Are Republics a superior type of government to Democracies?

What's the difference (not being rhetorical here)

I know republics have some stuff enshrined in hard to remove ways, namely so hysterical, over emotional idiots can't just have shit they don't like removed on a whim after something happens (ie: gun bans)

Elected officials who vote on laws vs citizens directly voting on laws. The problem being that in both situations citizens fuck things up because people are retarded. Monarchy master race

Democracies are majority rules. Republics find a balance between majority rules and minority rights by systematically limiting the power of the majority in some areas like elections and allowing it in others like the lawmaking process

My point exactly, you think that whether or not the US is a republic or a democracy has any impact at all on the legitimacy of either the republicans or democrats as the party of government because of the arrangement of letters that form their party names

Attached: EF854676-E566-4012-AC5E-024E7402B6EE.jpg (521x589, 27K)

There are no big differences.
The USA is a Democratic republic.

>muh roads

A republic is obviously simply one form of democracy within a larger category of different forms of democracies. Australian is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy, but it is still a democracy, like the United States, which is a republic.

I'm sure it's better that Jamal has the right to vote, amirite guys? You also didn't address monarchy. All government forms require an unchecked populace. Hence why (((USA))) is so shit right and has been for many, many years

That was supposed to read "uncucked"... " unchecked" is the opposite of what we want

Articles of Impeachment require 2/3 House Majority and same with Senate, pretty democratic desu desu, also enjoy having a tyranny of the majority if the ruler the majority votes in does something egregious and you can't boot him out because "lul break democracy"

>I've noticed this weird thing with my lib friends recently that now insist there's no difference between a republic and a democracy.
A large amount of people (specifically leftist) also don't understand the difference between Authoritarian vs. Totalitarian, Libertarian vs. Anarchy, Free Markets vs. Corporatism, Socialism vs. Communism, Socialism vs. Fascism (right-wingers are guilty of this one), Fascism vs. Neo-Conservatism, Morality vs. Ethics, etc. One of the first things I do when someone tries to talk politics with me is ask them what the difference is between democrats and republicans and if they can't answer I don't speak politics with them (the vast majority of people can't and support their chosen side because of tribalism).

Pro tip;
>Democrats: Rule by the people.
>Republicans: Rule by the law.

>They cite the dictionary definition for republic saying it just means "a political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president."
You should cite the fact that National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union were all republics and anti-democratic.

>They all started saying it on their own. Anyone know where this weird memetic reprogramming first occurred? I'm assuming an article in the Vox or Axios or something like that.
No memetic reprogramming happened at all, it's just the vast majority of people are uniformed about politics (especially progressives) and speak out their ass.

>I'm sure it's better that Jamal has the right to vote, amirite guys?
Or... no one could vote?

Attached: My Ancestors Are Smiling Upon Me.jpg (480x360, 27K)

Not Democratic really.
Remember, he was elected desu.
I don't really trust pure/direct democracy by the way, just saying, everyone taking part in the ideologic game has to play by the rules it propagates/&abides with.

The point of a Republic is to find a balance between tyranny and mob rule. There is a strong executive and a legislature but they are elected separately from each other. The election process of the executive is not democratic because the fear is that the mob might select a radical populist leader that could become a tyrant. The legislature IS elected through a democratic process so the people can be properly represented. The point is that the system of a Republic is stable and balanced.

In a plain democracy the changing whims of the populace could unhinge the entire system of government with one election. This could lead to a fascist, communist, or any other type of government. Republics may be less democratic but by limiting the power of the people in some areas they ensure protection of the democratic rights that they do have for a longer period of time than a true "democracy" which could vote in dictators.

Attached: 1424394624655.jpg (637x826, 119K)

The best form of government is no government. I should be able to kidnap as many white girls as I please, get them hooked on the drugs I brought in, and make porn and prostitute them out.

I literally said monarchy is better than democracy. Wtf is your problem. I tiered the Democratic systems (worst to best): direct - republic - agrarian direct.
I am in no-way supporting democracy and would love to it, along with every shitskin, burn

I believe the representative Democratic-Republic created by our founding fathers is the best form of governance ever created in the 3rd millennium. Are their superior forms of government? Of course, but we've yet to see it. And yes, I'm aware it was thoroughly exploited by the 20th century, but at it's core, Federalism truly is the perfect mix of individual state sovereignty and a centralized executive power. I'm hoping that one day we can see our Republic restored to it's former glory. It's a fool's hope, but a righteous one nonetheless.

Attached: Angel_of_Liberty1.jpg (3726x2461, 1.41M)

Uh, no. Semi autonomous empires with a strong central military are much better. This country has been cucked since conception

>I literally said monarchy is better than democracy. Wtf is your problem.
I'm not arguing with you, I am agreeing with you, you dumb bitch.

Yes. Republics are superior to democracies. Watch this, though: youtube.com/watch?v=rgUs5wtXgL4

Nothing pure in politics works.

An interesting take. My view is that corporations like Koch Industries deliberately push this "America is not a Democracy" tripe on tea party dimwits to enhance their legal fiction personhood while diminishing the voter's attachment to his government.

America is a Constitutional republic AND a representative democracy. The US Constitution establishes America's form of government a republic and the US Constitution establishes America's type of governance a representative democracy.

There are 3 distinct democratic institutions established in our Constitution.
--the direct democratic election of District Representatives
--the State legislatures' democratic election of Senators (now the direct election of them,)
--the really indirect democratic selection of electors to the Electoral College to elect the President and Vice President

The "People" of the serveral states are assigned this right in Article I:
>"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the People of the several states..."
Anyone with the reading comprehension of a 9th grader can see very clearly that the founding fathers created a republic and at the same time crafted the representative democracy need to sustain it.

I know why corporations do this. The weaker they make the electorate believe their authority is, the stronger their artificial personhood becomes. The question I have is this: How could a legal fiction fool a natural person into surrendering his inalienable right to exercise his natural authority over his government?

Attached: 43952362.jpg (400x385, 47K)

>they wanted to break democracy by calling for impeachment.
The Republicans were calling for Hillary's impeachment when she was a private citizen. I mean, why wait until the last minute, right?

>This country has been cucked since conception
I'm gonna disagree. I think we became cucked after Lincoln's assassination allowed our gov't backed currency (greenbacks) were discontinued and private banks were re-allowed
to issue our currency. I'm interested why you think that though, so if you wanna elaborate I'm all ears. same with
>Semi autonomous empires with a strong central military are much better.

Washington's fault for not keeping Hamilton in check. Hamilton is to blame for literally all of that.

A private citizen, impeached?

Indeed

Attached: CzTO4BwUkAAg71N.jpg (937x1200, 229K)

Basically democracy is for a country without a strong race that can produce strong leaders. It is so easily exploitable, and falls so easily to "morality" that it becomes not about acting in our best interest (removing Jude) but instead doing what's right (taking in migrants). Also, importing Africans from the get-go was a monumental mistake that pretty much sealed the deal. It's funny that you say we became shit after Lincoln, but it was he who imposed federal power over the states. There basically are no states rights any more. We have a government with the power of an absolute Monarchy but with a single figure-head who can actually make decisions in a timely fashion. No system is infallible, but democracy is shit. The only branch I like is the Supreme Court, so I think they got that pretty good.
An empire headed by one ultimate authority, supported by lesser lords (who know how to treat their people better than a central figure) just sounds a bit better desu

* but without a single figure-head. Sorry

Mainstream Republicans at that:
nationalreview.com/2016/09/impeach-hillary-clinton-congress-has-power-do-it/

Attached: Picardía_USA_193287849092.jpg (640x640, 77K)

Well, I got thoughtful when you replied.
It seems like she'll be impeached as to illegal stuff she might did when in office.
That won't stop her from being a democratically elected president - if she won.
Non-relatable, though, you're skeptical, which is good.

and you call u the racists LOL

us*

It's the same thing dumbass

If you want non-democratic republics you have to go to the third world or go back in time to say the Venetian merchant republic

Spot on

Jfc that's a genuinely good argument, am I on the right board?
>It's funny that you say we became shit after Lincoln, but it was he who imposed federal power over the states.
I'm with you 100%, the only reason I reference Lincoln positively for his issuance of United States notes, which neutered the (((central banks))) because they could not impose loan debts on the Union for war costs. I also believe that if Abe made good on his promise to deport former slaves back to Africa, we would be in an immeasurably better state than we are now. A Federalist gov't's homogeneity is paramount to it's success, just like you said.

Who's the racist? Being racist is a good thing

You are fully aware that they Republics, are the way to institute government.

Not if you want votes.

Attached: 1533910233527.png (1000x878, 744K)

What's the difference? Both are bad.

lets just have a fucking capitalist regime, and the most autistic Jow Forums user becomes dictator for a few years.

Mob rule would've avoided our entry WW1 and WW2 and the 1965 immigration act lel. This nonsense about "hurr, the people r 2 dum" is nonsense that merchants tell you so that you can elect representatives that they can purchase.

So in otherwords, A Jew?

Don't get me wrong, this country was founded on a noble idea. However, that idea was too delicate and biased towards civility. It makes sense, considering when it was form, around the Enlightenment and all. Egalitarianism was the biggest mistake of all time, and unfortunately is what is country has enshrined in its Constitution. Congress is a disaster, but I understand why they did what they did, and the Presidency is a joke. I also agree that if Abe deported Africans, we'd be a lot better off, but ultimately he pissed too many people off and paid the price. A national Bank would also help, but kikes hate that in any country (see nazi Germany).

You can have undemocratic republics (communism, fascist dictatorships, etc.). A republic is literally any country where the country itself is a public matter rather than a private one. This doesn't require any voting at all as long as the leader treats the country in that way.

"Pro tip;"
>Democrats: Rule by the people.
>Republicans: Rule by the law.

HAHAHAHAHA

Democrats: gibs for minorities
Republicans: gibs for old white boomers and military.

Awareness check fren. Mass shootings; all of them are, insurgency operations, i.e staged.

Depends. Is your nation supermajority monoethnic? Then democracy. "Diverse"? Republic.

There are nuances on things like constitutional rights between the two. Republics are alot more rigid while pure democracies can change whatever as long as the majority wills it.

Diverse countries need a strong arm dictator.

Republics and democracies with universal male suffrage or more need a moral people.

Personally I'd restrict voting rights to married people only.