Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll bite and play along with this 10 year old, even though I should be outside exercising today, and so should you, OP.

The US is not a democracy. The United States is a republic.

We'll wait while you go look up the difference. Please come back with a well-crafted paragraph demonstrating your understanding, and we'll go from there in this discussion.

OP here. In school every single teacher who spoke on this subject said the US is a democracy. I would imagine schools are forbidden from teaching lies on a mass scale.

You do understand that teachers are not very bright

oh, OK

You're one of "them."

Well, you're only slamming history teachers.

As an English teacher, while I may give context around a novel, I don't get into the political systems. I don't believe math or science teachers do either. or art . . . or PE . . . or technology . . .

So you may need to take your cause elsewhere.

Your poorly written and punctuated post proves my point about teachers. And you teach English!

But a pure democracy is also a tyrrany. The tyrrany of mob rule. The needs of the weak would be trampled by the desires of the strong.

Americans don't know what a democracy is, and thus that's why the word democracy is used all the time by politicians and teachers. The more the word is used, the less we have of it.

If we wanted a truly representative government, we would <select delegates>, not <elect representatives>, by random lottery. No elections. No money. No campaigns pleading with people to "vote for me." Random selection of delegates would produce a subset of the larger population that is representative of the larger community. Instead, what we get with elections is a legislative body comprised of mostly rich people, and friends of rich people, acting in the interest of the rich.

The central problem of living in large groups is how do we make large-scale decisions? Monarchy and other forms of autocratic rule are not acceptable, nor is parliamentary republics. Both are tyrannies. Yet, how do we live and work in small groups, while making large-scale decisions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll bite and play along with this 10 year old, even though I should be outside exercising today, and so should you, OP.

The US is not a democracy. The United States is a republic.

We'll wait while you go look up the difference. Please come back with a well-crafted paragraph demonstrating your understanding, and we'll go from there in this discussion.

OP here. In school every single teacher who spoke on this subject said the US is a democracy. I would imagine schools are forbidden from teaching lies on a mass scale.

You do understand that teachers are not very bright

oh, OK

You're one of "them."

Well, you're only slamming history teachers.

As an English teacher, while I may give context around a novel, I don't get into the political systems. I don't believe math or science teachers do either. or art . . . or PE . . . or technology . . .

So you may need to take your cause elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:Democracy means the people participate in the government. We can just simply vote for universal healthcare.

late to the game -haven't read through the posts

But . . . we are not a social democracy.

OP = AOC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll bite and play along with this 10 year old, even though I should be outside exercising today, and so should you, OP.

The US is not a democracy. The United States is a republic.

We'll wait while you go look up the difference. Please come back with a well-crafted paragraph demonstrating your understanding, and we'll go from there in this discussion.

Oh geez, not this again. Yes, our country is a democracy - a representative democracy where we vote for people to represent our interests within the government.

Our country is also a republic, which is the FORM of our government.

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.cb6d94c8a581

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, FWIW, what makes you think everyone would vote for universal healthcare?"

First, you have to determine what it is. Obamacare legislated all sorts of things that did not need to be in the requirement to be covered by insurance. That is one of the reasons that the rates went up so much.

Universal healthcare means having 1 single insurance for the whole US. People pay via taxes, what they’re able to contribute financially. If you need a certain treatment or procedure, it’s covered. Every doctor accepts this. It’s the same system that every other developed country has.

Universal healthcare means having a two tier system in which everyone is covered, but those who can afford private insurance and pay for private physicians will receive better treatment.

Not true. My vision of universal healthcare will pay physicians well, and everyone will get high levels of care.

Money tree?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BS, Then what is the need to bargain the black man as 60% of white man? The south will lose every single election if black men aren't given the vote because the north had so many more white men and fewer blacks. So the south has to find a way to count the black votes WITHOUT giving them the vote. ERGO EC was created as a bargain.

The south ofcourse lied about the reason for the creation of EC as state rights. IT IS STATE RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH TO COUNT THE BLACK PERSON WITHOUT THE VOTE. This is the truth. No other explanation will fully explain the conundrum of HOW TO COUNT THE BLACKS IN ELECTION without giving them the vote.

Read a history book. You are mistaken.

Follow your own words. Obviously you are "poorly educated" who the puppet loves.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

Note it says some. So it's not fact. Personally, the biggest reason for the electoral college was a lack of trust in the common man. Yes, there was a practical matter of timely voting as well but mainly a lack of trust in the unwashed masses.

The 3/5 compromise was purely about power. The South wanted the "voting power" of the slaves to stack the House of Representatives. The South feared the North's strong opposition to slavery and was keenly interested in preserving State's rights--Rights as it pertains to legislative power. Yes, the Southern States argued for allegiance to the Constitution but only as long as slavery was legal.

State rights is one reason the Confederacy was a failure. A State's rights were more important than allegiance to the Confederacy.

Anonymous wrote:

BS, Then what is the need to bargain the black man as 60% of white man? The south will lose every single election if black men aren't given the vote because the north had so many more white men and fewer blacks. So the south has to find a way to count the black votes WITHOUT giving them the vote. ERGO EC was created as a bargain.

The south ofcourse lied about the reason for the creation of EC as state rights. IT IS STATE RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH TO COUNT THE BLACK PERSON WITHOUT THE VOTE. This is the truth. No other explanation will fully explain the conundrum of HOW TO COUNT THE BLACKS IN ELECTION without giving them the vote.

Read a history book. You are mistaken.

Follow your own words. Obviously you are "poorly educated" who the puppet loves.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

BS, Then what is the need to bargain the black man as 60% of white man? The south will lose every single election if black men aren't given the vote because the north had so many more white men and fewer blacks. So the south has to find a way to count the black votes WITHOUT giving them the vote. ERGO EC was created as a bargain.

The south ofcourse lied about the reason for the creation of EC as state rights. IT IS STATE RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH TO COUNT THE BLACK PERSON WITHOUT THE VOTE. This is the truth. No other explanation will fully explain the conundrum of HOW TO COUNT THE BLACKS IN ELECTION without giving them the vote.

Read a history book. You are mistaken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A democratic republic. We, the people, don't vote directly for issues.

Why not create a system where people can vote directly on issues?

Direct democracy was impractical in the past, though possible now with technology.

The question becomes who drafts the legislation, at what threshold should the citizenry be presented with legislation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A democratic republic. We, the people, don't vote directly for issues.

Why not create a system where people can vote directly on issues?

Such a system would be mob rule. Minorities issues would be suppressed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A democratic republic. We, the people, don't vote directly for issues.

Why not create a system where people can vote directly on issues?

Because, our forefathers found a system that has worked pretty darn well for almost 250 years. It was not designed as a system where people can vote directly on issues at the national level.

+1. And, as evidenced here, “the people “ really are too stupid to understand complex issues

Forefathers are a bunch of racists who created a system that benefited the white man. THIS COUNTRY IS NO LONGER WHITE MAN'S ALONE. So it is time to revisit everything the racists setup to benefit themselves on the back of black slaves and native American plunder.

Go back to sleep

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll bite and play along with this 10 year old, even though I should be outside exercising today, and so should you, OP.

The US is not a democracy. The United States is a republic.

We'll wait while you go look up the difference. Please come back with a well-crafted paragraph demonstrating your understanding, and we'll go from there in this discussion.

Typical republican half assed crap. We are democracy and a republic. They are not mutually exclusive. Republic : Power isn't transferred by hierarchy or lineage. Democracy: Rule of the people by the people for the people.

Our democracy is structurally flawed due to slavery era EC which was created by the southern politicians to count the black votes without giving them the vote. Even then the blacks were only counted as 60% of white man.

Slavery was wrong and awful. The South wanted the slaves counted as a full person. Why? So, they would have more Representatives in Congress. The North said "no." So, the compromise was 3/5th. Of course, it's hard to defend either side on this one.

This, however, has nothing to do with the Electoral College. That was devised to keep the states with large populations from controlling everything. It is a common sense solution. Otherwise, the people in the very large coastal cities would have total control over almost all policies. That is also why we have a bicameral Congress.

BS, Then what is the need to bargain the black man as 60% of white man? The south will lose every single election if black men aren't given the vote because the north had so many more white men and fewer blacks. So the south has to find a way to count the black votes WITHOUT giving them the vote. ERGO EC was created as a bargain.

The south ofcourse lied about the reason for the creation of EC as state rights. IT IS STATE RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH TO COUNT THE BLACK PERSON WITHOUT THE VOTE. This is the truth. No other explanation will fully explain the conundrum of HOW TO COUNT THE BLACKS IN ELECTION without giving them the vote.