|
On June 15 2010 04:36 bludragen88 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 04:31 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA. That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well. Luckily we do have quite a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders. I would be highly surprised if nobody who was an elected public official had some kind of weird sexual tendencies/tastes, and there have been plenty of instances of deaths in questionable circumstances with famous politicians nearby (ted kennedy anyone? how about dick cheney?). So we are well represented, don't worry one bit.
I knew someone would respond that way. I didn't claim that we haven't had any leaders that fit those terms. What I said was that following his logic we should. Also, you were only able to give examples of one of the categories. And they were very weak examples at that.
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 04:31 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA. That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well. Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
|
On June 15 2010 05:45 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there. Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
|
![[image loading]](http://www.strategictelemetry.com/docs/maps/ST_SC_Senate_DEM_060810.jpg)
This is the map for the district by district results of the election. According to this map, not only did he win, but he won pretty overwhelmingly throughout the state.
On June 15 2010 06:18 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 05:45 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there. Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders. But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
Personally, I believe that each group needs to be represented, but not necessarily by one of them. Even murderers and psychopaths deserve representation, but I would argue that a non criminal who understands their pleas is equally suited, if not more so, to represent them as a murderer.
|
...Doesn't South Carolina get lambasted daily by the Daily Show and Colbert Report? XD Well, every state has its quirks.
|
On June 15 2010 06:18 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 05:45 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there. Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders. But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
you do know that the USA is not a democracy right?
|
This literally made my day! It's so absurdly hilarious xD
60% of the voters took the burden of going to an election station and make a cross next to somebody's name despite not even knowing who they vote for ^^
On June 15 2010 06:59 Wangsta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 06:18 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On June 15 2010 05:45 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there. Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders. But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead? you do know that the USA is not a democracy right?
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy.
About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
|
On June 15 2010 06:59 Wangsta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 06:18 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On June 15 2010 05:45 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there. Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders. But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead? you do know that the USA is not a democracy right?
yes, it's a presidential republic or something like that, that doesnt really change the stuff I said.
On June 15 2010 06:30 Try wrote:
Personally, I believe that each group needs to be represented, but not necessarily by one of them. Even murderers and psychopaths deserve representation, but I would argue that a non criminal who understands their pleas is equally suited, if not more so, to represent them as a murderer.
why should they be better qualified to represent the criminals?
|
On June 15 2010 07:09 ggrrg wrote:Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term.
BTW even if there is conclusive proof of vote fraud in this country we wont do anything about it. Just ask Diebold. Honestly I think if they find evidence of fraud they should sue the South Carolina election committee and try to get an injunction to stop the actual senate election and try to vacate his win. I may live in a shitty state, but thank God Himself I dont live in South Carolina.
|
On June 15 2010 07:38 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 07:09 ggrrg wrote:Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!? We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term. ...
I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy.
And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress?
|
On June 15 2010 08:22 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 07:38 red_b wrote:On June 15 2010 07:09 ggrrg wrote:Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!? We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term. ... I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy. And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress?
I don't want to start an argument over this, but you are wrong, and you are free to google or research as much as you want if you don't believe me.
a very short counterargument for your point is the fact that america has appointed officials, as well as some officials who elected in a non-democratic manner
|
On June 15 2010 06:18 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 05:45 Lefnui wrote:On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there. Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders. But you do know what a democracy is, right?
Do I know what a democracy is? Don't condescend me when you're the one making the ridiculous argument.
Only because you don't like them
Of course I don't like sexual sadists and psychopaths. That is the natural and logical reaction to have to such people.
doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country
I never said they do not have the right. The point is that they shouldn't be elected merely because they represent a portion of our population. There is also quite a significant amount of people with extremely low IQs and mental deficiencies, should they be elected as leaders?
You're misunderstanding the term "representative" to mean that every group of people should have an elected official. You're forgetting that the most important thing in a democracy is that we elect our "best and brightest", not our cruelest and most mentally deranged.
I think the original point you were trying to make is that criminals deserve a second chance and can still be good people regardless of their crimes. I completely agree and it's sad how criminals of lesser crimes can be ostracized in this country. However, you have now gone too far and presented a number of illogical arguments.
I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
For your sake I hope that you don't actually mean that you yourself dislike homosexuals. Also, homosexuality is a horrible comparison. Sexual sadism and psychopathy are clear inferiorities that often lead to causing pain to others. Whereas homosexuality is merely a neutral difference.
|
On June 15 2010 08:41 Wangsta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:22 ggrrg wrote:On June 15 2010 07:38 red_b wrote:On June 15 2010 07:09 ggrrg wrote:Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!? We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term. ... I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy. And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress? I don't want to start an argument over this, but you are wrong, and you are free to google or research as much as you want if you don't believe me. a very short counterargument for your point is the fact that america has appointed officials, as well as some officials who elected in a non-democratic manner
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
|
This makes me wanna run for mayor or something, lol...
|
Q: How in the world did something like this happen?
Q: How did you win the nomination of the democratic party in South Carolina?
A: I work hard.
Personal reflection: Damn, I gotta start working harder T_T
|
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design.
Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
|
On June 18 2010 02:19 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed. The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design. Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
You are an idiot for arguing about whether or not USA is a democracy. Yes you are correct from a "pure" sense, but 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. This is what normal people do instead of starting a straw man argument.
|
omgomgomg its motkle
come down from forum heaven to smite the worthless rabble muttering unintelligible nonsense in the sacred portal of the perennial politics thread
bow down ye mortals, this man is a TL god (no seriously he's right cut it out)!
|
Anyone arguing that the USA is not a democracy does not have the intellectual capacity to breed.
|
On June 18 2010 10:51 Eiserne wrote:
Anyone arguing that the USA is a democracy does not have the intellectual capacity to breed.
|
The United States is NOT a democracy; it is a constitutional republic, a twisted form of representative democracy. In a representative democracy, the majority always rules no matter what. However, in a constitutional republic, like the United States, the people, namely the minority, are protected by constitutional law that limits the power of the government. If you have read the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton makes it a point that the "tyranny of the majority" is a major problem that we must avoid. The presence of an independent judicial system also prevents the US from a truly democratic system.
In a true democracy, a 51% representative majority can vote to throw the minority off a cliff if they would like. There hasn't been a true direct or representative democracy since Athens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
