Incumbent GOP senator loses bid for nomination

[Bill3000]

But... there is more than one lawmaker.

tell that to the british

 

[Godwynn]

Side question: low taxes? Aren't taxes really really low in the U.S. already?

How low do they want to go?

Taken from Wikipedia

I'm sure Cutlass, Whomp, or JerichoHill can fill you in on what's missing from the graph [I'm certain it's not that clear-cut.]

 

[GenMarshall]

Hopefully he runs as a Independent.

That would depend if his state would allow it. I know Joe Turncoat Lieberman did that.

 

[The Imp]

That would depend if his state would allow it. I know Joe Turncoat Lieberman did that.

Oh wait, thats right, he can't run as an independent, only as a write in candidate

 

[Aegis]

tell that to the british

The British are not a Monarchy. Their Monarchical family possesses no power.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A "Rule by Majority" is a "Direct Democracy. There are many different types of Democracy, and "Rule by Majority" is merely the "purest" form.

A Republic is not "Rule by Law." A Republic is a form of Democracy where the people are represented by elected officials.

This is called "Representative Democracy" (which the US is by the way @Dominion). Not Republic.
Republic is actually a very spongy term without a clear-cut definition.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

HA! Where's ziggy and his binary thinking comments now?

Did you miss it when I said about 36 times that the Binary thinking happens on both sides? You did didn't you? And you also, again, don't understand what I mean when I use Binary Thinking. No biggie. Not reading someone's argument and just going will do that

All right, just for you, I'll say it again: The Binary Thinking in America I was talking about is when both sides of the political spectrum go fruitloop batskip nuts with the hyperboles to describe the other side's position and completely disregard any discussion over content.

I'm sure you won't get it this time either. But that's ok. I'm a very patient man, and I'll be happy to explain it to you as many times as you need

And Dom3000, that youtube vid Republic vs Democracy is pure and utter nonsense

 

[GenMarshall]

For a moment, I thought Ziggy said "mudkip insane" .

 

[GhostWriter16]

But... there is more than one lawmaker.

Wouldn't it be closer to an oligarchy, since highly-coveted positions in the legislature/executive branch can run in families(Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, Roosevelts, etc.) with larger groups having most of the power?

Not that I'm actually saying the U.S. is an oligarchy, but it seems closer to one than a monarchy.

And to Ziggy

Actually, that video is quite helpful in understanding. Democracy is evil, period.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, that video really is a load of bollocks.

We had a thread about it I think. Oh how we laughed.

 

[warpus]

Oh wait, thats right, he can't run as an independent, only as a write in candidate

Really? There are blocks in place to prevent independents from running? Or am I misinterpreting that..

Spoiler :

Taken from Wikipedia

I'm sure Cutlass, Whomp, or JerichoHill can fill you in on what's missing from the graph [I'm certain it's not that clear-cut.]

I suppose I was thinking of sales taxes when I said they are "really really low"..

But I also don't remember the U.S. average being anywhere near 30%. Don't most people pay far less than that in income taxes?

And near 40% for corporations? That must just be on paper, right? I remember reading an article that claimed that a lot of corporations didn't even pay taxes - getting around them through various loopholes.

In the end U.S. taxes still seem fairly low to me. To those who want to lower them further - how is the government supposed to pay for stuff? It is already having a tough time paying for stuff now.. How to make up the difference? What's the plan?

 

[Miles Teg]

This old bollocks argument again?

Some idiot comes onto the forum proclaiming the true definition of the word democracy, a bunch of people point out that a slippery word like democracy has dozens of meanings, and focusing exclusively on the worst of them is pointless, especially since those much trumpeted meanings aren't in common use by anyone who isn't one of those idiots. Honestly, it's a little boring.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And there's the voice of reason telling everyone this has been done before. Right on cue

Reset, rinse, repeat, go!

I feel like a subroutine.

 

[Aegis]

This is called "Representative Democracy". Not Republic.
Republic is actually a very spongy term without a clear-cut definition.

You are correct, I misspoke. In a Representative Democracy, the people are represented by officials whom they elect, however a Republic does not have to require the people to elect their officials - Think ancient Rome. Romans were represented by Senators, but they were not always elected by the people. They were usually appointed/elected by the emperor or consuls.

The reason why the US is considered a Constitutional Republic and not a Representative Democracy is because a RD does not require the representatives to rule according to a set of rules/laws (ie. the Constitution). The US has more complex rules laid out dictating what powers the government can wield.

 

[The Imp]

Really? There are blocks in place to prevent independents from running? Or am I misinterpreting that..

I remember reading it in the Times I think, I'll check again.

http://washingtonindependent.com/84326/prospect-looms-of-bennett-write-in-candidacy-in-utah

While It doesn't explicitly say an independent can't run, it certainly alludes to it.

 

[Cato the Elder]

Taken from Wikipedia

I'm sure Cutlass, Whomp, or JerichoHill can fill you in on what's missing from the graph [I'm certain it's not that clear-cut.]

Well at least here's one thing where Belgium beats all other nations.

 

[Traitorfish]

A "Rule by Majority" is a "Direct Democracy. There are many different types of Democracy, and "Rule by Majority" is merely the "purest" form.

A Republic is not "Rule by Law." A Republic is a form of Democracy where the people are represented by elected officials.

The USA is actually a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are represented by elected officials who govern the citizens according to a set of laws (ie. the Constitution).

It's more loosely defined even than that. A democracy is merely any state in which the people political power, as you describe, while a republic is simply any state which is neither explicitly monarchical or theocratic. Originally, it did refer to a form of democracy- the two terms are essentially Latin and Greek terms, respectively, for "rule of the people"- but that definition has since been overshadowed by the contemporary one, and the particular particular connotations of modern representative democracy are idiosyncratically American. That's why Britain, for example, is a representative democracy, but not a republic, while China is a republic, but not a democracy of any description. Ireland is both, Saudi Arabia is neither. The terms are neither inclusive nor exclusive.

 

[Aegis]

This old bollocks argument again?

Some idiot comes onto the forum proclaiming the true definition of the word democracy, a bunch of people point out that a slippery word like democracy has dozens of meanings, and focusing exclusively on the worst of them is pointless, especially since those much trumpeted meanings aren't in common use by anyone who isn't one of those idiots. Honestly, it's a little boring.

Then don't read it?

 

[Traitorfish]

Then don't read it?

Or read it so many times that your brains begins to boil, the screen sloughs away before your eyes and a gnarled hand reaches through the void, grabs you by the head and drags you down into the abyss. Both work.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, to be fair, to determine whether it's the same old, same old, you first have to read it. Especially when the topic in the OP is quite different then the sudden turn the thread took. I feel Miles' pain.

I even thought I was posting in the over-/underrated thread when I reacted, and then noticed this one was only 2 pages.