Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well, since we already had a long debate in the Communism & Dictatorship Thread that didn't turn out a clear solution, I will just start this Thread so we do not further derail the one about Communism.

The Question is this: What is the System of the US best described as. The two major opinions were that is is either a Federal Republic (obviously with democratic tradition) or a Federal Republic but at the same time a Democracy. This Thread is obviously not limited to those two views so please, if you think it is a monarchy, tell us why.

Im gonna add something productive to this when I get home. But in the meantime:

Bardock the dude your avatar looks like Bucky from captain america

Originally posted by Blaxican Style
Im gonna add something productive to this when I get home. But in the meantime:

Bardock the dude your avatar looks like Bucky from captain america

I see...well, it is Richard Davalos....

Sorry, it to be said.

A democratic Federal Republic....

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
A democratic Federal Republic....

Yes, and I think at the same time it is a Democracy. At least if we go by the definition of Democracy as we have it in this English language.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, and I think at the same time it is a Democracy. At least if we go by the definition of Democracy as we have it in this English language.

Yes, it's true name would be a Representative Democratic Federal Republic.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Yes, it's true name would be a Representative Democratic Federal Republic.

Why not Federal Republicic Representative Democracy?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why not Federal Republicic Representative Democracy?

Because....mine sounds cooler?

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Because....mine sounds cooler?

If that's the only reason I agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If that's the only reason I agree.

We both said the same thing, just different arrangements...But I agree with you... It is both.

Democratic Federal republic. Democratic yes, but if you strip down the government and have to describe it with one word, its a republic. Then democratic and federal are added to completely describe it.

I believe my position is well known to those who frequent these threads

United States = Republic. Just because it has some democratic ideas doesn't make it a real democracy.

Yet regardless of all that the definition of the word 'Democracy' clearyl fits that of the Government of the United States. Absolutely explicitly, it does that.

In no realistic manner does the word 'Democracy' refer to direct rule by the people any more. Not in the slightest.

Those trying to say it is are clinging onto an irrelevant anachronism, totally out of character with the way the word is used today. Bardock's dictionary quotations defeat that position entirely.

Rome was a Republic but not even vaguely a Democracy. The franchise was too restricted, it was not people power. The comparison is fatuous.

There is much more detail to the US than the democratic government. I know democracy applies to more than direct democracy. It still does not make the US a democracy. Wait a week, I'll have sources for you and will have read yours.

Practiacally every govenrment in the world claims to be a democracy. That doesn't mean they are, just having some sort of people rule does not mean you are a democracy, you're just using some democratic principles (democratic government)

Other.

America is not a Democracy, in theory no country has been one since Ancient Athens. America is infact an Oligarchy!

how is that?

To be a democratic country everyone should have the chance to become a Senator, Councillor, or even President.

This is not the case in the USA.

Originally posted by Alliance
There is much more detail to the US than the democratic government. I know democracy applies to more than direct democracy. It still does not make the US a democracy. Wait a week, I'll have sources for you and will have read yours.

Practiacally every govenrment in the world claims to be a democracy. That doesn't mean they are, just having some sort of people rule does not mean you are a democracy, you're just using some democratic principles (democratic government)
There is also much more to the US than a Republic.

But by definition a "democratic Government" makes one a Democracy. Why would this definition not apply to the US? And do you think it generally doesn't apply or it only doesn't apply to the US?Originally posted by Janus Marius
Because the founding fathers themselves agreed that it was a federal republic with reserved rights for individuals? Because "democracy" became a contemporary catchphrase in the Cold War and WWII to denote an ideal of freedom and will of the people which doesn't exist like it's implied in the basic definition of "rule by the people". Because ancient Rome was virtually the same with the exception of reserved rights for individuals and a constitution, and no one calls it a democracy by definitinon.

So you just don't accept a definition because you don't want it to apply? Don't you feel ignorant now?

America ceased to be a democracy when it abolished the public assemblies.

"So you just don't accept a definition because you don't want it to apply? Don't you feel ignorant now?"

And that helped how?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
America ceased to be a democracy when it abolished the public assemblies.

"So you just don't accept a definition because you don't want it to apply? Don't you feel ignorant now?"

And that helped how?

Not really, the US (as a System) is still a Democracy. A representative Democracy. No one ever argued that it was a direct one.

It amused me...

I know that only election isn't enough....the USSR had elections, Cuba has election...they are not a democracy....but they also don't fit the definition of Democracy. The United States do.

By your own logic, so does the Roman Republic.

Only, neither you nor Ush considers that a democracy. Funny how that works.

Maybe you should concede the point that "democracy" is currently being used as a catchphrase for any government that is similar to the United States and not one of its political enemies (Communist regimes, National Socialists, etc.). Never once is "democracy" the title of the United States federal republic by the founding fathers, who made the government. And never once is such a term applied to an identical ancient Roman Republic.

So obviously U.S. != democracy. It is a democratic republic, meaning it has democratic principles (Some measure of the people effecting their government indirectly.). However, these same democratic principles are being embellished - people had nearly similar political rights in other governments, including the one in ancient Rome. And I pointed out in the other thread that of all the forms of indirect democracy, the United States' version was the least true to the ideals of true democracy (a.k.a direct democracy, which is pure rule by the people.)

So, where I'm going with this is that a United States being called a democracy is about as accurate as calling the Roman Republic a democracy; it's not. It's misleading. It's a republic. Founding fathers say so. CIA says so. History majors and political teachers say so. Those tend to overrule your opinion and Dictionary.com.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
By your own logic, so does the Roman Republic.

Only, neither you nor Ush considers that a democracy. Funny how that works.

Maybe you should concede the point that "democracy" is currently being used as a catchphrase for any government that is similar to the United States and not one of its political enemies (Communist regimes, National Socialists, etc.). Never once is "democracy" the title of the United States federal republic by the founding fathers, who made the government. And never once is such a term applied to an identical ancient Roman Republic.

So obviously U.S. != democracy. It is a democratic republic, meaning it has democratic principles (Some measure of the people effecting their government indirectly.). However, these same democratic principles are being embellished - people had nearly similar political rights in other governments, including the one in ancient Rome. And I pointed out in the other thread that of all the forms of indirect democracy, the United States' version was the least true to the ideals of true democracy (a.k.a direct democracy, which is pure rule by the people.)

So, where I'm going with this is that a United States being called a democracy is about as accurate as calling the Roman Republic a democracy; it's not. It's misleading. It's a republic. Founding fathers say so. CIA says so. History majors and political teachers say so. Those tend to overrule your opinion and Dictionary.com.

Really? How did the Roman Republic have free equal democratic elections?

Also, you know that a Federal Republic doesn't need to be a Democracy. The US just happens to be one....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, you are funny....you as a History Major should really have the truth in mind not propaganda....well, sadly for you I know some about the Roman System....so, do you know what the Cursus Honorum is? Yeah? Good...well that is entirely undemocratic (besides other things, that are also not democratic) that makes Rome not a Democracy. THe United States (and GB and Germany for that matter) on the other hand has a democratic Governments and fits the definition of representative Democracy....therefore it is a Democracy.

Haha, you're ignorant.

Cursus Honorum is hardly different from the status quo that's maintained in the current U.S. government. There's similar age limits, and the higher the office, the more neccessary it is to have extensive poltical background. There's actually over a dozen official levels of government workers, of which only those over a certain level can attain high government offices like senator and House of Representatives. Also, just to campaign for such offices requires ridiculous spending. The campaigns of some governmental officials borders on the absurdly expensive, rivalling say, Marius' campaign while he was on leave away from Metellus.

And repeating democratic in a sentence three times doesn't establish a democracy. But I can try it too, look:

The Roman Republic has a democratic government and fits the definition of representative democracy, therefore it is a democracy.

Absence of proof is fun!

Originally posted by Bardock42
No it isn't...you could run for president...that's the point...everyone that hit a certain age is entitled to....that's why it is democratic.....

Everyone is in theory entitled to, but it's not like I could just waltz up there and get my name on the ballot. In America, you need sponsorship and personal wealth up the ass, along with the backing of one of the two major political parties. And if you knew about Roman history AND you read the material I posted you'd realize that the patrician claim on the consulship waned, and eventually even plebians of capability could attain that title and others. The Roman Republic, especially after the Gracci reforms, was very much like the present day United States, with the differences being mostly cosmetic.



I already spoke on this:



And a dictionary of law does not overwrite the definition set forth by the founders of the country, the political science major's opinions, and other sources I've provided and Alliance has provided. You have... an online definition that is from a singular source and vague as all hell. I'm pointing out that that definition is misleading, and it's modern propaganda. When you get this, we'll reach an agreement.

That's not the point, your System is a Democracy...how it is corrupted and or used is of no matter. The System of the USA as it is defined is a Democracy by the modern definition of the word.

Also, Democracy is not about the right to get elected, but about the right to have the possibility to get elected. You have that. It's a Democracy.

If the Roman Republic was like the USA are today (and it obviously wasn't) then it would have been a Democracy as well.

Oh indeed, you spoke on it sorry, so let me see. Since when do opinions overrule actual Definitions? My opinion ids of no matter here, it happens to be right, but it is only right because in the English Language as it is today the USA fit the definition of a Democracy.


I'm sorry but the actual definition of a word certainly overwrites the opinions of your founding fathers.

It's basically the same thing you say, during the cold war many countries felt the need to call themselves Democracies...many of them weren't . Just because your founding fathers didn't call it a Democracy, doesn't mean that by the understanding of the word today their country isn't indeed a Democracy. Yes, face it, you lie in a Democracy, I understand that is a horrible truth but nonetheless, it is truth.

oh my...all this text has put me out of this argument for a week...

Originally posted by Alliance
oh my...all this text has put me out of this argument for a week...

I know...That's why I'm afraid to say anything...They have a good debate going. lol

Janus, you're a history major?

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I know...That's why I'm afraid to say anything...They have a good debate going. lol

Janus, you're a history major?

Yessir. And you two can have fun with Bardock, I'm done. I'd sooner make peace between Israel and Palestine before I'll convince him of anything in this world. Bardock disagrees with me on every thread out of principle.

I'll pick it up again after finals...qand don't be afraid to say anything Macabre

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Yessir. And you two can have fun with Bardock, I'm done. I'd sooner make peace between Israel and Palestine before I'll convince him of anything in this world. Bardock disagrees with me on every thread out of principle.

Nah, just when you are wrong. As in this case. I even agree with you that Goku couldn't beat Superman...isn't that sweet?

You have just some opinions of people (granted in high positions) that do not want the US to be seen as Democracy. I actually have the definition of Democracy that fits the US. So, the US is in fact a Democracy. Now on the other hand I think you probably accepted that and are now looking for an easy way out. That's okay.....

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I know...That's why I'm afraid to say anything...They have a good debate going. lol

Janus, you're a history major?

Please say something, I hope you have good arguments (I don't care for what side...would be a nice change if the others had some as well)

Technically you're both right....Connotatively, it's a republic with democratic values and tendencies. Denotatively, it is a democracy.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Everyone is in theory entitled to, but it's not like I could just waltz up there and get my name on the ballot. In America, you need sponsorship and personal wealth up the ass, along with the backing of one of the two major political parties.

But you are entitled to being elected...That there is the possibility to being elected, however slim it is, is what makes it a democracy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not the point, your System is a Democracy...how it is corrupted and or used is of no matter. The System of the USA as it is defined is a Democracy by the modern definition of the word.

Oh, but it does matter...For if the people don't have the chance to run for or elect their leaders, then it isn't a democracy...It's just a front to have everyone think it's a democracy.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Oh, but it does matter...For if the people don't have the chance to run for or elect their leaders, then it isn't a democracy...It's just a front to have everyone think it's a democracy.

Well I meant it does not matter that it is complicated to win....

In the USA you can run for or elect your leaders that's why it is a Democracy.

And how can we both be right, when one side denies that the US is a Democracy and the other states that it is?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well I meant it does not matter that it is complicated to win....

In the USA you can run for or elect your leaders that's why it is a Democracy.

And how can we both be right, when one side denies that the US is a Democracy and the other states that it is?

I'm not stating that you're both right about one saying its a democracy the other saying it isn't. I'm simply stating that what you're both saying is correct.

It comes down to how you mean what you say..You're saying that it's a Democracy by definition (denotatively). Which, in truth, it is.

Janus is saying that it's a Republic with democratic tendencies. Which, in reality, it is.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I'm not stating that you're both right about one saying its a democracy the other saying it isn't. I'm simply stating that what you're both saying is correct.

It comes down to how you mean what you say..You're saying that it's a Democracy by definition (denotatively). Which, in truth, it is.

Janus is saying that it's a Republic with democratic tendencies. Which, in reality, it is. Hmm and what exactly makes "in truth" different from "in reality"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm and what exactly makes "in truth" different from "in reality"?

I meant in truth, you're right...By definition it is a Democracy.

But in reality (as in whats going on in the here and now) it's a Republic with democratic tendencies and/or values.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I meant in truth, you're right...By definition it is a Democracy.

But in reality (as in whats going on in the here and now) it's a Republic with democratic tendencies and/or values.

Hmm, okay. Can you explain why it is not a Democracy in reality?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, okay. Can you explain why it is not a Democracy in reality?

Because it's primarily a republic. And a republic need not be neccessarily closer to democracy than an oligarchy or constitutional monarchy, etc.

See, in the United States, the people can only vote for candidates of one of two political powers who have an overwhelming majority of political power. They cannot vote directly for the president (There is popular vote, but it is the electors who make that call, not the people directly). The Judicial branch is elected by the president, and they serve life terms. Only the senate and the house is voted in by the people, and by a minority of the people at that. Politicians in power are usually backed by one of the agenda-driven interest groups and/or by one of the two major parties. While third party candidates do exist, they have virtually no real chance of stealing the presidency, and the House and Senate are almost always made up of either Republicans or Democrats.

The ideals of democracy (Rule by the people) is only expressed in a few ways:

- Voting. Voting is, really, a poor indicator of democratic values. Elections are organized by the governments, and those in turn are controlled by one of the two major parties. Those parties always pour millions of dollars getting one of their selected nominees up in the spotlight, and really you have a choice of either A, B, or C (C being some anonymous third party who has no chance in hell.) If in a prison you had a choice between lethal injection and the chair, no one would claim that the prison was democratic. Having choice does not make it a free one.

- Lobbying. This is an option available, and with it people can act more directly on their government. However, the fact of the matter is that for every one proactive interested citizen with an issue, there's hundreds of major interest groups with professional lobbyists and tons of money. If an idea or law any way offends one of those interest groups, it will be smashed like a bug. This option really is only available to those with the weight of a corporation or very large and active political interest group (Like the elderly, who make up AARP and the majority of voters in the U.S.)

- Protesting. Peaceful protesting is allowed. What that does is pretty subjective. People protest all the time here, but very rarely is it ever taken seriously unless it's a professional lobbyist group organizing it, or there's some large interests at stake.

- Contacting your representatives. Good luck with this one. Your average representative may represent hundreds of thousands of people. If even a handful of them sent him letters, he'd be buried in them. And really, (And they do admit this) they only take letters into consideration that effect their elections. That is, a letter from a college kid won't make much of a difference, but a letter from an AARP member or NRA member will actually be read and reviewed.

These are all examples of how people can "get together with" their government in the United States. And the educational videos and books act like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But they fail to address the isssue that the government is dominated by wealthy and numerous interest groups, corporations, and two major political parties whose ideologies barely differs at times. Indeed, democrats at times only appear to be different from the republicans to win votes, not because they actually feel different on issues.

All quotes taken from CIA World Factbook which defines the US Government as: "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

First: "Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed."

Ok. Yes, the US does have a system of representation and delegated authority, but supreme power is not retained by the people. The people do not ultimate authority in law (judges can overturn jury's decisions), government (executive decisions made by one representative is more dictatorial than democratic) and enforcement (people have very little or no control over the military/police/etc.) There is also a constitution, not allowed in democracies, that limits the powers of the people. Also, it doesn't take into account eh fact that the US is composed of soverign states that are independant of the federal governemnt. Perhaps there is a better definition.

2: "Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution."

Ok. So this fixes the constitution issue and places some limits on the power fo the people. But we still have some aformentioned issues.

3: 'Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation."

Ok, this is better, we still have the representative democracy, but we are again missing the constitution. Aslo, people in the US have some direct control over legislation through referenda and constitutional amendments. Still some of the aforementioned problems.

4: "Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."

Ahhh, this is getting better now, we combine the concepts of democratic government and put it in the framework of a republic. People have limited control over government, but neither the people nor the government have absolute control. Still no constitution or independant states.

5: "Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Yes! we're almost there. Now we have finally incorporated the republic structure into the framework of 50 independant states. However, a constitution is still missing and the us is not strict republic, it has more democratic powers than that, but not enough to be considered a democracy.

Final: Federal republic best describes the actual government structure, but we need to mention the fact that we are constitution based (besides, we were the first ones to write one). Therefore, the government structure in its purest form is described as a "Constitution-based federal republic" However, leaving out democratic ideas would be shortselling the government, especially after the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian reforms, not to mention the womens/civil rights movements. Therefore, the CIA adds "strong democratic tradition." Notice how this isn't even a part of the official type of government, its an addon after a semicolon. the original quote was "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" Important enough to have in, but not quite part of the official government structure.

I would go a step beyond the CIA and incoporate the word democratic into the official government, because its such an important part of (in my view) sucessful governments. I would describe the US as a constitution-based democratic federal republic. Three adjectives and a noun. The most important aspect of this is that at its core (If i had to choose one word to describe the US) its as Republic. However this really dumbs-down the situation. Therefore constitution-based, democratic, and federal are also necessary.

We do not directly elect our president and it is done through the electoral college. I believe we live in a republic.

Imagine if we in America tried to have a true Democracy? What a mess that would be.

Yes, but there hasn't been a true (as in direct) democracy since ancient Greece. The constitution and the autonomous states prevent the US from being defined as a democracy and a republic (as Bardock suggests).

It is a constitution-based democratic federal republic.

Well said, Alliance.

ty...lol. I fianlly got a small break to do some writing.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, but there hasn't been a true (as in direct) democracy since ancient Greece. The constitution and the autonomous states prevent the US from being defined as a democracy and a republic (as Bardock suggests).

It is a constitution-based democratic federal republic.

A representative Democracy can also be federal. In fact it is...look at the US for example.

And what's up with calling it "true democracy" nowadays....that's not the name of that system, it is either direct or pure democracy....you should really use the terms right.



"5: "Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives."

That'S not true. For the last part to apply it needs to be a representative Democracy. A Federal Republic as such does not need to have the power with the voters.

1. You can't use the US as an example to prove a debate about the US

2. He referred to it as true, since you quoted me...
Originally posted by Alliance
true (as in direct)democracy
I quote my self.... I was making a link between his words and what it actually is. SEE! This coming from the king of not using the proper words to define democracy...you've done it since the start of this debate. Even in the poll of this thread.

3. NO.
This is where you are mistaken. The states of the United States are more democratic than the federal government. THEY could be considered a representative democracy. The US government (which is what this debate is about) is NOT. It's how its defined. You're obviously mistaken as to what the word means. Why don't you look it up in dictionary.com since its so credible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, okay. Can you explain why it is not a Democracy in reality?

I think it depends on which side of corruption you're viewing the question.

Originally posted by Alliance
1. You can't use the US as an example to prove a debate about the US

2. He referred to it as true, since you quoted me...

I quote my self.... I was making a link between his words and what it actually is. SEE! This coming from the king of not using the proper words to define democracy...you've done it since the start of this debate. Even in the poll of this thread.

3. NO.
This is where you are mistaken. The states of the United States are more democratic than the federal government. THEY could be considered a representative democracy. The US government (which is what this debate is about) is NOT. It's how its defined. You're obviously mistaken as to what the word means. Why don't you look it up in dictionary.com since its so credible.

1. I didn't. You seriously need to get jokes straight.

2. My point was that true is not the right term. If you had said "direct (as in what you want to be called true) Democracy" then that would be alright.

Also, where did I not use the proper words?

3.NO!
You are miustaken. The stats of the USA could be defined as a representative Democracy.
The Government of the US...can as well.

So, basically your whole arguement is that you do not vote directly for your President. Well guess what, that doesn't matter. He is still democratically legitimate because you vote for the Electoral College.
You also vote for the Senate (representatives) and you also vote for the House of Representatives.

What else do you want? There is no doubt that you live in a representative Democracy.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it depends on which side of corruption you're viewing the question.


So true...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it depends on which side of corruption you're viewing the question.

Theories are corruption free.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Theories are corruption free.

You sound like "V"......But he is right...Depends on which side of the field you're playing on.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
You sound like "V"......But he is right...Depends on which side of the field you're playing on.

I worded it after him.

Also, explain that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I worded it after him.

Also, explain that.

Figured as much.


On to your question...The people are manipulated into thinking that their vote counts when it doesn't...The manipulators keep the facade of a democracy going, even though the people they want will win no matter what the vote count is....Therefore, to the people, it might look like a democracy, but in truth it's not.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Figured as much.


On to your question...The people are manipulated into thinking that their vote counts when it doesn't...The manipulators keep the facade of a democracy going, even though the people they want will win no matter what the vote count is....Therefore, to the people, it might look like a democracy, but in truth it's not.

Hmm what evidence do you have for that claim?

I mean I can understand being pissed at the 2000 election. But except for that, what implies this?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm what evidence do you have for that claim?

I mean I can understand being pissed at the 2000 election. But except for that, what implies this?

Oh, I wasn't saying that about the U.S....I was just agreeing that in situations, it depends on which side you are.

But Capt. Fantastic....What evidence do you have?

Bradock, you are totally ignoring the system of states that operate under the federal government. Those are not in any form of democracy.

You are totally ignoring the US constitution. Constitutions are not present in any form of democracy.

Again, you could get off saying several things in the US are like a representative democracy: the elections, the states, but the federal government is clearly NOT.

Originally posted by Alliance
Bradock, you are totally ignoring the system of states that operate under the federal government. Those are not in any form of democracy.

You are totally ignoring the US constitution. Constitutions are not present in any form of democracy.

Again, you could get off saying several things in the US are like a representative democracy: the elections, the states, but the federal government is clearly NOT.

Explain.

Good Lord, I don't see how people can make this so obscure.

The US is readily defined as a representative Democracy. That makes it a Democracy. The definition is contaiied within there. It is plain. In the modern day, a representative Government is an example of a Democracy. No, not of being democratic. The dictionary makes it clear. Of being a Democracy.

Alliance and Janus are closing the ears to the facts- to the facts that they are ignoring dictionary definitions, and the way the word is used in the world today.

The European Governments are self-declared democracies. Not a damn thing either of you two, or any of your teachers say, has the right to say that they are wrong. Frankly, I trust those statements a heck of a lot more than I trust yours, based entirely on your inability to see plain facts as demonstrated in this thread. How you can run away from those dictionary definitions is beyond me. They do not simply describe democratic tendencies. They directly, and plainly, identify a system where people elect representatives as being a Democracy. There is no room for menoeuvre there.

Let me make this clear- the political definition of democracy is not in any way fixed down to direct rule by people. Not in the slightest, tiniest amount.

And once the whole rest of the world has moved on and is using the word Democracy in the way it is used today, are you two still going to cling to your tiny, narrow definition, claiming the entire world is wrong whilst you are right?

Contemptible.

Oh, and Rome a Democracy? HAHAHAHAHAHA! The representatives who actually wieleded legislative and executive power were elected by a restricted mandate. That is NOT Democracy, no matter what smaller offices could be elected so. And incidentall, what about the slaves, hmm? A vast class of the population of the country, who couldn't vote at all. That's democratic? And you are doing History? That causes me serious worries, I must say.

Originally posted by Alliance


You are totally ignoring the US constitution. Constitutions are not present in any form of democracy..

Well, the CIA factbook you like to quote makes plenty of mentions of countries being Constitutional Democracies, so where does that leave your argument?

Fact is, your statement that Democracies cannot have Constitutions is bullshit.

PWNED!

from www.dictionary.com Entry: federal republic

"Main Entry: federal republic
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
Example: The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America. "

Now, your own source that you're using to define a democracy gives the US as an example of a federal republic. Now, PLEASE tell me how Janus and I are wrong.

Originally posted by Alliance
PWNED!

from www.dictionary.com Entry: federal republic

"Main Entry: federal republic
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
Example: The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America. "

Now, your own source that you're using to define a democracy gives the US as an example of a federal republic. Now, PLEASE tell me how Janus and I are wrong.

Wait, how is something that we claimed all along pawning us?

blowup

The United States is not a democracy, its a federal republic, more specifically, a constitution based federal republic with strong democratic traditions as defined by the US governmnet

Originally posted by Alliance
PWNED!

from www.dictionary.com Entry: federal republic

"Main Entry: federal republic
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits
Example: The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America. "

Now, your own source that you're using to define a democracy gives the US as an example of a federal republic. Now, PLEASE tell me how Janus and I are wrong.
Ironic how you claim pwnage from a dictionary.com quote when Bardock has repeatedly posted the definition of democracy from that same website and all it does is help his case.

Going by their literal meanings the United States is both a democracy and a federal republic.

Can you move on now?

Originally posted by Alliance
blowup

The United States is not a democracy, its a federal republic, more specifically, a constitution based federal republic with strong democratic traditions as defined by the US governmnet

Both. What the hell. You seem to think that for some reason a Republic cannot be a Democracy. Why can't you understand that both applies?

Originally posted by Eis
Ironic how you claim pwnage from a dictionary.com quote when Bardock has repeatedly posted the definition of democracy from that same website and all it does is help his case.

All Bardock has done is extend his definition to the US. If the US is a democracy? Why is it not defined as such?

The US has one government. ONE. It is a federal republic. The only reason that the definition "applies" is because elements of the government are democratic. As I have said repeatedly, that does not make it a democracy.

I have multiple credible sources defining the US government and stating specifically that the US government is "a constitutionally based federal republic; stong democratic traditions" Bardock, Ush, and Eis have not provided anything except thier interpretation of a definition.

No one claiming it is a democracy has provided evidence beyond hersey and thier own opinion. If you want to convince me, you need to explain the following things:

1. The US constitution.
2. Fifty semi-autonomous states existing underneath the US government.
3. The lack of a definition or other sources defining or referencing the US as some sort of democracy.
4. Why the US defines itself as a "constitution based federal republic; strong democratic traditions"
5. How one nation can have two national governments, one being a form of democracy and one being a republic.

If someone can give me evidence adressing those four issues, I'll be convinced that the US is both a form of democracy and a federal republic. Until then, since I am the only one with direct evidence, I belive I have made my point.

And I apologize for getting a bit ticked off.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No seriously...I happen to live in a Democracy. And a Republic...so that at least is bullshit. We might continue to argue about the US system...but The Federal Republic of Germany is in fact a Democracy and a Republic. TO nouns...no doubt about it...whatever your CIA says ....

HELLO! The name of your country is the FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Germany. Its not the federal republic and a democracy of Germany.

On the German Government:"Quickfacts: Government

Type: democratic, federal, multi-party republic with representatives chosen directly by the people." - German Embassy

There, your government says what it is. I don't see "democracy" in there.

And perhaps this should be kept in this thread...

Originally posted by Alliance
HELLO! The name of your country is the FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Germany. Its not the federal republic and a democracy of Germany.

On the German Government:"Quickfacts: Government

Type: democratic, federal, multi-party republic with representatives chosen directly by the people." - German Embassy

There, your government says what it is. I don't see "democracy" in there.

And perhaps this should be kept in this thread...

But you remember that something that is "democratic" is in fact a democracy, don't you?

NO. Its is not. Saying something is life-like doesn't not mean its alive. More often, someththing described as life-like is not alive because, if it were alive, it would be described as alive. Saying something is democratic does not mean its a democracy.

Look. It says its a republic. If you can find a credible source (some sort of official government position) that says that either Germany or the US is a democracy, I'll reconsider your argument again.

Until then, please stop making arguments because you have opinions that contradict clear fact.

From your precious factbook, Alliance:

-

"CANADA

Government type: A constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation "

-

OH MY GOD! It is saying that Canada is more than one thing! Burn it!

And here is a link that people would do well to read.

http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/Grundkurs1/Material/typen.htm

Ush: Please think rationally for a moment.

1. Your simple dictionary.com defition does NOT directly and unabiguously define the US as a democracy. It does not say "The United States is an axample of (insert your favorite type of democracy here). It DOES say )under the entry for Federal Republic THAT is direct and unambigous. I have yet to find a credible dictionary that defines the US (thorugh example or defintion) as any type of democracy.

2. I hae never stated that the only form of democracy is direct democracy. I don't belive that. End of discussion.

3. As a general rule in the English language, objects are not defined by more than one noun. I would think this would be obvious... However, this brings me to...

Point whatever.

You are clinging to the blind position that democracy describes everything that moves. At least I have been using government sources and direct defintions instead of defintions that i APPLY (because that is what you have been doing) to another concept.

Now, congratulations on actually making points. The factbook is precious, because it is a real credible source that actually proves my point. I did not read the government of every country, and you have found a valid contradiction in my argument.

(this is why I wanted to debate the US system of government, because I know it inside out)

From the British Embassy: "The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy."

This contrdicts what the CIA says the UK is. I suggest that if it really upsets you, you contact your government or the CIA and request that they change the entry. I'm sure they'd be happy to record the phone conversation as well...

In light of this development (WOW, FACTS were presented) and the fact that the CIA can also define a governmetn (ie Canada) as having two systems. I concede that if two branches of government are sperate enough (both cases (UK and Canada) are a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy) two nouns can be used to describe a national government.

Now, I hope this does more to convince you that I am not afactual and ignorant. I argue real positions based on EVIDENCE.

- - - - -

Staying on topic of the thread, I am still inconvinced that the US is what you claim: a republic and a democracy.

If these holes can be closed: I'd be convinced that the US could be considered a democracy. Explain how this works including

1. The US constitution.

2. Fifty semi-autonomous states existing underneath the US government.

3. The lack of a definition or other sources defining or referencing the US as some sort of democracy.

4. Why the US defines itself as a "constitution based federal republic; strong democratic traditions"

5. How the US can have two nowns describing its one integrated federal system.