Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 08, 2020

Jonathan Bernstein: At some point during the vice-presidential debate -- my wrap is here if you missed it -- Utah Senator Mike Lee tweeted out, "We're not a democracy." Man, oh, man, do I hate this one. I've argued before that this is one of America's great crank ideas.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I don't want to share my toys. Get your own. If you can't afford them that's a personal problem. Don't bother me.

I made it all alone. I'm self made. Regulations inhibit profits from the commons. I got here first,if you had been quicker you could have been the one cleaning up and leaving a big mess for the "little people" and government to deal with.

I'm too important and connected to our republic to worry about little things like pollution or endangered species. The birds were going to die off anyway. What has that got to do with me or my businesses? I am an island of wealth in a sea of mediocrity.

Everyone admires me or is jealous of my wealth and success.

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-08 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Freedom of choice, is what we want. Theocratic oligarchy is what we got.

#2 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-10-08 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Not a democracy" in Lee's view of America. His party will do and say ANYTHING, and only to retain power.

Governing is something about which they don't give two s***s.

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-10-08 04:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Boaz, you should move to Utah.

You and Mike Lee guy have a lot on common.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-08 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is a Republic.
In a true democracy (majority rule), the minority loses.

#5 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-08 05:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Just wait: The people screaming "We're not a democracy; we're a republic!" will be along to straighten us all out.

#6 | Posted by cbob at 2020-10-08 05:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Drat! Phester beat me to my point.

#7 | Posted by cbob at 2020-10-08 05:13 PM | Reply

#5

We are a representative republic. Which means we democratically elect representatives to handle the management of state. This should also apply to the President.

Sometimes those representatives make decisions that are not popular with a majority of the people. But IMO those representatives should ALWAYS be determined by who gets the most votes in a fair election.

Reference for those of you that love to spout that the U.S. is a Republic, North Korea calls itself a Republic as well. So what's in a title?

Full democracy would have all citizens voting on practically every issue.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-08 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

This is a Republic.
In a true democracy (majority rule), the minority loses.

#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBONEHEAD

Always love it when Trumptards try to "teach us".

Here is a clue for the clueless like uncle fester.

We are not a 100% Republic.

We are not a 100% Democracy.

Also, we have a constitution of the basic principles and laws of the people by the people and for the people.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-08 05:51 PM | Reply

We should be a parliament. Many different views and factions could then form coalitions based on common interest.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-08 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The vast majority hate democracy.

They love getting their way. Period.

Getting their way through democracy is great.......... but getting their way will always be more important than democracy.

How many folks love the electoral college?

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#11 ... The vast majority hate democracy. ...

What percentage do you consider to be "vast majority?"

Do you have any data to substantiate your assertion?



#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 06:04 PM | Reply

How many folks love the electoral college?

What does the electoral college have to do with Democracy?

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-08 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess MAGAts are going to blame Lee's stupid anti-american tween on Covid too?

#14 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-10-08 06:09 PM | Reply

How many folks love the electoral college?

#11 | Posted by eberly

Everyone who loves having their will imposed on others despite most people disagreeing with them.

Also fans of relics of the civil war.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-08 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does the electoral college have to do with Democracy?
#13 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

This issue is coming up a lot this year because those against a popular vote cite the U.S. as a Republic, as a reason to keep the EC.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-08 06:31 PM | Reply

"The vast majority hate democracy."

LOL

My logic circuits practically overloaded. Did I miss something?

The vast majority of who? Russians? Christians? White nationalists? Trump supporters?

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-08 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If ------- is successful in calling into question the voting process, and a fiasco occurs with the EC, expect a lot more people to be calling for change

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-08 06:34 PM | Reply

75% would represent vast majority in my opinion

Electoral college ... How many Republicans love the fact that the electoral college delivers a victory to the candidate who loses the popular vote? You can include every single one of those people in that category.

Now let's talk about same-sex marriage. How many people were thrilled when the courts threw out l laws banning same-sex marriage? Laws that were passed with a majority of people voting to ban it?

Add all of them to the list

Like it or not, most people are interested in getting what they want for their reasons more than they're interested in democracy prevailing

I'm not condemning any of these people. Simply pointing out that most people don't value democracy as much as they think

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 06:42 PM | Reply

And my original post was a mistake. I apologize. What would've been better articulated would've been to say that most people value getting what they want more than they value democracy.

"Hate" was a horrible choice of words

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 06:47 PM | Reply

"We're not a democracy."

Then you're not a Senator.

In a true democracy (majority rule), the minority loses.

#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

In parliamentary democracies, governments can form minority governments and more than two parties can win seats.

#21 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-10-08 06:55 PM | Reply

How many people were thrilled when the courts threw out l laws banning same-sex marriage? Laws that were passed with a majority of people voting to ban it?

You will have to provide examples of where any "majority of the people" voted for anti-same sex laws. Just because state legislatures may have voted them into existence long ago does not mean that a current majority of living people feel the same way.

And with most things, feelings change as society and perceptions evolve. By your metrics, anti-miscegenation laws might still be on the books too if not for the courts. The courts are supposed to be arbiters of justice especially when legislatures aren't. Laws have to be constitutional and those that we are talking about most certainly aren't according to today's mores. If individuals are denied equal protection under any law, then the courts have the right to decide whether such discrimination is lawful or unlawful.

But I see this issue as another one that will be rectified if Biden and the Dems take over the elected federal government. Abortion, universal healthcare access, and marriage equality laws will be quickly written, passed and instituted, and these issues will finally be taken out of the court's bailiwick.

America has changed, and for most is trying to work towards being that 'more perfect union'. Equality under the law is mandatory for those words to mean what we all believe that they do.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-08 07:01 PM | Reply

Tony, I am sure perceptions changed but when I lived in Cali many years ago the bill to allow same sex marriage didnt win enough votes...

#23 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-08 07:03 PM | Reply

This is a Republic.
In a true democracy (majority rule), the minority loses.

#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

This is almost as good as the claim that the US is supposed to be a loosely associated group of sovereign states.

Because, you know, nobody minds if you simply ignore the federal part of federalism.

Righties. I can't tell if they're cherry picking to suit their desires or are genuinely ignorant as hell about civics and our government.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-08 07:09 PM | Reply

How many folks love the electoral college?

#11 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Right now? About 35% of the electorate.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-08 07:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not in a place where I can research this right now but I thought California put that issue on a ballot once.

And state legislatures represent democracy.

Right about times changing and perceptions changing but you really can't use that as a defense for democracy being sorted by the courts at the time.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 07:14 PM | Reply

And yes I understand some state legislatures are gerrymandered up so that they are not representatives of democracy

Oh, you can add the people that love that to the list too

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 07:16 PM | Reply

It's become obvious with their professed undying love of Combover Quisling and his autocratic tendencies that the GOP hates democracy, but honestly, they've hated democracy since the 60s. The GOP understood more than forty years ago that their policies that benefit the rich, white and religious wackjobs were not as popular as Democratic policies that stressed equality for all Americans, assistance to those who needed it and a fair shake for all. So, Richard Nixon undertook the Southern Strategy, since then they've used gerrymandering and voter suppression to try to gain and keep power. The problem is that their base is shrinking while the Democratic base is growing, and now we have 40% of the population trying to impose their will and religious beliefs on the 60% majority. That won't stand, no matter what they do. It's time that the GOP went the way of the National Socialists in Germany and for a true "Conservative" party to emerge. We can debate tax and immigration policy, but everybody should agree that all people are equal WITH EQUAL RIGHTS to education, to housing, to jobs, to marriage, to healthcare, to vote without massive roadblocks put in the way. When we get to a point where everybody can freely vote, then we'll see how popular Democratic versus Conservative policy is.

#28 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-10-08 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Sorted should be thwarted

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 07:26 PM | Reply

"You will have to provide examples of where any "majority of the people" voted for anti-same sex laws."

2004. Gay marriage bans were on the ballot in many battleground states, and were widely credited with bringing out the Evangelical Christian vote, who then went on to mostly vote for Bush.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-08 08:35 PM | Reply

Here's what this Senator confirms:

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."
--David Frum

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-08 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#30 ... 2004. Gay marriage bans were on the ballot in many battleground states, and were widely credited with bringing out the Evangelical Christian vote, who then went on to mostly vote for Bush. ...

That was a big part of Karl Rove's strategy to get fmr Bush elected.

Put gay marriage on the ballot to get the Christians into the voting booth. Once those Christians were where Mr Rove wanted them, he knew how they would vote in the Presidential election.

While I may not prefer the outcome he got, I do recognize and respect the devious planning behind his strategy.

:)


#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 08:48 PM | Reply

@#5 ... This is a Republic. ...

For starters, you need to be a whole lot more specific than using the word "this."

For example, here in New England there are town meetings. They are democratic.

For many local town concerns, I go to vote, somethings 6 or 7 times a year. I am not electing a representative. I am voting on the issue. Based upon the outcome of that vote, the issue passes or fails.

So when you say things like "this is a Republic" you cast aspersions upon the rich history of democracy in the New England area of the United States.

btw, attending and participating in town meetings is nothing less than awesome. IMHO, it is a shame that New England seems to keep this amazing accomplishment of democracy to themselves....

And going back to the point upon which I am commenting, I usually use the phrase " Democratic Republic" to describe this Great Country.


#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 09:38 PM | Reply

I'm not in a place where I can research this right now but I thought California put that issue on a ballot once.
And state legislatures represent democracy.
Right about times changing and perceptions changing but you really can't use that as a defense for democracy being sorted by the courts at the time.
#26 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2020-10-08 07:14 PM

Dude, they are already attempting to role back same sex marriage JUST LAST WEEK. Their agenda includes upturning as many settled progressive rulings as possible, not just abortion.

Our democracy isn't elevating anyone as a stagnant, ossified mouthpiece to the wealthy and to the religious.

#34 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-10-08 10:04 PM | Reply

By that twit's definition, every country is a democracy. Since every country on the planet is 'ruled by the people' in part (no country has rule by all of the people, so every country has some portion of 'the people' who make decisions for the country whether it's 1 or millions) so then every country meets their definition. We're stuck with either meeting the meaningless definition of Bernstein's 'democracy' or we're a Republic as laid out in plain language in the Constitution.

Article IV
Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Once again someone wants to pretend that the founding document says something other than what it actually says.

#35 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 10:27 PM | Reply

@#35 ... The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ...

In order to get your "oh snap" you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

While I may not disagree with you here, I will not sign off on shoddy work.

iow, Try harder.

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:39 PM | Reply

This should also apply to the President. - #8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-08 05:29 PM
In your opinion. All you need to do is gather enough states to agree with you and amend the Constitution.

We are not a 100% Republic. - #9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-08 05:51 PM
In what ways are we not a Republic?

How many Republicans love the fact that the electoral college delivers a victory to the candidate who loses the popular vote? #19 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-08 06:42 PM
Republicans don't care about it. It's as meaningless a statistic as the number fans who show up at the superbowl is to determining the winner of the game.

You will have to provide examples of where any "majority of the people" voted for anti-same sex laws. - #22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-08 07:01 PM
2008 California Proposition 8
en.wikipedia.org
Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%

#37 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 10:40 PM | Reply

I will not sign off on shoddy work. #36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:39 PM
Your lack of signature is ignored as meaningless. Do your own work.

#38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 10:42 PM | Reply

@#38 ... Do your own work. ...

So you admit you cannot provide the justification of your comments that I asked for, and you even have the audacity to ask me to justify your comments for you?

Wow.

Such false bravado, sheepish behavior.

#39 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:48 PM | Reply

"and shall protect each of them against Invasion"

Remember when Trump was calling it the "Invisible Enemy?"

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-08 10:53 PM | Reply

So you admit you cannot provide the justification of your comments that I asked for, and you even have the audacity to ask me to justify your comments for you? - #39 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:48 PM
I quoted the constitution with the citation where it came from. You didn't ask for a justification of my comments, but those of the document quoted. You can stop lying about it any time now.
You're welcome.

#41 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 10:56 PM | Reply

@#40 ... Remember when Trump was calling it the "Invisible Enemy?" ..

And then he seemed to join that "Invisible Enemy" (and encourage his supporters {"his base"} to also join him) in its deadly fight against Americans, killing Americans on their home soil?


#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:56 PM | Reply

So you admit you cannot provide the justification of your comments that I asked for, and you even have the audacity to ask me to justify your comments for you?

#39 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:48 PM
Also, I need to point out 2 more lies you're trying to pass off. You didn't ask anything. You required me provide you something in order to earn your meaningless sign-off. Saying you asked it, is a lie.
I didn't ask you to do anything. You lied when you claim that I did.
3 lies in 1 posts is that normal for you?

#43 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 10:59 PM | Reply

2008 California Proposition 8 en.wikipedia.org
Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%
#37 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

A lot happened to get us Californians to that point, which you are clearly ignoring. But I wouldn't expect any different from you, specifically.

Further, a lot has happened since 2008. Too bad you didn't acknowledge that. Would have helped your (dying) credibility around here.

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-08 11:04 PM | Reply

@#41 ... I quoted the constitution with the citation where it came from. You didn't ask for a justification of my comments, ...

My comment said... "In order to get your "oh snap" you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

So you admit you got nothin'.

Not surprising.

Have a good evening.

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:05 PM | Reply

A lot happened to get us Californians to that point, which you are clearly ignoring. But I wouldn't expect any different from you, specifically.

Further, a lot has happened since 2008. Too bad you didn't acknowledge that. Would have helped your (dying) credibility around here.

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-08 11:04 PM
How am I ignoring something? Tonyroma requested a citation and I provided one for them. Why would I need to acknowledge something completely unrelated to my attempt to assist tonyrome with their request? I even quoted it so I wouldn't have some ignorant person thinking I was somehow taking some side in it. I guess I underestimated some people's ignorance. I apologize for underestimating.

#46 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:06 PM | Reply

My comment said... "In order to get your "oh snap" you need to...#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:05 PM
Unlike your attempts to lie your way into an 'oh snap' discussion, I wasn't looking for one. I'm just trying to educate people with factual information from the source document.

Keep on with your lies and searching for 'oh snap's LampLighter. It's good to see you're making you mark on something.
Good evening.

#47 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:10 PM | Reply

@#43 ... You lied when you claim that I did. ...

I said you could not provide justification. I did not say you lied.

I Did Not Say You Lied.

Get a grip dude.

@#47 ... Keep on with your lies ...

So.. when I ask you to point to the part of the Constitution where it defines what a Republic is, you call that lies?

I do note that you still have not provided a reference to the part of the Constitution that defines what a Republic is.

Still.

After all this angst here.

Still you do not seem to be able to provide the answer to a seemingly request.

Now, my concern is more of why aren't you able to do so?

The Constitution has been around for a while. It has been studied by many.

So why cannot you seem to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that defines what a Republic is?



#48 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:21 PM | Reply

when I ask you to point to the part of the Constitution where it defines what a Republic is, you call that lies?

Still you do not seem to be able to provide the answer to a seemingly request.

Now, my concern is more of why aren't you able to do so?

#48 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:21 PM
Quote where you ask me for anything. Or admit your lie.
Your concern is less important to me than your inability to stop lying is.

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:28 PM | Reply

Let me be more specific. Here is what you are lying about is asking me for something. Point out the part that you think is asking.

In order to get your "oh snap" you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

While I may not disagree with you here, I will not sign off on shoddy work.

iow, Try harder.

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:39 PM

#50 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:30 PM | Reply

No founding father was advocating for pure democracy..they wanted a ruling elite but that was still in some way subject to the will of the people (white male protestant landowners).

Since then, we've come a long way to improving who gets a say including non land owners, Catholics and other religions, ethnic minorities, women ect.

Still the system was never designed to accommodate whatever the majority wanted when they wanted it. It was designed to foster compromise among different power groups so that everyone (majority and sensible minority[s] have a say on what happens. In other words the majority two wolves should have preference but doesn't have the right to butcher the protesting sheep simply due to majority. aka tyranny of the mob (i.e. unfairly vote banned in a game by a votekick of 51%).

I think this was his point; nothing more. if it was more then hes wrong.

#51 | Posted by Regnum at 2020-10-08 11:41 PM | Reply

@#50 ... Let me be more specific. Here is what you are lying about is asking me for something. Point out the part that you think is asking. ...

You are so deflective sometimes.

In order to get your "oh snap" you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

I note that you still hve not cited that part of the Constitution.

If you feel the need to blame me for your failure, that's fine. I'm really OK with that.

"you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

Do that.



#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:41 PM | Reply

Do that. #52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:41 PM
Do your own work. #38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 10:42 PM |
&
Your concern is less important to me than your inability to stop lying is. -#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:28 PM

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:45 PM | Reply

@#53 ... Your concern is less important to me than your inability to stop lying is. ...

At least that is what I was able to discern from the jumble of the back quote in your comment

Do try to be more lucid, eh?

But I will still say, "you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

But please, do try to be more lucid, otherwise the usual rationale conversations I have had with you seem to be for naught.....


#54 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 11:50 PM | Reply

Pretty sure Mike Lee was saying he preferred tyranny to democracy.

He wasn't being literal about what form of government we have in America.

Kinda like when George Bush Jr said he wanted to spread democracy to Iraq.

But. Republicans will argue the meaning of the word "is" if it can muddy the waters enough. Why not. Semantics is an easy game to play.

#55 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-08 11:58 PM | Reply

In order to get your "oh snap" you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

While I may not disagree with you here, I will not sign off on shoddy work.

iow, Try harder.

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-08 10:39 PM

Why would I want to get the sign off from noted liar LampLighter? I think I'd really prefer that someone who keeps lying, as you do, NOT sign off on my comments especially in search of some "oh snap".
Lucid enough?

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-08 11:58 PM | Reply

How am I ignoring something? Tonyroma requested a citation and I provided one for them. Why would I need to acknowledge something completely unrelated to my attempt to assist tonyrome with their request? I even quoted it so I wouldn't have some ignorant person thinking I was somehow taking some side in it. I guess I underestimated some people's ignorance. I apologize for underestimating.
#46 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

You're ignoring context. As in, the Prop 8 initiative in California was severely impacted by outside interests. That's the ignorance YOU are suffering from and using California's Prop 8 vote as some kind of proof that, in a vacuum, voters have voted against gay rights. California's Prop 8, on paper and in effect AT THE TIME, would be proper evidence. The fact you're laying it out here as proof of anything in the year 2020, within context, speaks volumes.

IOW, it's a terrible example. And if it's the only example you can come up with, it truly speaks to the lack of interest American voters have in dispelling gay rights.

Shouldn't have to spell that out for you, but here we are. You earned it and your credibility takes another hit.

Enjoy the election, while you still can.

#57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-09 12:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#56 ... Lucid enough? ..

In a word... no.

You really need to try harder.

But, based upon your performance here on this most august site, I doubt you will.

So I'll choose not to revel in the mediocrity of your comments.

On the other hand, you could go back to the beginning of this dispute and provide one simple datum...

"you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

Why are your comments so adverse to that? Why do you seemingly try to deflect your answer to other topics?


#58 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-09 12:07 AM | Reply

Why are your comments so adverse to that? - #58 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-09 12:07 AM | Reply
Because I don't want to enable a liar like you. And I definitely don't want a liar like you to try to turn my work into an "oh snap".
I guess we'll have to go along with liars like you thinking that I'm mediocre.
But maybe you're just lying about that too, Lamplighter. Maybe you just can't stop lying.

#59 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-09 12:13 AM | Reply

Enjoy the election, while you still can. - #57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-09 12:02 AM
When do you expect I'll stop enjoying the election? My candidate lost in 2016, so I doubt I'll stop enjoying this one any time soon.

#60 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-09 12:15 AM | Reply

@#59 ... Because I don't want to enable a liar like you. ...

You really shouldn't channel Pres Trump. While he may be able to pull it off, it just doesn't work for you. (seriously dude, you don't have it)

"you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

So, when do you think you will be getting around to the root cause of this conversation?


Seriously?

How much more do you want to deflect?

#61 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-09 12:18 AM | Reply

I will continue to not enable your lying ways, LampLighter. You can call it deflection or whatever you like. I'm not overly concerned about your opinion after the lies you've made tonight.

#62 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-10-09 12:24 AM | Reply

Who funded Proposition 8? Wasn't it the Mormons who were really attempting to subvert Californian law and deliberately hurt people who have already married, not only to prevent more marriage? To harm them emotionally, financially, embarrass them nationally, use them politically and castigate them regardless how spiritual or religious. To destroy families.

#63 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-10-09 12:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#62 ... I will continue to not enable your lying ways, LampLighter. You can call it deflection or whatever you like. I'm not overly concerned about your opinion after the lies you've made tonight. ...

"you need to cite the part of the Constitution that defines exactly what is meant by "a Republican Form of Government."

Why do you seem to be so afraid of the Constitution?

#64 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-09 12:30 AM | Reply

Finally! The truth from a Republican mouth!
They HATE America...

#65 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-09 08:26 AM | Reply

"Dude, they are already attempting to role back same sex marriage JUST LAST WEEK."

incorrect

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-09 08:56 AM | Reply

"Always love it when Trumptards try to "teach us"

Here is a clue for the clueless like Donnerboy.
One example of the minority rule was the time our moon landers were returning to earth and Madalyn O'Hare stopped open prayers for their safe return.
In a Democracy where *everything is voter decided, the minority lose.

Another case in point:
Why don't we put abortion on the ballot?
Because we can't risk the results if the majority vote NO.

#67 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-09 09:26 AM | Reply

Why don't we put abortion on the ballot?0

Because we can't risk the results if the majority vote NO.

#67 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 202

There have been abortions since the start of time, just like there has been use of intoxicants.

I don't know if a majority would say "no" to abortion responding to a ballot. Likely not, but let's say they do.

Everyone just does a little bit of time travel into the not so distant past. The governing principle for access to abortions is who has money. Women will get exactly what they pay for. That's not better, that's much worse.

#68 | Posted by Zed at 2020-10-09 09:40 AM | Reply

Democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.

Tell that to Moscow Mitch ufcknut.

This is the same hsithead that blocked relief funds to Flint Michigan because.....

#69 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-10-09 09:51 AM | Reply

"That's not better, that's much worse.
#68 | POSTED BY ZED"

Of course it is, which is why its not on the ballet.
This is why we have a Republic.

#70 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-09 09:59 AM | Reply

Let's check with Meriam-Webster:

Is the United States a democracy or a republic?

The United States is both a democracy and a republic. Democracies and republics are both forms of government in which supreme power resides in the citizens. The word republic refers specifically to a government in which those citizens elect representatives who govern according to the law. The word democracy can refer to this same kind of representational government, or it can refer instead to what is also called a direct democracy, in which the citizens themselves participate in the act of governing directly.

What is the basic meaning of democracy?

The word democracy most often refers to a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.


Other dictionaries will say the same thing. We have a constitutional democratic republic. "Democracy" doesn't only mean straight majority rule. This is pretty basic civics. The protections for the minority aren't built into the "republic" part, they're built into the "constitutional" part. Being a republic absolutely does not protect against majority rule.

We are also a representative democracy and a liberal democracy. Anyone who actually understands civics knows the "democracy" is not limited strictly to direct democracy.

I know this won't stop you from continuing to use this canard whenever it suits you, but I do find it humorous the people who are so vehement about "protecting democracy" and "spreading democracy" will then turn around and argue that neither we nor any other country is a democracy.

#71 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2020-10-09 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Yes, a represented democracy, hence the Electoral College.

#72 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-09 10:34 AM | Reply

"In what ways are we not a Republic?"

Because we are also a representative democracy.

You could look this up yourself. If you wanted.

Because of the 17th amendment U.S. senators are elected directly by the people, they are not elected by state legislators who are elected by the people as originally designed. Representative democracy.

Also, state- and local-level initiative and referendum schemes are more of a representative democracy than a republic


Also, the Electoral College is NOT a deliberative body, in which the electors discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather it is elected solely to vote for particular candidates. That is representative democracy.

There are other examples but that should suffice until you can find a history book and maybe learn to read.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-09 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How many Republicans love the fact that the electoral college delivers a victory to the candidate who loses the popular vote? You can include every single one of those people in that category.

If the U.S. were only two states, California and Maine, California is bigger and would always have the popular vote. Maine would never get to pick the executive.

I believe we should go to a 1 to 1 electoral college. Biden Wins California = 1 vote. Trump wins Maine = 1 Vote. No more of this "hey Maine, here in California, we have a surplus of votes for Biden, you want some of them to even you out?"

We are a Federation of States. Period. No we aren't a pure democracy at the Federal level. We are a collection of states.

At the local level, yes, we are a democracy...

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-09 02:18 PM | Reply

"I believe we should go to a 1 to 1 electoral college. Biden Wins California = 1 vote. Trump wins Maine = 1 Vote"

David Frum really has his finger on the pulse of what it means to be a Republican in 2020:

Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.

David Frum,Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-09 02:22 PM | Reply

"We are a Federation of States."

Are the states Democracies?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-09 02:26 PM | Reply

"If the U.S. were only two states, California and Maine, California is bigger and would always have the popular vote. Maine wouldneverget to pick the executive."

Yeah, so?

If Maine agreed to that when they joined the Union, where's the problem?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-09 02:29 PM | Reply

Are the states Democracies?

some are, yes..

If Maine agreed to that when they joined the Union, where's the problem?

They cant leave the Union once they decide to leave..

#78 | Posted by boaz at 2020-10-09 07:09 PM | Reply

I believe we should go to a 1 to 1 electoral college. Biden Wins California = 1 vote. Trump wins Maine = 1 Vote. No more of this "hey Maine, here in California, we have a surplus of votes for Biden, you want some of them to even you out?"

We are a Federation of States. Period. No we aren't a pure democracy at the Federal level. We are a collection of states.

At the local level, yes, we are a democracy...

#74 | Posted by boaz

Cool, then you'd be cool with california splitting itself up into 50 mini states so they'd have 50 votes?

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-09 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Boaz,the war was lost 155 years ago. The independent states lost,BIGLY. You had a point in 1860.The Confederate states had the legal power of secession. There was a "fetish" of the "union" in the northern states. Lincoln was the chief architect of civil war.

He could have let them slip away. He could have not resisted their separation.

He chose fratricidal war.

I've never forgiven that about Lincoln

I don't really think he was a great man.

He had a great Rap Tho.

The Gettysburg Address was pure poetry.

The words sublime, the war not.

#80 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-09 09:29 PM | Reply

Boaz,the war was lost 155 years ago. The independent states lost,BIGLY. You had a point in 1860.The Confederate states had the legal power of secession. There was a "fetish" of the "union" in the northern states. Lincoln was the chief architect of civil war.

He could have let them slip away. He could have not resisted their separation.

He chose fratricidal war.

I've never forgiven that about Lincoln

I don't really think he was a great man.

He had a great Rap Tho.

The Gettysburg Address was pure poetry.

The words sublime, the war not.

#81 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-09 09:29 PM | Reply

Wow, what a load of ----!

#82 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-09 09:47 PM | Reply

Cool, then you'd be cool with california [sic] splitting itself up into 50 mini states so they'd have 50 votes?

Does California have the legal authority to do that? Texas does, for up to a total of 5 states. www.smithsonianmag.com

Careful what you wish for.

#83 | Posted by et_al at 2020-10-09 10:59 PM | Reply

Wait a sec, what have we been spreading around the world then?

#84 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-10-10 01:59 PM | Reply

Sweatshops.

#85 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-10 02:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort