that it's a democracy, but you're denying the literal historical record with your claims here. Have you noticed how ridiculously and haphazardly the word "democracy" is thrown about as a rhetorical tool today? Yet, you dismiss the possibility that the word was being used incorrectly in those times? Once again, my rock solid foundation is a Constitution that never mentions nor in any way codifies democracy as our principal of governance. You, on the other hand, have empty rhetoric that is not enshrined in our Founding documentation at all. That's the argument you really want to go with? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 14, 2024 14:52:15 GMT
No one said that, strawman. During such events, lots of folks say "Let's add this" or "How about this idea in the document", but much of that winds up in the trash heap. I based what we are on the final product, our Constitution, not on the coffee time rhetoric from the debates beforehand. You said your views align with the Founders. Well, you have several of them explicitly calling that government a democracy, and they did this in the state conventions to advocate for adopting it. You can read the quotes. So which is it? Do your views align with them or no? Or are you just attributing your views to them which by some of their owns words, they don't share?
You began this discussion with quotes. Now you want to move the goal posts. Let's look back at your reply to Mojo:
"There are always 'democratic mechanisms' in a Constitutional Republic, but no, not sufficient to call us a democracy. If you disagree, let's hear it."
Well, you've heard it. From several horses mouths who were there when it was being written and debated. But that's empty rhetoric. And yet, some Founders still considered it a democracy. Explicitly called it a democracy. Also called it representative democracy and elective democracy. Let's revisit this Hamilton quote from his state convention speech notes: "Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the people I. Whether exercised by themselves, or 2. By their representatives chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them... Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy."
Do you understand mediately and immediately?
I think you don't understand how the Founders were using the term and how they understood democracy, because you just pulled those quotes from a website and have no context. Let's go back to the Madison quote that you want to abandon now (I guess that's "empty rhetoric" too):
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Do you know where this quote comes from? Federalist Paper 10. Do you know what he's talking about in this quote? Pure democracy. Here's the full paragraph that quote comes from (you'll notice your version has been changed slightly):
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
If you search Madison's papers, he doesn't write much about democracy. However, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson about Thomas Paine, he wrote: "What in fact might not the U. S. say, whose revolution & democratic Governments come in for a large share of the scurrility lavished on those of France?" ( Source) Madison wasn't criticizing democracy as a whole; he was critical of a specific type of democracy.
As noted in my first reply to you, they were critical of "pure democracy" or "direct democracy." When criticizing it, Athens was usually given as the example. This wasn't the only type of democracy though. And you need to understand how they viewed this subject. You have to look at the influences on their thought.
You thought you were going to get away with an appeal to authority in your reply to Mojo, but that's been completely undermined, because you have multiple Founders saying it is our principle of governance. What you want is to try and move the goalposts now.
|
|
|
|
Post by greebnurt on Nov 14, 2024 18:30:34 GMT
What lies? Explain your comment explain how you voted for more Republicans than Republicans your words not mine 🤔 Whoops. Didn't catch that. Speed typing on my phone in a dark club. You know what I meant. More Republicans than democrats. I know it's a concept that's foreign to you, since you lean so far to the right, but there are people in this world who are not hyper partisan. I consider myself center left. I pay a huge amount of attention to local politics, and happen to side with Republicans on a lot of issues. Mind blowing, yeah, I know. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 15, 2024 16:13:29 GMT
Does that apply anywhere but the House tho? The federal Senate was chosen by state legislators up until 1913. The Founders clearly did not want democracy to play a role in the formation of the Senate. For the leftists who have been so programmed to avoid this ... here's Senate.gov to set you straight.
Voters have selected U.S. senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1913. This system of “direct election” was not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind, however, when they met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as written by the framers, provided for election of senators by state legislatures.
And the president is the same. The founders clearly did not want the popular vote to decide the Senate.
Since the federal government was deemed "the government of the states" ... it was the states that chose their representatives, not the People. The House was The People's House because it was literally the only federal building the People had any say in.
Queshank
Essentially it's about how sovereignty and power were ultimately derived from the people. If you read through the debates over the Constitution, you'll find citations of, and references/allusions to, Montesquieu, who wrote:
"WHEN the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, this is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy. In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject." ( The Spirit of the Laws)
This is reflected in Dr. Charles Jarvis' statement at the Massachusetts convention: "He considered the Constitution as an elective democracy, in which the sovereignty still rested in the people." ( Source)
Here's John Marshall in the state convention debate, speaking of the Constitution as a whole, not just the House:
"Mr. Chairman, I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is, whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy, because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it, because we think it a well-regulated democracy. It is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom." ( Source)
[Montesquieu also wrote about well-regulated democracies].
Also, not exactly true that the Founders (as a whole) did not want a popular vote for President. This was advocated by some at the Convention, and early on several states adopted the system we have now which is the populace electing the electors rather than them being chosen by the legislature. It also seems worth pointing out that while Jefferson and Adams were still alive, the U.S. House proposed direct election of senators. ( Source)
Bottom line, it's a much more complex picture than what Paleo is trying to present. You have to look at their understanding of what democracy meant (such as the influence of Montesquieu). They were generally opposed to "direct democracy." Most of their critiques (cited by Paleo earlier) deal with that form of democracy.
As an aside, I find it funny that one of the quotes opposing democracy came of Eldridge Gerry, because of course he did. Lol.
But this is all kind of a wash isn't it, when the system we have now was created as a compromise between wildly diverse views on the subject?
It's one of the reasons I used to mock cclevel for wanting to play what I dubbed "the Quotation Game." He'd share some quotes from the Founders and then I'd share a bunch of opposing quotes sharing the opposite belief from the founders and we'd go back and forth.
We wound up with a system wherein only people with a vested interest in society were allowed to vote ... property owners. (Altho not for long admittedly considering every state had their own standards.) And where the rank and file people didn't even have a vote on who their senators or the president would be, only the state legislators and the "compromise between people who feared democracy and those who thought it was fine long as we limited who could vote that we call the electoral college" had any say.
People today who argue America is a democracy would definitely argue that is NOT a democracy.
And I would argue many of the Founders who championed democracy based on limiting who could participate would change their arguments if they'd known those limitations would be eliminated in time.
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 15, 2024 16:32:46 GMT
But this is all kind of a wash isn't it, when the system we have now was created as a compromise between wildly diverse views on the subject?
It's one of the reasons I used to mock cclevel for wanting to play what I dubbed "the Quotation Game." He'd share some quotes from the Founders and then I'd share a bunch of opposing quotes sharing the opposite belief from the founders and we'd go back and forth.
We wound up with a system wherein only people with a vested interest in society were allowed to vote ... property owners. (Altho not for long admittedly considering every state had their own standards.) And where the rank and file people didn't even have a vote on who their senators or the president would be, only the state legislators and the "compromise between people who feared democracy and those who thought it was fine long as we limited who could vote that we call the electoral college" had any say.
People today who argue America is a democracy would definitely argue that is NOT a democracy.
And I would argue many of the Founders who championed democracy based on limiting who could participate would change their arguments if they'd known those limitations would be eliminated in time.
Queshank
This was my main point to begin with: undermining the appeal to authority (with the benefit of educating people hopefully).
We have to keep in mind there were people who were also wanting to re-establish a monarchy. Others were quite radical and saw the Constitution as a centralizing, nationalist document they could not support (and they were kinda right).
But there were people involved in its creation who viewed it as a democracy based on their understanding of the term (and if you look at their letters, they often use the term republican/republic interchangeably with democratic/democracy). And it's only become more democratic since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 15, 2024 17:30:09 GMT
But this is all kind of a wash isn't it, when the system we have now was created as a compromise between wildly diverse views on the subject?
It's one of the reasons I used to mock cclevel for wanting to play what I dubbed "the Quotation Game." He'd share some quotes from the Founders and then I'd share a bunch of opposing quotes sharing the opposite belief from the founders and we'd go back and forth.
We wound up with a system wherein only people with a vested interest in society were allowed to vote ... property owners. (Altho not for long admittedly considering every state had their own standards.) And where the rank and file people didn't even have a vote on who their senators or the president would be, only the state legislators and the "compromise between people who feared democracy and those who thought it was fine long as we limited who could vote that we call the electoral college" had any say.
People today who argue America is a democracy would definitely argue that is NOT a democracy.
And I would argue many of the Founders who championed democracy based on limiting who could participate would change their arguments if they'd known those limitations would be eliminated in time.
Queshank
This was my main point to begin with: undermining the appeal to authority (with the benefit of educating people hopefully).
We have to keep in mind there were people who were also wanting to re-establish a monarchy. Others were quite radical and saw the Constitution as a centralizing, nationalist document they could not support (and they were kinda right).
But there were people involved in its creation who viewed it as a democracy based on their understanding of the term (and if you look at their letters, they often use the term republican/republic interchangeably with democratic/democracy). And it's only become more democratic since then.
I did catch that "quotation game mockery" quality to your engagement.
I just want to make sure everyone ... especially the slava democracy crowd ... realized that it cuts both ways.
And that there is *no* comparison between our system we have today and what even the most ... "progressive" of our Founders envisioned.
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 15, 2024 17:32:00 GMT
I did catch that "quotation game mockery" quality to your engagement. It's also why I threw in some choice Jefferson Davis quotes on p. 2. 
Was just straight trolling with those though.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 15, 2024 19:28:15 GMT
You said your views align with the Founders. Well, you have several of them explicitly calling that government a democracy, and they did this in the state conventions to advocate for adopting it. You can read the quotes. So which is it? Do your views align with them or no? Or are you just attributing your views to them which by some of their owns words, they don't share? Careful. I said my views aligned with the Constitution after showing you quotes from the Founders which align with the Constitution. You seem insufferably malleable enough that if you found out that the Founders called our government a "potato", you'd run with that. Twice Queshank has SHOWN you that our government structure as founded was not a democracy, as have I. You began this discussion with quotes. Now you want to move the goal posts. I've moved no goalposts. I've backed up my quotes with the Constitution itself, something that you've failed to do because you can't Well, you've heard it. From several horses mouths who were there when it was being written and debated. But that's empty rhetoric. Once again, what was actually created, the Constitution, does not reflect that rhetoric, meaning that these horse's mouths didn't get their way. The disdain for democracy except as a tool inside the republic is clear in the final product. And yet, some Founders still considered it a democracy. Explicitly called it a democracy. Also called it representative democracy and elective democracy. Let's revisit this Hamilton quote from his state convention speech notes: "Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the people I. Whether exercised by themselves, or 2. By their representatives chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them... Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy." Do you understand mediately and immediately? Ah, I see that you have been reduced to mining Hamilton's notes in preparation for a speech. Bottom of the barrel already? In the same notes, Hamilton acknowledged a different definition:
"I. Democracy defined by some Rousseau & c.....1. A government exercised by the collective body of the People 2. Delegation of their power has been made the criterion of Aristocracy II. Aristocracy has been used to designate governments....1. Where an independent few possessed sovereignty 2. Where the representatives of the people possessed it."Delegation of their power has been the made the criterion of Aristocracy"? Oops. Our Constitution delegates the sovereignty of decisions to the representatives we select. We have no say in how they govern except the ability to vote them out years later. By this definition in the same set of Hamilton notes, we are an aristocracy, not a democracy founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0060Find better sources. I think you don't understand how the Founders were using the term and how they understood democracy, because you just pulled those quotes from a website and have no context. Let's go back to the Madison quote that you want to abandon now (I guess that's "empty rhetoric" too). Once again, you peddle the fiction that I've abandoned quotes I posted, when all I've done is support and bolster those quotes. Not a good look for you, strawman. Do you know where this quote comes from? Federalist Paper 10. Do you know what he's talking about in this quote? Pure democracy. Here's the full paragraph that quote comes from (you'll notice your version has been changed slightly): "From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." So, what you claim we are is an impure democracy? Weak democracy? Watered down democracy? Stripped down to the chassis? All of those denote a lessening, a dilution, a step away from the "pure". It also denotes that the Founders, despite using the word "democracy" on occasion, really strove to get as far away as possible from democracy in crafting our government. Are you so enamored with the word "democracy" that you can't see that? If you search Madison's papers, he doesn't write much about democracy. However, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson about Thomas Paine, he wrote: "What in fact might not the U. S. say, whose revolution & democratic Governments come in for a large share of the scurrility lavished on those of France?" ( Source) Madison wasn't criticizing democracy as a whole; he was critical of a specific type of democracy. As noted in my first reply to you, they were critical of "pure democracy" or "direct democracy." When criticizing it, Athens was usually given as the example. This wasn't the only type of democracy though. And you need to understand how they viewed this subject. You have to look at the influences on their thought. In that time period, the "United States" was a reference to the states themselves, not the collective nation as it used today (that perverted usage didn't start until tyrant Lincoln destroyed the Founder's vision). Note that the quote says "GOVERNMENTS"...plural. No one ever said that some of the state governments were not more democratic, just that the federal government is not a democracy. You thought you were going to get away with an appeal to authority in your reply to Mojo, but that's been completely undermined, because you have multiple Founders saying it is our principle of governance. What you want is to try and move the goalposts now. The only appeal to authority that I've made is to the authority of the Constitution. Everyone should notice that Demos is avoiding any discussion of what the Constitution itself says and reflects, which bolsters the quotes that I still stand behind. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,403
|
Post by thor on Nov 15, 2024 19:41:14 GMT
You said your views align with the Founders. Well, you have several of them explicitly calling that government a democracy, and they did this in the state conventions to advocate for adopting it. You can read the quotes. So which is it? Do your views align with them or no? Or are you just attributing your views to them which by some of their owns words, they don't share? Careful. I said my views aligned with the Constitution after showing you quotes from the Founders which align with the Constitution. You seem insufferably malleable enough that if you found out that the Founders called our government a "potato", you'd run with that. Twice Queshank has SHOWN you that our government structure as founded was not a democracy, as have I. You began this discussion with quotes. Now you want to move the goal posts. I've moved no goalposts. I've backed up my quotes with the Constitution itself, something that you've failed to do because you can't Well, you've heard it. From several horses mouths who were there when it was being written and debated. But that's empty rhetoric. Once again, what was actually created, the Constitution, does not reflect that rhetoric, meaning that these horse's mouths didn't get their way. The disdain for democracy except as a tool inside the republic is clear in the final product. And yet, some Founders still considered it a democracy. Explicitly called it a democracy. Also called it representative democracy and elective democracy. Let's revisit this Hamilton quote from his state convention speech notes: "Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the people I. Whether exercised by themselves, or 2. By their representatives chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them... Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy." Do you understand mediately and immediately? Ah, I see that you have been reduced to mining Hamilton's notes in preparation for a speech. Bottom of the barrel already? In the same notes, Hamilton acknowledged a different definition:
"I. Democracy defined by some Rousseau & c.....1. A government exercised by the collective body of the People 2. Delegation of their power has been made the criterion of Aristocracy II. Aristocracy has been used to designate governments....1. Where an independent few possessed sovereignty 2. Where the representatives of the people possessed it."Delegation of their power has been the made the criterion of Aristocracy"? Oops. Our Constitution delegates the sovereignty of decisions to the representatives we select. We have no say in how they govern except the ability to vote them out years later. By this definition in the same set of Hamilton notes, we are an aristocracy, not a democracy founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0060Find better sources. I think you don't understand how the Founders were using the term and how they understood democracy, because you just pulled those quotes from a website and have no context. Let's go back to the Madison quote that you want to abandon now (I guess that's "empty rhetoric" too). Once again, you peddle the fiction that I've abandoned quotes I posted, when all I've done is support and bolster those quotes. Not a good look for you, strawman. Do you know where this quote comes from? Federalist Paper 10. Do you know what he's talking about in this quote? Pure democracy. Here's the full paragraph that quote comes from (you'll notice your version has been changed slightly): "From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." So, what you claim we are is an impure democracy? Weak democracy? Watered down democracy? Stripped down to the chassis? All of those denote a lessening, a dilution, a step away from the "pure". It also denotes that the Founders, despite using the word "democracy" on occasion, really strove to get as far away as possible from democracy in crafting our government. Are you so enamored with the word "democracy" that you can't see that? If you search Madison's papers, he doesn't write much about democracy. However, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson about Thomas Paine, he wrote: "What in fact might not the U. S. say, whose revolution & democratic Governments come in for a large share of the scurrility lavished on those of France?" ( Source) Madison wasn't criticizing democracy as a whole; he was critical of a specific type of democracy. As noted in my first reply to you, they were critical of "pure democracy" or "direct democracy." When criticizing it, Athens was usually given as the example. This wasn't the only type of democracy though. And you need to understand how they viewed this subject. You have to look at the influences on their thought. In that time period, the "United States" was a reference to the states themselves, not the collective nation as it used today (that perverted usage didn't start until tyrant Lincoln destroyed the Founder's vision). Note that the quote says "GOVERNMENTS"...plural. No one ever said that some of the state governments were not more democratic, just that the federal government is not a democracy. You thought you were going to get away with an appeal to authority in your reply to Mojo, but that's been completely undermined, because you have multiple Founders saying it is our principle of governance. What you want is to try and move the goalposts now. The only appeal to authority that I've made is to the authority of the Constitution. Everyone should notice that Demos is avoiding any discussion of what the Constitution itself says and reflects, which bolsters the quotes that I still stand behind. Cuck, demos has been sodomizing you with reality. Perhaps you should start another Civil War thread so the truth sodomy you crave can continue. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 15, 2024 20:02:59 GMT
Careful. I said my views aligned with the Constitution after showing you quotes from the Founders which align with the Constitution. You seem insufferably malleable enough that if you found out that the Founders called our government a "potato", you'd run with that. Twice Queshank has SHOWN you that our government structure as founded was not a democracy, as have I. So, the quotes from Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, etc. don't align with the Constitution? Even though the Constitution aligns with their understanding of what a democracy was/could be.
You have moved the goalposts. You haven't backed anything up. If you read what they wrote, it was a democracy based on their understanding of the term. And that's kind of the point: look at how they understood the term.
They didn't? Ok, why did they sign it (not everyone present signed it or approved of it), or support it in the state conventions? The Constitution is closer to the plan Hamilton laid out in the convention than the other plans.
There's more quotes than that. And they've been posted in this thread for everyone to see.
Lol. Nice try at chopping things up, removing context and obfuscating. What you quoted from begins thus: "Again great confusion about the words. Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy." After laying out the confusion in the portions you've quoted, he then gives his definitions of these three forms of government and determines: "Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy." You'll notice that when he lays at the aspects of the new constitutional government, it matches his definition of democracy, not his definition of aristocracy, which he defines as "where whole sovereignty is permanently in the hands of a few for life or hereditary," or the confusion of Rousseau & c.
You need better reading comprehension.
If you're not abandoning them, then maybe its that you didn't understand their meaning. Clearly struggled understanding Hamilton's notes.
No, it doesn't. If you actually read this stuff, you'll see some of them were trying to create a democracy (as they understood the term), advocated for that, and believed that was reflected in the Constitution. To argue what you're trying to, you have to ignore the influence of Montesquieu and others on the Founders and pretend that doesn't exist. You also have to ignore that some Founders wanted an even more democratic government; they weren't striving to get as far away from democracy as possible. For example, Jefferson said:
"the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost every thing written before on the structure of government: and in a great measure relieves our regret if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other antient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. my most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular controul pushed to the maximum of it’s practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure & perpetual."
And some members of the House were pushing legislation for direct election of senators as early as 1826 while Jefferson and Adams were still alive.
You don't think the federal government was part of that?
You threw those quotes out as an appeal to authority, most likely pulling them from one of the many websites that collates them. I kinda doubt you've ever read any of this stuff; the Madison quote being the prime example, because it stands out as being deliberately chopped up to divorce it from its context to look like it was a statement about democracies generally.
Everyone should note that the Founders I've quoted are talking specifically about what the Constitution itself says.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 15, 2024 21:20:28 GMT
"Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature. It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude."
This is similar to what Madison was arguing in Federalist 10 (regarding size).
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 15, 2024 21:46:50 GMT
So, the quotes from Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, etc. don't align with the Constitution? Even though the Constitution aligns with their understanding of what a democracy was/could be. And I've shown quotes from the same folks saying that democracy is evil. Is it your opinion that the Founders were mentally ill because the loved and hated democracy at the same time? With such Founder flip flops in mind, one should look at the Constitution for the final word, which you seem incapable of doing. I've corrected you as has Queshank in showing you that the document intentionally severs democracy from most of our federal government system. There's not even a corrective in the system for representatives doing unpopular things between elections, other than waiting years to vote them out. You have moved the goalposts. You haven't backed anything up. If you read what they wrote, it was a democracy based on their understanding of the term. And that's kind of the point: look at how they understood the term. Not a single opinion they wrote is in the Constitution. Not a single mention of democracy and very little of the mechanism of democracy. If their "understanding of the term" was that we are a democracy, why distance themselves in the only documentation that had any teeth? They didn't? Ok, why did they sign it (not everyone present signed it or approved of it), or support it in the state conventions? The Constitution is closer to the plan Hamilton laid out in the convention than the other plans. Despite the clear omission of democracy, they DID sign it....they DID ratify it. That tells me that their dedication to naming us as a "democracy" was weak and easily abandoned. Lol. Nice try at chopping things up, removing context and obfuscating. What you quoted from begins thus: "Again great confusion about the words. Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy." After laying out the confusion in the portions you've quoted, he then gives his definitions of these three forms of government and determines: "Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy." You'll notice that when he lays at the aspects of the new constitutional government, it matches his definition of democracy, not his definition of aristocracy, which he defines as "where whole sovereignty is permanently in the hands of a few for life or hereditary," or the confusion of Rousseau & c. So, he ignored the common definition and made up a new one to suit his political aims at the ratifying convention. Got it. Yet, somehow you've embraced the one that suits YOUR political aims rather than looking at the fact that even Hamilton acknowledges that the definition is disputed. You need better reading comprehension. Says the strawman peddler who seems allergic to reading what the Constitution actually says. No, it doesn't. If you actually read this stuff, you'll see some of them were trying to create a democracy ( as they understood the term), advocated for that, and believed that was reflected in the Constitution. To argue what you're trying to, you have to ignore the influence of Montesquieu and others on the Founders and pretend that doesn't exist. You also have to ignore that some Founders wanted an even more democratic government; they weren't striving to as far away from democracy as possible. For example, Jefferson said: "the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost every thing written before on the structure of government: and in a great measure relieves our regret if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other antient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. my most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular controul pushed to the maximum of it’s practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure & perpetual." And some members of the House were pushing legislation for direct election of senators as early as 1826 while Jefferson and Adams were still alive. Once again, you tell me about the "feels" of the Founders, what they "wanted" and who might have been an influence. While all of that is true, little of that wound up in the Constitution. Who cares that a fringe group wanted direct election of Senators....the government created by the Founders didn't allow that democratic feature for a reason. When democratic features are jettisoned in favor of legislative appointments and layers of electors, it's a pretty good sign that democracy was NOT what they were after. And we should thank them every day for saving us from that kind of democracy. You don't think the federal government was part of that? Not a mind reader, just giving you the context in an attempt to cure your presentism. You threw those quotes out as an appeal to authority, most likely pulling them from one of the many websites that collates them. I kinda doubt you've ever read any of this stuff; the Madison quote being the prime example, because it stands out as being deliberately chopped up to divorce it from its context to look like it was a statement about democracies generally. Not true, but I understand. You need an excuse since the Constitution disputes what you are saying. Everyone should note that the Founders I've quoted are talking specifically about what the Constitution itself says. Well then, it should be able to easily point out the parts of the Constitution that mention democracy, right, strawman? Oops. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 15, 2024 21:55:57 GMT
"Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature. It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude."
This is similar to what Madison was arguing in Federalist 10 (regarding size).
"Ingrafting" on trees supplants the original in favor of the new grafted limb, which is usually more desirable (I have many Japanese maples). Once the graft is successful, the tree is referred to by the characteristics of the new limb, while the branches of the old are trimmed and discarded.
Isn't it funny that your sacred democracy doesn't work without some major modifier or revision?
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 15, 2024 22:08:13 GMT
And I've shown quotes from the same folks saying that democracy is evil. One of which isn't even what was it was about - the Madison quote. Another one is apparently apocryphal, because the Rush quote is attributed to at two other people, and when you search it, it only appears on those quotation websites.
EDIT: I found the actual Rush quote; the undoctored version, which presents a different picture than the chopped up version. Here it is: "A simple democracy, or an unballanced republic is one of the greatest of evils. I think with Dr Zubly that 'a Democracy (with only one branch) is the Tevils own governement.' These words he uttered at my table in the Spring of 1776, upon my giving as a toast the 'commonwealth of America.' At the same instant that he spoke these words, he turned his glass upside downwards, and refused to drink the toast." ( Source) Earlier in this same letter to Adams, Rush defines republic as "a Goverment consisting of three branches, and each derived at different times & for different periods from the PEOPLE." In other words, a balanced democracy. And here's what the edited version of the quote looked like back on p. 1: "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." - Benjamin RushCompletely distorted Rush's meaning. You should get better sources. Your comprehension is terrible. They're not flip flopping. Look at how they defined democracy. Again, I've provided numerous quotes where they say the Constitution is a democracy and point out the mechanisms are democratic. So, you're sticking your head in the sand here.
Except it wasn't. They use the term before and after (in some cases well after).
His definition is pretty much the same as Montesquieu's, but you're so close to getting the point.
So, your current argument is that it has to say democracy in the constitution?
Is that so? Where's your evidence of that? Meanwhile, I'll point to the Convention debates, the Federalist Papers (even the Anti-Federalist papers), letters and other documents written by Founding Fathers that shows they got what they wanted and called it a democracy. Which is exactly what I've shown throughout this thread.
I think the problem is that you don't know what they wanted or understand what they meant by democracy.
Lol, a fringe group. Sure, sure.
Context would suggest it includes the federal government.
Just so we're clear before we go further down this particular point, because I want to be sure of what you're saying here:
Are you saying it has to explicitly mention democracy? Are you saying its a republic because it says "a Republican Form of Government" in Article 4, Section 4?
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 15, 2024 22:09:13 GMT
"Ingrafting" on trees supplants the original in favor of the new grafted limb, which is usually more desirable (I have many Japanese maples). Once the graft is successful, the tree is referred to by the characteristics of the new limb, while the branches of the old are trimmed and discarded.
Isn't it funny that your sacred democracy doesn't work without some major modifier or revision?
Why would that be funny? Do you think you have a point here?
Paine was arguing that democracy works and is the best form of government; adding representation improved upon it and allowed it to become a larger democratic government, whereas before expansion caused democracies to degenerate into monarchies or aristocracies.
For example, earlier in the work, Paine says: "Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in anything which history affords." By adding representation: "What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude."
BTW, even though we kind of sniping at each, I want you to know that I am legitimately enjoying the back and forth. Beats the usual.
|
|
