Prinze,

This is a pointless argument, we are what we are. Most of the world and are own leaders call the US a Democracy..

For the record.....

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

"Republican Sen. Doug Ericksen announced plans Wednesday to introduce a bill that would criminalize illegal protests. Sen. Ericksen says the bill would focus protests aimed at “causing economic damage.”

“Washington needs to take a firm stand against illegal protests that block transportation and commerce, cause property damage, threaten jobs and put public safety at risk,” says state Sen. Ericksen, R-Ferndale in a release Wednesday. The bill would create a new crime of economic terrorism. The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law in an attempt to intimidate or coerce private citizens or the government by obstructing economic activity.Republican Sen. Doug Ericksen announced plans Wednesday to introduce a bill that would criminalize illegal protests. Sen. Ericksen says the bill would focus protests aimed at “causing economic damage.”

“Washington needs to take a firm stand against illegal protests that block transportation and commerce, cause property damage, threaten jobs and put public safety at risk,” says state Sen. Ericksen, R-Ferndale in a release Wednesday. The bill would create a new crime of economic terrorism. The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law in an attempt to intimidate or coerce private citizens or the government by obstructing economic activity.

“I respect the right to protest, but when it endangers people’s lives and property, it goes too far,” Ericksen said. “Fear, intimidation and vandalism are not a legitimate form of political expression. Those who employ it must be called to account.”

Ericksen makes clear that the criminal penalties, making certain protests a class C felony when they are aimed at causing economic disruption, would not apply to lawful and protected activities such as strikes and picketing."

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/wash-gop-senator-to-introduce-bill-that-criminalizes-protests/353329433
http://www.myfoxspokane.com/washington-senator-to-introduce-bill-that-would-criminalize-protests/

The judgments of nations comes at the Final Judgment and not before: not with Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan. Or with Obama or Trump. And upon what is that Final judgment based on, both in the Synoptic Gospels and Revelation? How all treated the "least of these," nations and people alike. A Christian Nation makes provision for the poor and disenfranchised--through its government, or how else can it be called a Christian Nation? What the Right calls "socialism" and condemns, God calls justice and demands for the least of these. Opposition to a Christian Nation's social programs for the poor, children, disabled, and the elderly is opposition To Christ's commands. If you want a secular nation, go libertarian or Social Darwinism, where Freedom supersedes God's commands or Survival of the fittest undermines God's commands, respectively.

"Feed the hungry and welcome the stranger": MT25:35
"Clothed the naked and care for the prisoner": MT25:36
Trump opposes both and that opposition is growing.

In effect, you want to be a Christian Nation for your privilege but not for Christ. A True Christian nation would ruin everything for you. Love of enemy? A total absurdity. Feed the poor and welcome the stranger: a fiscal drain and a threat to national security. The trust of a Christian is now on political practicality and not God.

What separates the two parties for Christians? Abortion, and gay marriage the latest difference. Trump is no longer opposed to gay marriage, saying the matter "is settled" by the SCOTUS decision. Abortion? Christianity has always had a wide range of view on this matter. If you go Republican for their unfulfilled fifty year promise to end it, know that when Roe v Wade came out, it was praised by most evangelicals. So what changed? Evangelical support for a biblical-based segregation, Jim Crow laws, and opposition to inter-racial marriage came crashing down and exposed the ugliness of this Christian view with the Civil Rights Act. They needed a new focus.

Politics and Christianity is and always will be an oil and water mix.

This is just a short posting by me but it has had me thinking for the longest time. All these knucklheads that scream that we are a nation of immigrants forget that these immigrants from the past came in legally through Ellis Island in New York. They were confined to that place in order to ensure that they were not bad guys but more importantly to ensure they did not bring disease to this country. They were cared for (TB mostly) until they either died of the disease or were cured. They were not given any entitlements whats so ever and maybe a little cash. This Im not sure of (the cash part). They did not expect anything other than a chance to live and prosper if they could. b However they were also documented by the government. I have yet to hear any of the MSM pundits talk about this very much if at all. With President trump saying that there is going to be a huge wall and a beautiful door for immigrants to come through once they have been checked for the various diseases that they bring with them through no fault of their own and to ensure they are not the bad guys to the best of our abiliities. What is the fricken problem with that? To all you progressives out there in our country and more specifically here on OPP what the hell is so wrong with knowing that your neighbors to be are not carrying a disease that can and will affect you and your family (which has already happened in many towns and communities around the U.S.). Is this what you desire? What the hell is wrong knowing if these people have bad intentions towards your families and the country. We all know they are out there already in the U.S. As a matter of fact, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU? PLEASE ADMIN, dont delete this post for inapproriate language. This is for real in the real world and completely effects you and the rest that honor you with our postings. Im truly looking for some semblance of common sense and dignity in anyone that wants to reply to me privately or openly on this topic. For crying out loud people whether we like it or not or like our differing ideologies and or opinions this is for real and effects all of us.

Semper Fi

Perhaps I am over-sensitive. The disrespect you are showing for our still sitting president in that ugly caricature seems wrong. Please. please remember that Republicans made up their mind before Obama came to office to thwart his every move. A book of strategies was written by the Young Turks, freshman Senators, as to how to accomplish this primary goal. Mitch McConnell stated as Obama was being sworn in, before he did anything, that his aim was to make Obama a one term president. What was the result? The most do-nothing Congress in our history, with the lowest ever approval rating. Government at a standstill thanks to this strategy by Republicans, what do you do to keep the government functioning? Executive Orders. And Executive Orders less than Bush.