Trump Assassination Attempt(s)

[SamRebel35]

Quick question: can a physicist please explain to me how a shooter perched above trump can shoot down towards trump, hit his ear, and then have that same bullet continue through to hit a guy in the crowd who was elevated above Trump?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Quick question: can a physicist please explain to me how a shooter perched above trump can shoot down towards trump, hit his ear, and then have that same bullet continue through to hit a guy in the crowd who was elevated above Trump?

Even soft tissue can deflect a bullet some. I don't know the angles, but that is the one thing that comes to mind for me.

 

[825VOL]

8 decades of Supreme Court Justices referring to our democracy:

That our democracy ultimately rests on public opinion is a platitude of speech but not a commonplace in action. Public opinion is the ultimate reliance of our society only if it be disciplined and responsible. It can be disciplined and responsible only if habits of open-mindedness and of critical inquiry are acquired in the formative years of our citizens. The process of education has naturally enough been the basis of hope for the perdurance of our democracy on the part of all our great leaders, from Thomas Jefferson onwards. Wiemann v. Updegraff, (1952) (Frankfurter J., concurring)

The statute is directed at an evil which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption. U.S. V. Mississippi Valley Company (1961) (Warren C.J.)

In popular terms that view has been expressed as follows:


CBS v. DNC (1973) (Douglas J., quoting with approval)

At the core of the First Amendment are certain basic conceptions about the manner in which political discussion in a representative democracy should proceed. Brown v. Hartlage (1982) (Brennan J.)

When this Court deals with the content of this guarantee—the only one to appear in both the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights—it is operating upon the spinal column of American democracy. Neder v. U.S. (1999) (Scalia J., dissenting)

Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views. The formation of national political parties was almost concurrent with the formation of the Republic itself. California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) (Scalia J.)

"the capacity of this democracy to represent its constituents [but also] the confidence of its citizens in their capacity to govern themselves," FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, (2007) (Souter, J., dissenting).

First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy. Citizens United (2010) (Kennedy J.)

And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow. Arizona v. Mayorkas (2023) (Gorsuch J.)

I will see you modern-day justices that misuse the term and raise you a quote and a video to help you out.

“ A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Just in case you need a video

Difference Between Democracy and a Constitutional Republic​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TToWv57gKxs&t=1s

 

[Enki_Amenra]

I will see you modern-day justices that misuse the term and raise you a quote and a video to help you out.

“ A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Just in case you need a video

Difference Between Democracy and a Constitutional Republic​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TToWv57gKxs&t=1s

I thought everyone learned in 6th grade that the US is a constitutional republic. You could say a federal constitutional democratic republic, but it's still a constitutional republic.

 

[825VOL]

From the article:
During recent political upheavals, some commentators and politicians have asserted that calling the United States a democracy is incorrect, preferring instead the term 'republic'. This assertion, seen in media portrayals and political rhetoric, often suggests that appreciating the United States as a republic exclusively helps safeguard against the flaws of a pure democracy. Senator Mike Lee's comments from October 2020 exemplify this stance as he described the American system as not one of mere majorities but rather as a "constitutional republic" where majority rule is tempered by statutory and constitutional boundaries.3

This restrictive interpretation, however, misses a broader point: the terms are not mutually exclusive and are interwoven deeply in the fabric of the US governance system. The electorate's power to elect representatives who make and interpret laws is inherently democratic, while the constitutional framework that guides and limits governance embodies the republic notion. Ignoring this connection narrows the discourse and can polarize debates unnecessarily.

Correct, they are not mutually exclusive. As I stated before, we elect our representatives through direct democracy to participate in the HOR. That was the only original design of democracy to be used in this Constitutional Republic. We were never meant to be a Democracy. If we had been, don't you think it would have been mentioned somewhere in our founding documents?

 

[RockyTop85]

Correct, they are not mutually exclusive. As I stated before, we elect our representatives through direct democracy to participate in the HOR. That was the only original design of democracy to be used in this Constitutional Republic. We were never meant to be a Democracy. If we had been, don't you think it would have been mentioned somewhere in our founding documents?

Your own “rebuttal” article said your argument was dumb.

 

[825VOL]

Your own “rebuttal” article said your argument was dumb.

For a smart guy that is usually grounded when it comes to law, you pick weird battles to fight outside of law issues.

You can have elements of a democracy inside of a republic. The example I gave you is the HOR. You can't have a republic inside an absolute democracy as at any time the majority can change the underlying laws and protections of the minority to serve only the will of the majority.

The article tried to explain this to you, but apparently you can't grasp the concept.

 

[StarRaider]

Quick question: can a physicist please explain to me how a shooter perched above trump can shoot down towards trump, hit his ear, and then have that same bullet continue through to hit a guy in the crowd who was elevated above Trump?

 

[825VOL]

One last thing before I call it a night on here just to prove to you that we have started using the term democracy instead of the correct term over the last 60-70 years, I give you an easy example to prove my point. It goes all the way back to 1892. We are a REPUBLIC!!

Even you learned this is school.

Do you see the word democracy in any version of this?

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

8 decades of Supreme Court Justices referring to our democracy:

That our democracy ultimately rests on public opinion is a platitude of speech but not a commonplace in action. Public opinion is the ultimate reliance of our society only if it be disciplined and responsible. It can be disciplined and responsible only if habits of open-mindedness and of critical inquiry are acquired in the formative years of our citizens. The process of education has naturally enough been the basis of hope for the perdurance of our democracy on the part of all our great leaders, from Thomas Jefferson onwards. Wiemann v. Updegraff, (1952) (Frankfurter J., concurring)

The statute is directed at an evil which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption. U.S. V. Mississippi Valley Company (1961) (Warren C.J.)

In popular terms that view has been expressed as follows:


CBS v. DNC (1973) (Douglas J., quoting with approval)

At the core of the First Amendment are certain basic conceptions about the manner in which political discussion in a representative democracy should proceed. Brown v. Hartlage (1982) (Brennan J.)

When this Court deals with the content of this guarantee—the only one to appear in both the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights—it is operating upon the spinal column of American democracy. Neder v. U.S. (1999) (Scalia J., dissenting)

Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views. The formation of national political parties was almost concurrent with the formation of the Republic itself. California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) (Scalia J.)

"the capacity of this democracy to represent its constituents [but also] the confidence of its citizens in their capacity to govern themselves," FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, (2007) (Souter, J., dissenting).

First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy. Citizens United (2010) (Kennedy J.)

And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow. Arizona v. Mayorkas (2023) (Gorsuch J.)

“A republic if you can keep it”​

 

[Smallvol#1]

Seen it. I never said we aren’t a democratic republic but I made one snarky comment about Obama and it sure sent huff off the rails. I’m glad you came to his rescue though. Calling us just a democracy is leaving out an important word. It’s that simple.

And it can go on and on. Been fun reading some of these.

https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain inalienable rights of the people—even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.

	Pure Democracy	Republic
Power Held by	The population as a whole	Individual citizens
Making Laws	A voting majority has almost unlimited power to make laws. Minorities have few protections from the will of the majority.	The people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution.
Ruled by	The majority	Laws made by elected representatives of the people
Protection of Rights	Rights can be overridden by the will of the majority.	A constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority.
Early Examples	Athenian democracy in Greece (500 BCE)	The Roman Republic (509 BCE)

Republic | Definition, History, & Facts

The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.

Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, processes

What is a Republic

A republic is a system of government wherein the people elect representatives to make their decisions for them, such as Congress in the United States. This type of government does not have a king or queen, or any inherited monarchy. Rather, the leader of a republic is elected, as is the U.S. President. This is the different from a democracy, which is a system of government wherein people make their own decisions on important issues by voting for or against them.



https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is

The government seated in Washington, D.C., represents a democratic republic, which governs a federated union of states, each of which in turn has its own democratic-republican government for its jurisdiction.



republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizenbody. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics. The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.



Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, processes



direct democracy, forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to indirect or representative democracy. Direct democracies may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referenda and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties. The term is also sometimes used for the practice of electing representatives in a direct vote rather than indirectly through an electing body, such as the electoral college, and for the recall of elected officeholders. Direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but in modern times it most often consists of specific decision-making institutions within a broader system of representative democracy.



France follows a semi-presidential republic model in which the president is a popularly (and directly) elected head of state, but the president’s cabinet is responsible to an elected legislature, the National Assembly, which in turn supports the appointment of a prime minister. In contrast, the United States is a presidential republic system, in which the president is popularly elected and can appoint a cabinet but exists separately from elected federal legislative bodies (the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives)

 

[RockyTop85]

For a smart guy that is usually grounded when it comes to law, you pick weird battles to fight outside of law issues.

You can have elements of a democracy inside of a republic. The example I gave you is the HOR. You can't have a republic inside an absolute democracy as at any time the majority can change the underlying laws and protections of the minority to serve only the will of the majority.

The article tried to explain this to you, but apparently you can't grasp the concept.

Nobody has said anything about an “absolute democracy.” Nobody is suggesting that the United States is or ever was intended as a government where all the people in the whole country meet in DC to cast their votes to see which laws we enact. That’s an asinine interpretation.

One might well conclude that it is gratuitously absurd to such a degree that it must be intentional. That conclusion would be bolstered if, for example, three different definitions of the word “democracy” had been posted to clarify the meaning of the word democracy.

It is clearly not erroneous to refer to the United States as “a democracy” or “our democracy.”
8+ decades of Supreme Court dicta, signed onto by dozens of justices, says that.
Merriam Webster says that.
Black’s Law Dictionary says that.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says that.
Your article says that.

If I’m the one who can’t grasp concepts, I’m in good company.

 

[825VOL]

Nobody has said anything about an “absolute democracy.” Nobody is suggesting that the United States is or ever was intended as a government where all the people in the whole country meet in DC to cast their votes to see which laws we enact. That’s an asinine interpretation.

One might well conclude that it is gratuitously absurd to such a degree that it must be intentional. That conclusion would be bolstered if, for example, three different definitions of the word “democracy” had been posted to clarify the meaning of the word democracy.

It is clearly not erroneous to refer to the United States as “a democracy” or “our democracy.”
8+ decades of Supreme Court dicta, signed onto by dozens of justices, says that.
Merriam Webster says that.
Black’s Law Dictionary says that.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says that.
Your article says that.

If I’m the one who can’t grasp concepts, I’m in good company.

It is clearly not erroneous to refer to the United States as “a democracy” or “our democracy.”
Yes, it is.

8+ decades of Supreme Court dicta, signed onto by dozens of justices, says that.
Yeah, the same infallible supreme court you disagree with when it suits your political views. Maybe it is that all knowable supreme court that treated individuals as property for decades.

Merriam Webster says that.
Which version do you want to look at?

Black’s Law Dictionary says that.
Sorry, I don't have a copy of it to review and even if I did, I am too tired tonight.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says that.
Again, which version do you want to look at?

Your article says that.
Again, we are a Republic

If I’m the one who can’t grasp concepts, I’m in good company.

Last time, You can have a Republic with attributes of democracy, but that does not make it a democracy,

 

[825VOL]

Nobody has said anything about an “absolute democracy.” Nobody is suggesting that the United States is or ever was intended as a government where all the people in the whole country meet in DC to cast their votes to see which laws we enact. That’s an asinine interpretation.

One might well conclude that it is gratuitously absurd to such a degree that it must be intentional. That conclusion would be bolstered if, for example, three different definitions of the word “democracy” had been posted to clarify the meaning of the word democracy.

It is clearly not erroneous to refer to the United States as “a democracy” or “our democracy.”
8+ decades of Supreme Court dicta, signed onto by dozens of justices, says that.
Merriam Webster says that.
Black’s Law Dictionary says that.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says that.
Your article says that.

If I’m the one who can’t grasp concepts, I’m in good company.

Webster's dictionary 1828

DEMOCRACY, noun [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

REPUB'LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

2. Common interest; the public. [Not in use.]

Republic of letters, the collective body of learned men.

They are not the same

Shall I expose all your other examples as well?

Would you as a lawyer, go in front of a judge and argue that a democracy and a republic are the same thing?

 

[RockyTop85]

And it can go on and on. Been fun reading some of these.
Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?

In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain inalienable rights of the people—even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.

	Pure Democracy	Republic
Power Held by	The population as a whole	Individual citizens
Making Laws	A voting majority has almost unlimited power to make laws. Minorities have few protections from the will of the majority.	The people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution.
Ruled by	The majority	Laws made by elected representatives of the people
Protection of Rights	Rights can be overridden by the will of the majority.	A constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority.
Early Examples	Athenian democracy in Greece (500 BCE)	The Roman Republic (509 BCE)

Republic | Definition, History, & Facts

The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.

Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, processes

What is a Republic

A republic is a system of government wherein the people elect representatives to make their decisions for them, such as Congress in the United States. This type of government does not have a king or queen, or any inherited monarchy. Rather, the leader of a republic is elected, as is the U.S. President. This is the different from a democracy, which is a system of government wherein people make their own decisions on important issues by voting for or against them.



https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is

The government seated in Washington, D.C., represents a democratic republic, which governs a federated union of states, each of which in turn has its own democratic-republican government for its jurisdiction.



republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizenbody. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics. The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.



Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, processes



direct democracy, forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to indirect or representative democracy. Direct democracies may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referenda and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties. The term is also sometimes used for the practice of electing representatives in a direct vote rather than indirectly through an electing body, such as the electoral college, and for the recall of elected officeholders. Direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but in modern times it most often consists of specific decision-making institutions within a broader system of representative democracy.



France follows a semi-presidential republic model in which the president is a popularly (and directly) elected head of state, but the president’s cabinet is responsible to an elected legislature, the National Assembly, which in turn supports the appointment of a prime minister. In contrast, the United States is a presidential republic system, in which the president is popularly elected and can appoint a cabinet but exists separately from elected federal legislative bodies (the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives)

Same problem: you have to add an adjective to democracy for that to work.

“Direct” “pure” “absolute.” Those adjectives are added because they’re needed to distinguish from the common understanding of the word. The textbook definition.

But the adjectives don’t fit because of 230 years of context. You don’t hear an American call America a democracy and assume they think that all 330M Americans meet in DC and hash out the tax code. Which is what is meant by “pure,” “absolute,” or “direct” democracy.

 

[825VOL]

Same problem: you have to add an adjective to democracy for that to work.

“Direct” “pure” “absolute.” Those adjectives are added because they’re needed to distinguish from the common understanding of the word. The textbook definition.

But the adjectives don’t fit because of 230 years of context. You don’t hear an American call America a democracy and assume they think that all 330M Americans meet in DC and hash out the tax code. Which is what is meant by “pure,” “absolute,” or “direct” democracy.

Just admit you are wrong. I know it is hard for someone on here to do.

Any adjective you use in front of democracy is merely a way to counter the decades of misinformation that has allowed people to be taught that the two are the same,

 

[hog88]

I thought we were a constitutional republic

@hog88 Thoughts?

I have no thoughts. Too much booze to think

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

 

[RockyTop85]

Just admit you are wrong. I know it is hard for someone on here to do.

Any adjective you use in front of democracy is merely a way to counter the decades of misinformation that has allowed people to be taught that the two are the same,

When I’m wrong, I admit it.

Honestly, I am floored that after your own article said you were wrong that you’re acting like in the one being intransigent.

Im not the one throwing a hissy fit about 80+ years of Supreme Court justices calling it “our democracy.” I mean check the math, but I’m pretty sure we stopped treating people as property more than 8 decades ago. And disagreeing with individual decisions is one thing but 80 years and literally dozens of decisions from which I cherry picked one from each decade… good lord.

I’m not the one relying on adjectives to modify what you’re saying in a way that doesn’t make any damn sense in the context of a conversation between adult residents of a country that’s been around for 230 years.

 

[hUTch2002]

I have no thoughts. Too much booze to think

Perfect answer. And with that I’m out.

 

[825VOL]

When I’m wrong, I admit it.

Honestly, I am floored that after your own article said you were wrong that you’re acting like in the one being intransigent.

Im not the one throwing a hissy fit about 80+ years of Supreme Court justices calling it “our democracy.” I mean check the math, but I’m pretty sure we stopped treating people as property more than 8 decades ago. And disagreeing with individual decisions is one thing but 80 years and literally dozens of decisions from which I cherry picked one from each decade… good lord.

I’m not the one relying on adjectives to modify what you’re saying in a way that doesn’t make any damn sense in the context of a conversation between adult residents of a country that’s been around for 230 years.

So, you are saying you are fine with using the term democracy even though it isn't actually correct since we have used it incorrectly for so long that it has become commonplace. Is that your stance?

 

[hUTch2002]

When I’m wrong, I admit it.

Honestly, I am floored that after your own article said you were wrong that you’re acting like in the one being intransigent.

Im not the one throwing a hissy fit about 80+ years of Supreme Court justices calling it “our democracy.” I mean check the math, but I’m pretty sure we stopped treating people as property more than 8 decades ago. And disagreeing with individual decisions is one thing but 80 years and literally dozens of decisions from which I cherry picked one from each decade… good lord.

I’m not the one relying on adjectives to modify what you’re saying in a way that doesn’t make any damn sense in the context of a conversation between adult residents of a country that’s been around for 230 years.

Don’t be ridiculous RT. You’re never wrong.

Ok, I had one last post in me tonight. Now I’m out.

 

[hog88]

The 17th amendment made us a democracy and will lead to the downfall of this country.

 

[RockyTop85]

So, you are saying you are fine with using the term democracy even though it isn't actually correct since we have used it incorrectly for so long that it has become commonplace. Is that your stance?

It is correct.

You’re adding adjectives to make it incorrect and then claiming I’m the one that’s incorrect.

You posted the Webster definition, it doesn’t describe a “pure/direct/absolute” democracy. I posted three definitions. None of them describe pure/absolute/direct democracies.

They describe governments of the people.

Our Constitution: "Well-Regulated Democracy," "In Its Principles ... Purely Democratical"

But don't take my word on it; the quotes in the title are from James Wilson and John Marshall, then-future Supreme Court Justices, speaking in state

reason.com

Here are quotes from James Wilson, John Marshall, and Thomas Jefferson (and professor Eugene Volokh) all using Democracy by the dictionary definition and referring to the US using the term democracy.

James Wilson was one of the drafters of the constitution, defended it at ratifying conventions and called it a “purely democratical” form of government: “But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE….” sounds a lot like that dictionary definition.

 

[KB5252]

Tbh, I’m not sure I’ve seen this widespread a “cancellation” campaign targeting random everyday individuals for harmless jokes until now. Extremely sensitive busybody behavior

Those on the liberal side been known to be every bit as zealous.