Citizens Petition White House

[clavile]

This is rather interesting...

What do ya'll think?

Personally, I think a big deal is being made out of it. But then again, it's interesting to see that citizens of the U.S. are doing this.

[oxy60]

They had their chance, it's called an election! What is it that people don't understand about a democracy.

[j_menz]

it's interesting to see that citizens of the U.S. are doing this.

A concocted effort by some tiny group of whackos is not an action by "citizens of the US". Recognise it for what it is.

[Bob]

*secede

Haha.  Good luck with that.  Only 24,000 more pettitions to go?  Sure.  Haha


Freedom of speech... Makes it easier to tell who the idiots are.


I would guess it's more of a statement than actual people wanting to secede.

Hmm... Those links don't work.  Obviously a government conspiracy.  And they'll know I clicked on them now. 

It would be interesting.  Just let one, like Arkansas maybe.  Then see how much they like that in reality. 

[clavile]

*secede

Haha.  Good luck with that.  Only 24,000 more pettitions to go?  Sure.  Haha


Freedom of speech... Makes it easier to tell who the idiots are.


I would guess it's more of a statement than actual people wanting to secede.

Hmm... Those links don't work.  Obviously a government conspiracy.  And they'll know I clicked on them now. 

It would be interesting.  Just let one, like Arkansas maybe.  Then see how much they like that in reality. 

Yeah. There's no way it could happen without another Civil War. Good luck fighting against the federal government, and then, good luck surviving by themselves. The only one that would have a chance to make it is Texas.

All it is is a mass protest made by the people who DIDN'T vote for Obama.

+1 for Freedom of Speech!

[j_menz]

The only one that would have a chance to make it is Texas.

Not necessarily, a number of States would in fact be financially better of, though economies of scale may come into play.

You might find the linkes (short) article interesting on the subject:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

[clavile]

For now, It's definitely better to stay joined with the U.S.

[Bob]

Haha.  Sometime in the near future.... The entire U.S. secedes from itself, wiping out the national debt.  Maybe just change the name a little... Unified States of America. Change it back later. 

Why just one state?  What's the point in that?

If a state did secede, would it get it's own portion of the debt too?

[j_menz]

Haha.  Sometime in the near future.... The entire U.S. secedes from itself, wiping out the national debt.  Maybe just change the name a little... Unified States of America. Change it back later. 

That would only work if the "Unified States of America" didn't need to borrow money from anyone.  Not looking likely for some time, that.

If a state did secede, would it get it's own portion of the debt too?

The breakup of the Soviet Union provides a model of how this usually works or, on a more modest scale, the seperation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

[clavile]

It's not going to happen. The only state that has the right to secede (if we even ever wanted to) is Texas.

[j_menz]

The only state that has the right to secede (if we even ever wanted to) is Texas.

I'm afraid that's just a myth. See Texas v. White 74 US 700 (1869)

[clavile]

I found this: https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49800184/ns/local_news-dallas_fort_worth_tx/#.UKKIdIbe8_g

And this: https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/question11.html

Which are in agreement with what you said.

Do I think that not having the right to secede is unconstitutional? I suppose not, since we passed up our rights to it when we signed back in with the Union.

Do I think what Obama is doing is unconstitutional? YES. Does it go against the Texas Constitution? Yes. I'd gladly sign my name on that petition, whether it meant anything or not.

[j_menz]

Do I think what Obama is doing is unconstitutional? YES.

Surely that is for your Supreme Court to decide.

Does it go against the Texas Constitution? Yes.

As President (and a non texan) he is not subject to your state constitution.

I'd gladly sign my name on that petition, whether it meant anything or not.

Interestingly, in order to sign the petition you do not need to be a resident of the state concerned. Do you know whether it's texans who are wanting to secede or others who are wanting to eject you? 

[Bob]

The breakup of the Soviet Union provides a model of how this usually works or, on a more modest scale, the seperation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

What did they do?  With the debt if they had any or anything like that.

[j_menz]

What did they do?  With the debt if they had any or anything like that.

Russia agreed to take over the whole debt on the condition that the foreign assets of the Soviet Union were to accrue to it.

With the breakup of Czechoslovakia, the small amount of debt was split in a manner agreed between them.

The breakup of Yugoslavia was somewhat messier in this regard (and many others).

There's an interesting article on what was done in these cases, and the aftermath, here:

https://www.hnb.hr/dub-konf/7-konferencija-radovi/ricardo%20lago-debt-in-transition%20.pdf

[clavile]

Surely that is for your Supreme Court to decide.

No, it is not for the Supreme Court to decide. Whatever goes against the Constitution is unconstitutional.

And people are beginning to become angry.

As President (and a non texan) he is not subject to your state constitution.

He is supposed to respect and follow the rules of the Constitution, and recognize the Texas Constitution.

Interestingly, in order to sign the petition you do not need to be a resident of the state concerned. Do you know whether it's texans who are wanting to secede or others who are wanting to eject you? 

The majority of those signing it are Texans. Believe it or not, people in this country like Texans. It seems many places you go people say "Oh you're Texan?!! That's awesome!"

Probably one of the only people that doesn't like Texas is Obama. =P

[j_menz]

No, it is not for the Supreme Court to decide. Whatever goes against the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Article 3 of your Constitution appoints the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and what isn't constitutional.

He is supposed to respect and follow the rules of the Constitution, and recognize the Texas Constitution.

Recognition is not the same thing as being subject to.

The majority of those signing it are Texans. .

How do you know?  That's the trouble with online petitions. Hey, I signed to have Rhode Island thrown out. 

Believe it or not, people in this country like Texans. It seems many places you go people say "Oh you're Texan?!! That's awesome!"

Perhaps because your rate of gun ownership (and proven willingness to use 'em) is so high. Same as people are generally polite to muggers.

[clavile]

Article 3 of your Constitution appoints the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and what isn't constitutional.

Recognition is not the same thing as being subject to.

How do you know?  That's the trouble with online petitions. Hey, I signed to have Rhode Island thrown out. 

Perhaps because your rate of gun ownership (and proven willingness to use 'em) is so high. Same as people are generally polite to muggers.

Just because they decide doesn't mean what they decide is Constitutional.

I didn't ever say he was subject to it. You said that.

How do I know? Because I've been checking the list of signatures all day to see if the majority signing them are Texans or not

Annnd that one made me laugh. "Muggers". No more muggers than Georgia, or Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, or the rest of the southern states. Not to mention Vermont in the north.

Contrary to what your belief seems to be, we don't go around shooting each other. Just because people own guns, and are ALLOWED to own them doesn't automatically make them inhumane.

[j_menz]

Just because they decide doesn't mean what they decide is Constitutional.

Do you even understand how this works??  Who, under the Constitution is a higher authority?

I didn't ever say he was subject to it. You said that.

You said that what he was doing was contrary to it. That is only intelligible if he is in some way supposed to fillow it, ie, is "subject to" it.  Im' sure a lot of what he does is contrary to the Saudi constitution, the Code of Canon Law and the teachings of Mao Zedung, but that is, likewise, not in point.

How do I know? Because I've been checking the list of signatures all day to see if the majority signing them are Texans or not

Texas is evidently a lot smaller than your publicity suggests.

Contrary to what your belief seems to be, we don't go around shooting each other. Just because people own guns, and are ALLOWED to own them doesn't automatically make them inhumane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_and_gun_control_in_Texas

It may not be "automatic", but you lot really do seem to have a habit of shooting one another compared to most of the rest of the world.

[clavile]

Do you even understand how this works??  Who, under the Constitution is a higher authority?


You said that what he was doing was contrary to it. That is only intelligible if he is in some way supposed to fillow it, ie, is "subject to" it.  Im' sure a lot of what he does is contrary to the Saudi constitution, the Code of Canon Law and the teachings of Mao Zedung, but that is, likewise, not in point.

Texas is evidently a lot smaller than your publicity suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_and_gun_control_in_Texas

It may not be "automatic", but you lot really do seem to have a habit of shooting one another compared to most of the rest of the world.

Do YOU even understand how it works?

"You" being CRIMINALS. You make it sound like everybody goes around shooting everybody, which isn't true.

People aren't in fear of Texans "mugging" them. That is so STUPID I can't even begin to say how stupid it is. Yes, it may have been sarcasm, but it's still stupid.

[outin]

Do you even understand how this works??  Who, under the Constitution is a higher authority?

Normal people usually do not understand how the law works, the lawyers live in a different world. People assume that the law is a fact and dictates what is done. If they understood they would probably get depressed....

[j_menz]

"You" being CRIMINALS. You make it sound like everybody goes around shooting everybody, which isn't true.

If you are suggesting that I personally am a criminal, I strongly advise you to withdraw. I do not know whether or not criminal defamation is actionable in Texas, but it is here and you have crossed jurisdictional boundaries.

I did not suggest that all of you go around shooting everyone, merely that more of you go around shooting more other people than is normal in what is generally regarded as the civilised world.

[j_menz]

Normal people usually do not understand how the law works, the lawyers live in a different world. People assume that the law is a fact and dictates what is done. If they understood they would probably get depressed....

How, praytell, does that relate to the constitutionality of actions of the President of the United States?  I am under no illusions about the operation of the law in respect of the behaviour of the great unwashed, but in this particular instance, even given the juridical failings of the US Supreme Court, the law does in fact operate.

[outin]

How, praytell, does that relate to the constitutionality of actions of the President of the United States?  I am under no illusions about the operation of the law in respect of the behaviour of the great unwashed, but in this particular instance, even given the juridical failings of the US Supreme Court, the law does in fact operate.

I think I was unclear...I did not mean that it's a negative thing. That is the way it must be because it is impossible to write such laws that a higher authority is not needed. I just wanted to point out that many people cannot follow your explanations because of a fundamental misunderstanding about the legal processes.

[j_menz]

I think I was unclear...I did not mean that it's a negative thing. That is the way it must be because it is impossible to write such laws that a higher authority is not needed. I just wanted to point out that many people cannot follow your explanations because of a fundamental misunderstanding about the legal processes.

Ah. Cool. I think I misread your post.    Quite correct, though not sure about the depression.

[outin]

Ah. Cool. I think I misread your post.    Quite correct, though not sure about the depression.

Frustration maybe? Whatever you feel when your ideals are taken away from you 

[j_menz]

Frustration maybe? Whatever you feel when your ideals are taken away from you 

Ripped off?  I got a good price for my ideals cause I sold 'em young. 

Morals and Principles I held on to. Both have seen better days and are now decidedly bargain basement/shop soiled.

[oxy60]

I think I was unclear...I did not mean that it's a negative thing. That is the way it must be because it is impossible to write such laws that a higher authority is not needed. I just wanted to point out that many people cannot follow your explanations because of a fundamental misunderstanding about the legal processes.

All three branches of the US government are equal, Administrative, Judicial, and Legislative. What you see is a constant struggle for more power.  The US has an adversary system. This means that there is always a fight going on.

Can a state leave the Union? Well, Puerto Rico has held a couple of referendums and they decided to not join but continue their present status. Hawaii aand Alaska voted to join. Can the opposite be possible? We started with 13 grew to 48 and later to 50 states.

The southern half of California would be the fifth largest economy in the entire world if it were a country.

I can see the briefcases and tasseled loafers assembling in the wings...

[iansinclair]

I wasn't going to join in on this thing, as I dislike politics rather intensely.  However, a couple of points just need to be said, I think.

First, on guns.  A disclaimer: I own a small armory, and routinely carry; I live in an eastern US state.  That said, it is quite true, sadly, that criminals in the US do resort to firearms to intimidate their victims rather more than they do in some other countries.  And they do tend to kill each other with firearms rather more often than they do in some other countries.  That said, I feel no safer on the streets of Edinburgh (where I have lived) than I do on the streets of New York, knowing that in the one case most of the yobs carry knives, and in the other the thugs carry guns.  Bottom line: I know of no country where there is not a criminal class, and I know of no criminal class which does not have available some effective force multiplier.  Kindly do not cast stones, unless your country has no criminals with force multipliers...

On secession: may I remind people that the US had a little war on that about a century and a half ago?  Nasty.  However, it didn't, in fact, really settle the question.  I personally regard the present flurry of petitions as frivolous, but they do reflect a rather serious problem: some sections of the country have majority populations which see the role of government very differently from others, and the two visions are not easily compatible, if they are compatible at all.  I see no easy solution to this.  In terms of international relations, the separatist actions in the former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have been mentioned already.  Sudan has split.  There is an active separatist movement in Scotland in the United Kingdom at the present time, as well as in Canada (Quebec vs. the rest).  In my humble opinion, the United States has done remarkably well over the years in staying together, thanks to its Federal system which really has to be studied deeply to be understood.  Whether it can continue to do so depends a good deal on maintaining that Federal system.  The European Union may be moving in the direction of a Federal system.

As to the supremacy of the United States Supreme Court.  The Court has ultimate authority in two areas: one, to determine whether a law is or is not in accordance with what the Constitution says.  They have considerable discretion in making that determination, and some Justices are more strict in following the exact written language than others.  The other area is in making the final determinaton on appeal whether a certain action is, or is not, in conformance with the law.  They are not supposed to write law; that is reserved to the legislature.  Unfortunately, there has been some blurring of the lines lately, with both the executive writing what amounts to law, in the form of regulations, and with courts writing law, in the form of "activist" interpretations extending existing law.  The clear separation, however, of the three powers is one of the real strengths of the US Constitution.

On being subject to various State's Constitutions and laws.  Although it can be hard to believe, one of the fundamental tenets of US law is that no one -- No One -- is above the local law.  If I, or anyone else, is physically in or doing business in some State -- let's say Iowa, as being a neutral sort of place -- I am subject to that State's law and Constitution.  That goes all the way up to the top.  The only exception of which I am aware is diplomats from other countries who can, and often do, claim diplomatic immunity to get away with assorted illegal actions (usually, it must be admitted, nothing worse than parking tickets in New York City...).

Can we all go back to thinking about music and pianos and art, instead, please?

[oxy60]

Thank you Ian for your elaboration. At the time of my post I thought the 1) all participants thus far were not from the US or 2) civics courses were no longer required to graduate from high school.

BTW I wanted to add a Taurus 410 pistol to my armory however, in California it can only be sold in the long barrel version. (5 shot revolver mixed loads) Beautiful but not very practical except on horse back with a saddle holster.

[j_menz]

On being subject to various State's Constitutions and laws.  Although it can be hard to believe, one of the fundamental tenets of US law is that no one -- No One -- is above the local law. 

Not true in the case of the President. The US recognises the doctrine of Presidential Immunity, most recently discussed, confirmed and abridged in Clinton v. Jones 520 US 681 (1997).

[iansinclair]

Not true in the case of the President. The US recognises the doctrine of Presidential Immunity, most recently discussed, confirmed and abridged in Clinton v. Jones 520 US 681 (1997).

Um.  Well, not quite: "Jones v. Clinton, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office."

You are correct, though, that the President -- and any other public official -- does have certain immunities under the common law doctrine of Sovereign Immunity for acts done when acting in his or her official capacity, in furtherance of his or her official duties.

[clavile]

If you are suggesting that I personally am a criminal, I strongly advise you to withdraw. I do not know whether or not criminal defamation is actionable in Texas, but it is here and you have crossed jurisdictional boundaries.

I did not suggest that all of you go around shooting everyone, merely that more of you go around shooting more other people than is normal in what is generally regarded as the civilised world.

First of all, you obviously missed my meaning behind "You"

You said this: "It may not be "automatic", but you lot really do seem to have a habit of shooting one another compared to most of the rest of the world."

I took the you from that statement, it representing Texans, and used it. I have no reason to call you a criminal.

Wow. "Civilized world". Let me guess. Where guns are taken away from the *law abiding citizens* and then the criminals who *break the law* and have *no qualms about breaking it to HAVE guns* are the only people who HAVE guns, thus leaving the law-abiding citizens with no protection, and open to criminal activity.

THAT sounds like a civilized world.

People in the U.S. can actually SHOOT the criminals who break into their houses, cars, or try to rape them. Many people in other countries CANNOT do this. I think I'd rather have the right to a gun in my hand than only a pair of scissors or a knife.

You obviously were taught a Communist or Socialist view. Maybe both!

I have been taught from a Democracy/Republic view.

This makes argument futile, as these are totally opposite views.

[outin]

You obviously were taught a Communist or Socialist view. Maybe both!

I have been taught from a Democracy/Republic view.

This makes argument futile, as these are totally opposite views.

If your views represent democracy, I am happy to announce myself as a communist! 

[j_menz]

People in the U.S. can actually SHOOT the criminals who break into their houses, cars, or try to rape them.

In the words of another famous Texan, how's that working out for you? The US hads one of the highest crime rates in the west.

You obviously were taught a Communist or Socialist view. Maybe both!

I have been taught from a Democracy/Republic view.

This makes argument futile, as these are totally opposite views.

I was actually taught a range of political systems (both real and theoretical) including communism and socialism, but also including democracy.  For the record, I am a democrat (in the broader sense, not the party affiliation).  What you have been "taught" from is a narrow US exceptionalist view, which has no theoretical or practical foundation.

[clavile]

In the words of another famous Texan, how's that working out for you? The US hads one of the highest crime rates in the west.

I was actually taught a range of political systems (both real and theoretical) including communism and socialism, but also including democracy.  For the record, I am a democrat (in the broader sense, not the party affiliation).  What you have been "taught" from is a narrow US exceptionalist view, which has no theoretical or practical foundation.

Its working out for me, because I know how to shoot a gun and protect myself.

Exactly as I said. You have a Communist/Socialist view, which looks down on Democracy/Republic views. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying it was exceptionalist, narrow, or impractical.

I could EASILY call Communism and Socialist views narrow and impractical.

[j_menz]

Exactly as I said. You have a Communist/Socialist view, which looks down on Democracy/Republic views. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying it was exceptionalist, narrow, or impractical.

I could EASILY call Communism and Socialist views narrow and impractical.

Did you even read what I said? You have clearly misinterpreted. I am not a communist, nor a socialist; though unlike you I do know what those systems are.

It is not democracy I called exceptional, narrow or impractical; what I said was that democracy is not limited to "what the US does", though, up to a point it includes it. US exceptionalism is a different doctrine, and it is that which I find obnoxious and silly.

[ajspiano]

This thread makes me sad for humans.

** suspects that some 'democrats' are actually more interested in having a totalitarian government that masquerades as a democracy.

...

Just going to throw this up..

democracy

Noun:   
1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
2. A state governed in such a way.

So, just to clarify.. claville, if you argue that your view is right and someone else's is wrong.. you do not have a democratic view.. you actually believe that your ideals (regardless of vote) should apply to all people.


authoritarian

Adjective:
Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

...

Now, our country - mine and J_menzs.. as a whole, favours the ideal that guns should be illegal. Thats democracy. Our personal view is one vote, and someone in your country who opposes your view is also just one vote. Someone who is opposed to your view is not un-democratic or wrong..   and if a majority is opposed to your view then thats not the communists/socialists taking over.. thats just democracy, doing its job - Acting on behalf of the majority vote.

[outin]

This thread makes me sad for humans.

It makes me sad because of the amount of ignorance... concepts are thrown to the conversation without any basic undestanding what they even mean. To make any sense of it would require writing an essay on politics, economics and philosophy. Which no-one would read and you would be back to square one 

[ajspiano]

Indeed, I'm probably guitly of that.. And could probably try reading and learning a bit more before posting..  And perhaps not post in a way that is partially motivated by the desire to troll.

[oxy60]

Now, our country - mine and J_menzs.. as a whole, favours the ideal that guns should be illegal. Thats democracy. Our personal view is one vote, and someone in your country who opposes your view is also just one vote. Someone who is opposed to your view is not un-democratic or wrong..   and if a majority is opposed to your view then thats not the communists/socialists taking over.. thats just democracy, doing its job - Acting on behalf of the majority vote.

Does your country have the possibility of a binding referendum? Can you gather enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot?

[ajspiano]

Does your country have the possibility of a binding referendum? Can you gather enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot?

Interesting question. We certainly have the option to go to referendum if enough people start making an issue out of it. I suspect it would more likely become an election issue though, rather than go to referendum mid term. I would suggest that the general lack of interest or discussion on the matter in some way represents that the majority are happy with the current laws too, though obviously there will be some people that are unhappy about it.

[outin]

Indeed, I'm probably guitly of that.. And could probably try reading and learning a bit more before posting..  And perhaps not post in a way that is partially motivated by the desire to troll.

Then again I did not find yours that bad...

[ajspiano]

Then again I did not find yours that bad...

I'm sure some of my posts are better than others..   Do you really think suggesting that claville has desire for a totalitarian regeme in the US is fair or close to reality? Even if there are certainly some large holes, and hypocrisy in her arguments..

[outin]

I'm sure some of my posts are better than others..   Do you really think suggesting that claville has desire for a totalitarian regeme in the US is fair or close to reality? Even if there are certainly some large holes, and hypocrisy in her arguments..

I have no problem with a little exaggeration or sarcasm or irony in a conversation...I am just a bit tired of people seriously trying to back up their claims by throwing out concepts that they obviously do not understand properly and which are mostly irrelevant to their arguments.

[clavile]

This thread makes me sad for humans.

** suspects that some 'democrats' are actually more interested in having a totalitarian government that masquerades as a democracy.

...

Just going to throw this up..

democracy

Noun:   
1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
2. A state governed in such a way.

So, just to clarify.. claville, if you argue that your view is right and someone else's is wrong.. you do not have a democratic view.. you actually believe that your ideals (regardless of vote) should apply to all people.


authoritarian

Adjective:
Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

...

Now, our country - mine and J_menzs.. as a whole, favours the ideal that guns should be illegal. Thats democracy. Our personal view is one vote, and someone in your country who opposes your view is also just one vote. Someone who is opposed to your view is not un-democratic or wrong..   and if a majority is opposed to your view then thats not the communists/socialists taking over.. thats just democracy, doing its job - Acting on behalf of the majority vote.

I don't expect what I believe to apply everywhere and to everybody, and I don't  mean that just because J_menz and you disagree with me that you're Communist or Socialist. Your VIEW on politics seems to be Communist/Socialist. There are plenty of Republicans who don't agree with everything I believe, and I still call them Republicans.

And America isn't actually a Democracy. We're just a Republic that's shifted more towards Democracy.

Do I think it would be better for other countries to be Republics? Yes, but I'm not going to become a dictator and make everybody miserable while forcing them to become a Republic. I believe it is good to try to influence, but not to force.

How would I like it if somebody came to my doorstep and told me I couldn't be Republican nor express my views? It would be infuriating! In the same way, I would not do something like that to any Democrat, Liberal, Communist, or Socialist. It would be violating Constitutional rights, and going against my political beliefs.

[ajspiano]

If we are going to shove me in a pigeon hole, - as someone who owns/runs more than 1 business I'm rather more of a capitalist..

And you shouldnt make such ridiculous assumptions about people you don't know...

Feel few to point out anything I've said that makes my view one of a socialist/communist.. And perhaps reference your chosen definition of those terms.

[clavile]

If we are going to shove me in a pigeon hole, - as someone who owns/runs more than 1 business I'm rather more of a capitalist..

And you shouldnt make such ridiculous assumptions about people you don't know...

Feel few to point out anything I've said that makes my view one of a socialist/communist.. And perhaps reference your chosen definition of those terms.

FYI, I'm not going to go dig through a bunch of posts, and find references for them to "prove" it.

All I mean is that from what I've SEEN you seem to tend to lean towards them. I don't feel the need to dig up information just to say that.

[nystul]

And America isn't actually a Democracy. We're just a Republic that's shifted more towards Democracy.

I don't think you understand the meaning of those words.  Hint: they have nothing to do with the Republican and Democratic parties.

The Republican party needs to fix itself.  The Tea Party was a symptom of the Republican party's failures.  The secession movement is a symptom of the Republican party's failures.  The party needs to face up to the failures of George W. Bush and do things differently.  Promise to bring the troops home and reduce military spending.  Stop trying to pass anti-union legislation in states like Ohio and Wisconsin where you kind of need union vote or you will never win a presidential election again.  Don't allow your candidates to paint themselves into a corner with idealist rhetoric on the issue of abortion.  It's becoming a Dixiecrat party that can only win in the deep South (and only as long as there are enough white people, frankly).  People thought Obama would lose because the country is going in a bad direction, but they forgot to look in the mirror.  I'm no liberal and that's why this stuff is frustrating for me.  If I were a Democrat I'd be loving all of it.  The Tea Party, the petitions, the extremist candidates who lost senate seats to Democrats in places where Democrats have no business winning anything...  it just enables their agenda.  

[outin]

For me communism is not a curse word as it seems to be for some. It is a theoretical concept, an ideal, just like pure capitalism or pure democracy. None of these can exists in real world, they will always be tainted.

I have actually read everything by Marx and respect him as a scientist. He was able to explain the development and basics of the industrial society in a way that is still in many aspects genious today. He proposed a further development of such society which was then taken by others who tried to put it in practice, but in conditions that were missing some key elements. What we saw happen in the 20th century was not communism, just like we have not seen pure capitalism yet. Corruption and existing structures make it impossible.

BTW. I live in a republic and I wish to do so (I find the monarchy thing a bit ridiculous in a modern society). Does that make me a republican?