Ya know the damn sherrif never really explained why I couldn't bring pepper into Nottingham. Crossbows I get, weapon of war. But delicious spices? Why?
That shit's for the king, not for you peasants.
But Sherrif, I'm definitely bringing this directly to the king, and absolutely have no intentions of selling it for profit. What if I put 3 shiny doubloons on this here bag?
But Sheriff Dynamite. I sell pepper in the community!
Damn, I'm a little disappointed that I missed that whole kerfuffle over "democracy".
I'm also a little bit surprised that chaosof99 copped most of the external flak in that discussion, and thus I feel the need to call Steve on some of his bullshit. That said, first there's an important point of chaosof99's I'd like to refute before going on to Steve:
The issue I have is that this spectrum doesn't exist. Neither in the U.S. nor elsewhere because republics are a subset of democracies.
This, I think, is misleading. The Roman Republic was clearly a republic, but although it had some democratic elements I think it's quite a stretch to call it a democracy.
Steve, however, was using the terms "democracy" and "republic" in a rather misleading way; I can hardly blame chaosof99 for being confused by this.
Democracy is a state where rights and sovereignty is collective. Minorities only have the rights that the majority has chosen to allow them to have. A simple majority is all that is needed to change anything.
Republic is a state where rights and sovereignty are individual. Minorities have the same rights as the majority and they can not lose those rights by a simple majority.
Steve, as far as I can tell what you're doing here is attempting to pin concepts to the terms as they were used in 18th century republican rhetoric, but this is quite far from the modern understanding of those terms.
In the modern context, those ideas are more aligned with the political philosophies of "majoritarianism" and "republicanism" than they are with any particular forms of government. While these concepts may be associated with those of a "democracy" and of a "republic", the modern understanding puts some distance between these pairs of concepts.
In the late 18th century "democracy" was strongly associated with classical Athenian democracy, and thus carried some strong negative connotations due to the failures of that system. The distinction between a "democracy" and a "republic" was used as an important tool in republican rhetoric at the time (most notably in The Federalist) to achieve a twofold purpose: 1) To distance the proposed government of the US Constitution from those associations, thus assuaging existing fears about the dangers of democracy and defending the Constitution against anti-democratic sentiment. 2) To assert an undemocratic Constitution as being a necessity in order to avoid these dangers of democracy, thus defending the Constitution against democratic sentiment.
No reasonable modern understanding of the term "democracy" precludes the existence of individual rights; indeed it is usually held that individual rights are necessary for democracy. On a similar note, while individual rights are also necessary for a functional republic, they are not inherent to the core concept of a republic.
Nor can I see a reasonable basis for your assertion that
a Republic has citizens that are individually sovereign while a Democracy has citizens that are collectively sovereign.
Can you give a reliable source for this? I can see that you're referencing the concept of popular sovereignty, which is indeed part of the core conception of a republic, but your collective/individual distinction seems to be coming out of thin air. I'm not even sure that this distinction makes ideological sense; in either case the power of government derives from the will of the people, and the will of the people is necessarily composed of the will of each individual person. What does it even mean for everyone to be "individually sovereign", Steve?
I think you're going wrong here by attempting to ascribe an ideological difference to "democracy" vs "republic" with regards to sovereignty, when in fact the concept of "democracy" is not associated with any particular ideological standpoint on the issue.
At a core level, the notion of a "republic" has to do with the ideological derivation of power (i.e. that government power derives from popular sovereignty), whereas a "democracy" has to do with the actual mechanism by which power is exercised (e.g. free and fair elections).
Thus, under a modern understanding we see democracy as being a necessary component of a republic because democracy is the only mechanism we currently know of under which the concept of popular sovereignty can reasonably be said to be upheld.
I'm amazed he has responded to China calling him "An ignorant child". I suppose open war with China is one way to get manufacturing jobs back in the US.
I'm amazed he has responded to China calling him "An ignorant child". I suppose open war with China is one way to get manufacturing jobs back in the US.
Are you really amazed that be responded? That's basically a trait of being Trump.
I'm amazed he has responded to China calling him "An ignorant child". I suppose open war with China is one way to get manufacturing jobs back in the US.
Are you really amazed that be responded? That's basically a trait of being Trump.
HASN'T responded. Typo, mine. Right now he's going off on Vanity Fair and the review of his Trump Grill.
I'm amazed he has responded to China calling him "An ignorant child". I suppose open war with China is one way to get manufacturing jobs back in the US.
Are you really amazed that be responded? That's basically a trait of being Trump.
HASN'T responded. Typo, mine. Right now he's going off on Vanity Fair and the review of his Trump Grill.
My word, if Hitchens was still around to write for them.
One small but funny note about the electoral college votes - Ron Paul has officially done better this year, in an election he didn't run in, than in any election he previously ran in, taking home precisely one electoral college vote, despite not, at any point, actually being in the race.
So this is actually a legal humor blog but it's the only place I've found a decent summary of who voted for what and just how much of a kerfuffle this EC election has been. What with electors resigning and being replaced both shortly before and literally during votes.
The faithless electors seem to have acted in a strange way. Trump had the majority going in so any vote for Clinton was worthless. If the Democrats had got together and said "lets all go for Mitt Romney because he'd be better than Trump" the Republican majority may have switched, happy either way it'd be one of their boys and enabled a coup.
Or have I misunderstood it? Is there some side benefit to receiving a vote?
Dems are smart. Half the population is dumber than shit and I'm surprised they survive on a day to day basis.
Also, Newt Gingrich is back. In an NPR interview this morning, he's been named "Senior Strategist" for Trump, called Obama a liar, insinuated that Trump was honest and "needed to stay honest", also commented that it's perfectly constitutional for the POTUS to insist someone do something unethical/illegal and then pardon them for it, even suggesting that Trump could do this repeatedly if he wanted to.
Every thing you need to know about Gingrich's character can be summed up with how his first marriage ended. His first wife was dying of Cancer and he divorced her while she was still in the hospital, so he could marry a new trophy wife.
Every thing you need to know about Gingrich's character can be summed up with how his first marriage ended. His first wife was dying of Cancer and he divorced her while she was still in the hospital, so he could marry a new trophy wife.
There's a devil's advocate argument to be made here. But for once I just don't feel like representing him pro bono. There are plenty of excellent reasons to hate on Gingrich.
It was interesting going up to see my grandfather this weekend. He was a pretty big name at the Washington Post in the 70s, and had conversations with Kissinger and Nixon on multiple occasions. He says they weren't very long, but it's more than the rest of us. He said Nixon was a perfectly amicable person if you were talking to him. For all his crimes against humanity, he gave the individuals he spoke to some basic respect. My dad's similar claim to fame is that about ten years ago he interviewed Donald Trump, who he found to be the most obnoxious and arrogant piece of shit he'd ever spoken to. I fear the fate of a nation run by a man who cannot find the basic decency that even our most heinous President had.
There is a silver lining in your comparison between Trump and Nixon. Nixon was able to do tons of shady shit while being cordial and likable to your face, Trump does not have that power. When Trump does something shady it will not be hidden behind a false smile.
The right was outraged over unsubstantiated rumors that funds from the Clintons' charity may have enriched the Clintons personally. The same people couldn't care less when actual evidence shows that Trump's charity was actually used to pay for luxury items and settlements from Trump's misdeeds and unethical, illegal business practices? How entrenched in the dogma of the right are they? The hypocrisy of it makes me ill.
Not that this will actually change the mind of Trumpettes, of course. That is a much more fundamental issue.
Democrats have to stop trying to "reach across the aisle." It's been clear for a while now, and very abundantly clear now, that there is no "reaching" this voting bloc.
Comments
I'm also a little bit surprised that chaosof99 copped most of the external flak in that discussion, and thus I feel the need to call Steve on some of his bullshit. That said, first there's an important point of chaosof99's I'd like to refute before going on to Steve: This, I think, is misleading. The Roman Republic was clearly a republic, but although it had some democratic elements I think it's quite a stretch to call it a democracy.
Steve, however, was using the terms "democracy" and "republic" in a rather misleading way; I can hardly blame chaosof99 for being confused by this. Steve, as far as I can tell what you're doing here is attempting to pin concepts to the terms as they were used in 18th century republican rhetoric, but this is quite far from the modern understanding of those terms.
In the modern context, those ideas are more aligned with the political philosophies of "majoritarianism" and "republicanism" than they are with any particular forms of government. While these concepts may be associated with those of a "democracy" and of a "republic", the modern understanding puts some distance between these pairs of concepts.
In the late 18th century "democracy" was strongly associated with classical Athenian democracy, and thus carried some strong negative connotations due to the failures of that system. The distinction between a "democracy" and a "republic" was used as an important tool in republican rhetoric at the time (most notably in The Federalist) to achieve a twofold purpose:
1) To distance the proposed government of the US Constitution from those associations, thus assuaging existing fears about the dangers of democracy and defending the Constitution against anti-democratic sentiment.
2) To assert an undemocratic Constitution as being a necessity in order to avoid these dangers of democracy, thus defending the Constitution against democratic sentiment.
No reasonable modern understanding of the term "democracy" precludes the existence of individual rights; indeed it is usually held that individual rights are necessary for democracy. On a similar note, while individual rights are also necessary for a functional republic, they are not inherent to the core concept of a republic.
Nor can I see a reasonable basis for your assertion that Can you give a reliable source for this? I can see that you're referencing the concept of popular sovereignty, which is indeed part of the core conception of a republic, but your collective/individual distinction seems to be coming out of thin air. I'm not even sure that this distinction makes ideological sense; in either case the power of government derives from the will of the people, and the will of the people is necessarily composed of the will of each individual person. What does it even mean for everyone to be "individually sovereign", Steve?
I think you're going wrong here by attempting to ascribe an ideological difference to "democracy" vs "republic" with regards to sovereignty, when in fact the concept of "democracy" is not associated with any particular ideological standpoint on the issue.
At a core level, the notion of a "republic" has to do with the ideological derivation of power (i.e. that government power derives from popular sovereignty), whereas a "democracy" has to do with the actual mechanism by which power is exercised (e.g. free and fair elections).
Thus, under a modern understanding we see democracy as being a necessary component of a republic because democracy is the only mechanism we currently know of under which the concept of popular sovereignty can reasonably be said to be upheld.
Now we wait.
His son, Rand, who was in the race, got none.
Or have I misunderstood it? Is there some side benefit to receiving a vote?
Also, Newt Gingrich is back. In an NPR interview this morning, he's been named "Senior Strategist" for Trump, called Obama a liar, insinuated that Trump was honest and "needed to stay honest", also commented that it's perfectly constitutional for the POTUS to insist someone do something unethical/illegal and then pardon them for it, even suggesting that Trump could do this repeatedly if he wanted to.
FUCK HIM. What a miserable, slimey, shitbag.
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/21/506378085/gingrich-says-trump-must-address-business-conflicts-soon-urges-monitors
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/27/trump-foundation-charity-spending-investigation
Not that this will actually change the mind of Trumpettes, of course. That is a much more fundamental issue.
Democrats have to stop trying to "reach across the aisle." It's been clear for a while now, and very abundantly clear now, that there is no "reaching" this voting bloc.