I agree with this video on the overall concept it tries to reach but I disagree with it on everything else. THere is Dichotomy and people should be aware of it thus, increasing education and rational thinking is important. Almost everything has multifaceted elements the thing is were ascribe it to being what it is because it has more of that factor or element than the others inside of it. I mean this is common sense. Think about things in water, or Geometric shapes. A triangle is in a square
Very Good. Extraordinarily succinct man. I usually stop at 'Constitutional Democracy', or Democratic Republic when trying to explain it to people...you did an amazing job, keep up the good work.
Can I just say thank you, thank you? I home school my kiddos and when a modern day witch hunt broke out this year in our school district over the which term should be taught and whose heads needed to be removed on the school board, my kids and I asked, "Well, which is it really?" Your video is such an awesome and accessible way to teach this notion and my husband stood here nodding the whole time saying, "This guy knows what he's talking about!" I'm sharing this video with great praise!
I was following you up until you're "war" bullshit. It was and still is, bullshit. For any article you show me where you think it was cheer leading people to war, I can show you another critical of the rush to war.
That said, a lot your argument for 'Constitutional Democratic Republic, Capitalist-Socialism' rests on how it is now, and not what was intended. That's really the crux of the argument and concerns from the people you're chastising.
You couldn't be more wrong. The founders of this nation were strongly against the idea of Democracy. The United States of America was founded as a Republic and yes there is a huge difference. Since then, mostly in the last 40 years, we have we have transformed into more of a Democracy. Our representatives go along with the constitution only if it suits their needs. The majority of the bills that go through congress are unconstitutional. This is why our country is failing.
and as for public schools, are they constitutional?
according to the father of the constitution, ''Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA If you don't believe we are a democracy, don''t vote. as we are a representative democracy (according to James "Father of the constitution" Madison). You're definition of democracy is called pure democracy, we have a constitutional representative democracy. If we were a nondemocratic republic our representatives would not be chosen by election.
FYI in our republic, less that .001% of the population can take your rights away.
Republic and democracy are both scary terms to me. Our founding fathers made a republic because they didn't believe that the common man had the knowledge to vote on legislation directly. But now, we have politicians that will lie to the people to get a position. Collect money from private investors in campaigns, which are huge companies with their own agendas. Who in turn, turn around and catch a tax break from it. Those companies own news networks. Am I totally wrong about this?
Are you wrong? Not technically, but you are cynical. You've described much of what's wrong with the system, but not the other forces which mitigate these wrongs and put us, I believe, in a mode of frustratingly slow generational progress.
Thanks again, i've subscribed to your channel. I'm not trying to be cynical. And these comment sections are so small to discuss as much as i'd like to. I do think however, that they purposely make politics harder for the common person to understand. I'm spouting out what i've understood from my own research, because for the life of me, i don't remember any of this crap ever discussed in our school systems. I'll post another comment on why i believe pure democracy is scary as well.
I appreciate your definitions of the terms. I do not accept your label of the republic/democracy debate as a false dichotomy. Most people would understand that discussion is broken down to those two words for simplifying the discussion. We live in a republic, albeit a federal constitutional one. We incorporate democratic systems. But it's like working at Blockbuster. Is Princess Bride is a comedy or action film? It's a false dichotomy in one sense, but you gotta choose a shelf.
Thanks for bringing some activity back to this page. If you have to choose a shelf, your categorization system is lacking. And it's really bad if the shelf is labeled "action, not comedy", which is what the people I'm criticizing have chosen. Then they told people to stop calling it funny, because it's thrilling.
Also, if most movies made in the last 200 years are action comedies, with subtle differences in the balance between one and the other, now your shelf is really out of place.
Fair enough. So how would you describe the political system (as it is or was founded to be) of the US? Is there any one word that stands above the rest for you?
Y'know a lot of people say "The West" when they want to refer the blend of freedoms, services, markets, checks, representation, common to so many prosperous countries. Sometimes it refers to culture as well, because that tends to overlap. It's a miserably inaccurate term.
If all you want to express is democracy plus republic, frankly one implies the other, since examples of their separation are so rare.
If somebody asked you what form of government the United States had, would you have an answer? Or just a lot of disclaimers, qualifiers, and sidesteps?
You point out a perceived false dichotomy, but do not offer a third solution or middle ground term. I have a problem with this because you're making it seem like the "republic, not a democracy" people are providing us with no real knowledge, yet you offer nothing to the question yourself. Or I'm missing it.
You're blaming the English language on me. American government is a combination of constitutionalism, democracy, and republic, with or without a one-word term.
The "republic, not democracy" crowd are providing us with the opposite of knowledge. They want you to believe that two concepts are mutually exclusive when in fact they're almost always coexistent.
The electoral college was designed to do that, to prevent the US from being a direct democracy. The fact that the people don't get their choice 100% of the time means that the EC is doing its job. Just like how there's a reason senators weren't directly elected (until the passage of the 17th Amendment).
Everyone focuses on how "their vote should count" when America was designed to avoid direct democracy, and that is the reason why I stress it is first and foremost a republic.
youmake some valid points..very intelligent points BUT you kinda prooovedyour point wrong...by putting the constitution on top...constitution=law...rule of law=republic...a republic is what our founding fathers had in mind...just because somany public officials since that timehave pervertedthe country to what you see today..but i do enjoy your train of thought...very open and multidimensional...republic is a form of democracy in alot of ways except the law over majority..ran outofroom.lol
I'm arrogant (cause I'm just a kid). You said 1st: Constitution. A republic is government where you have a law that limits the government and that is the Constitution, it defends our civil liberties. A majority can't take that away. The only economic system that is compatible with a free society founded on liberty is the free market of capitalism. I'm dissatisfied with today's socialist America. High taxes, huge spending, numerous government bureaucrats in areas like health and education.
So are you a republican? Also, who do you think is going to be the next president? I think it will be Obama. Lastly, what where your hobbies as a child? Did you read a lot?
Not a Republican. I'd give Obama 60% odds right now. He's got my vote too. I watched an insane amount of television like every other idiot. Didn't start reading for real until around 20.
Really appreciate this video. I love it when people who see themselves as conservative and staunch capitalists speak about improving things by giving 'free education' and the like...the word socialism is so loaded it frightens people, yet I would argue that the majority of people lean further to the left than they realise.
It's interesting that socialism is such a demonized word these days. There are clearly positive examples of socialism @ work in our society. But the word itself is so toxic, to even call successful, essentially socialist programs by their right name is to invite attacks against those same programs just for being socialist. Our political dialogue is too charged, it keeps us from asking the essential questions - like: Should the govt be doing this? And if it is already, is it fixing the problem?
To officially abolish would be laborious, but there is a potential work-around on the state level. (Any change would take too long to affect this year.) I'm going to make a real electoral college video soon.
Thanks for not totally dismissing the electoral college. To go by popular vote is great for those of you who live in high population areas. What about us who live in less populated areas. The vote in the less populated areas would not have as much sway. There are states that have populations less than New York city The canidates would have no moitvaion to campaign in less populated areas. What about our needs, they are not same as yours.
Jen, you're right and I'm sorry for only scratching the surface on the electoral college. I didn't anticipate that I had several supporters in my audience and I will make a video that opens it up for discussion.
So, if we all get together and vote to kill you, why that's democracy. Can you spell bull shit. The constitution established a republic, and guaratnteed to each state a republican form of government. In short, this means that there are limits to what the majority can do to the minority, like prevent the majority from voting to kill you. Try getting your explanations straight, and quit misinforming everyone with your pompous wrong explanations.
bbburton, your comment is almost completely right, except that your definition of democracy is too narrow. Please read the wikipedia page on democracy--specifically the heading "forms of democracy" and let me know what you think.
Democracy in simple terms is nothing more than a method of self governance. Yes, there are different interpretations of democracy, but the fact remains that the Constitution establishes a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government. Unfortunately, the two parties, also not envisioned by the founding fathers, have usurped the Constitution and erroneously defined our nation as a democracy. This is totally false. So, explain what a const. republic is to your audience.
First, you must define what a constitutional republic is before you can discuss whether or not a relationship exists. What cannot be ignored or shelved is that the constitution specifically created a republic, and that democracy is not even mentioned in the constitution. What was described was the enumerated powers of the gov, the three branches, and the apportionment of representatives and who qualified. I wish people would just read the document before jumping into a debate about it's intent.
First things first. I will not answer questions that contain loaded, and as yet, undefined terms. For example, are stars and the universe mutually exclusive? Come on, simple yes or no answers explain nothing, and ultimately may lead to unintended conclusions. You have to learn to crawl before you walk. So, try crawling first. Put your best effort into explaining what a constitutional republic is first. Then maybe a baby step could be taken.
A three legged dog is not a cat! No truer words have EVER been spoken! LOL Nice take Joe, thanks for the 'splaining' with the way only you can bring it! Cheers!
I agree with just about all of that. I'm afraid the majority of the issues in our society are dumbed down into only two dimensions. What do you think about our two party system? In a world as complicated as ours, it seems woefully inefficient to only have two viable choices.
2 parties is a necessity in a "spoils system" where the top vote-getter wins the whole enchilada, as opposed to a parliamentary system where minority factions still get something. It is unfortunate because it encourages us to vote from a defensive posture.
The solution is called ranked choice voting, in which you order the candidates you like from favorite to least favorite, and the winner is the one who makes the most people the happiest. That's a long, long term goal.
It seems the Republic vs Democracy argument that a lot of people (some of us RP supporters) are making seems to be a shorthand way of pointing out that without adherence to the constitution, pure democracy turns into an adversarial soup where the scum rises to the top. I don't think they're pushing a false dichotomy to confuse or mislead anyone, but to motivate as much of a despondent minority as they can against populism and whatever McCain is.
About effing time!!!! Thanx alot Joe - I've tried on numerous occasions to explain this same topic to what seems like an endless barrage of Ron Paul supporters (god bless their little souls). It is as if they got a general email title "we live in a republic - now go tell everybody about it!!!" (I just posted a video about RP supporters stealing delegates in NV - so I got my fair share of RP remarks - LOL).
voted for you today 30 times to try to make up for the days when I was on the road. :) good luck in the challenge. There's a new video up today! Nice haircut:)
I think you're misstating the purpose of the electoral college. The framers of the constitution were concerned over whether the states should have representation based on population, or simply statehood. This was simply a concern that the more populous states could come to dominate the others. The Great Compromise solved this by creating a bicameral legislature. It was then extended to the executive branch through the electoral college. It still prevents domination by the populous states.
You referenced a supreme court decision a few years ago that expanded the power of eminent domain. This was Kelo v. New London and I disagree with your point. This ruling only expanded the power of the government to take private land under eminent domain for private purposes. That is not communism, it's private use.
That's true, the eminent domain expansion regarded making private use of the land. But I guess the fact that it ends up in private hands is less central in my thinking than the fact that you can see your land appropriated for less of a cause than you may have thought.
If the private destination eliminates communism, does this change correlate to any other school of thought?
I live in one of two counties in MD that vote Republican year in and year out. MD is a blue state and with the electoral college if I vote Republican then my vote kind of doesn't count. But that doesn't mean I won't take my privilege as an American to vote because I still do. I would like to see the electoral college go to make my vote seem more useful.
However I agree that it is set in place so the president isn't elected by the numbers of a few big states because my vote would still seem less useful.
1) The Electoral College was designed as a "bank shot" in order to prevent "mob rule" (the Founding Fathers didn't believe in direct democracy at all).
2) America went to war on what happened on 9/11, and not some obscure reason. The problem was that in our anger, people manipulated the situation for some experiment based upon the neo-conservative ideal. THAT was the problem, which gives meaning to the pharase, "Who Watches the Watchers?" We didn't, & this happens.
Hey, no problem. It just irks me that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, NO BODY asked the important questions about a long term strategy, or even whether we should invade at all. Even assuming that Saddam had "significant" quantities of WMDs, is that enough to justify more than six years of occupation that was started simply b/c Bush was mad at Chirac for not putting pressure on Saddam the way Bush wanted. Shameful.
dswynne: (1) I make this argument: the stage was set by all the decades post ww2. The corporate sector, with its global economic expansionism, and the MI complex, have coalesced into an increasingly influential power in determining gov't decisions. With TV, corporate funding became essential to political survival, so politicians needed to cooperate. The corporate sector was going to win big in any war, esp one financed by foreign purchases of gov't issued debt instruments.
dswynne: (2) As to Iraq, big decisions are made by internal coalitions: in this case a combination of neo-cons, big oil, the earlier humiliation at the hands of Saddam, and who knows what other factors, plus a bunch of groupthink due to Bush's persuasiveness and Rove's ability to pull the levers of power, and you've got yourself a war. I doubt whether the possibility of danger from Saddam Hussein was even seriously considered. They were talking about Iraq even before 9/11.
good spiel champ, i've only become interested in this type of thing recently and you laid out the interactions nice and clearly.
do you have any vids explaining this delegate v superdelegate biz? i'm an aussie and i've half got my head around it, but it'd be good to hear your take on it
Thanks, kahnicles. There are two types of delegates. Pledged delegates are elected in the primaries to support a specific candidate, and superdelegates are VIP's in the party who can make up their own mind.
You need half of the total delegates to get the nomination. There are a lot more pledged than super, but Barack's margin of 150 pledged is too small to get to the halfway point, so he will need superdelegates to push him over.
but what about this business whereby the pledged delegates are meant to vote according to their pledge but can actually do whatever they want on the day? is that true?
how do they monitor it? is it known on the day who votes for whom?
and i heard a littly while back that obama went and culled a whole bunch of his pledged delegates. does he get to replace them with more reliable people, or does that trim his margin/risk?
probably not true, but it sounds like you're just bitter (haha) about the 2000 election. It seems like the only one's who want to change the electoral system are democrats.
I'm not personally emotional about it, but it was definitely a mess. I think you'll find a lot of non-Democrats in non-swing states who are pissed off that their opinions aren't valued. And I bet there are plenty of Democrats in swing states who think it's just dandy.
Thanks, guys. This video is pretty all over the place, which is how I feel right now at the end of the whole competition thing. Win or lose, it'll be nice to put these weeks behind me.
I can't imagine how it must feel to campaign for a year, asking people for help every day. I have to respect politicians more for that.
The O_O was my initial reaction to your new do. (Which I love, by the way.)
As for the rest of the video, couldn't agree with you more. I've thought of the "recipe" as fast food for a while now. *chuckles* And yes, our democracy is an effed up 3-legged dog.
The US is a representative democracy (you elect a representative for the legislative branch) and a democratic republic (you elect a president for the executive branch). In a direct democracy you would vote on issues directly.
I don't think you are "partly" direct democracy if you vote on some issues. Like you aren't capitalist just 'cus you have a market economy.
That's pretty much what I meant. Some ideologies are exclusive. You are right in that many of the things people call America are not exclusive though.
I'm no authority on capitalism, but I would say if there are public companies in the market place it's socialism rather than capitalism.
I guess I see problems both ways. Calling the US socialist is not true, calling it capitalist is not true, but it does incorporate ideas from both ideologies.
I always have hated the false dichotomies that are set up to tell us how to behave. I tend to see that the answer usually lies between what is presented for our "convenience."
I have heard the view usnationalist has about the electoral college. I have also heard that its original purpose was to prevent uninformed people from electing a bad president. But I would think usnationalist's view is closer to the truth.
I agree that we should get rid of the electoral college. I know a good amount of people who decide it's not worth their time to vote democrat in a state that'll be Republican or vice versa. I haven't done the math, but I think in representative count on really small states like Wisconsin gives more power per vote to people in Wisconsin than California or New York.
THe framers of the the Constitution put a lot of thought into this: Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That's why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. If we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. I don't think we're ready to rid ourselves of our bicameral system.
But I totally disagree about the electoral college. It helps balance the rights of the states. As opposed to letting one state with 51% of the nations population dictate the politics for the other 49.
Probably a fundamental difference I have with a lot of people is the notion that we are 50 states combined into a union. Not one federal government with 50 territories. My own guilty pleasure of Idealism. heh. John C. Calhoun is one of my heroes.
usnation: The ideal of a "multiplicity of interests," i.e., a ton of overlapping factions that will act as a counterweight to the growth of a single tyrannical faction, was overcome by the fear that led to the Iraq war. More properly, 9/11 created enough fear so that Iraq seemed plausible. The fear defeated the overlapping interests of a concurrent majority. Of course, had it been legitimate, then it would have worked out, I suppose. Calhoun's idea of concurrent majority is a beautiful thing.
It's all good and well but I suspect the fascists are eating up the american pie and soon there won't be any left.
PktMma 1 month ago
I agree with this video on the overall concept it tries to reach but I disagree with it on everything else. THere is Dichotomy and people should be aware of it thus, increasing education and rational thinking is important. Almost everything has multifaceted elements the thing is were ascribe it to being what it is because it has more of that factor or element than the others inside of it. I mean this is common sense. Think about things in water, or Geometric shapes. A triangle is in a square
Ryukikon 11 months ago
Very Good. Extraordinarily succinct man. I usually stop at 'Constitutional Democracy', or Democratic Republic when trying to explain it to people...you did an amazing job, keep up the good work.
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
Man you're good. You should make your own contra-Beck show on MSNBC. Word.
HoGraz 1 year ago
9/11 was justification for war. Fascism? Not quite...
clarke9mm 1 year ago
Can I just say thank you, thank you? I home school my kiddos and when a modern day witch hunt broke out this year in our school district over the which term should be taught and whose heads needed to be removed on the school board, my kids and I asked, "Well, which is it really?" Your video is such an awesome and accessible way to teach this notion and my husband stood here nodding the whole time saying, "This guy knows what he's talking about!" I'm sharing this video with great praise!
mommaskyla 1 year ago
@mommaskyla I'm so glad to have provided you a with valuable experience.
JoeFelice 1 year ago
I was following you up until you're "war" bullshit. It was and still is, bullshit. For any article you show me where you think it was cheer leading people to war, I can show you another critical of the rush to war.
That said, a lot your argument for 'Constitutional Democratic Republic, Capitalist-Socialism' rests on how it is now, and not what was intended. That's really the crux of the argument and concerns from the people you're chastising.
kehvan 1 year ago
You couldn't be more wrong. The founders of this nation were strongly against the idea of Democracy. The United States of America was founded as a Republic and yes there is a huge difference. Since then, mostly in the last 40 years, we have we have transformed into more of a Democracy. Our representatives go along with the constitution only if it suits their needs. The majority of the bills that go through congress are unconstitutional. This is why our country is failing.
billfrd827 1 year ago
stop wasting your breath receading jew fro. you talked alot but you really didnt say shit that no one in here didnt already know.
bobo66668888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the correct term is Constitutional Republic
and as for public schools, are they constitutional?
according to the father of the constitution, ''Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
nowhere in the constitution of america or the constitution of any of its states has the word 'democracy' in it
this is a republic
democracy is where 51% of the people can take away anything from you (majority rules)
but in a republic, not even 99.99% of the population can take away anything because you are protected by the LAW
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA If you don't believe we are a democracy, don''t vote. as we are a representative democracy (according to James "Father of the constitution" Madison). You're definition of democracy is called pure democracy, we have a constitutional representative democracy. If we were a nondemocratic republic our representatives would not be chosen by election.
FYI in our republic, less that .001% of the population can take your rights away.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
i suggest you should watch the video called 'basic form of government'
its a simple 10 mins vid explaining the political spectrum, monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, republic, and anarchy
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
ps never mind my username
just ignore it if you get offended by it ........ i just saw some of your vids and you seem to have voted for the guy
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
so in any classification, government uses power they were not given in the first place. Or they misuse what power they were given.
either way,the constitution is not being followed as LAW
It's just being dumbed down so the general public can understand
And not following "LAW" is the crux of the issue
antixone1 2 years ago
Republic and democracy are both scary terms to me. Our founding fathers made a republic because they didn't believe that the common man had the knowledge to vote on legislation directly. But now, we have politicians that will lie to the people to get a position. Collect money from private investors in campaigns, which are huge companies with their own agendas. Who in turn, turn around and catch a tax break from it. Those companies own news networks. Am I totally wrong about this?
CluppHead 2 years ago
Are you wrong? Not technically, but you are cynical. You've described much of what's wrong with the system, but not the other forces which mitigate these wrongs and put us, I believe, in a mode of frustratingly slow generational progress.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Thanks again, i've subscribed to your channel. I'm not trying to be cynical. And these comment sections are so small to discuss as much as i'd like to. I do think however, that they purposely make politics harder for the common person to understand. I'm spouting out what i've understood from my own research, because for the life of me, i don't remember any of this crap ever discussed in our school systems. I'll post another comment on why i believe pure democracy is scary as well.
CluppHead 2 years ago
I appreciate your definitions of the terms. I do not accept your label of the republic/democracy debate as a false dichotomy. Most people would understand that discussion is broken down to those two words for simplifying the discussion. We live in a republic, albeit a federal constitutional one. We incorporate democratic systems. But it's like working at Blockbuster. Is Princess Bride is a comedy or action film? It's a false dichotomy in one sense, but you gotta choose a shelf.
TheAlphaNick 2 years ago
Thanks for bringing some activity back to this page. If you have to choose a shelf, your categorization system is lacking. And it's really bad if the shelf is labeled "action, not comedy", which is what the people I'm criticizing have chosen. Then they told people to stop calling it funny, because it's thrilling.
Also, if most movies made in the last 200 years are action comedies, with subtle differences in the balance between one and the other, now your shelf is really out of place.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Fair enough. So how would you describe the political system (as it is or was founded to be) of the US? Is there any one word that stands above the rest for you?
TheAlphaNick 2 years ago
Y'know a lot of people say "The West" when they want to refer the blend of freedoms, services, markets, checks, representation, common to so many prosperous countries. Sometimes it refers to culture as well, because that tends to overlap. It's a miserably inaccurate term.
If all you want to express is democracy plus republic, frankly one implies the other, since examples of their separation are so rare.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
If somebody asked you what form of government the United States had, would you have an answer? Or just a lot of disclaimers, qualifiers, and sidesteps?
You point out a perceived false dichotomy, but do not offer a third solution or middle ground term. I have a problem with this because you're making it seem like the "republic, not a democracy" people are providing us with no real knowledge, yet you offer nothing to the question yourself. Or I'm missing it.
TheAlphaNick 2 years ago
You're blaming the English language on me. American government is a combination of constitutionalism, democracy, and republic, with or without a one-word term.
The "republic, not democracy" crowd are providing us with the opposite of knowledge. They want you to believe that two concepts are mutually exclusive when in fact they're almost always coexistent.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
The electoral college was designed to do that, to prevent the US from being a direct democracy. The fact that the people don't get their choice 100% of the time means that the EC is doing its job. Just like how there's a reason senators weren't directly elected (until the passage of the 17th Amendment).
Everyone focuses on how "their vote should count" when America was designed to avoid direct democracy, and that is the reason why I stress it is first and foremost a republic.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
youmake some valid points..very intelligent points BUT you kinda prooovedyour point wrong...by putting the constitution on top...constitution=law...rule of law=republic...a republic is what our founding fathers had in mind...just because somany public officials since that timehave pervertedthe country to what you see today..but i do enjoy your train of thought...very open and multidimensional...republic is a form of democracy in alot of ways except the law over majority..ran outofroom.lol
AmericanValues321 3 years ago
I like the way your brain works
Vewdew420 3 years ago
Red Beckman 4 - Democracy Vs REPUBLIC
This is More informed.
mmtot 3 years ago
I'm arrogant (cause I'm just a kid). You said 1st: Constitution. A republic is government where you have a law that limits the government and that is the Constitution, it defends our civil liberties. A majority can't take that away. The only economic system that is compatible with a free society founded on liberty is the free market of capitalism. I'm dissatisfied with today's socialist America. High taxes, huge spending, numerous government bureaucrats in areas like health and education.
Andy43213 3 years ago
So are you a republican? Also, who do you think is going to be the next president? I think it will be Obama. Lastly, what where your hobbies as a child? Did you read a lot?
lordoftheshred 3 years ago
Not a Republican. I'd give Obama 60% odds right now. He's got my vote too. I watched an insane amount of television like every other idiot. Didn't start reading for real until around 20.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Thanks Joe! This video saved me another 3 months of studying & trying to understand politics.
It's a recipe!!!
saikoza 3 years ago
Really appreciate this video. I love it when people who see themselves as conservative and staunch capitalists speak about improving things by giving 'free education' and the like...the word socialism is so loaded it frightens people, yet I would argue that the majority of people lean further to the left than they realise.
NACLpiel 3 years ago
Very cool vlog...
theeclecticmind 3 years ago
It's interesting that socialism is such a demonized word these days. There are clearly positive examples of socialism @ work in our society. But the word itself is so toxic, to even call successful, essentially socialist programs by their right name is to invite attacks against those same programs just for being socialist. Our political dialogue is too charged, it keeps us from asking the essential questions - like: Should the govt be doing this? And if it is already, is it fixing the problem?
FeelFreeToArgue 3 years ago
What are your views on social contract theory and the state of nature
Mannymd 3 years ago
Well you gotta buy in to the social contract before you get anywhere near this stuff, right? So I guess I'd better be for it!
Seriously I have had this topic come up in a few conversations with anarchists. They never seem to win me over though.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
very good, you and i share alot of the same thoughts.
Metroid02099 3 years ago
Fantastic video today. Love the haircut, by the way.
Question: what would it take to abolish the electoral college system? Meaning, would it at all be possible to disband/end it in any timely manner?
Maddog53 3 years ago
To officially abolish would be laborious, but there is a potential work-around on the state level. (Any change would take too long to affect this year.) I'm going to make a real electoral college video soon.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
We are a republic made up of Pussies. You know....a democracy!
eekdog2005 3 years ago 2
Awesome video today. Sad to see you only got 4th in the competition. I was rooting for ya!
mpschafe 3 years ago
Thanks for not totally dismissing the electoral college. To go by popular vote is great for those of you who live in high population areas. What about us who live in less populated areas. The vote in the less populated areas would not have as much sway. There are states that have populations less than New York city The canidates would have no moitvaion to campaign in less populated areas. What about our needs, they are not same as yours.
jenisoutofhermind 3 years ago
Jen, you're right and I'm sorry for only scratching the surface on the electoral college. I didn't anticipate that I had several supporters in my audience and I will make a video that opens it up for discussion.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
So, if we all get together and vote to kill you, why that's democracy. Can you spell bull shit. The constitution established a republic, and guaratnteed to each state a republican form of government. In short, this means that there are limits to what the majority can do to the minority, like prevent the majority from voting to kill you. Try getting your explanations straight, and quit misinforming everyone with your pompous wrong explanations.
bbburton 3 years ago 2
bbburton, your comment is almost completely right, except that your definition of democracy is too narrow. Please read the wikipedia page on democracy--specifically the heading "forms of democracy" and let me know what you think.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Democracy in simple terms is nothing more than a method of self governance. Yes, there are different interpretations of democracy, but the fact remains that the Constitution establishes a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government. Unfortunately, the two parties, also not envisioned by the founding fathers, have usurped the Constitution and erroneously defined our nation as a democracy. This is totally false. So, explain what a const. republic is to your audience.
bbburton 3 years ago 2
Baby steps: Are republic and democracy mutually exclusive?
JoeFelice 3 years ago
First, you must define what a constitutional republic is before you can discuss whether or not a relationship exists. What cannot be ignored or shelved is that the constitution specifically created a republic, and that democracy is not even mentioned in the constitution. What was described was the enumerated powers of the gov, the three branches, and the apportionment of representatives and who qualified. I wish people would just read the document before jumping into a debate about it's intent.
bbburton 3 years ago 2
Is a yes or a no really too hard to squeeze in to 500 characters?
JoeFelice 3 years ago
First things first. I will not answer questions that contain loaded, and as yet, undefined terms. For example, are stars and the universe mutually exclusive? Come on, simple yes or no answers explain nothing, and ultimately may lead to unintended conclusions. You have to learn to crawl before you walk. So, try crawling first. Put your best effort into explaining what a constitutional republic is first. Then maybe a baby step could be taken.
bbburton 3 years ago
Stars and the universe are not mutually exclusive.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Correct. It's the context in which they are discussed.
bbburton 3 years ago
You are a great teacher! I love listening to you!
madamzoom 3 years ago
A three legged dog is not a cat! No truer words have EVER been spoken! LOL Nice take Joe, thanks for the 'splaining' with the way only you can bring it! Cheers!
TeleShaman 3 years ago
We're a Theocratic Republic and your here to send unaudited money to Israel with no questions ask. Dammit, now do as your told by your media God!
dustynbones 3 years ago
nice ball
Micfri 3 years ago
I know it's magical!
JoeFelice 3 years ago
I agree with just about all of that. I'm afraid the majority of the issues in our society are dumbed down into only two dimensions. What do you think about our two party system? In a world as complicated as ours, it seems woefully inefficient to only have two viable choices.
jstoby 3 years ago
2 parties is a necessity in a "spoils system" where the top vote-getter wins the whole enchilada, as opposed to a parliamentary system where minority factions still get something. It is unfortunate because it encourages us to vote from a defensive posture.
The solution is called ranked choice voting, in which you order the candidates you like from favorite to least favorite, and the winner is the one who makes the most people the happiest. That's a long, long term goal.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
"it's not a choice, it's a recipe"
Great vid Joe, keep working at stimulating people's minds to research what really is factual about our government and how it works.
ShiekUrBooty 3 years ago
Nice... I should say more, but I got shit to do... Finals week
wesstrite 3 years ago
It seems the Republic vs Democracy argument that a lot of people (some of us RP supporters) are making seems to be a shorthand way of pointing out that without adherence to the constitution, pure democracy turns into an adversarial soup where the scum rises to the top. I don't think they're pushing a false dichotomy to confuse or mislead anyone, but to motivate as much of a despondent minority as they can against populism and whatever McCain is.
Blackholeofintelect 3 years ago
About effing time!!!! Thanx alot Joe - I've tried on numerous occasions to explain this same topic to what seems like an endless barrage of Ron Paul supporters (god bless their little souls). It is as if they got a general email title "we live in a republic - now go tell everybody about it!!!" (I just posted a video about RP supporters stealing delegates in NV - so I got my fair share of RP remarks - LOL).
Keep it up my friend, and take care...
Cheers
richprince78 3 years ago
voted for you today 30 times to try to make up for the days when I was on the road. :) good luck in the challenge. There's a new video up today! Nice haircut:)
0c4pnh4nk 3 years ago
you always enlighten me. i love watching your videos. oh and i i've been voting for you. good luck
magaliaa 3 years ago
Oh, and I hate fast food...lol
combustication07 3 years ago
NOOOO YOUR HAIR!!! lol.... fine... it will grow back! :)
Great video, I loved it. You should teach. And I loved the ball and the three legged dog..lol.
combustication07 3 years ago
Once again, well done. Love that analogy. Politics in general is a three-legged dog!
dTLTb 3 years ago
I think you're misstating the purpose of the electoral college. The framers of the constitution were concerned over whether the states should have representation based on population, or simply statehood. This was simply a concern that the more populous states could come to dominate the others. The Great Compromise solved this by creating a bicameral legislature. It was then extended to the executive branch through the electoral college. It still prevents domination by the populous states.
LKDisney 3 years ago
You referenced a supreme court decision a few years ago that expanded the power of eminent domain. This was Kelo v. New London and I disagree with your point. This ruling only expanded the power of the government to take private land under eminent domain for private purposes. That is not communism, it's private use.
LKDisney 3 years ago
That's true, the eminent domain expansion regarded making private use of the land. But I guess the fact that it ends up in private hands is less central in my thinking than the fact that you can see your land appropriated for less of a cause than you may have thought.
If the private destination eliminates communism, does this change correlate to any other school of thought?
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Great Video - That is a cool ball, I kinda want one. I keep voting.... 60 votes a day... but I guess I'm not doing enough!!
And as for Stephen Colbert, he is very good at it, and does it a whole lot, I just never knew the term for what he was doing!
DaveTVilleneuve 3 years ago
Wow your so keen about government. That's a good thing. 5 stars!
JesseQuintana 3 years ago
I live in one of two counties in MD that vote Republican year in and year out. MD is a blue state and with the electoral college if I vote Republican then my vote kind of doesn't count. But that doesn't mean I won't take my privilege as an American to vote because I still do. I would like to see the electoral college go to make my vote seem more useful.
bloib 3 years ago
However I agree that it is set in place so the president isn't elected by the numbers of a few big states because my vote would still seem less useful.
thanks for blowing my mind.....
Off to vote.....
bloib 3 years ago
Two points of disagreement:
1) The Electoral College was designed as a "bank shot" in order to prevent "mob rule" (the Founding Fathers didn't believe in direct democracy at all).
2) America went to war on what happened on 9/11, and not some obscure reason. The problem was that in our anger, people manipulated the situation for some experiment based upon the neo-conservative ideal. THAT was the problem, which gives meaning to the pharase, "Who Watches the Watchers?" We didn't, & this happens.
dswynne 3 years ago 2
Thanks, dswynne.
Both of your points are right, so sorry I left you with the impression I felt differently.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Hey, no problem. It just irks me that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, NO BODY asked the important questions about a long term strategy, or even whether we should invade at all. Even assuming that Saddam had "significant" quantities of WMDs, is that enough to justify more than six years of occupation that was started simply b/c Bush was mad at Chirac for not putting pressure on Saddam the way Bush wanted. Shameful.
dswynne 3 years ago
dswynne: (1) I make this argument: the stage was set by all the decades post ww2. The corporate sector, with its global economic expansionism, and the MI complex, have coalesced into an increasingly influential power in determining gov't decisions. With TV, corporate funding became essential to political survival, so politicians needed to cooperate. The corporate sector was going to win big in any war, esp one financed by foreign purchases of gov't issued debt instruments.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
dswynne: (2) As to Iraq, big decisions are made by internal coalitions: in this case a combination of neo-cons, big oil, the earlier humiliation at the hands of Saddam, and who knows what other factors, plus a bunch of groupthink due to Bush's persuasiveness and Rove's ability to pull the levers of power, and you've got yourself a war. I doubt whether the possibility of danger from Saddam Hussein was even seriously considered. They were talking about Iraq even before 9/11.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
my mind is blown.
well done sir.
WhoRadley 3 years ago
good spiel champ, i've only become interested in this type of thing recently and you laid out the interactions nice and clearly.
do you have any vids explaining this delegate v superdelegate biz? i'm an aussie and i've half got my head around it, but it'd be good to hear your take on it
kahnicles 3 years ago
Thanks, kahnicles. There are two types of delegates. Pledged delegates are elected in the primaries to support a specific candidate, and superdelegates are VIP's in the party who can make up their own mind.
You need half of the total delegates to get the nomination. There are a lot more pledged than super, but Barack's margin of 150 pledged is too small to get to the halfway point, so he will need superdelegates to push him over.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Cheers Joe ;)
but what about this business whereby the pledged delegates are meant to vote according to their pledge but can actually do whatever they want on the day? is that true?
how do they monitor it? is it known on the day who votes for whom?
and i heard a littly while back that obama went and culled a whole bunch of his pledged delegates. does he get to replace them with more reliable people, or does that trim his margin/risk?
kahnicles 3 years ago
probably not true, but it sounds like you're just bitter (haha) about the 2000 election. It seems like the only one's who want to change the electoral system are democrats.
thegreenskies 3 years ago
Hmm. Bitter? How so?
I don't see where anything he said could be construed as bitter. =\
sweaverit 3 years ago
I'm not personally emotional about it, but it was definitely a mess. I think you'll find a lot of non-Democrats in non-swing states who are pissed off that their opinions aren't valued. And I bet there are plenty of Democrats in swing states who think it's just dandy.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Thanks, guys. This video is pretty all over the place, which is how I feel right now at the end of the whole competition thing. Win or lose, it'll be nice to put these weeks behind me.
I can't imagine how it must feel to campaign for a year, asking people for help every day. I have to respect politicians more for that.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
that did blow my mind
jsquared91 3 years ago
The O_O was my initial reaction to your new do. (Which I love, by the way.)
As for the rest of the video, couldn't agree with you more. I've thought of the "recipe" as fast food for a while now. *chuckles* And yes, our democracy is an effed up 3-legged dog.
Bravo.
sweaverit 3 years ago
Awesome hair cut
Pentagram133 3 years ago
I'm so glad you can say what I think. I posted some new vids of the 'trip' we're stuck in Winnipeg after some car troubles.
0c4pnh4nk 3 years ago
O_O
sweaverit 3 years ago
I think you are mudding up the ideologies there.
The US is a representative democracy (you elect a representative for the legislative branch) and a democratic republic (you elect a president for the executive branch). In a direct democracy you would vote on issues directly.
I don't think you are "partly" direct democracy if you vote on some issues. Like you aren't capitalist just 'cus you have a market economy.
An apple with a worm in it is not a worm.
kkirT 3 years ago
Fair and appreciated, kkirT.
To use your analogy, I'd argue that an apple with a worm is partly worm.
But it sounds like you're saying that direct democracy doesn't exist unless it exists alone. Is that right?
Also, market economy plus what equals capitalism? Private ownership?
Thanks
JoeFelice 3 years ago
That's pretty much what I meant. Some ideologies are exclusive. You are right in that many of the things people call America are not exclusive though.
I'm no authority on capitalism, but I would say if there are public companies in the market place it's socialism rather than capitalism.
I guess I see problems both ways. Calling the US socialist is not true, calling it capitalist is not true, but it does incorporate ideas from both ideologies.
Democracy - to make everyone equally unhappy.
kkirT 3 years ago
I always have hated the false dichotomies that are set up to tell us how to behave. I tend to see that the answer usually lies between what is presented for our "convenience."
I have heard the view usnationalist has about the electoral college. I have also heard that its original purpose was to prevent uninformed people from electing a bad president. But I would think usnationalist's view is closer to the truth.
greendracobob 3 years ago
I agree that we should get rid of the electoral college. I know a good amount of people who decide it's not worth their time to vote democrat in a state that'll be Republican or vice versa. I haven't done the math, but I think in representative count on really small states like Wisconsin gives more power per vote to people in Wisconsin than California or New York.
nasanerd33 3 years ago
correction: I meant Montana not Wisconsin. sorry
nasanerd33 3 years ago
The biggest discrepancy is 700,000 Texans per electoral vote, versus 175,000 Wyomingites. That's four times more power.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
THe framers of the the Constitution put a lot of thought into this: Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That's why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. If we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. I don't think we're ready to rid ourselves of our bicameral system.
BlueStarMom43 3 years ago
I like how you make it all so clear. thanks joe
SirChadwic 3 years ago
I liked the recipe thing you talked about.
But I totally disagree about the electoral college. It helps balance the rights of the states. As opposed to letting one state with 51% of the nations population dictate the politics for the other 49.
Probably a fundamental difference I have with a lot of people is the notion that we are 50 states combined into a union. Not one federal government with 50 territories. My own guilty pleasure of Idealism. heh. John C. Calhoun is one of my heroes.
usnationalist 3 years ago
That is indeed a rare point of view, and a good defense of why we have this system.
JoeFelice 3 years ago
precisely
BlueStarMom43 3 years ago
usnation: The ideal of a "multiplicity of interests," i.e., a ton of overlapping factions that will act as a counterweight to the growth of a single tyrannical faction, was overcome by the fear that led to the Iraq war. More properly, 9/11 created enough fear so that Iraq seemed plausible. The fear defeated the overlapping interests of a concurrent majority. Of course, had it been legitimate, then it would have worked out, I suppose. Calhoun's idea of concurrent majority is a beautiful thing.
nicholas9999 3 years ago