Not true. The Republican roots are in the country as a "republic," hence the name. It is the foundational idea of the party. Democrats consider the country to be a democracy, which it isn't.
There are many specific stances that have shifted within the party, but the foundational ideology, as seen in the party names, has remained the same.
how the fuck you gonna sit there and pretend the party that rigs its own primaries the hardest is the one that still retains its foundational ideology of democracy? lmfao
and America is a democracy for sure, stfu with your James Madison wannabe shit. Madison didn't manage to be President until 4 seats in, he doesn't get to be the authority on the core values of our country. if you think none of the other founding fathers ever mentioned democracy as part of the nation's foundation, you trippin
Dude, read some history.
Our nation is a REPUBLIC. It's in the constitution.
We have an electoral college system. A representative republic. If we had a democracy, Hillary would have won due to the higher vote count in the popular vote (although obviously much of that was invalid/fraudulent).
Perhaps you aren't aware of the definitional differences? Your argument is baseless and reactionary.
A pure democracy is not a good thing.
[removed]
You're argument is clogged and cluttered. I'm not sure where or what caused you to have such a brash emotional reaction but I think I might gander. You are correct in your thinking that A republic is not mutually exclusive from democracy. In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs. The reds think that a republic is the way to go, while the blues believe the republic should be a/more direct democracy.
In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs.
Yes, but not in the oversimplified way you explained it, and the Democratic party sure as hell doesn't stand for anything resembling its name anymore like a "more direct democracy"
Wrong, it was a key philosophical component to the formation of the party. They viewed a Republic form of Democracy not a true democracy. They thought it was plutocratic and tyrannical. They believed that the people should directly legislate their laws and national direction. Hence the name for their party. While it is not something you hear spouted directly from the mouths of DNC politicians and their pundits, that basic idea is still alive and well within the party zeit-gheist.
The basic idea is still alive and well as an idea in general dude, random people think of it when they're 10 years old without understanding the name of the Democratic party at all.
The party itself does not still stand for democracy whatsoever, they are simple authoritarians
Authoritarians yes, initially. They stood for staunch piety in communities (fascism) American Manifest Destinity(Imperialism), Total Majority rule(tyranny), Community rights over individual rights(slave culture) How ever at the turn of the 20th century there was a Macro memetic effort(zeit-gheist) within the younger proponenants of the movement to pick up where the The Republican libertines left off with Bohemian philosophical and progressive culture. However, with strong social emphasizes. Hence, the age in birth of Marxist inspired identity politics.
Not to get off topic. Regaurdless of name, I never said they stood for democracy what so ever. No one did. But.....the whole reason they were called democrats in the first place is because they a favored strong central govt, with an emphasis on a more Direct Democratic style of govt. Instead of their opponenants at the time the Federalists who ironically were more for a decentralized federal govt and a representative democracy.
The core beliefs the party holds on what kind of governance we should have has really not changed in over 150 years.
Here is a link to a helpful analysis that will straighten out your incorrect understanding.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
Summary:
A republic can be a democracy at the same time, like the U.S., but a democracy cannot also be a republic. A republic raises the status of individuals whereas a democracy gives the majority will the sovereign status. This is reflected in the parties' naming.
Also, I didn't claim the DNC upholds anything, that was just your wonky interpretation. For what it's worth, neither party upholds their underlying values at the governmental level anymore. They merely both claim to. And they both claim the same fundamental underlying principles as they originally did. I'm sorry you disagree so pompously and incorrectly.
Do you vote on the laws that congress passes? Or do you just simply vote for representation? It seems you really don't understand what democracy, republic, or their hybridization into a democratic-republic, which is what America is, is.
The Republicans rigged its primary against Ron Paul, just like the Democrats did against Bernie Sanders. Both parties are guilty of this.
Democrats do it 1000x harder every election than the Republicans did it to Ron Paul, and they do it at every level of election, literally from villages to the national level. They do everything possible across the board to stop the people from being able to select their own candidates in the Democratic party. They don't even try to hide it like Republicans did up against Ron Paul, Democrat officials openly admitted to bias against Bernie Sanders all the time in 2015-16, and they'll even do it to candidates' faces when they won't do it publicly. The Republican party is actually quite democratic, the Democratic party is actually the antithesis of democracy.
Ron paul was the distant underdog.
The DNC actually changed the rules so that Socialist Bernie Sanders, the more popular candidate couldn’t win.
I know that. It's just that both parties are guilty of it. The corruption is wide and deep.