The United States is too a democracy!

[goaded]

Every couple of days someone comes up with the claim that the United States is not a democracy. It's ridiculous.

There isn't a country on Earth that is a pure democracy (where every decision is voted on by the people), because it would be totally unworkable. Every democratic country is a representative democracy, where you vote for someone to represent you in the government.

The United States is a Republic (like many other countries around the world), but it is a Democratic Republic.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

The essential part of a democracy is that you get to vote to change (or keep) the direction of your country. If you freely elect your leaders, you live in a democracy.

If you'd like some other people's take on the subject:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-the-united-states-a-republic-or-a-democracy.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is

https://www.usconstitution.net/republic-vs-democracy/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/02/harvard-thinking-our-democracy-problem/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/

[CrazyGirl2]

We actually are not a democracy. Neither are we a democratic republic, as even your own sources (namely the first one) clearly states the we are a Representative Republic. Your conversation below about the electoral college, and how Hillary won the popular vote, illustrates how we are not a democracy. We use the democratic process to elect representatives, but if we were a democracy, then we would have no congress, the people would have to vote for every new law!

As for the electoral college, and why we have it. If we didn't, states like the state of Rhode Island, Wyoming and many others, would be completely ignored by the federal government, and in federal elections campaigns, because there are simply not enough people there to make any difference! They would have no voice in the matters of the republic. Our founding fathers gave us a representative republic on purpose, because a democracy is otherwise know as mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority! If enough people wanted it, in a true democracy the majority could vote away everyone else’s rights, including the women’s right to vote!

Lastly, you wrote "Every democratic country is a representative democracy.” That’s not true. The United Kingdom, is a constitutional monarchy. Do they have elections to decide who will become members of parliament? Yes! However their “form of government is not a “Representative Republic” it’s a Constitutional Monarchy (Source: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+is+the+UK+a+constitutional+monarchy+&ia=web )

France is a democratic semi-presidential republic. Its semi-presidential system mixes the features of parliamentary and presidential systems. In France, executive power is shared between a directly elected president and prime minister responsible to the legislature. (Source: https://study.com/learn/lesson/french-government-republic-structure-history.html )

Germany is a federal parliamentary republic.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Germany )

Italy has a Parliamentary Republic type of government
(Source: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-type-of-government-does-italy-have.html )

Spain is a parliamentary monarchy, as a form of government. So Spain doesn't even claim to be a republic, let alone a representative republic.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain

I promise you, I’m not trying to be difficult or contrarian, but words matter, and calling the very form of government under which we are governed, by the wrong word could be catastrophic if people truly start to believe that we are, in fact, a true democracy! The rights of all minorities could be taken away in a second! After the constitutional congress, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked “what type of government did you give us?” to which he (equally famously) replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it”.

I hope I helped.
Sincerely, Laura 🤗 🥰

[handsomelad70]

Canada is also a constitutional monarchy.

[goaded]

Well, that's interesting, but missing the point that when you're fighting for democracy, you're fighting for countries like the US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (with apologies to the other democratic countries); you're fighting for any system where the people hold the power by voting. Monarchs today are figureheads and hold little to no power.

Compare all those countries to Russia, where dissidents, opposition politicians, and honest journalists are routinely killed. Or China. Or North Korea. Are they democracies because they have "elections"?

By the way, do you see any signs of the rights of all (or any) minorities being taken away by the majority of voters in established democracies? There are minorities that would jump at the chance, but their only chance of success in the US involves getting another president who loses the popular vote, and majorities in the House and Senate based on states with small populations.

Insisting that the US is not a democracy, despite its free and fair elections, just because of semantics about what system of democracy it is, is dividing democracies. Who do you think will benefit from that sort of thinking?

[handsomelad70]

The populist movement in Europe is about limiting minority rights, and the most reactionary REPIGLIKSCAM would do it in America, where they are casting police murder victim George Floyd a big black beast whose demise should be welcomed by the white populace (some do already) and opposing all forms of DEI (the racists call it,"Darkies Ever Incompetent.") There'd be PLENTY of folk who'd cheer blacks being at the back of the bus, serving in only menial positions and being disenfranchised.

[goaded]

Thanks for your considered response, @CrazyGirl2

What's the difference between a country being a democracy and not? ↗

[DrPepper12]

@handsomelad70 yeah and the can be identified by their red hats and glazed over eyes from watching fox news

[CrazyGirl2]

1 of 3
First, I would like to thank you! Both for your polite response to my reply, even though you disagree, and second for your “shout-out” in the quasi-anonymous post you made in relation to this post. I believe that we need to have more civility with the with whom we disagree with in this country. It is important to point out that I am in no way a Republican, nor a conservative. I come from a long line of Democrats of my mother’s side, and Labour Party member’s on my (British) father’s side. However I am a registered Independent, and both of my parents left the democratic party after the second impeachment of Trump which occurred AFTER he had been defeated by Joe Biden and Trump only had mere weeks left in office! In your other post, which is directly related to this post you stated "Opposition leaders are not imprisoned without due process of law.” It is with a heavy heart that I say I disagree, because that is no longer something we can say in the US. Although I despise Trump, and believe a second Trump Presidency would be worse than the first, with even more needless impeachments, and he would be hobbled as a leader. Our nation was objectively better off in many respects when he was in office, and in other ways worse off. There can be no doubt, to anyone who followed the trial, as my fiancee did, that he did not receive due process, and I challenge anyone to tell me what felony he was convicted of! I say that because even the jury was not instructed what the underlying felonies were, and they were told that they did not even have to be unanimous in their decision, and that “If four of you think he’s guilty of one crime, four of you believe he’s guilty of the second crime, and four of you agree on a third crime, I’ll accept that. So it can be 4, 4, 4 and I’ll consider that as a unanimous verdict”!
Continued...

[CrazyGirl2]

2 of 3
That is NOT due process of law! I sat through my uncles trial, where he was charged with hundreds of crimes related to the 3 ½ months wherein he raped me, and the jury were instructed that they MUST be unanimous on every single “ELEMENT” of every single crime! Which is why he was NOT found guilty of indecent exposure! The jury had one hold out who believed that he could not have raped me if he was fully clothed, and the rest of the jury eventually capitulated! I happen to agree with that juror! But I do know that the jury must be unanimous that every element of every crime has been met in order to convict a person in America. Also, there was NO reason why this federal trial could not have been moved out of a jurisdiction where Trump lost by 98% for god’s sake! Even if for no other reason than to remove the narrative that “he was tried by a jury of his political enemies” from those who support him! Are you telling me that there is not ONE jurisdiction in the US where Trump received close to 50% of the vote… or at least MORE than 2%? If nothing else, it’s just bad optics, and gives the appearance of impropriety! Even legal analysts on CNN are saying this will absolutely be overturned on appeal due to the sheer amount of reversible errors made by the Judge! (Including not granting a change of venue to a more neutral venue where Trump received more close to 50% of the vote!)

[CrazyGirl2]

3 of 3
I’m not going to argue with you on the democracy vs representative republic issue, as I’ve already made my case, and I’m NOT trying to change yours or anybody else’s minds. Our form of government is a representative republic, PERIOD! We elect those representatives using the democratic process. However we are not, nor have we ever been a true democracy! 
As far as the British monarch being a “figurehead”, you are incorrect. The King has the absolute power to dissolve Parliament! While usually done at the behest of the prime minister, that is not required, and once done, all members of parliament loose their office (source 1: en.wikipedia.org/.../Dissolution_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom ) Source 2: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/.../ ) Are mere figureheads usually able to dissolve the government? I think not! The British monarch is also the head of the government, and the commander in chief of the British armed forces, (Source: www.forces.net/.../king-charles-iii-look-new-forces-commander-chiefs-military-career ) and (source 2: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Armed_Forces ). The British monarch ALSO has some largely ceremonial roles. But they are anything but “just a figurehead, and meet with the prime minister every week to discuss what the king or queen wants the PM to do. (Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57596969 )

Sincerely, Laura 🤗 🥰

[goaded]

I'm sorry to have come so late to this, I totally missed it.

The important part is "without due process of law". Due process is what delayed all the trials for months or years, and is what finally convicted him in the only trial that has taken place. Nearly everyone knows the crime he was convicted of, it's covered in What crime was Donald Trump convicted of? ↗

The underlying crime didn't need to be proven (and nobody knows if the jurors disagreed on what crime was being covered up, although the fact that one of the witnesses was convicted of campaign finance crimes on Trump's behalf might have been persuasive).

You stand trial in the jurisdiction where you allegedly committed the crimes. Trump got one in 8 votes in Manhattan, not one in 50, and one of the jurors got their news from Truth Social, so even that wasn't sufficient grounds for a challenge by the prosecution. Much like a juror on (I think it was) Bannon's trial who drove to court wearing a MAGA hat, took it off in the car to go in, and still found him guilty.

Your point about His Majesty having power is well taken, but did you look for the last time it was used (against the will of the elected PM)? I mean, it's not impossible, "Following the invasion of Sicily and a motion of no confidence by the Grand Council of Fascism, King Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Mussolini as head of government and placed him in custody" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini, but there's a general agreement that if you don't use your power, we won't become a republic.

The final point is that I approached this Take wrongly. I should have laid out the dictionary definitions of "democracy" and invited people to explain how the US doesn't meet those definitions. You can say a cat is not a dog, but you can't say a cat is not a mammal. The US is a democracy: you have meaningful elections.

[abc3643]

This:
" Your conversation below about the electoral college, and how Hillary won the popular vote, illustrates how we are not a democracy"

is false.

Something most people don't realize - and I probably didn't realize it until my 40s or even 50s - is that the US is, in a sense, TWO democracies.
We are a democratic republic of PEOPLE, BUT
We are also a democratic republic of STATES.

It's very important to realize that.
The House of Representatives is that part of the Legislative Branch that is supposed to represent the people and the representatives (aka "congressmen") are elected by the people.
However, the Senate is that part of the Legislative Branch that is supposed to represent the states. ORIGINALLY, Senators were elected NOT by the people but by state legislatures.

The only elected Federal office which applies to both states and people is the presidency. The Founders needed a way for the people and the states to vote in the presidential election. And this is why we have the Electoral College with each state having a total number of electoral votes equal to the number of representatives + the number of Senators.
Since states are viewed as equal members, every state gets the same number of senators.
But the number of representatives is based on census results.
Note, also, that it will always be the case that every state has the same number of Senators; the Founders made sure that this was not changeable by the Amendment Process; it doesn't matter how many Senators a state has as long as they all have the same number.

=========
Anyway, this is why your statement is false. Our Federal government and the election of the Presidency indicates a democracy of two types: states and people.

[CrazyGirl2]

#1
"The underlying crime didn't need to be proven” Yes it REALLY did, because the statute of limitations had expired on the misdemeanor falsifying business records. The ONLY way they could bring this case to trial in the first place, was as a felony, and only then, if the act of paying off Stormy Daniels was in furtherance of another crime! And that “other crime” had to be a State crime, because 1) the Federal elections commission had already ruled that the payment was not a violation of federal elections law! and 2) fundraising for federal elections, is under the strict purview and sole jurisdiction of the FEC, who already publicly stated that no elections laws were broken! What crime did he commit IN NEW YORK, that he covered up, when he paid what even prosecutors agreed was blackmail by stormy Daniels, given that they gave her immunity from prosecution for blackmail to get her testimony? 2) Donald Trump NEVER waived his attorney/client privilege, so HOW could they legally use his lawyers testimony, when it was ALL privileged attorney/client communication?
I don’t want to argue this, anymore because as I’ve stated multiple times now, I cannot stand Trump, Nor can I stand political discussions! They either go on seemingly forever, or they create animosity!

[CrazyGirl2]

#2
"The US is a democracy: you have meaningful elections": Look, I’m not going to argue this again either. We are simply NOT a democracy, if we were, WE the people would vote on every federal law, and there would be no house of representatives! It’s not a semantic argument. A representative republic, is a very different form of government to a democracy. Ancient Greece was the only democracy that I know of, and it only lasted 185 years, from 507 bce to 322 bce. We use the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS to elect our representatives, senators, as well as state and local officials, that’s it! But that does not make the US a democracy. You are FREE to disagree, but I will not be arguing the issue anymore. I have said all that I can say, and I’m only repeating myself now! I fully respect your right to disagree. I even respect your right to make no distinction between BEING a democracy, and being a Representative Republic that UTILIZES the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS to elect representatives, and other public officials (except obviously for the President, who is elected by the electoral college, and NOT the people! As exemplified in 1876, and 1888. And more recently in 2000, when Al Gore won the democratic vote, but lost the electoral college to Bush, and in 2016 when Hillary won the democratic vote, but lost the electoral college to Trump. If we WERE a democracy both Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton would have been President, as THAT was the democratic will of the people! But since we are NOT a democracy, we are a representative republic, that’s not how we elect our presidents.

[CrazyGirl2]

#3 of 3
Again, you are free to disagree, and I truly do respect your right to do so. But my roll in this conversation is at an end I’m afraid. I already have received several VERY nasty D/M’s accusing me of 1) sucking trumps cock! 2) being a dum [sic] whore, who supports Trump. and 3) That I should kill myself because I support Trump, (and an entire paragraph of unhinged foul, disgusting infective, and ad hominem attacks) when I CLEARLY stated MULTIPLE TIMES that I cannot stand Trump, and I would not vote for Trump! This is precisely why I do not answer political, governmental, or partisan questions. I knew this would be a mistake to answer. And I’m out.
To be clear, NONE of it was your fault whatsoever! If anything, it was my fault for going against my gut and my personal policy of staying OUT of anything even remotely political. I hold you completely blameless. But I’m done with this, and the other related question, sweetie. I wish you well, and I look forward to many interesting NON-POLITICAL discussions in the future.

Sincerely, Laura 🤗 🥰

[goaded]

@abc3643 That's an interesting perspective. Unfortunately, the democracy of states damages the democracy of people. Maybe it's time to change the election of the president to a instant runoff system with many candidates, with the VP being the runner-up. I think everyone can agree that the constraints of the 18th century, like weeks-long journeys to DC, are no longer an issue.

[CrazyGirl2]

Like I said, my participation in this conversation has ended. I am getting TOO much abuse over it. (in my DM’s) But I thank you very much for an interesting and respectful conversation.
I look forward to many interesting conversations to come in the future.

Laura 🤗 🥰

[abc3643]

Originally, the VP WAS the runner up.

[goaded]

Who is cowardly enough to only send you DMs about your public statements? I enjoyed our conversation, it was respectful, backed by facts, and an unusual experience on here!

[goaded]

@abc3643 Exactly. The difference would be that they'd be similar to the winner.

[CrazyGirl2]

Assholes, whom I have never even seen before, let alone conversed with. However, while I absolutely agree that it was a VERY respectful discussion, It still violated my personal policy against involving myself in political discussions. They always turn nasty! Even though you and I have been nothing but respectful and polite to eachother, “wank-wads” without the courage to state their invective in public, have been REALLY rude, lewd, crude, and downright gross to me in my DM’s.

However, it is not the least bit unusual for men to read something I wrote in the forums, and reply to that comment RIGHT in my DM. I get it all the time, literally! They are like: “Hello Laura, I just wanted to say how I really loved your answer! You are really intelligent, and very beautiful, and I would like to get you know you better. You are a rare gem, a woman with beauty and intelligence! My name is Aknarshi, I am very pleased to meet you”.

I usually reply with “Thanks but I have NO idea what question you are referring to. Maybe it would be better to leave me a comment there under my answer, IN the forum, so I know what answer you are referring to! I truly have no idea which question you are referring to.

(it goes round and round from there! But I get at least one or two a day, who inappropriately reply to a forum comment in my DM’s I swear to god! It is SO frustrating!). This time the DM’s were rude, foul mouthed, and utterly wrong, B/C they thought I was a Trump supporter! One was a non-partisan “you’re a fucking moron” kinda thing! But honestly people reply to posts I make publicly, I’n my DM, all the time! (maybe it’s the breasts, they bring out the idiot in people! ¯\_(ッ)_/¯

[goaded]

You might like to set DMs to followers only. I believe that's a thing. Sorry: "Allow messages only from people I follow", that's the ticket!

[goaded]

Also, report them. They'll come back like gorydetails is joeldalton, but it helps.

[CrazyGirl2]

I have been considering that. The only reason I set my DM's to "open" was because I occasionally get women who have been sexually abused, who do not follow me, but asked me for help and/or advice. Because of what happened to them, they don't want to be seen to be following me, and they don't want to make a comment publicly for obvious reasons. And as much as LOATH some of the disgusting BS I get, just helping ONE woman who has been raped or sexually abused… Well, that makes it all worth it to me! But I really am STRONGLY, considering putting it back to "followers only" or whatever it's called.

[monorprise]

@goaded
Based upon your definition of "democracy" that would also include Communist china and the USSR who likewise had elections its just that their "eligible members" were only communist party members.

That might also apply to various other dictatorships. The point is you new definition of "Democracy" is uselessly broad.

[goaded]

@monorprise, @CrazyGirl2 doesn't want to continue this conversation on her opinion.

[MisterWack]

I’ve always said, “Democratic Republic” and I get shade from Conservatives (Republic) also from Progressives (Democracy), it is literally the correct answer damn it.

I love this country and truly see it as a nation to be proud of, we’ve had bad moments and good moments, we’ve always struggled with our national identity / struggled to quell divisions however I see that our differences give us strength.

“Back in the fall of 1980 I attended a rally that I will always remember. It was held in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. And there were many nationalities and ethnic groups there, all reminding us of America's rich and diverse heritage. They reminded us that we're all descendants from immigrants, most of whom came here looking for freedom and opportunity. And while our country had its flaws -- and we still have them -- the American dream was real.” - Ronald Reagan

[goaded]

You might like: What's the difference between a country being a democracy and not? ↗

[DrPepper12]

MAGAS love making distinctions between republic and democracy thinking that will influence whatever inane argument theyre making

[MisterWack]

@DrPepper12
Yeah, however I get this from both sides. What you said is correct don’t get me wrong, just annoying when two people refuse to come together as Americans to agree on the most basic truths, Democratic Republic is our govt type is one of those truths damn it!

[goaded]

One side is saying democracy, the other is saying project2025.

[MisterWack]

@goaded One side said Democratic in 2016, One side said Republic in 2016. Second time, one side Democratic in 2020 while the other said possibly Autocracy in 2021… 2024 it is Democracy or total Autocracy. 2024 it is the easiest choice to make especially from the perspective of January 6, 2021. Americans need to choose their country over one man.

[msc545]

The US is an Oligarchy. The rich run this county and elections are a scam.

[MisterWack]

@msc545
It is a Capitalist system in a Democratic Republic, I don’t see it as a total oligarchy however with the Clarence Thomas issue, lobbyists, a two tier justice system geared against the poor and more geared towards the benefit of the rich, rich get priority and preferential treatment above all else, etc. It is a flawed system, no question about that however I won’t stray away from the definitions, hopefully I never see this country lean to far to the Oligarch & Autocrat sides.

[msc545]

It is on its way to Autocracy.

[goaded]

@msc545 You can take back the power, it's just very difficult.

[MisterWack]

@goaded As long as Trump doesn’t set foot back in The White House and the GOP doesn’t try to find another vengeful vile bastard to kiss the ass of then I’m sure it will never reach Autocracy.

[monorprise]

@MisterWack
America is federal Constitutional Republic that has some democratic element. Those elements being entirely a result of specific provisions of our Constitution which can be changed without necessarily a majorities support.

3/4th of the states for example could call a convention and approve amendments with half of their own population and nearly all of the 12 largest state's population in opposition with most of the federal population.

Many of our states are not too different historically.

[DrPepper12]

@monorprise here's what i heard: its semantics and i love the suicide pact that our constitution represents

[monorprise]

@DrPepper12 It's only a suicide pack if you don't have the inalienable right of self-determination to leave the same way you joined as proclaimed in the foundational then recent declaration of independence.

Then almost any 'union' no matter how formed becomes a suicide pack as it would inevitably be hijacked by people who care only about their narrow interest at the expense of others, rather than as the deceleration pointed out broadly a agreement between men for their Mutual benefit out of necessity.

It is those same qualification behind the real justification for goverment that also naturally define the natural limits of our consent to be governed.

Just because the millions of people living within a few miles of each-other in New York City have a "need" for a great goverment of common rules to keep them working together particularity given how little else they would naturally cooperate/ agree on.
Does not mean the people of Wyoming living largely independent of each other and almost entirely so of distance New York have almost any such common need at all.

This is why Wyoming has no need to listen to New York and is naturally independent of New York. That Natural independence is what makes Wyoming equal to New York not their numbers which is basically irrelevant past the point of self-sufficiency.

Natural independence is the fact that New York could basically cut off all relations with Wyoming and Wyoming would survive. You can't say that among the citizen's of New York who lack the physical and material resources. Which is why New Yorker's require relations with each other and the City with its neighbors to supply the vast resources the city must import.

[goaded]

@monorprise "My" definition of democracy (which happens to appear in every dictionary as well) requires meaningful elections to choose leaders, which leaves countries like China, Russia, North Korea out.

States in the US knew they were joining a union without an exit mechanism; it was their choice to do so, and to follow its laws. Joining wasn't a unilateral choice, either, they had to be admitted.

There is one, and only one, legal pathway to secession: amend the constitution to allow it, then follow that mechanism.

[monorprise]

@goaded
Chinese and USSR and North Korean elections are quite meaningful if your a member of the communist party.

I would say they knew that there could exist no such union as they demonstrated and proclaimed a mere 11 years before. Nor did the constitution in question grant any such power. So no only was there no way to know that there was no reason to believe it even if it had been suggested. As Hamilton (a lier who's imperial ideas were rejected) did to the people of New York.

Such an idea is at odds with the very nature of the right as they had demonstrated in 1776 as well as the Constitution they ratified which explicitly left this inalienable right like everything not specified to the people and their states.

So I'm sorry but the existence of a "exit" mechanism would itself imply a kind of collective power and thus effective veto over such a process in which no collective power is possible under their and frankly our understanding of rights.

If you require the permission of others to leave their command you are not a free person but a prisoner at best (presuming they will let you go automatically at some point) or a slave at worse if they claim such holding power over not only you but your children.

[goaded]

@monorprise Apparently, I was slightly wrong: "What a state (or states) can do, however, is begin the process of seeking a mutually agreed upon parting of the ways, and that process clearly exists, set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in its 1868 ruling in Texas v. White. That ruling concluded that a state (or states) could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three fourths of the nation's legislatures."

There's still no peaceful way to leave the union unilaterally.

[monorprise]

@goaded The Northern politicians were just making up stories to justify the unspeakably horrible things they just did in the name of power while trying to salvage some shred of dignity.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase even goes so far as to push the argument that the union was somehow natural and begin before the Articles of Confederation.

Which begs the question why didn't it include Canada or any of the British West Indies colonies with the 13 that formed the union had as much relations? If he really believed that he would have invaded Canada (which at least is mentioned in the articles) and theses other colonies.

Should we invade these countries now to force them to "honor" Washington's "natural" power over them?

A more competent court compelled to take such a position would have rest simply upon strongest textual case they can make against secession in the hypocritical interpenetration of the "perpetual union" phrase in the Articles of Confederation.
This would still be hypocritical in being utterly contradicted by what we were doing at the time in defiance of similar brittish laws which explicitly banned secession. But abandoned 6 years later with the Articles themselfs in the new Federal Constitution of 1776.

In the end faced with that glaring contradiction the Federal politicians officially edict actually said:

"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, ***except through revolution*** or through consent of the States"

Notice that last line there: "Except through revolution". This of course is nonsense like the rest of the politicians edict of theses post war ideologues. But an acknowledgement of reality and the very dangerous and despotic imperial position they had via their own ideological extremism had killed hundreds of thousands of people to impose.

This idea of course is utterly nonsense as it imply a definition of "revolution" which is externally defined by the party in opposition to it. Hence no revolution would ever take place.

[goaded]

@monorprise What are you talking about? The confederate states were already part of the union. They'd chosen to join.

Like I said: "no peaceful way to leave the union unilaterally".

[monorprise]

@goaded I pointed out how and why it is logically indefensible position for theses united States to reject the right of unilateral secession/revolution.

A revolution is not a military conflict but a change in the hearts and minds of the people such as happened to a large degree over the last decade since Obama. It was in fact what happened in the antebellum South as southerns came to recognize whom they were just as it was before in the post-French Indian war America as Americans came to recognize they were not merely British subjects.

That said the propose of discussing and pointing out this facts is to avoid the need for future bloodshed in ignorance.

[goaded]

@monorprise You might have made an argument, but you haven't proven it. If you voluntarily enter into a contract, both sides have to agree to terminate it. Joining the union is democratically committing to a contract which includes agreeing to follow the laws of the union.

Since the law doesn't allow for unilateral secession, a state would have to have the agreement of (a proportion of) the other states to be allowed to leave.

[monorprise]

@goaded
Again simply not true with the Federal Constitution which was quite explicitly made to be a limited contract with all rights (including the right to leave) reserved to the people and their states.

These were the terms upon which we agreed to the union and the only terms we left the prior union declaring were even possible for any people to accept.

I'm sorry but this may be how Germany sees political contracts, which by the way was imposed upon you via war but that is not the American way. If a German State voted to leave Germany by all natural rights it should be left to do so in peace.
If war should begin between the independent states it would in fact be a result of their actions not the independence.

[goaded]

@monorprise Where does it explicitly say in the constitution that states can just choose unilaterally to leave? And why does the law disagree with you?

[monorprise]

@goaded
10th amendment says all powers not granted are reserved to the people and their states.
given the power to refuse to let states revolutionize withdraw and with draw unilaterally is not granted it is reserved to the states.

The law agrees with me, its the politicians in Washington D. C. who don't agree with any form of constitutional law limiting their powers. which is why making them the only judge of the limits of their own authority is to declare they have no Constitutional limits.

I fully understand that a lot of theses people will have to die before Americans can once again be free of them. The point of educating others about the absurdity of their hypocritical position on the 'law' is to make that as few people as possible.

[goaded]

@monorprise An amendment? So it wasn't in the original constitution? States undertook to obey the laws of the United States; the law of the United States does not allow for a state to leave the union unilaterally.

[monorprise]

@goaded
I just pointed out that the constitution of theses united States allows for everything not explicitly forbidden by the same. Since secession is no where mentioned it is also nowhere forbidden. Nor could it be as it is the right and duty of the people that cannot be ceded for any reason. A natural fact pointed out in the deceleration of independence for a very good reason.

If you ever cede your right to unilaterally walk away you become a slave for all time, and therefore can never cede such a right.

[goaded]

@monorprise "If you ever cede your right to unilaterally walk away you become a slave for all time" No, you don't, that's stupid. You might think that there's no such thing as commitment, but there is.

Still, having a few Republican states leave the union would be good for it; the Senate would be more representative of "We the People" and things will finally go back to being run the way they were meant to be, allowing the winning party to manage the country.

[goaded]

@monorprise I can't believe I didn't respond to this a year ago, but what you do is convince the people of the "oppressive" states that they're being oppressive. Most people don't want to be oppressive, just people like MAGA.

Saying "don't be shitty to these people" is not oppressing you, it's supporting those people.

[msc545]

Why in hell does this matter?

[Juxtapose]

Even the CIA thinks you are wrong.

"constitutional federal republic" that's what the website says the USA is.

"Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government."

"Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives."

Now for what the USA is not..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type

[Juxtapose]

[msmissydc]

It stated that it's a constituational federal republic. The constitution rules that it is indeed a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

@msmissydc that is not the same thing and on the CIA website you can see what government the CIA classifies the USA as. They are our central *intelligence* agency lol.

[Juxtapose]

@msmissydc no it is not. If you think it is, explain to me why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but still lost. Explain to me why the government itself labels itself differently than you do.

[msmissydc]

Please explain how it is not the same thing? You can read right? It is a "constitutional federal republic". The constitution explains how the U. S. Is a representative democracy. It can't be much cleared.

[Juxtapose]

Putting this year so others can see this in the conversation:

"While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States."

ar.usembassy.gov/.../

[Juxtapose]

*this here

[Juxtapose]

"The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power."

[Juxtapose]

So you're getting the representative part completely wrong. You're talking about a republic.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose How, exactly, do "the people hold power" and "elect representatives to exercise that power"?

[goaded]

Starts with a D...

[goaded]

De...

[goaded]

Demo...

[Juxtapose]

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

[goaded]

Unlike you, I'll admit it if it happens. Seriously, how, exactly, do "the people hold power" and "elect representatives to exercise that power" in the United States?

[Juxtapose]

As I already explained that is not all it takes to define a democracy but you refuse to listen.

A democracy is definitively defined by rule by majority.

[Juxtapose]

Otherwise your definition of a democracy may as well be the same as a republic and be redundant.

[goaded]

I'm listening, but you continue to be wrong. A democracy is not the same as a republic, because some democracies are not republics. Constitutional monarchies, for one.

A dog is not a cat, but they are both mammals. Democracy is the more general term, like mammal.

Also, it's not "my" definition of a democracy, it's in every dictionary ever written describing a word that's been in use for over five centuries, before the word republic had even been coined.

[Juxtapose]

": a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

[Juxtapose]

You would call that a democracy.

[goaded]

Yes, just like I'd call a dog a mammal. Do you still not get it? A parliamentary monarchy and a republic are not the same, but they are both democracies. Therefore the US is a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

The United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic as even the CIA will tell you. If it was a democracy then it would include that in the title.

[Juxtapose]

You could argue the United States is a democracy only in the loosest of terms where democracy ceases to have significance above a republic. They are both redundant definitions.

[Juxtapose]

"While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power."

ar.usembassy.gov/.../

[goaded]

OMFG, you're just going to keep repeating the same stupidity over and over again, completely ignoring simple logic, aren't you?

While often characterised as a mammal, a dog is more accurately defined as a canine.

A dog is a specific TYPE OF mammal, and the US is a specific TYPE OF democracy.

Dogs are mammals, the US is a democracy.

[goaded]

Here's the other thing you selectively quoted: www.cia.gov/.../government-type

"Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed. "

You claim the US is not a:
"Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. "

Why? In what way does the US not conform to that definition?

Bear in mind, the constitution can be amended - by people voting.

And, for some strange reason you left out their definition of:
"Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation."

Oh, look: "a representative democracy".

[AviatorTom]

Per the original definition of democracy from the Greek words demos+kratos, a democracy is one in which all individuals vote on issue, which is what city-states like Athens did thousands of years ago.

The modern definition of democracy, is when people vote for representatives.

So, is the US a democracy? It depends on which definition you use.

I prefer using the more descriptive term for the United States, a democratic republic, which just happens to have the names of the two main political parties.

[DJB72]

If you were to read the document written by the insurrectionists in 1786, you'll find your Declaration of Independence established the 13 colonies as States of a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.

Your media has tried - successfully, apparently - to bewilder the children who, in any responsible education system, should have repeated the year because they were unable to assimilate the basic concepts taught, that the USA is a democracy. It has never been a democracy. If it had, Biden - since he got fewer actual votes in 2020 - would not have been president. Neither would Trump in 2016, and so on.

Your country hasn't had a representative democracy in decades.

[goaded]

So, the United States is not a country where the people choose their leaders by voting?

Biden got millions more votes than Trump in 2020.

[loveslongnails]

Whichever terminology you decide is accurate, the problem remains that many governments RARELY represent the "will of the people", but rather "the will of the powerful". This is especially noticeable in a 2-party system like ours in the USA (yes, there are other parties, but their influence is insignificant). On the local and state levels, gerrymandering has poisoned true representation to the point where the will of a few can be, and IS as we speak, inflicted upon very many, most notably, the abortion issue and women's bodily autonomy.

Be aware that if the backers of Project 2025 gain control in the next election, it will mean the acceleration of the US into an authoritarian, dystopian form of fascism that will spell the end of many freedoms as you know them. If you think this is an exaggeration, then READ the document. If you STILL think it's an exaggeration after reading it, then you're not just the problem, you're the enablers.

[patois]

Even the CIA that supports you globohomos thinks you're retarded.

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#government

[Juxtapose]

You're right:

[msmissydc]

I mean yes. Thats true. People try to make content for r/ confidentlyincorrect probably.

[Still-alive]

Lol sounds like reddit

[Juxtapose]

Not really:

[msmissydc]

Article 1 section two of your constitution. Please read it!

[msmissydc]

The picture showed, that your goverment form is a federal republic with a constitution. The constituation specifies the rest.

[Juxtapose]

It makes no mention of the type of government and amusingly enough talks about slaves as being 3/5ths of a person.

The government itself is calling itself a constitutional federal republic.

[msmissydc]

What are you talking about? The goverment showed it is a "constitutional federal republic" the constitution literally describes a representative democracy. How can you not see it?

[Juxtapose]

Those are two separate things.

"This entry gives the basic form of government. Definitions of the major governmental terms are as follows. (Note that for some countries more than one definition applies.):"

The CIA would have also double labeled the USA government as a representative democracy if that was the case.

[Juxtapose]

Even our embassies disagree with you.

"While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States."

ar.usembassy.gov/.../

[msmissydc]

"More accuratly". It doesn't say it's not a democracy. It literally says its "more accuratly" because the "onstitutional" is a substitute for everything in their.

[Juxtapose]

Just because the number three is closer to the number one then the number five, does not mean number three is actually number one.

[Juxtapose]

"Insofar as “democracy” means “a political system in which government derives its powers from the consent of the governed,” then of course that accurately describes our system. But the word conjures far more than that. It is often used to describe rule by majority, the view that it is the prerogative of government to reflexively carry out the will of the majority of its citizens.

Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power."

www.lee.senate.gov/.../of-course-we-re-not-a-democracy

[Juxtapose]

Democracy equals majority rule. Our system is not that.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose No system is that.

"a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power." Is how every democracy on Earth works.

[Juxtapose]

Not with these checks and balances that are very undemocratic.

"Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power. Under our Constitution, passing a bill in the House of Representatives—the body most reflective of current majority views—isn’t enough for it to become law. Legislation must also be passed by the Senate—where each state is represented equally (regardless of population), where members have longer terms, and where (under current rules) a super-majority vote is typically required to bring debate to a close. Thomas Jefferson described the Senate as the “saucer” that cools hot passions more prevalent in the House. It’s where consensus is forged, as senators reach compromise across regional, cultural, and partisan lines.

Once passed by both houses of Congress, a bill still doesn’t become a law until it’s signed (or acquiesced to) by the president—who of course is elected not by popular national vote, but by the electoral college of the states.

And then, at last, the Supreme Court—a body consisting not of elected officials, but rather individuals appointed to lifetime terms—has the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. What could be more undemocratic?"

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Do you use democratic means to elect your representatives?

What would your country be, if it didn't?

[Juxtapose]

That's not enough to be a democracy cus.. of what was said above.

"a bill still doesn’t become a law until it’s signed (or acquiesced to) by the president—who of course is elected not by popular national vote, but by the electoral college of the states."

[goaded]

@Juxtapose So you have a crap version of democracy that no other country in the world ever emulated in 200 years? It's still a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

No.. not really.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose OK. Then don't vote.

[Juxtapose]

You can vote in America, it just doesn't mean what it does in a democracy where majority rules.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose OK, so compare to countries that aren't democracies. What's the difference between a country being a democracy and not? ↗

[Juxtapose]

America isn't a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

America does well.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose America elects its politicians.

[Juxtapose]

Not the president, supreme court, etc.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Like I said: you have a crap version of democracy that no other country in the world ever emulated in 200 years. Still a democracy, though.

[Juxtapose]

No it's not. The USA system has many checks and balances which don't involve the voters or their representatives.

In a democracy, free speech would not exist because censorship is popular. People love to censor opposing views.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Yes, it is. The US system was revolutionary and wonderful, it even preceded the French revolution. But no country on Earth has ever copied the electoral college in their governments, because it's rubbish. Democracies vote for restrictions on governments all the time. People voted for the constitution, people voted for the bill of rights. That's democracy, however imperfect.

People, like you, denying it are playing into the hands of the people who want to destroy it.

[Juxtapose]

I am not playing into anything. Again..

"Insofar as “democracy” means “a political system in which government derives its powers from the consent of the governed,” then of course that accurately describes our system. But the word conjures far more than that. It is often used to describe rule by majority, the view that it is the prerogative of government to reflexively carry out the will of the majority of its citizens.

Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power."

[goaded]

@Juxtapose No, it doesn't, it says simply “a political system in which government derives its powers from the consent of the governed,”

[Juxtapose]

"Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic."

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Do you vote? Does it count? Doesn't that make the US different from Russia? The simplest description is "democracy", unless you're trying to divide the democratic countries of the world.

[Juxtapose]

Again..

"word conjures far more than that. It is often used to describe rule by majority, the view that it is the prerogative of government to reflexively carry out the will of the majority of its citizens.

Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power."

Majority rules is democracy in a nutshell, not just having representation. The representation I can elect can be stopped at numerous points by people the popular majority cannot control.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose "It is often" does not mean "It is always", and I'd disagree even with that.

Democracy is a word used to describe all countries that hold free and fair elections. You are the one claiming that that meaning somehow doesn't apply to the US.

Borrow a dictionary from someone who can read and ask them to explain it to you.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
www.collinsdictionary.com/.../democracy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy
dictionary.cambridge.org/.../democracy

[Juxtapose]

I have explained it as thoroughly as I can. Sorry you don't understand.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose All you've done is demostrated a complete lack of logic.

You can convince someone a cat isn't a dog, but you can't convince anyone that it's not a mammal. Every definition of the word "democracy" includes a meaning that obviously includes the United States' system of government. To say it's not a democracy is to ignore reality.

[Juxtapose]

You're clearly very stuck on seeing it a certain way when in reality democracy is ruled by majority. But you get it so I would prefer not to keep going back and forth.

[Juxtapose]

*But you don't get it

[msmissydc]

We could say the same thing about you. There is a general election going on. That means the citizens get to vote and it does matter what they vote for. So it IS a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

Again, a democracy is more than just voting for representatives. A democracy has your vote carry more weight than that, a democracy would not have something like the electoral college.

America is a constitutional federal republic and the government itself says so.

[Juxtapose]

You're actually confusing a democracy for a republic:

"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

[Juxtapose]

Democracy:

": government by the people
especially : rule of the majority"

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

[Juxtapose]

America is only a democracy if you go by the very loose definition that makes it equivalent to a republic. In that case it is superfluous.

The true defining feature of a democracy is rule by majority.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Oh, look, you picked a cherry.

When you say the US is NOT a democracy, you're saying it doesn't meet ANY definition of democracy.

Are you saying it's not "government by the people"? (The who by?)

Not "a country in which the people choose their government by voting for it"?

Not "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

Not "a country in which power is held by elected representatives"?

[Juxtapose]

Dude how many times do I have to bring up the electoral college, SCOTUS and many other things within the US government that prevent democracy?

[Juxtapose]

A primary component of democracy is majority rule.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose So you are saying that the US is not "government by the people", not "a country in which the people choose their government by voting for it", not "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." and not "a country in which power is held by elected representatives".

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

I mean, it's a flawed democracy that allows for minority rule, but it's still a form of democracy because it's all of those things listed above.

[Juxtapose]

Democracy is not what you think it is. Again, it's majority rule and a democracy would not have things like the Supreme Court or the electoral college which the public doesn't really have a say in. There's all kinds of agencies as well that make decisions that guess what? Don't come from elected representatives at all.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Christ on a stick! Democracy is what those dictionary definitions say, and the US meets all those definitions. You claim it meets none.

"Government by the people", "a country in which the people choose their government by voting for it", not "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." and "a country in which power is held by elected representatives".

[Juxtapose]

I already showed you quotes which prove that wrong but it's not getting through your head.

[msmissydc]

No, you really didn't. You showed quotes you obviously didn't understand yourself. We told you multiple times how your quotes don't actually support your argument. He also just gave you multiple examples of how you were wrong.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose So the US isn't a "Government by the people", according to you. Remind me, how does the US constitution begin? Just the first three words will do.

The US doesn't allow the people to "choose their government by voting for it"?

Power isn't "held by elected representatives" in the US?

Those are your claims, when you say the US is not a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

A democracy is that and also rule by majority. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

America is a constitutional federal republic. It's really not hard.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose No, it's not. Not necessarily. It is, however, an obvious fact that the US allows the people to "choose their government by voting for it"? Thus, the US is a democracy.

New tell me that the US doesn't allow the people to "choose their government by voting for it".

[goaded]

Hello? Tell me that the US doesn't allow the people to "choose their government by voting for it".

[Juxtapose]

Dude I already told you about the Supreme Court and the electoral college. Did I elected the CIA representatives even though they arguably control the world?

[goaded]

@Juxtapose I understand all those things, but that still doesn't make the US not a democracy. You have meaningful elections, it's a democracy.

Even the things you keep quoting don't say it's not a democracy: "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic.". Where does it say it's NOT a democracy?

It doesn't say "While often incorrectly categorized as a democracy..." does it? They're describing what kind of democracy it is.

[Juxtapose]

"At the same time, it’s true that there is nuance and difference between these words, according to their historical use and etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,” and the most basic understanding of the word’s original meaning refers to the direct democracy of ancient Greece.

Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic. The elected representatives in Congress are a contemporary example of this kind of government."

"Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom."

www.merriam-webster.com/.../democracy-and-republic

[Juxtapose]

Like I said, you can either make democracy distinct from a republic like it is supposed to be or you can muddle the two terms together and eliminate their uniqueness. I'm not going to play that game and butcher the English language.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose You still don't get it, do you? A democracy is not distinct from a republic, because republics are a form of democracy. Maybe if I put it this way it will click (although I expect you understood the truth some time ago, but are unwilling to admit it) : a democracy is not a form of republic.

A dog is a form of mammal, a mammel is not a form of dog. This is not hard to understand, but apparently hard to admit.

[Juxtapose]

A democracy is characterized by rule of majority and that is what makes it different. You can use a loose definition of it which really isn't helpful. You may as well rip it from the dictionary and just replace it with republic 🤷

[goaded]

@Juxtapose No, it's not. It's characterised by elections. They've historically excluded women, blacks, non-land-owners, by age, etc. They've all been flawed, but they've still always been democracies.

Republics don't have monarchs. That's a difference between two systems of democracy.

Not-democracies, like Russia, (the Democratic Republic of) North Korea, China don't have free and fair elections. Like it or not, your country, even though it allows minority rule, is a democracy, just a very flawed one.

[Juxtapose]

Nope, it is a constitutional federal republic. It is both a democracy in a very loose term and not a democracy because calling it a constitutional
federal democracy would mean majority rules..

[goaded]

@Juxtapose So, it is a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

Nope.

[Juxtapose]

"In “Federalist 10,” one of 85 essays by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay known collectively as the Federalist papers, Madison defined a “pure democracy” as “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person,” and a republic as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.” According to Madison, “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater the number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.” In short, for Madison, democracy meant direct democracy, and republic meant representative government."

www.britannica.com/.../Democracy-or-republic

[Juxtapose]

"Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant."

[Juxtapose]

I see it the same way as Madison.

[Juxtapose]

"Madison entire Essay ( Fed #10 ) is about why Republics are superior to Democracies and is worth a read.

Democracy vs Republic
The Founders never used the words "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. They had studied various forms and systems of government from throughout history in order to establish a system of government that would best deter a tyrant (in their case King George III), or a group of tyrants, from denying God-given rights to Americans. Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution do not use the term democracy to describe our form of government. Furthermore, "Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution set up direct democracies."9 The authors of these founding documents disagreed on many points, but on one point they ALL agreed wholeheartedly: The United States is not a democracy, never was, and never was intended to be. It is a Republic."

"Thomas Jefferson declared:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

.

Benjamin Franklin
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

.

John Adams,
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.

.

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10
that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

[goaded]

@Juxtapose All you're saying is that Madison also refused to accept the generally accepted meaning of the word democracy.

"Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant."

"aberrant (comparative more aberrant, superlative most aberrant)

Differing from the norm. [First attested sometime between the mid 16th century and the early 17th century.][3]

Synonyms: abnormal, exceptional, unusual; see also Thesaurus:strange
Antonyms: normal, regular, true; see also Thesaurus:normal

(sometimes figuratively) Straying from the right way; deviating from morality or truth. [First attested in the mid 18th century.][3]

Synonyms: devious, errant, immoral; see also Thesaurus:immoral
Antonyms: correct, right, straight; see also Thesaurus:virtuous"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aberrant

[Still-alive]

Even if we grant that that is true does it still somehow justify our government’s taking our rights away? there's an implied threat there somewhere that if the majority gets their way then they should be taken from them by force. So just fascists being fascist whenever i see anyone saying ‘america is not a democracy’ b. s.

[goaded]

That's why the rule of law is so important; the government is restricted in what it can do by the law. Of course, certain people are now claiming that the president (their president, not a Democratic one, obviously) is above the law.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded You don't care about the law though, man. If you did, you wouldn't support the Democrats.

[Still-alive]

@ProbablyClueless lol delusional 😂

[OddBeMe]

True. 2016 was a weird example of democracy. Hillary had the name, money and establishment. As much I preferred her to Trump, my consolation was that even by electoral college (an issue) we do still live in a democracy. A type of one.

I have wondered why parliaments are preferred by new countries.

[goaded]

Isn't the US the only republic in the world with an electoral college?

The Federal Republic of Germany's president is only a figurehead, like the King of England (Scotland, Wales, etc.). They have theoretical veto power over the government but it's never used. (I think Italy's King deposed Mussolini in the 1940s, but icbw.)

[DrPepper12]

Parliamentary govt is FAR superior to USA structure for so many reasons

[DrPepper12]

That's ANOTHER USA stupidity! Our head of state and actual leader are the same person. Just moronic.

[OddBeMe]

@DrPepper12 not sure…PMs do lead the political strategies by being the figurehead for citizens. And we see lots of small examples that Europe has no protection of free speech. It ain’t bad, but it’s not 100% free.

[NathanDavis]

the USA is not a true democracy

lobbyists have more power and influence than the people

and that, is the truth

the rest is illusion

[DrPepper12]

I pledge allegiance to the dollar and the oligarchic state of America... So sad but true

[NathanDavis]

" On average, House members who voted to authorize $886 billion in military spending took four times more money from military contractors than members who voted against the bill. Senators who supported the NDAA took five times more arms industry cash than the senators who opposed it. "

" This disconnect between popular sentiments and elite behavior clarifies the role of arms industry donations. Military contractors aren’t just asking politicians for votes, they’re asking them to reject public opinion. Too many in Congress are happy to oblige. "

here's the TRUE American democracy

money does talk way loader than the people do

[DrPepper12]

Exactly why we need public campaign finance

[handsomelad70]

America is a plutocracy (rule of the rich) , a gerontology (rule of the elderly), and a pigmentocracy (rule of the majority white populace at the expense of POC.) In shirt, cisgender, straight rich white mostly males are the cat's meow (I'm old, remember) in the good ol' USA. Everyone else falls in line after those Brahmins.

[goaded]

@NathanDavis Here's the thing, though. You can vote those asshats who listen to donors and lobbyists out of office. You won't, but it's possible. That's what makes it a democracy.

[handsomelad70]

@DrPepper12 YEAH, BUDDY !!!1

[DrPepper12]

@handsomelad70 true. I call them the pale, stale, male crowd

[handsomelad70]

@DrPepper12 Country singer Doug Stone, who'll be 68 June 19, had a hit called "Addicted To A Dollar."

[DrPepper12]

I've pointed this out to the MAGAs for years and they don't care for facts, objectivity or logic. You're just gonna get dumass replies devoid of reason.

[Juxtapose]

Wrong!

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Tell your mate patois (who posted then blocked me): "The United States operates as a constitutional republic, a form of government that involves representatives elected by the people, who execute their duties under the constraints of a prevailing constitution that specifies the powers and limits of government."
You get to meaningfully vote for your leaders, you're a democracy. Counter examples: Russia, China, Democratic Republic of North Korea.

Oh, wait, you have the same system of government as North Korea?

[gorydetails]

So this passes for high intelligence? “THE US IS A DEMOCRACY”. Followed by “NO COUNTRY ON EARTH IS A DEMOCRACY”.

[Juxtapose]

Check this out:

[gorydetails]

@Juxtapose Well no shit. This “we need to protect our democracy” is just newsspeak for “we need to protect democrat power”. That’s why it’s these shitlibs who crow so much about democracy.

[Juxtapose]

Yep, they want to be experts and accredited so bad but they are anything but.

1. They can't even get how are government works, they think it's a democracy xD

2. They can't tell a man from a woman.

3. They can't tell a human from a cat.

4. They think being black makes you unable to get an I. D.

5. They think Republicans have been the racist ones all throughout history when the party of the Ku Klux Klan and its foundation was the Democrats.

6. They are easily lied to and believed the covid nonsense.

I don't even need to go on although I could. They aren't the brightest.

[goaded]

@gorydetails So, you're saying “NO COUNTRY ON EARTH IS A DEMOCRACY”. What's the US been claiming to fight for for the last century?

[gorydetails]

Those were your words, dummy.

[goaded]

Except I was saying "if the US is not a democracy..."

[gorydetails]

“There isn’t a country on earth that is a democracy”. From your words

[goaded]

Only if you're a dishonest asshole who removed a word: "There isn't a country on Earth that is a pure democracy"

[gorydetails]

So that would include the US, would it not?

[goaded]

So you admit you were lying about what I said?

[gorydetails]

No, that’s what you said. Are you ready to admit the US isn’t a democracy.

[goaded]

Liar. I said "There isn't a country on Earth that is a pure democracy", you pretended that I didn't include the word "pure". Because you're a liar.

[gorydetails]

So how can the US be a democracy if there isn’t a country on earth that’s a democracy?

[goaded]

Still with the same lie?

You get to meaningfully vote, so the US is a type of democracy, albeit an imperfect one that can lead to minority rule and fascism.

[gorydetails]

So the US is not a democracy since no country is a democracy.

[goaded]

You're just going to keep repeating the bullshit that the only democracy is one where everyone votes on everything? (While ignoring your obvious lie.)

[gorydetails]

You fuckin just said that’s what a democracy was, idiot.

[goaded]

No, you lied about what I said by leaving out the word "pure". Liar.

[gorydetails]

Bahaha. have you tried getting mad about it?

[goaded]

Mad about you lying? No. I'm used to it.

[gorydetails]

You admitted US wasn’t a democracy, then still try to defend you didn’t type what you did.

[goaded]

No, you're still lying. Pretending that there's only one definition of democracy and that I didn't include the word "pure" in my post. Is the US government not "government by the people"?

[gorydetails]

Now? Absolutely not. The Government is a bunch of pedo demons that are actively engaging in activities to harm the people.

[goaded]

"pedo demons"? Idiot.

[gorydetails]

You’re part of the evil, not surprising you defend it.

[goaded]

Evil are the liars like you. If you quote me, don't leave out words.

[gorydetails]

Ok, pedo.

[goaded]

Ah, an even more evil lie. Typical for you.

[gorydetails]

You defend the pedos, that’s enough for most people to know where your heart is.

[goaded]

You just can't stop yourself lying, can you? Pitiful.

[Juxtapose]

No he's actually right, they are pedophile demons. Not literal spiritual demons, but they are evil people who traffic children. The government is filled with these vile villains.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Given up on reasonable discussion and joining the insulting liar?

[gorydetails]

All the proof you need is Epstein’s client list has resulted in 0 arrests.

[goaded]

Did you see Trump's interview where he was asked what he would declassify?

JFK files? Sure!
9/11 file? Absolutely!
Epstein files? Um, uh, hmm...

[gorydetails]

@goaded you're almost starting to get it.

[goaded]

Who is it you support, again?

Trump's Spiritual Advisor Admits To Molesting 12-year-old Girl.

www.charismanews.com/.../

[gorydetails]

I support castrating pedophiles.

[goaded]

Even Trump?

[gorydetails]

Bring them all down. I'm not some stupid ideologue like you who would defend biden for showering with his daughter inappropriately and sniffing little girls because oranj man bad. But again, we don't know epstein's client list. Biden has sat on it for 4 years. And you almost know why.

[goaded]

Sure, but you want Trump to "Bring them all down." And he will bring down American democracy at the same time. After that happens, it will only take one person to point out that you have an unhealthy knowledge of underage stars in 1970's movies to get you thrown into a camp.

[gorydetails]

Wow. So persecuting pedophiles will bring down the American Government? That's why we have to allow adults to fuck little girls? To keep this government running?

[goaded]

Try to make some sense. Trump won't persecute pedophiles, because he was in with Epstein. He will, however, end American democracy. Don't you see that?

[gorydetails]

Lmao. You're an idiot. You're conflating "American democracy" with "Democrat rule". I know the codewords.

If Trump's in with Epstein, then release his list of clients and persecute. Something the Biden regime hasn't done in 4 years.

[goaded]

No, you're an idiot. Democracy, among other things, means "a system of government in which the people of a country can vote to elect their representatives". How is the US not that?

[gorydetails]

And how is Trump going stop people for voting for their representatives? Honestly this histrionic propaganda makes you all look like a bunch of hand-wringing pussies.

[goaded]

Russia allows people to vote, too. They just make it meaningless. Do you think Russia is a democracy? I know you love that kind of country, but try to be honest for once.

Do you know how Hitler managed ending democracy? Totally legal.

DeSantis suspended two elected local prosecutors. Both, for some reason, Democrats. Then the Florida Supreme Court gave him free reign to do so. www.lawdork.com/.../desantis-worrell-florida-supreme-court

He banned civilian oversight of the police.

"Election officials in Florida are concerned that Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) new ballot rule could force them to break existing laws in the Sunshine State."
www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../ (and that's a far right source).

That's how fascists do it.

[gorydetails]

Do fascists coerce media companies to censor news stories?

[goaded]

As usual, since you have no response to an argument, you go off at a tangent. Call me a pedo again, it might help.

[gorydetails]

So I'm taking that's a "YES". Good to know. You want epstein's list kept hidden to protect the government. Do people against pedophilia do that?

[goaded]

Another tangent. Try again, you pathetic person.

[gorydetails]

I'm still waiting for your explanation on how Trump is going to suspend elections. This is your paranoid propaganda, not mine.

[goaded]

I just did. I'm waiting for your explanation for calling me a pedo. I think that allows me to call you a dickhead, or worse.

[gorydetails]

No you didn't. You posted some irrelevant crap about someone who isn't Trump. Nice try.

[goaded]

Let me explain, once again. Trump, like DeSantis on a state level, will pass laws to make it easier for him to win elections despite the vote against him. He will never accept the result of an election he loses, just like 2020, and idiots like you will believe his bullshit, because you're idiots.

[gorydetails]

Ah, so you don't have any examples or evidence that Trump will eliminate voting. So you make up stupid shit.

[goaded]

Nope, I explain how fascists work. You should know, since you want it to happen.

[gorydetails]

Oh, so you know how fascists work, now? I see. So then when a political party coerces social media companies to hide news information, you instantly recognized that as fascist behavior.

[goaded]

Yes. I know how fascists work. I see it happening every day in the US, right now. They lie, they cheat, they insist that elections they lost weren't valid, but elections they win are perfect; they claim they were unreaonably convicted despite due process, they call themselves patriots, they take control of the levers of power and use them in unprecedented ways. You know, like taking over SCOTUS and refusing to hold them to the same standards as any other judicial employee.

[gorydetails]

Do they threaten to attack American citizens with F-16s?

[goaded]

Oh, look, another tangent. I see fascism coming every day in the US, right now. They lie, they cheat, they insist that elections they lost weren't valid, but elections they win are perfect; they claim they were unreaonably convicted despite due process, they call themselves patriots, they take control of the levers of power and use them in unprecedented ways. You know, like taking over SCOTUS and refusing to hold them to the same standards as any other judicial employee.

You lie, you cheat, you call yourself a patriot, you want your leaders to take control of the levers of power and use them in unprecedented ways. You're a fascist.

[gorydetails]

You sound like a conspiracy theorist nutter.

[goaded]

Except that it's all true. What part would you like to deny?

[gorydetails]

You made up a definition of fascism and then exaggerated and lied about one political party to fit that narrative. This isn't anything remotely close to intelligence. It's pure ideology and propaganda. I don't participate in your reindeer games.

[goaded]

No, I didn't. You "don't participate" because you know I'm right.

Do you call yourself a patriot?

[gorydetails]

You aren't right. You are a moron. And only a moron would say "patriot" = "fascist".

[goaded]

Do you call yourself a patriot?

[gorydetails]

only a moron would say "patriot" = "fascist".

[goaded]

That's not an answer. Do you call yourself a patriot?

[gorydetails]

yes it is the final answer.

[goaded]

So, I was right when I said "You lie, you cheat, you call yourself a patriot, you want your leaders to take control of the levers of power and use them in unprecedented ways. You're a fascist. "

[gorydetails]

no, you're just typing bullshit.

[goaded]

Nope. ou lie, you cheat, you call yourself a patriot, you want your leaders to take control of the levers of power and use them in unprecedented ways. You're a fascist.

Prove me wrong.

[gorydetails]

You won't ever understand that I don't play your intellectually dishonest games. You can cope and seethe in a fit of impotent autistic rage, but I'll never play the game.

[goaded]

Yeah, you don't want to explain how you don't lie, cheat, call yourself a patriot, want your leaders to take control of the levers of power and use them in unprecedented ways. Because: You're a fascist.

[gorydetails]

And you're a pedophile.

[goaded]

The facts are on my side.

[gorydetails]

Mine too.

[msc545]

It doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a shithole.

[Anonymous]

Where is the word 'democracy' in the founding documents of this country, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? The specifically used the words, 'federal republic.'

[goaded]

"We the People"

[Friendlybro79]

Very good points that are all accurate.

[goaded]

Thank you.

[Juxtapose]

Not really:

[Friendlybro79]

@Juxtapose yes and defining that in more than 3 words

The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.

clyburn.house.gov/.../us-government

[Friendlybro79]

We are a republic in which democracy is present. It is not a direct democracy as in we elect officials to represent us. We don't vote on every federal law. So no it's not a direct democracy. It is a constitutional federal Republic that democracy exists in. So how would you say that. You would call that a democratic Republic that it's citizens vote in all officials and the federal election which the electoral college count calls it there. To say democracy doesn't exist in America is stupid. To say it's not a direct democracy would be true.

[Anonymous]

The USA was formed by our Founders as a Representative Constitutional Republic. We were NEVER meant to be a "democracy"

[Juxtapose]

Facts:

[goaded]

Do you use democratic means to elect your representatives?

[msc545]

I cannot believe this ridiculous question is getting this much attention. The difference is meaning less in practice.

[exitseven]

The US is a democratic republic.

[Juxtapose]

Almost:

[exitseven]

@Juxtapose yes you are correct

[goaded]

Do you use democratic means to elect your representatives?