The Sisters of Mercy Forum
...
The way I see it, if Romney was elected the US would still collapse under a mountain of debt, civil liberties would still be further eroded, and the rule of law would dtill be incrementally abandoned. AND rights would be stripped from women, from the LGBT community, etc.sultan2075 wrote:It's welfare/warfare statism (Democrats) instead of warfare/welfare statism (Republicans).
I suppose if you think that the US collapsing under a mountain of debt, further eroding civil liberties, and incrementally abandoning the rule of law is good, then the result is good. I disagree, but in a "democracy" the people get the kind of government they deserve.
Does he stil have a dead ferret on his head?lazarus corporation wrote:
Unless, of course, you're Donald Trump.
I believe he also has one in his head, based on his less-than-graceful reaction to his favoured candidate losing the election:Pista wrote:Does he stil have a dead ferret on his head?lazarus corporation wrote:
Unless, of course, you're Donald Trump.
That's assuming you accept that that an election where the public votes for the people who will actually choose the president for them is democratic.lazarus corporation wrote:In Trump World, if your side loses a democratic election then it's not democracy.
I think that is a very large part of it. I think he also made a mistake during the primaries, in trying to get to the right of Rick Perry on immigration, which further alienated the Hispanic vote. Another problem is lack of party discipline--nut-jobs like Missouri's Akin should have stayed on message instead of mouthing off about the supposed intrusion-countermeasures that women have in their ovaries.lazarus corporation wrote:
Romney, to be fair to him, was gracious in defeat in his concession speech. But then it wasn't Romney himself who lost the Republicans the election, it was the Birthers and the Tea Party and the other nutters (like Trump) who put off so many centrists.
Unlikely, or at least less likely. One of the major objections I have to Obama and the Democratic Party in general, going back to the early 20th century, is their blatant disregard of the Constitution--especially separation of powers. Another major objection I have to Obama is his absolutely reckless spending--I thought Bush spent like a drunk sailor on shore leave. O? He makes Bush look like an amateur. Worse still, he has somehow managed to convince the middle-class that increased taxes for the rich will pay for his lavish and unrestrained spending. They won't--in fact, higher taxes on the rich are a p*ss in the ocean of debt and spending that he (and W., to a much lesser extent) are responsible for. The middle class will feel the hurt.lazarus corporation wrote: The way I see it, if Romney was elected the US would still collapse under a mountain of debt, civil liberties would still be further eroded, and the rule of law would dtill be incrementally abandoned.
I'm sorry my friend, but you have been propagandized. What rights would be stripped from women? The answer is none--not even abortion, which is de facto law in this country. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, all that would do is return the question of abortion to the states (which is, honestly, where it belongs, since the Constitution is a grant of specific and limited powers to the federal government and is utterly silent on the question). What rights would be stripped from the LGBT community? Marriage? That wasn't a major issue in the Romney campaign to begin with, but I will concede that Republicans need to change their approach to it--most Americans either support it or are indifferent to it. The Republicans should take an active role in crafting the response to the issue such that it does not infringe on religious liberty.lazarus corporation wrote: AND rights would be stripped from women, from the LGBT community, etc.
We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.stufarq wrote:That's assuming you accept that that an election where the public votes for the people who will actually choose the president for them is democratic.lazarus corporation wrote:In Trump World, if your side loses a democratic election then it's not democracy.
That's probably true - my main interest in the US Presidency (as someone outside the US) is foreign policy rather than domestic issues, and I think Obama's foreign policy is slightly better* for the world than Romney's was likely to be: I think Obama will drag the UK into fewer wars than Romney would.SINsister wrote:Perhaps because you don't live here.lazarus corporation wrote:I'm also pleased with the result.
Well, yes. His objection was to part of the republican aspect of the government. We are significantly less of a republic than I (or Madison) would like.SINsister wrote:sultan2075 wrote:We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.
Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?
James Madison, in [i]Federalist[/i] No. 39 wrote: What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.
sultan2075 wrote:SINsister wrote:sultan2075 wrote:We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.
Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?Oh my gosh - I didn't mean to be obnoxious, nor was I attempting to mock you or split hairs.sultan2075 wrote:Well, yes. His objection was to part of the republican aspect of the government. We are significantly less of a republic than I (or Madison) would like.
What I meant, in my roundabout manner, was that what we really have here is a:
plu·toc·ra·cy
[ploo-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1.the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2.a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3.a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.
...and that pisses me off to no end.
You know I love you! I didn't think you were obnoxious or hair-splitting.SINsister wrote:sultan2075 wrote:SINsister wrote:
Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?Oh my gosh - I didn't mean to be obnoxious, nor was I attempting to mock you or split hairs.sultan2075 wrote:Well, yes. His objection was to part of the republican aspect of the government. We are significantly less of a republic than I (or Madison) would like.
What I meant, in my roundabout manner, was that what we really have here is a:
plu·toc·ra·cy
[ploo-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1.the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2.a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3.a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.
...and that pisses me off to no end.
Yes, I understand. The Cold War is over. Though, it's colder than it was before even,SINsister wrote:Neither one of those candidates was *my* choice, this time around.Being645 wrote:I for one am rather glad about your choices ...
...
... 
