Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:What do you even mean when you say "democracy?" Do you even know what you mean?

Do you understand the difference between a federal republic and a democracy?

To me, a democracy is a subset of a republic (that is, every democracy is a republic), which is why I find your position incomprehensible. I will continue to find it incomprehensible until you say what you actually mean by the statement that a democracy and a federal republic are mutually incompatible.

The Comedian specialized in knocking over Marxist Republics

Metsfanmax wrote:every democracy is a republic

What labels would you attach to the political systems of the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Japan then? What makes the US and France democracies but none of those countries that I just listed?

Those are all democracies, in addition to being, for example, constitutional monarchies. These terms are usually not mutually exclusive.

I think the crux lies in unalienable rights protected by a constitution against the influence of the mob.

"The influence of the mob" is the most important part of democracy. It is too easy to lose sight of this in modern politics. Yes, it is important to have safeguards to make sure that the rights of the minority are not abrogated by a simple 51% vote. But the power of the majority vote is what allows things to actually get done in a democracy. Rep. Van Hollen's point speaks to the fact that if you can't have a straight-up vote to allow the majority to have their way, then you don't have democracy.

Excellent. So the democratically elected leaders have continually granted themselves greater and greater power over our daily lives, withheld and abandoned our constitutional rights and allowed themselves to pilfer the pockets of the citizenry. We should do nothing to prevent this as this is a democracy.

This was well understood as a grave threat, allowing the government to have full "democratic" powers, and was therefore prevented in the constitution. The thing which makes us not a democracy.

I believe a default is coming, and it will not be the product of lack of compromise, but the intended goal of the government as a whole. When asked about the president's plan to reverse the US debt, his peep told us, "We will kill the dollar."

The gravest threat of a democracy unconstrained by a constitution is upon us, and the hardship to come has been planned.

Enjoy your democracy. I will revert to my unalienable rights, thanks.

Your rights sound pretty alienated for inalienable rights. Perhaps you should address your grievances to the supernatural being who granted them to you?

Dear Founding fathers,

Thank you for perceiving the tendency of government to act in its own benefit and setting up a system which prevents this.

Unfortunately, almost all of the rights that prevent this have been disregarded. One clear-cut example is the lack of due process in the 9-11 case. The mob decided that it wasn't necessary and has allowed the military-industrial complex to benefit to the tune of several trillion dollars, in turn strengthening and alienating the government from the people.

Please address this at the next celestial meeting.

Regards.

Metsfanmax wrote:Your rights sound pretty alienated for inalienable rights. Perhaps you should address your grievances to the supernatural being who granted them to you?

I am now taking grievances.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:What do you even mean when you say "democracy?" Do you even know what you mean?

Do you understand the difference between a federal republic and a democracy?

To me, a democracy is a subset of a republic (that is, every democracy is a republic), which is why I find your position incomprehensible. I will continue to find it incomprehensible until you say what you actually mean by the statement that a democracy and a federal republic are mutually incompatible.

The point of the Congressman's gripe is that the Republicans have used government procedure to put the United States Congress (and therefore the United States) in a bad position vis-a-vis the government shutdown. This poor position is a hallmark of a representative government (and is not a hallmark, necessarily, of a democracy). So when the Congressman says "democracy has been suspended" he's talking about a system of government that we simply do not have. The system that he is a part of permits this sort of thing to occur (as I typed previously). It does not matter whether our republic is a form of democracy or that our republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. He's posturing and he's doing it poorly.

Regardless of whether the Representative is posturing, there is in principle democracy within the representative government as well as within the larger society that elects those representatives. This is because the vote of every Representative is equal to the vote of every other Representative (and the same is true for Senators) -- the hallmark of a democratic system. If a single person is effectively allowed to determine whether or not a law is passed, that makes their vote much more influential than that of other representatives, meaning that democracy has, in fact, been suspended. The Representative is exactly correct.

Metsfanmax wrote:Regardless of whether the Representative is posturing, there is in principle democracy within the representative government as well as within the larger society that elects those representatives. This is because the vote of every Representative is equal to the vote of every other Representative (and the same is true for Senators) -- the hallmark of a democratic system. If a single person is effectively allowed to determine whether or not a law is passed, that makes their vote much more influential than that of other representatives, meaning that democracy has, in fact, been suspended. The Representative is exactly correct.

Yeah, except that we live in a country where the representatives can create a system of governance whereby this sort of thing can happen. It happens regularly and Van Hollen is a witting accomplice to it happening all the time. If we lived in a democracy, he's right, this sort of thing couldn't happen. But we don't and never have (maybe we will someday). There are governmental procedures that would not occur in a democracy that permit fillibusters and procedural nonsense and all the other attendant idiosyncracies that go along with a representative government. Van Hollen should know that. I mean he said something like "Republican rule-rigging." How can a government engage in "rule-rigging" if we lived in a democracy? And I don't mean that in a "we don't live in a democracy" sort of way; I mean Van Hollen allegedly thinks we live in a democracy and if we do, then rule-rigging wouldn't happen.

So he's a grandstanding idiot.

That being said, the more I read about him, the more I like him.

TGD wrote:Yeah, except that we live in a country where the representatives can create a system of governance whereby this sort of thing can happen. It happens regularly and Van Hollen is a witting accomplice to it happening all the time. If we lived in a democracy, he's right, this sort of thing couldn't happen. But we don't and never have (maybe we will someday). There are governmental procedures that would not occur in a democracy that permit fillibusters and procedural nonsense and all the other attendant idiosyncracies that go along with a representative government.

"It happens regularly" is a very contemporary reality. Filibusters and other "procedural nonsense" used to prevent the majority from voting on a bill were seen very rarely for about the first 200 years that Congress existed (this is not to say that back-room deals, etc. did not happen -- just that once the majority settled one way or the other, it generally got its way). It is fair to say that the way Congress was originally designed was much more democratic than the way Congress currently operates.

TGD wrote:Van Hollen should know that. I mean he said something like "Republican rule-rigging." How can a government engage in "rule-rigging" if we lived in a democracy? And I don't mean that in a "we don't live in a democracy" sort of way; I mean Van Hollen allegedly thinks we live in a democracy and if we do, then rule-rigging wouldn't happen.

Even in a "democracy" (by which I by now assume you mean a direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on legislation), someone inevitably controls what legislation comes up for vote and what the procedures are for voting. The person who controls this has the power to rig the voting rules to prevent the majority from being able to impose its will, and if this person does so, is impeding democracy. This is precisely what's happening in Congress lately. What makes the democracy a democracy isn't whether there is or is not representation -- it's whether a majority of voters coming down on some issue determines the consequent legislation.

In other words, Van Hollen's use of "democracy" is not referring to the form of government but rather the process by which a majority rules. If the majority does not rule, then democracy has been suspended (in whatever forum the majority was supposed to have power in).

Mets, that kind of democracy is not ideal. Plenty of the old guys (Tocqueville, for one) were concerned about the dangers of majority rule. Having one party dominate the legislative and executive branch nullifies the whole point about having checks and balances. One dominant party would essentially render the 'democracy' into a one-party state, which you know isn't democracy--it's rule by one party (short as it may be).

If you want something resembling a democracy, then you'd want the desires of all constituents represented at all stages of public policy. This implies that you can't have one party dominating public policy.

Other than the issue of an ideal democracy, would you be complaining this much if a Democrat held control over the ending of a shutdown?

And shouldn't the Democrats be trying to compromise with the Republicans in order to end the 'shutdown'? Why are they so unwilling to compromise?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Mets, that kind of democracy is not ideal. Plenty of the old guys (Tocqueville, for one) were concerned about the dangers of majority rule. Having one party dominate the legislative and executive branch nullifies the whole point about having checks and balances. One dominant party would essentially render the 'democracy' into a one-party state, which you know isn't democracy--it's rule by one party (short as it may be).

That description does not apply here, because the Republicans have a majority in the House. The majority that was gathered together to vote on a 'clean' bill was a combination of the minority party and enough votes from the majority party to get to 218 votes. I said nothing specifically about one party having control -- I said that if there is a majority on any issue, however that majority was composed, it should have its will.

If you want something resembling a democracy, then you'd want the desires of all constituents represented at all stages of public policy. This implies that you can't have one party dominating public policy.

And yes, the policymaking process should be designed so that everyone has a contribution to the discussion. And again, this happened in the case of the ACA -- there were months of discussions in the Senate and the House, and then the House held 40-odd votes to roll it back. The process by which the law made it into effect wasn't perfect -- but it would be obviously false to suggest that the minority did not have its viewpoint heard.

Other than the issue of an ideal democracy, would you be complaining this much if a Democrat held control over the ending of a shutdown?

Yes, all other things being equal.

And shouldn't the Democrats be trying to compromise with the Republicans in order to end the 'shutdown'? Why are they so unwilling to compromise?

Because that would set the worst kind of precedent for the democratic process. It would suggest that it is legitimate to destroy the normal functioning of the government because of a dispute over legislation which was previously passed in the standard manner. It is perfectly reasonable to request that if a party does not get what it wants on a particular piece of legislation, because it cannot coalesce a majority in both houses to vote a particular way, that it does not derail the workings of a substantial fraction of the government to get its way.

In general, to anyone who suggests that the Democrats are not compromising:

Metsfanmax wrote:Those are all democracies, in addition to being, for example, constitutional monarchies. These terms are usually not mutually exclusive.

But they are obviously not republics.

Metsfanmax wrote:

TGD wrote:Yeah, except that we live in a country where the representatives can create a system of governance whereby this sort of thing can happen. It happens regularly and Van Hollen is a witting accomplice to it happening all the time. If we lived in a democracy, he's right, this sort of thing couldn't happen. But we don't and never have (maybe we will someday). There are governmental procedures that would not occur in a democracy that permit fillibusters and procedural nonsense and all the other attendant idiosyncracies that go along with a representative government.

"It happens regularly" is a very contemporary reality. Filibusters and other "procedural nonsense" used to prevent the majority from voting on a bill were seen very rarely for about the first 200 years that Congress existed (this is not to say that back-room deals, etc. did not happen -- just that once the majority settled one way or the other, it generally got its way). It is fair to say that the way Congress was originally designed was much more democratic than the way Congress currently operates.

TGD wrote:Van Hollen should know that. I mean he said something like "Republican rule-rigging." How can a government engage in "rule-rigging" if we lived in a democracy? And I don't mean that in a "we don't live in a democracy" sort of way; I mean Van Hollen allegedly thinks we live in a democracy and if we do, then rule-rigging wouldn't happen.

Even in a "democracy" (by which I by now assume you mean a direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on legislation), someone inevitably controls what legislation comes up for vote and what the procedures are for voting. The person who controls this has the power to rig the voting rules to prevent the majority from being able to impose its will, and if this person does so, is impeding democracy. This is precisely what's happening in Congress lately. What makes the democracy a democracy isn't whether there is or is not representation -- it's whether a majority of voters coming down on some issue determines the consequent legislation.

In other words, Van Hollen's use of "democracy" is not referring to the form of government but rather the process by which a majority rules. If the majority does not rule, then democracy has been suspended (in whatever forum the majority was supposed to have power in).

Let's assume, then, that this is what Van Hollen means: Democracy has been suspended because Congress cannot vote. His comments would then make sense (except the reason to make them (grandstanding) would not make sense). If you haven't yet figured this out, my problem with Van Hollen is that he's grandstanding in a hypocritical way. The procedural nonsense in which our Congress engages (I would not call backroom deals procedural nonsense) is not limited to Republicans or Democrats, so when a Republican or Democrat criticizes the procedures of Congress, it's hypocritical (unless, of course, Van Hollen will shout "democracy is dead" when, in 2018, the Democrats filibuster some Republican-led bill).

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!

- Extra funds to fix flooded roads in Colorado
- $3 million appropriation for a civil liberties oversight board (I giggled at this one)
- One-time payment to the widow of Senator Lautenberg
- Increase in authorization for spending on construction in Kentucky and Illinois ($2.918 billion, increase of $1.2 billion) (The Kentucky Kickback for Senator McConnel (R))*

Note - Government workers who are furloughed because of the shutdown "shall be compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse in appropriations." Is this paid vacation? Does it take the place of the workers' paid vacations?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... -debt-bill

*Note - This is about as hypocritical as one can get.

As the House was voting on the bill, the chief stenographer Dianne Reidy walked in a trance to the rostrum and shouted:

• "There is no 'one nation under God'! Had there been, the constitution would not have been written by Freemasons! You are being deceived! You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God! Praise to the Lord Jesus Christ!"
  

(Who this bitch think she be, Kanye?)



[CUE SABO]

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

TGD wrote:Yeah, except that we live in a country where the representatives can create a system of governance whereby this sort of thing can happen. It happens regularly and Van Hollen is a witting accomplice to it happening all the time. If we lived in a democracy, he's right, this sort of thing couldn't happen. But we don't and never have (maybe we will someday). There are governmental procedures that would not occur in a democracy that permit fillibusters and procedural nonsense and all the other attendant idiosyncracies that go along with a representative government.

"It happens regularly" is a very contemporary reality. Filibusters and other "procedural nonsense" used to prevent the majority from voting on a bill were seen very rarely for about the first 200 years that Congress existed (this is not to say that back-room deals, etc. did not happen -- just that once the majority settled one way or the other, it generally got its way). It is fair to say that the way Congress was originally designed was much more democratic than the way Congress currently operates.

TGD wrote:Van Hollen should know that. I mean he said something like "Republican rule-rigging." How can a government engage in "rule-rigging" if we lived in a democracy? And I don't mean that in a "we don't live in a democracy" sort of way; I mean Van Hollen allegedly thinks we live in a democracy and if we do, then rule-rigging wouldn't happen.

Even in a "democracy" (by which I by now assume you mean a direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on legislation), someone inevitably controls what legislation comes up for vote and what the procedures are for voting. The person who controls this has the power to rig the voting rules to prevent the majority from being able to impose its will, and if this person does so, is impeding democracy. This is precisely what's happening in Congress lately. What makes the democracy a democracy isn't whether there is or is not representation -- it's whether a majority of voters coming down on some issue determines the consequent legislation.

In other words, Van Hollen's use of "democracy" is not referring to the form of government but rather the process by which a majority rules. If the majority does not rule, then democracy has been suspended (in whatever forum the majority was supposed to have power in).

Let's assume, then, that this is what Van Hollen means: Democracy has been suspended because Congress cannot vote. His comments would then make sense (except the reason to make them (grandstanding) would not make sense). If you haven't yet figured this out, my problem with Van Hollen is that he's grandstanding in a hypocritical way. The procedural nonsense in which our Congress engages (I would not call backroom deals procedural nonsense) is not limited to Republicans or Democrats, so when a Republican or Democrat criticizes the procedures of Congress, it's hypocritical (unless, of course, Van Hollen will shout "democracy is dead" when, in 2018, the Democrats filibuster some Republican-led bill).

There's a very important difference between procedural tactics like the filibuster and procedural tactics like the one Van Hollen commented on. With a filibuster, you effectively change what it takes to obtain a majority in the Senate from 51 votes to 60 votes. The process is nevertheless still democratic in the sense that each person has the same vote. But this provision the Republicans passed goes well beyond that and essentially makes the vote of one member of the house substantially more influential than the vote of any other member.

Metsfanmax wrote:There's a very important difference between procedural tactics like the filibuster and procedural tactics like the one Van Hollen commented on. With a filibuster, you effectively change what it takes to obtain a majority in the Senate from 51 votes to 60 votes. The process is nevertheless still democratic in the sense that each person has the same vote. But this provision the Republicans passed goes well beyond that and essentially makes the vote of one member of the house substantially more influential than the vote of any other member.

So exactly like what Harry Reid has been doing in the Senate for several years, including as part of the way to block votes on the House version of the CR. Much of the legislation he allows on the Senate floor is banned from having amendments except those submitted by the Chair (him).

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:There's a very important difference between procedural tactics like the filibuster and procedural tactics like the one Van Hollen commented on. With a filibuster, you effectively change what it takes to obtain a majority in the Senate from 51 votes to 60 votes. The process is nevertheless still democratic in the sense that each person has the same vote. But this provision the Republicans passed goes well beyond that and essentially makes the vote of one member of the house substantially more influential than the vote of any other member.

So exactly like what Harry Reid has been doing in the Senate for several years, including as part of the way to block votes on the House version of the CR. Much of the legislation he allows on the Senate floor is banned from having amendments except those submitted by the Chair (him).

So... you're defending what the Republicans did here because the Democrats have done it too??

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:There's a very important difference between procedural tactics like the filibuster and procedural tactics like the one Van Hollen commented on. With a filibuster, you effectively change what it takes to obtain a majority in the Senate from 51 votes to 60 votes. The process is nevertheless still democratic in the sense that each person has the same vote. But this provision the Republicans passed goes well beyond that and essentially makes the vote of one member of the house substantially more influential than the vote of any other member.

So exactly like what Harry Reid has been doing in the Senate for several years, including as part of the way to block votes on the House version of the CR. Much of the legislation he allows on the Senate floor is banned from having amendments except those submitted by the Chair (him).

So... you're defending what the Republicans did here because the Democrats have done it too??

He is saying that its the pot calling the kettle black. I don't think he's defending the republicans position, but it being slandered by the democrats would/is outright hypocrisy.