Abandoning allies

[Stretch 74]

Well the Highly Cerebral Loyal One never says anything stupid, so don't include me in your sweeping generalizations.

That said, your hang up with Republic vs Democracy is puzzling. As per the link I posted previously. Potato, Pahtato.

Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Republic? Find Out! - U.S. Constitution.net

Defining a Constitutional Republic The United States operates as a constitutional republic, a form of government that involves representatives elected by the people, who execute their duties under the constraints of a prevailing constitution that specifies the powers and limits of government...

www.usconstitution.net

Maybe the Orange one should read it:

"One fundamental principle of a constitutional republic is the protection of minority rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. This design counters direct democracy, where majority rules could potentially ride roughshod over minority interests. The U.S. Constitution outlines various checks and balances intended to prevent any single branch of government from gaining absolute power, thereby protecting individual rights from being infringed upon by majority vote."

Right from the linked article:

The electoral process distinctly forms the basis of the U.S. as a republic. Citizens do not vote directly for laws and policies but instead elect representatives who make these decisions on their behalf. This filter theoretically places an informed decision-making body between the populace’s desire and the law, which aligns with the characteristics of a republic.
The rule of law also serves as a cornerstone in a constitutional republic. Unlike monarchies of the past where rulers were law unto themselves, in a constitutional republic such as the U.S., every citizen, irrespective of their status or authority, is subject to the law. This adherence to codified laws confirms the U.S.’ attachment to the abstract principles of democracy and to a rational legal framework that governs society’s functioning.

The democratic process in the U.S. ensures that while representatives are elected to make decisions, these decisions are deeply influenced by public opinion. Citizens express their preferences through voting, which is a civic duty, emphasizing the democratic spirit within the framework of a constitutional republic. This process secures a pathway for public sentiment to guide the legislative agenda, thereby reinforcing the notion that government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

​

Po-tay-toe vs po-tah-to does not apply in this situation. Nuh-va-duh vs Neh-vah-duh is comparable because both of those situations it is simply a matter of how a specific thing is verbally pronounced. Democracy vs republic is not a simple disagreement over how to pronounce the system, it is trying to conflate two different systems by PRETENDING that there is no difference between the two systems. So that is why I am "hung up" on this. It just seems reasonable to me that everyone should understand the difference and use the proper term.

I do understand why so many want to resist that though. It simply sounds so much worse for the people ignorant of the correct usage of the terms every time the libs wail that "Trump is destroying our DEMOCRACY" instead of "Trump is destroying our republic".

Remember how I mentioned we all say or DO something stupid from time to time, Mr Loyal? Well.....Montana.Wallet.Lost. I rest my case, and will include you in with all of us. You get no pass from me.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Right from the linked article:


I do understand why so many want to resist that though. It simply sounds so much worse for the people ignorant of the correct usage of the terms every time the libs wail that "Trump is destroying our DEMOCRACY" instead of "Trump is destroying our republic".

Ok, I give up. Trump is trying to destroy our REBUBLIC. Happy?

 

[UberCougars]

Our Allies certainly didn’t sound abandoned today. Looks like this thread was just a lot of hot air with a lot of hyperventilation thrown in.

 

[UberCougars]

And just like that, NATO door is closed for Ukraine.

T’s &P’s to our Forever War blood 🩸 lust friends.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Right from the linked article:

The electoral process distinctly forms the basis of the U.S. as a republic. Citizens do not vote directly for laws and policies but instead elect representatives who make these decisions on their behalf. This filter theoretically places an informed decision-making body between the populace’s desire and the law, which aligns with the characteristics of a republic.
The rule of law also serves as a cornerstone in a constitutional republic. Unlike monarchies of the past where rulers were law unto themselves, in a constitutional republic such as the U.S., every citizen, irrespective of their status or authority, is subject to the law. This adherence to codified laws confirms the U.S.’ attachment to the abstract principles of democracy and to a rational legal framework that governs society’s functioning.

The democratic process in the U.S. ensures that while representatives are elected to make decisions, these decisions are deeply influenced by public opinion. Citizens express their preferences through voting, which is a civic duty, emphasizing the democratic spirit within the framework of a constitutional republic. This process secures a pathway for public sentiment to guide the legislative agenda, thereby reinforcing the notion that government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

​

Po-tay-toe vs po-tah-to does not apply in this situation. Nuh-va-duh vs Neh-vah-duh is comparable because both of those situations it is simply a matter of how a specific thing is verbally pronounced. Democracy vs republic is not a simple disagreement over how to pronounce the system, it is trying to conflate two different systems by PRETENDING that there is no difference between the two systems. So that is why I am "hung up" on this. It just seems reasonable to me that everyone should understand the difference and use the proper term.

I do understand why so many want to resist that though. It simply sounds so much worse for the people ignorant of the correct usage of the terms every time the libs wail that "Trump is destroying our DEMOCRACY" instead of "Trump is destroying our republic".

Remember how I mentioned we all say or DO something stupid from time to time, Mr Loyal? Well.....Montana.Wallet.Lost. I rest my case, and will include you in with all of us. You get no pass from me.

What's kind of cute about this giant pile of words is that you type all that sh!t out and include the words in red......and then say.......well, that applies to everyone but Trump. So, feel free to f#ck off until you acknowledge those words in red.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

So your position is that there is no good reason to promote accuracy in terms used in our English language? How is your "cement driveway" holding up?

Now you are just being stupid, trying to find any reason to try to bolster your losing position. Seriously, the "dem" part you mention has absolutely no bearing on my position. I freely admit/agree that the US as a representative republic is a democratic form of government, it just is not a democracy.

BTW, please take note that accuracy of terms is important when I said you were BEING stupid, and not that you WERE stupid. Everyone here does or says things that are stupid from time to time, doesn't mean we ARE stupid.

I believe you are arguing against a strawman. No one here, and certainly not me has been arguing that we are a pure/direct democracy. Although on the local level (state or municipalities) initiatives ARE direct citizen lawmaking.

I used the term "representative democracy". Do you disagree with that term? I also agree we are a Republic.

I would argue that "democracy" falls under several types of government of which the uSA is one. Just as not all totalitarian governments are the same, not all "types" of democracies are the same.

So I think we actually pretty much agree. And I appreciate your non-name calling. It's not something you do. Again, you appear to be a fundamentally decent person.

Still curious how many fundamentally decent people (I personally know many) support such fundamentally indecent behavior and candidates. Taihtsat

 

[95coug]

What's kind of cute about this giant pile of words is that you type all that sh!t out and include the words in red......and then say.......well, that applies to everyone but Trump. So, feel free to f#ck off until you acknowledge those words in red.

Technically, it’s not him that said that. It was the Supreme Court.

 

[Cougar_Guy]

Technically, it’s not him that said that. It was the Supreme Court.

Nah, he said it. It was his appeal in the United States vs. Donald Trump that brought up the whole immunity argument. The Supreme Court didn't want presidents to have to face legal actions after their term was up for decisions they made in their official capacity while in office. Remember the gem his legal team argued:

"Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution."

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...f-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

 

[95coug]

Nah, he said it. It was his appeal in the United States vs. Donald Trump that brought up the whole immunity argument. The Supreme Court didn't want presidents to have to face legal actions after their term was up for decisions they made in their official capacity while in office. Remember the gem his legal team argued:

"Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution."

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...f-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

Yeah, but the court's decision didn't really provide much clarity. Immunity from actions within Constitutional authority was never really in doubt, and it's the one thing they affirmed. Outside of that, their decision was pretty fuzzy - he still has presumptive immunity for duties shared with Congress, but that immunity may or may not actually exist, depending on the circumstances. And, he has no immunity for unofficial acts. But, they never provided any guidance on what is an unofficial act....including in the instance that brought the case to them in the first place - is the president immune from prosecution if he is accused of attempting to alter the result of an election.

And, in another example of the strangest dichotomy on the current court, Clarence Thomas again says that since special prosecutors aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they can't be used to prosecute the president. Thomas' strict originalist views make no sense whatsoever, considering that in an originalist view, he should not be allowed on the court, or to vote, and in some areas should have to step off the sidewalk when a white man approaches.

 

[Observer11]

Yeah, but the court's decision didn't really provide much clarity. Immunity from actions within Constitutional authority was never really in doubt, and it's the one thing they affirmed. Outside of that, their decision was pretty fuzzy - he still has presumptive immunity for duties shared with Congress, but that immunity may or may not actually exist, depending on the circumstances. And, he has no immunity for unofficial acts. But, they never provided any guidance on what is an unofficial act....including in the instance that brought the case to them in the first place - is the president immune from prosecution if he is accused of attempting to alter the result of an election.

And, in another example of the strangest dichotomy on the current court, Clarence Thomas again says that since special prosecutors aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they can't be used to prosecute the president. Thomas' strict originalist views make no sense whatsoever, considering that in an originalist view, he should not be allowed on the court, or to vote, and in some areas should have to step off the sidewalk when a white man approaches.

There's that pesky amendment process again which is defined in the original version Article 5.

Clarence Thomas is indeed qualified to be on the Supreme Court according to the 14th Amendment.

Now, off to word search "special prosecutor" in the Constitution and duly authorized amendments. Also going to word search the Constitution for "white man" and "sidewalk".

 

[Observer11]

There's that pesky amendment process again which is defined in the original version Article 5.

Clarence Thomas is indeed qualified to be on the Supreme Court according to the 14th Amendment.

Now, off to word search "special prosecutor" in the Constitution and duly authorized amendments. Also going to word search the Constitution for "white man" and "sidewalk".

Nope. Nothing.

 

[dgibbons]

Yeah, but the court's decision didn't really provide much clarity. Immunity from actions within Constitutional authority was never really in doubt, and it's the one thing they affirmed. Outside of that, their decision was pretty fuzzy - he still has presumptive immunity for duties shared with Congress, but that immunity may or may not actually exist, depending on the circumstances. And, he has no immunity for unofficial acts. But, they never provided any guidance on what is an unofficial act....including in the instance that brought the case to them in the first place - is the president immune from prosecution if he is accused of attempting to alter the result of an election.

And, in another example of the strangest dichotomy on the current court, Clarence Thomas again says that since special prosecutors aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they can't be used to prosecute the president. Thomas' strict originalist views make no sense whatsoever, considering that in an originalist view, he should not be allowed on the court, or to vote, and in some areas should have to step off the sidewalk when a white man approaches.

Just going to point out that Thomas is old enough that he may have stepped off the sidewalk. The 14th Amendment has been mentioned. The 15th Amendment deserves a mention as well.

 

[95coug]

There's that pesky amendment process again which is defined in the original version Article 5.

Clarence Thomas is indeed qualified to be on the Supreme Court according to the 14th Amendment.

Now, off to word search "special prosecutor" in the Constitution and duly authorized amendments. Also going to word search the Constitution for "white man" and "sidewalk".

Way to miss the point. Thomas has a ridiculous notion that there should be no law or process that isn’t accounted for by the founders. He thinks if they’d wanted special prosecutors, it would be in the constitution, and since it’s not…they can’t be used. He thinks that if they’d wanted any government control of guns and abortions, they would have put it in the constitution.

Of course, the reality is that the constitution was a framework, not a final instruction. The founders knew things would change and they couldn’t think of everything, so they didn’t try. They created the mechanism for change and adaptation. Thomas doesn’t acknowledge that - except when it’s convenient for him.

The 14th Amendment is a good example of the change the founders accounted for. It came along 80+ years after the original document. The actual founders - the originals that Thomas is so enamored of - didn’t believe that he had a place outside of servitude.

 

[dgibbons]

Meanwhile in China.

Rare video shows China's game-changing weapon for "D-Day"

The barges have road spans longer than football fields that could enable rapid deployment beyond heavily defended beaches.

www.newsweek.com

 

[dgibbons]

Way to miss the point. Thomas has a ridiculous notion that there should be no law or process that isn’t accounted for by the founders. He thinks if they’d wanted special prosecutors, it would be in the constitution, and since it’s not…they can’t be used. He thinks that if they’d wanted any government control of guns and abortions, they would have put it in the constitution.

Of course, the reality is that the constitution was a framework, not a final instruction. The founders knew things would change and they couldn’t think of everything, so they didn’t try. They created the mechanism for change and adaptation. Thomas doesn’t acknowledge that - except when it’s convenient for him.

The 14th Amendment is a good example of the change the founders accounted for. It came along 80+ years after the original document. The actual founders - the originals that Thomas is so enamored of - didn’t believe that he had a place outside of servitude.

The 1619 Project has entered the chat.

 

[Observer11]

s if they’d wanted special prosecutors, it would be in the constitution, and since it’s not…they can’t be used.

The Supreme Court's job is to rule on whether matters are constituitonal.

Weird that they look to a place like the Constitution for determination.

 

[UberCougars]

I believe you are arguing against a strawman. No one here, and certainly not me has been arguing that we are a pure/direct democracy. Although on the local level (state or municipalities) initiatives ARE direct citizen lawmaking.

I used the term "representative democracy". Do you disagree with that term? I also agree we are a Republic.

I would argue that "democracy" falls under several types of government of which the uSA is one. Just as not all totalitarian governments are the same, not all "types" of democracies are the same.

So I think we actually pretty much agree. And I appreciate your non-name calling. It's not something you do. Again, you appear to be a fundamentally decent person.

Still curious how many fundamentally decent people (I personally know many) support such fundamentally indecent behavior and candidates. Taihtsat

Don’t hurt yourself spinning narrative, pretzel.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

There's that pesky amendment process again which is defined in the original version Article 5.

Clarence Thomas is indeed qualified to be on the Supreme Court according to the 14th Amendment.

Now, off to word search "special prosecutor" in the Constitution and duly authorized amendments. Also going to word search the Constitution for "white man" and "sidewalk".

Are you catholic or Christian? Would you admit to that if you were?

 

[UberCougars]

Our allies

 

[Observer11]

Are you catholic or Christian? Would you admit to that if you were?

Deist like the founding fathers.

 

[95coug]

The Supreme Court's job is to rule on whether matters are constituitonal.

Weird that they look to a place like the Constitution for determination.

Not everything can be in there. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist.

 

[95coug]

Our allies

View embedded media

Not true. The House of Commons is elected. The PM comes from the party that wins the most seats…similar to our Speaker of the House. Their senate is filled by appointees recommended by the PM.
The King is their titular head of government, but his authority is limited.

While the specific offices listed are not elected…it’s far from a dictatorship. The House of Commons is the seat of government, and does the bulk of the governing.

An awful lot of the positions at the top of our government aren’t elected either. Cabinet secretaries, most of the judiciary, joint chiefs, FBI director, or any position at DOGE. The people don’t elect the speaker, whip, or party leadership.

Hell, I don’t think there’s anyone in national government right now that I voted for. Or that I would.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Deist like the founding fathers.

Oh, good for you. Same. The point i was meaning to make (95 nailed it too) is that simply because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it either is or isn't Constitutional.

Christians believe in the trinity. It isn't in the Bible specifically anywhere. In fact, the entire OT is not supportive of the concept. Taihtsat

 

[UberCougars]

new NBC poll:

7%? SEVEN? Seite? and they all post here, too. Weird.

 

[Observer11]

Oh, good for you. Same. The point i was meaning to make (95 nailed it too) is that simply because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it either is or isn't Constitutional.

Christians believe in the trinity. It isn't in the Bible specifically anywhere. In fact, the entire OT is not supportive of the concept. Taihtsat

The Supreme Court's job is to deem what is and isn't Constitutional.

By way of analogy, Clarence Thomas takes a fundamentalist Christian view of making his rulings. Sonia Sotomayer is an atheist.

Perhaps someday, the court will have all atheists. For now, it doesn't.