Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Down To The Wire 2012 >>POLITICS<<
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 106 of 143 (677576)
10-30-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 11:46 AM


Re: Democracy
The Economist Intelligence Unit uses the Democracy Index to classify the United States, and 24 other countries, as a Full Democracy.
So how did you vote on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)? What about funding for the war in Iraq? Did you vote to continue funding or against it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 11:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 4:26 PM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 143 (677585)
10-30-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Taq
10-30-2012 4:12 PM


Re: Democracy
So how did you vote on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)? What about funding for the war in Iraq? Did you vote to continue funding or against it?
My point is that when people say that the US is a democracy, they are not saying that it is pure democracy where everyone votes on everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 4:12 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Theodoric, posted 10-30-2012 10:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 5:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 108 of 143 (677611)
10-30-2012 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 4:26 PM


Re: Democracy
Well if all you have is a semantical argument then why are we arguing. You are arguing to argue, nothing more. Phat asked a question, I answered it with a technically precise answer.
Yes a Federal Republic is a form of democracy. But Phat wanted to know why that was different than a Democracy. The key is I am the one that originally stated the US was more of a Federal Republic than a Democracy so shouldn't what I meant by Democracy matter than what you mean?
You win ok. Lets move on.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 4:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:16 PM Theodoric has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 143 (677644)
10-31-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Theodoric
10-30-2012 10:02 PM


Re: Democracy
Well if all you have is a semantical argument then why are we arguing. You are arguing to argue, nothing more.
I wanted to ask the question, and I'm still wondering, has there even been an actual pure democracy?
Phat asked a question, I answered it with a technically precise answer.
Is technically precise better than actual usage?
(didn't you argue that a bison is a buffalo because that's how people say it?)
Yes a Federal Republic is a form of democracy. But Phat wanted to know why that was different than a Democracy. The key is I am the one that originally stated the US was more of a Federal Republic than a Democracy so shouldn't what I meant by Democracy matter than what you mean?
That's fine, this semantic argument only came up because someone else said that only uneducated people would call the US a democracy in a formal sense and I found that hard to believe (and it turned out to be wrong).
But you also said that the US isn't a democracy. I think that's a little misinformation if you're gonna go by the technical precise definition when its in conflict with the acutal usage.
You win ok. Lets move on.
Has there ever been a pure democracy? I honestly don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Theodoric, posted 10-30-2012 10:02 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-31-2012 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 10-31-2012 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 110 of 143 (677661)
10-31-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
10-31-2012 12:16 PM


Re: Democracy
catholic scientist writes:
Has there ever been a pure democracy? I honestly don't know.
As far as Wiki states on Direct Democracy, it appears that there have been a couple examples of this political system. One of the ones that we have probably all learned about would be Ancient Athens. Direct Democracy

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 10-31-2012 1:13 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 111 of 143 (677662)
10-31-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
10-31-2012 12:16 PM


Re: Democracy
Has there ever been a pure democracy?
Not on a national level too unwieldy and chaotic. Townhall democracy is practiced in places in New England. Not sure of other places.
I know links are discouraged but maybe these will help us.
quote:
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure 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" (Federalist No. 10).
By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.
Is the United States a democracy?
quote:
The difference between democracy and republic is a fundamental one. "Democracy," strictly defined, refers to the method of government wherein the members of the group vote directly on all matters of legislation. "Republic" comes from the Latin 'res publica', and refers only to the nature of the government, 'a thing of the people' (that is, not a monarchy), without actually making claims as to how the leaders are selected.
In recent times, the term "republic" has been bandied about by just about every country, with a popular vote or no, on the claim that the government and the people were subject to the same law. Covers just about everybody except for hereditary monarchies, as I say, including the People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of Texas, as well as the more "republican" Dominician Republic, Kyrgyz Republic, and Banana Republic. Because of that, modern-day nations with elected governments have often prefixed their "republics" with other adjectives, and although "democratic republic" does not literally mean "representative democracy" (i.e., in which the people elect representatives, and the reps make the laws), that's what it's been used for over the last few decades or so.
True democracy can also be called "town hall" or "referendum" government. Some small towns use the town hall as their exclusive system of law-making, and most state and local governments in the U.S. use referenda in placing bond issues and similar decisions directly on the voting ballot.
Direct involvement of the people is a nice concept, but for matters of day-to-day government, a strictly democratic system is impractical. Even now that it's somewhat feasible via electronic communication to survey each and every voter on each and every matter of administering the laws, would you really want this on a national, state, or even local level? Voting is rightly looked on as a civic obligation, but if you were asked to do it every morning when you woke up, you'd probably get pretty sick of it. That's why on a large scale we elect legislators to work for us, and they are charged with making legislative decisions on our behalf. In other words, our republic is governed by a representative democracy.
Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? What's the difference?
In actuality our government has become more democratic in last 200 years. Most founding fathers were afraid of Democracy. Rule by the masses was very scary for the elites of the time. For example, Senators were not direct elected until the last century.
As I have looked at this question in depth I guess you have forced me to relook at terminology and how I state it. Here is how I would state it now.
The US is not a pure Democracy it is a Federal Republic using Representative Democracy.
The USSR was a Federal Republic too, so the distinction of representative democracy is actually more important than I had considered in the past.
Thank you for pushing me on this. I would not have relooked at my ideas if you had not.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 112 of 143 (677665)
10-31-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
10-31-2012 1:04 PM


Re: Democracy
One of the ones that we have probably all learned about would be Ancient Athens.
The important thing to remember about this Democracy was that "the people" were defined as adult males.
quote:
Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. The percentage of the population (of males) that actually participated in the government was about 20%. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics.[clarification needed] The women had limited rights and privileges and were not really considered citizens. They had restricted movement in public and were very segregated from the men.
Source

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-31-2012 1:04 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-31-2012 1:45 PM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 113 of 143 (677669)
10-31-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
10-31-2012 1:13 PM


Re: Democracy
Yes, it was definitely not a perfect direct democracy. However, since the term citizen was not given to so many individuals at that time, it is probably the best example we will ever see of this system. It seems that a large percentage of what was determined to be a vote worthy citizen (namely adult non-slave males) would actually participate. Of the 250,000-300,000 people, your link states that about 1/3 were considered citizen families. This puts the number of citizens at around 100,000. Not all of these would have been males of course. However, they think that approximately 30,000 of the males actually participated in the vote. Even if we are assuming 50/50 split between men and women in the 100,000 that is over 50% of the citizen males voting.
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Added: vote worthy
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : added signature

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 10-31-2012 1:13 PM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 114 of 143 (677688)
10-31-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 4:26 PM


Re: Democracy
My point is that when people say that the US is a democracy, they are not saying that it is pure democracy where everyone votes on everything.
What we are saying is that they are using the term incorrectly, but it is used so often in this incorrect way that we understand what they are trying to get at. It's a bit like ignoring people when they say that the Sun moves about the Earth when they describe morning moving towards evening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 4:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2012 10:07 AM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 143 (677737)
11-01-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
10-31-2012 5:00 PM


Re: Democracy
What we are saying is that they are using the term incorrectly, but it is used so often in this incorrect way that we understand what they are trying to get at. It's a bit like ignoring people when they say that the Sun moves about the Earth when they describe morning moving towards evening.
I disagree. Saying the sun moves about the Earth is factually wrong but saying the US is a democracy is not.
I don't think that's using the term incorrectly either. "Democracy" doesn't mean "pure (or direct) democracy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 5:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 116 of 143 (677748)
11-01-2012 10:39 AM


Why isn't Obama calling Romney a liar?
From an editorial in today's NYT, Romney Versus the Automakers:
"Mr. Romney apparently plans to end his race as he began it: playing lowest-common-denominator politics, saying anything necessary to achieve power and blithely deceiving voters desperate for clarity and truth."
I just do not understand why the lying isn't abundantly obvious to everyone.
I have watched no political ads, I have seen no speeches on the news, and I didn't watch the debates, but I have been following the written press coverage closely, and I haven't yet heard that Obama has said anything like what I think he should say, for example: "I'm not going to lie to you to win an election. Digging out from under the worst financial collapse since the Depression has been difficult to everyone personally and to us collectively as a nation, and I wouldn't be doing my job as president to deny this reality. But to deny how far we've come in the past four years whose challenges have forged our dedication and strength would also be a lie. If reelected as president I will continue the policies that have already brought us so far and that will carry us forward to a brighter future that is our destiny."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 10:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2012 11:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 121 by nwr, posted 11-01-2012 11:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 117 of 143 (677752)
11-01-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
11-01-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Democracy
I disagree. Saying the sun moves about the Earth is factually wrong but saying the US is a democracy is not.
Both are factually incorrect.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "pure (or direct) democracy".
If we are picking nits, it does mean a pure democracy. However, the usage of the term has changed over the years. Languages are living entities so there is a strong argument to include republics under the heading of democracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2012 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 118 of 143 (677753)
11-01-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
11-01-2012 10:39 AM


Re: Why isn't Obama calling Romney a liar?
I just do not understand why the lying isn't abundantly obvious to everyone.
It is my opinion that there is a segment of the population that wants to see Obama out of office at all costs. They see these lies as little white lies for the better good. Do people really think that Obama is a secret Muslim who is part of an inner circle of Arab leaders looking to overthrow the West? I really don't think anyone truly believes that, but they will still claim it. Human psychology can be quite intriguing at times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 11-01-2012 10:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by hooah212002, posted 11-01-2012 11:02 AM Taq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 119 of 143 (677759)
11-01-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
11-01-2012 10:39 AM


Re: Why isn't Obama calling Romney a liar?
I just do not understand why the lying isn't abundantly obvious to everyone.
It's super-abundant. But what is anybody supposed to do about it? What is the media supposed to do about it?
I mean, you should understand this problem intimately. Remember those years ago when you decided that the new moderation policy was that you couldn't call someone a liar because that was a personal attack; and therefore you couldn't refer to a statement as a "lie" because the implication would be that the author of that statement was a liar, and that would be a personal attack?
Don't you think the media has kind of the same problem, here? They're previously decided that you can't say that someone is a "liar", so you can't call a statement a lie; you can report that others have called the statement a lie, but then you have to give balance to the opposing view. So you wind up with "shape of the Earth; opinions differ" view from nowhere journalism that is singularly unequipped to deal with a post-truth campaign. You get something like
quote:
Romney's opponents have seized on his statements that Chrysler, under Obama, plans to move Jeep production to China. Chrysler execs and Obama officials have countered that the statement is false. Romney's camp, for their part, say that it is not.
They just can't help it. What's the alternative? Fact-checking turned out to be a bust when the fact-checkers felt like they had to make the lie totals for both Romney and Obama come out the same, to the extent that they rated Obama statements "lies" and the proof was that if you too Romney's word that he wasn't lying, he wasn't. You can't cite "everybody knows" or the conventional wisdom, but any time you do cite a source you just set up a "he said she said" situation where you have to report both sides.
I haven't yet heard that Obama has said anything like what I think he should say, for example: "I'm not going to lie to you to win an election. Digging out from under the worst financial collapse since the Depression has been difficult to everyone personally and to us collectively as a nation, and I wouldn't be doing my job as president to deny this reality. But to deny how far we've come in the past four years whose challenges have forged our dedication and strength would also be a lie. If reelected as president I will continue the policies that have already brought us so far and that will carry us forward to a brighter future that is our destiny.
Well, he's said this repeatedly. Most notably in his convention keynote address. It's largely the basis of the criticism that Obama doesn't offer "anything new" for his second-term agenda, which seems to forget that he's the President now and his constituents would largely prefer that, if he does have a new policy direction or a new secret plan to solve our problems, that he put it out there now and not basically hold it as a hostage to get votes.
But why would you have heard about his speeches, since you're not watching the speeches? If you're very studiously ignoring everything Obama has to say, when would he have had the chance to say this to you? And why would it be the media's job to act as stenographers for political bloviating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 11-01-2012 10:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 120 of 143 (677760)
11-01-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Taq
11-01-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Why isn't Obama calling Romney a liar?
Do people really think that Obama is a secret Muslim who is part of an inner circle of Arab leaders looking to overthrow the West? I really don't think anyone truly believes that,
You underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of a lot of people. Not only do people actually think he's a Muslim, they also think that it matters. I've had discussions with people like this. They really do believe it. They've been force fed this shit for years now purported as fact by "news" sources they trust. They also believe that Fox really is the only "fair and balanced" news source and the rest are liars. Or worse: liberal.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 10:52 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 11-01-2012 11:33 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024