Not like it has to be one or the other, the terms have some overlap. The United States is both a representative democracy, because nearly all citizens have equal votes for representatives, and a republic.
It's a democratic republic, meaning that we choose the people who decide on laws. When they say democracy I'm sure they're referencing a true democracy, where we would all be voting on each individual law rather than leaving it up to the representatives.
I guarantee you that if it were in fact a direct democracy, things would probably be fucked up even worse. Do you actually want to place trust in the bible-belt to vote on laws? At least in a representative democracy, the votes are cast by people with an education. I'll take corruption over stupidity, thanks.
Definitely wasn't advocating for a true democracy, not sure where you got that idea from. There is no way it would work on this large scale, and politics are a lot more complicated now than in ancient Greece. I was simply explaining the different terms.
Sorry, it just came off as a little aggressive to me. But yeah I agree, true democracy would be terrible. People have issues getting to presidential elections every four years, imagine trying to get them to vote every month. Plus nobody would understand the bills, lobbying would hit a whole new scale, just terrible all throughout.
Dont confuse the poor reditors... They are a fragile bunch ...reditors believe in almost everything Rand Paul believes in but since he is a R they won't vote for him. They will vote for Hillary. Got to love the reddit generation.
I think it's funny that Iraq refused to follow our political model. I'd much rather have many political parties like England or Israel and at the end they need to form a coalition.
Look at history and the political parties used to change as the times changed. In the last hundred years people have gotten complacent with what they're used to they don't demand anything from their representatives anymore. Our Andrew Jackson who said fuck the federal bank and that was the last time America owned is own money, the day America died was when he left office.
As someone not from the US I had to google him, but if the wikipedia page on him is accurate...what are you on about?
100% pro life, same sex marriage offends him (though he wants states to decide individually, not a federal ban), no legalization of recreational drugs, opposes all forms of gun control, wants to raise the defense budget and thinks that states should not require parents to vaccinate their children.
The only things I can see that align with the average redditors views are that medical marijuana should be legal and removing mandatory minimums...
you know, until they don't do what they said they would do, and then we can always not vote for them the next time but by then it's too late because whatever they voted for that we didn't agree with is already written into law
Rand's good on this issue. Not exactly waving my pom-poms about him on essentially any other. He's still a socially conservative Christian who'll do stuff like support anti-vaxxers.
He doesn't want the government to mandate vaccinations. He's "supporting" anti-vaxxers by not forcing potentially harmful medical procedures on their children.
Not all vaccinations are safe, nor are they all unsafe. I'd rather leave it up to the parents, too.
"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," sounds pretty goddamn causative to me.
Rand Paul believes that it's immoral to force vaccination upon people. What if the government wanted to mandate circumcision?
Not the same thing. The government has a legitimate and compelling interest in public health as an extension of its basic function to safeguard the safety of its public. I don't think anyone would seriously take issue with quarantining someone who has smallpox against their will, for example. Vaccinations are essentially the same thing. Unvaccinated individuals are a threat to the public, not just to themselves.
If that sounds causative to you, you're part of the problem. He's clearly stating a correlation, which, while it does not indicate cause, is enough to leave it up to individuals. If he thought vaccines caused mental disorders, he wouldn't vaccinate himself.
In the case of a serious emergency, mandatory vaccination might be called for, like martial law. I wouldn't want either to be common practice.
America would have lower disease rates if everyone vaccinated. In fact, I've argued that point before on Reddit. We could also ban alcohol, cigarettes, and soda. You have to weigh individual rights against possible benefits.
In the case of a serious emergency, mandatory vaccination might be called for, like martial law.
Vaccine-moderated immunity is responsible for the eradication of a dozen or so extremely dangerous and often fatal diseases from the United States.
An outbreak of Polio in 1952, for example, sickened 58,000 people and killed 3,145. If that Polio outbreak had been a hurricane, it would have been the second deadliest in U.S. history, with a death toll of two and a half Katrinas. There are no longer such outbreaks, as a direct result of mandatory vaccination. If we could, at little cost and virtually zero risk, prevent a major hurricane from striking the coast every year, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest not doing so or that it is outside the purview of the government.
The problem with that is, if the security apparatus wants a law passed they can just blackmail the legislature. Generally speaking people who can't be blackmailed don't go into politics.
160
u/Chel_of_the_sea Jun 01 '15
We voted in the guys who passed it. And some of the guys who just smacked it down. Vote in the next Wyden in your state.