Converation thread

“So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say”

No, it just means all people would get an equal say; under the electoral college, people in smaller states are given a larger "say" than people in larger states...which is blatantly anti-democratic. If some people have more of a say than others, then that's not democratic, that's just inflating the beliefs of a minority simply because they're in a minority. Everyone should have the same, equal vote, and if that means a minority belief is unpopular...then that's just how majoritarianism works. Plus, smaller states/towns always have their own local elections anyways, so I don't even understand the issue? If the majority of the country votes for Party A, then that's obviously who should lead nationally, but if your small state/town votes majority Party B, then your state/town should be lead by Party B...

I am strongly Anti-Democratic and darn proud of it because I AM A REPUBLICAN NOT A DEMOCRAT!

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but the political party names are not actually representative of being pro-/anti-democracy.

More importantly, why are you strongly against democratic decision-making? So that implies that you believe that not everyone should be allowed to vote, right?

Absolutely. So Democracy is majority tyranny. What I believe in is a Republic, which our nation, by the way, actually is -- and that means that consent of the governed is retained while individual rights, being uninfringable and inalienable, cannot be voted away by mob rule. Actually the party names are representative of being pro/anti-democracy. Republicans were founded to abolish slavery because they knew that just because the voters said slavery was right didn't make it legal. Democrats were founded to protect the institution of slavery and racism because that's what the majority wanted. So yes the parties are an anti/pro democratic system.

Except that's not true. The Republican Party originally got it's name from the anti-monarchist sentiments of the French Revolution; in fact, the original party name was Democratic-Republicans until the party ended up splitting into eventually just Democrats and Republicans. Neither party was created for, nor representative of, the systems of government "Republic" and "Democracy". Both parties are pro-Republic, and their differences are based on how much power the federal/state governments should hold, not on entire systems of governance.

Secondly, I'm not…  Read more sure you understand what a Democracy/Republic means..? A democracy simply means that all people share an equal say in a decision-making process, whereas a republic simply means that only a select few hold decision-making power over the entire population. What you're advocating for is simply an oligarchy.

“The Republican Party originally got it's name from the anti-monarchist sentiments of the French Revolution; in fact, the original party name was Democratic-Republicans until the party ended up splitting into eventually just Democrats and Republicans. Neither party was created for, nor representative of, the systems of government "Republic" and "Democracy". Both parties are pro-Republic, and their differences are based on how much power the federal/state governments should hold, not on entire systems of governance.”

Indeed, you're correct about the origin of the Republican Party's name. The Democratic-Republicans were founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalist Party, which was focused on a strong central government. The Democratic-Republicans were more concerned with states' rights and a limited federal government. Over time, the party split, and the modern Republican and Democratic parties emerged with their own distinct platforms and policies. The historical context of these parties demonstrates that their differences are rooted in the balance of power…  Read more between the federal and state governments, rather than the systems of democracy or republic.

A specific example that highlights this distinction is the debate over the National Bank during the early years of the United States. The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, advocated for the creation of a National Bank to strengthen the country's financial system. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, opposed the bank, arguing that it concentrated too much power in the hands of the federal government and potentially infringed upon states' rights.

Considering this historical perspective, do you think the current differences between the Democratic and Republican parties still reflect their original stances on federal versus state power, or have their platforms evolved over time to encompass a wider range of issues?

No, YOU are wrong about them, and even the Republican Party GPT is explaining it to you...

I hate GPT and never use it. And as you have provided no evidence, data, or logical arguments to your position, only baseless name-calling and crap-hurling I am not compelled to believe a word emitted from your sore mouth.

lol so are you just making up stuff now? What exactly is the "logical argument" here? It's just history; there is no "argument" in the first place. And what do you mean "baseless name-calling and crap-hurling"..? No one here was even doing that...