Did you know America is not a democracy?

[Juxtapose]

"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.”

"The Founders never used the words "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/did-the-founding-fathers-of-the-usa-really-make-a-distinction-between-a-republic

https://ar.usembassy.gov/u-s-government/#:~:text=While%20often%20categorized%20as%20a,law%20of%20the%20United%20States.

"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.

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?"

https://www.lee.senate.gov/2020/10/of-course-we-re-not-a-democracy

Yes

No

I disagree

Updates

7 d

I can't name the user because of member post rules but somebody was kind enough to share this video with me and it is very relevant. I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to watch it.

https://youtu.be/KZOtEbwwfOM

[goaded]

So, you link to some rando on an open forum that could have been you, a government page (targeted at Argentina) that doesn't say the US is not a democracy, and a Republican lawmaker's page.

You've stopped linking to the CIA https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type Since I pointed out: "Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation. "

You also tried https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic , a worthy source, which says everybody but Madison was happy to call their new system of government a democracy.

"... in 1787, terminology was still unsettled. Not only were democracy and republic used more or less interchangeably in the colonies, but no established term existed for a representative government “by the people.”"

The same article also makes it clear that Madison was regarded the same way I regard you; stubborn and unwilling to accept the universal consensus. Only, in his case, the terms were still fluid, we've had centuries to decide that he was wrong and the others of the time were right.

"... for Madison, democracy meant direct democracy, and republic meant representative government.

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

(Some synonyms for aberrant: abnormal, exceptional, unusual, errant.)

One final point. Senator Lee's (R-Utah) opinion piece starts off with "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.". (That is, of course, the universally accepted definition of the word democracy.)

He then goes on to suggest that the mechanisms of government are supposedly undemocratic, while ignoring that every aspect of the constitution and government may be changed, amended, by democratic means.

[msmissydc]

This is never going to end and he will never accept facts.

[Juxtapose]

I wanted to include the CIA link but I literally ran out of space. Do you expect me to make a multi-part question just for you? And I am satisfied with what I provided you because they explained it well.

Anyways though, America is not a democracy. Voters can only vote in a single branch of the government and there is all kinds of checks and balances to prevent the popular vote from running things. By definition the people are not in charge.

Not only that, but in actual practice America and most other western countries are straight up an oligarchy. I have proof.



act.represent.us/.../usa-oligarchy-research-explained

So yeah, even if you judge the government by how it is written, the founding fathers were pretty clear about their disdain for democracy. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others hated it. Go ahead and look at the quotes I put up there.

Then there is the fact that in practice, America is straight up in oligarchy. People can feel that here and it is factual as I have shown you.

[Juxtapose]

*an oligarchy

[msmissydc]

This is saying which interests are represented not who holds the power. With literally one of two parties who represent the rich and favour them by far this should be obvious, but it doesn't say its not a democracy. Just that people do vote for stuff they logically shouldn't vote for. With republicans literally screwing over citizens and telling them its for their own good its to be expected.

[Juxtapose]

@msmissydc don't act like it's just the Republicans who are money grubbing whores. The Democrats are just as bad and the most corrupt of the two parties working concert to swing the pendulum back and forth so they can keep Americans distracted while they extract our wealth from us through these money laundering schemes. A. k. a, Ukraine aid and such.

The people who are represented are the ones who have power. Clearly organizations like Blackrock, the Rothschilds, George Soros, etc hold more sway than over 100 million Americans very easily.

[Juxtapose]

*two parties are working in concert to swing the pendulum back and forth

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Well, aren't you lucky I posted the CIA link for you: www.cia.gov/.../government-type "Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation."

If the US is an oligarchy, it's one the people or their representatives have voted for, and they could get together and vote to end it, if Republicans were not busy being outraged at the red herring of the day.

Over the last few decades, it's the Republicans who have fought campaign finance laws in the legislature and the supreme court.

Remember Citizens United, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to freedom of expression applies to corporations? It basically legalised bribery of politicians. ballotpedia.org/Federal_campaign_finance_laws_and_regulations

Trump has openly told fossil fuel companies to spend money to get him elected and he'll gut environmental protections for them. www.washingtonpost.com/.../

The Democrats aren't perfect, but the majority their legislators are on the right side of this issue and the majority of Republican's are on the wrong side.

[Juxtapose]

"The Democrats aren't perfect, but the majority their legislators are on the right side of this issue and the majority of Republican's are on the wrong side."

I would respect your opinion a lot more if you would acknowledge that both parties have very corrupt people that are in on this. They take turns being the bad guys. During the Bush administration and when Mitt Romney was more of a thing that the Republicans were the focus of ire. Now the Democrats have LOST IT *utterly*.

[Juxtapose]

*thing Republicans were

[goaded]

Go look up the vote split on the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (the one that the right of the SCOTUS gutted in 2010 with Citizens United). Of the votes against in the Senate, two came from Democrats and 38 from Republicans. In the House: 12 came from Democrats, 176 from Republicans, and one from an independent.

Who voted that corporations are people and allowed free speech rights? Justice Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.

[Juxtapose]

You don't think these people know how to give the appearance of being opposed to each other? They are working for the same people my guy.

[Juxtapose]

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both serve the deep state.

[goaded]

Yeah, just ignore their actual actions. Why not vote for people who don't want money in politics?

[Juxtapose]

If you had been paying attention to their actions you would know that both political parties are deeply corrupt and cannot be trusted.

Bernie Sanders was okay before he was bought off and Donald Trump is still holding strong. Those are examples of people who are actually sincere.

[Juxtapose]

I mean shit, look at all the deregulation Bill Clinton did. That set up a lot of corruption to happen.

[goaded]

Donald Trump is a convicted felon, a rapist, and a fraud. He's pardoned people willing to lie for him.

[goaded]

"The people who’ve captured the Republican Party envision a day when they won’t have to even pretend that they’re engaging in good-faith political discussions or negotiations because they will have outlawed, sidelined, or intimidated their opposition into impotence and silence."
hartmannreport.com/.../americas-darkest-hour-battling-the-ec1

That's what you want, or at least what you're voting for.

[Juxtapose]

Hahaha what lies. He didn't rape anyone.

[goaded]

A court disagrees with you. I notice you didn't mention the convicted felon, and a fraud part.

[Juxtapose]

Dude do you really believe Stormy Daniels blacked out right before having sex with absolutely no drugs involved and then she magically comes out of the blackout after they finish?

I have seen people blackout, I have seen trauma, that woman is a fucking fraud. The way that whole trial was done was so riddled with errors it's going to be overturned in appeals.

[goaded]

Her testimony in that regard was completely irrelevant to the charges against Trump.

It was the E. Jean Carroll case where the jury found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.

Trump: rapist, convicted felon, and a fraud.

[Juxtapose]

You mean how he groped somebody and they want to classify that as rape now?

[Juxtapose]

You realize he has all these groupies that beg for his attention and sexual attention? And then when they see a way to make a quick buck they sell him out and act like it was unconsensual?

[goaded]

No. Look up what he did, since you clearly don't know. Trump is a rapist, a convicted felon, and a fraud.

[Juxtapose]

Frankly I don't care whatever he's convicted of because he is not being tried in good faith. These are witch hunts and they're throwing everything possible at him to see what sticks. None of this is sincere.. at ALL.

[Juxtapose]

Stalinist trials where the prime political opponent is being persecuted.

[patois]

It's kind of common sense given the Constitution of the United States specifically states in Article 4 section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Every American child that attended public school repeated the following every single school day through their entire youth, but the slow kids failed to comprehend it.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) specifically and correctly documents in the The World Factbook that the United States is a constitutional federal republic.

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

It's not a hard thing to comprehend for people of average intelligence or greater, it's mentally retarded people that struggle with this fact.

[alice55]

America is ways more of a democracy than France though. Because here the president have all three power which make him technically a dictator.

[naartjie]

Did you know that I don’t care? Gonna die and this will be the last thing I ever think about

[Juxtapose]

Well that's awfully dramatic. Are you really dying?

[naartjie]

We all are especially with all the crap getting pumped into our bodies nowadays

[Juxtapose]

So you're not suffering from cancer or some shit and you are being hyperbolic.

Look lady, you're going to be fine. You're probably going to live to your 80s or more if you play your cards right.

[naartjie]

Oh that’s not the problem lol, I just mean there’s things I care about and things I don’t. That’s all, I’m just saying when I die this won’t be on my mind and if I was dying of cancer, it wouldn’t come to mind in the following weeks prior to my death… this observation is to show how insignificant it is, to me (obviously not the same for everyone)

[Juxtapose]

Then why did you even click on this question?

[Juxtapose]

Political questions are not for people who don't care about them. It's kind of like going into a magic the gathering clubhouse and then saying you don't like playing cards.

[naartjie]

Because this place is for sharing opinions? If you don’t like that people do that then why bother asking questions?
You don’t even have to reply. Don’t like an answer? Don’t reply and leave a like or not. No one forced you to reply. This is literally a place to share opinions and answer questions. I shared my opinion. Shoot me

[Juxtapose]

I don't know it just seems weird dude. It's like if I go to a question designed to cater to people who taste wine and I'm hypothetically someone who despises alcohol.

I'm not going to stop you but I am going to question your reasoning like I did just now.

[naartjie]

Comparing me answering an online question to going somewhere in person or now “carted to people” when I literally shared an opinion on this topic is weird.
Look where you are buddy, a site to share opinions lol. I don't know what to tell you man. It’s not that deep

[naartjie]

I could ask a question what people think about the new world order and if someone said they didn’t care about it, like nice! A different opinion! And then carry on reading other comments lol. I don't know I don’t take things personally or too deep, especially online

[Juxtapose]

No no I specifically said a question about wine tasting.

I know it's not that deep I was just sharing my opinion. No negative or hard feelings towards you whatsoever. You seem chill.

[naartjie]

Yeah likewise

[Juxtapose]

Cool! What are some things you are interested in?

[naartjie]

Important things? Health, what the world is trying to feed us, staying well aware of how lost we are so I can avoid that, homestead, etc. I indulge a lot in a podcast called conspiracy theories on Spotify but only because they aren’t biased and talk openly about many different perspectives and don’t shove any of it down peoples throats. Probably the only good podcast I’ve come across that dives into all matters in such different ways.

[naartjie]

The podcast talks a lot about new world order, big lies in history that show the kid of people we have in power and how everything is linked to each other. How people get brainwashed without realising cause they’re so used to it etc

[Juxtapose]

What did the podcast recently talk about that you liked?

[naartjie]

Well I’m new to it so I’m trying to listen to things from the beginning but a recent episode was called reefer madness. Was about how amazing it was until the 30s and some white men in power (and racists) used it as a way to make people hate those of colour. They just indulge in the sinister motives behind the marijuana tax. The campaign made a heap of money back then to get people to hate marijuana, taking peoples rights away to choose when more people die from alcohol, obesity (a literal addiction to processed foods) but then that also links to hospitals, they don’t want the people to be healthy because they then won’t make money. My gran had back surgery and they gave her a list of food to avoid and food to consume; meat, butter, eggs was all told to avoid but bread, syrup was told to consume.
Back then they were racist and happily had people hate marijuana and people who committed crimes would use marijuana as an excuse to get less sentence so such negative light was shed on it.
Going from marijuana to what food we consume is a big jump but when you really think about it all, you see what they really care about, their actual motives and their lies.

[naartjie]

We’ve managed to be fooled, don’t smoke weed (which to this day no one has od or died from it) but don’t eat fresh butter and eat our store butter or bread that has 10-15+ ingredients that will eventually give you serious health problems. Look at all the mental issues and problems people this generation are having and look how they’re eating. I think stuff like marijuana is the least of our problems in the world

[Juxtapose]

Marijuana has some pretty good effects to it besides just the high and it's less dangerous for you than chugging Red Bulls which can give you a straight-up heart attack.

I think also the reason why marijuana was demonized was because hemp was a competitor for paper.

I would also personally say the mental issues of this generation is due to at degenerate culture, too much screen time, not enough parenting because both parents are at work and of course like you said, shitty food. The food you eat affects your gut bacteria which also affects what you crave and your mood!

I remember the D. A. R. E program growing up. It was lame about weed but at least it encouraged people to not shoot up heroin or meth.

[naartjie]

Exactly. Was highly versatile, used for rope, clothing and other fabrics. Pretty sure they were even looking into it being the next eco friendly diesel oil.
Should read up on the man who made the world hate marijuana, Harry Anslinger would literally say racist as things like “ 1 There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are N*******, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with N*******, entertainers and any others.” And “ 1 Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.”
Not to mention he said marijuana was worse than heroine and cocaine💀 was all a power grab, to make money and to hate on those who were already hated.
And yes there are definitely many issues in this society but what we eat is definitely doing a lot of the work. I know many families or just people individually who have such horrible eating habits, don’t get any nutrients or fresh, healthy, homemade meals and you should see the mental state they’re in… imagine being born and for the next 19 years your parents just feed you crap. You’ll have mental issues along with disorders etc.
I’ve heard of many people just diagnosed with diabetes who have stopped taking insulin because they’ve changed their eating habits. What we put in our body definitely takes a toll.

[dragoblack]

Well yeah, but it's not ran as a republic either. It's ran as a capitalist oligarchy where large mega corporations control the government and country, through a variety of means. Meanwhile the Democrats want to rule through manipulation & secrecy, and the Republicans want to rule through religious doctrine, fear-mongering, & "doing whatever the fuck we want", but both agree on wanting to stay rich, keeping progressive candidates that threaten their status quo from gaining positions, and making sure they stay rich by keeping other rich people happy and tax cuts for the rich... which is abuse of governmental positions, and not doing their job, ignoring the majority of the nation, which is how we got to this destabilized economy. The usa government is a shit-show ran by out-of-touch rich people, that have been in their seat of government for far too long, and the massive conglomerates that pay them to make sculpted bills to let then get away with shady business practices, and manipulate the economy in their favor.

[Syntosi]

USA is a Democracy, claiming otherwise is dishonest. "Republic" just means you dont have a king, it says nothing about how or who it put into power. For example, China is a republic but it is also a one-party dictatorship. The fact that you have a public vote to elect your government means you are a democracy.

More specifically, USA is a "Representative Democracy" where the people vote for people to represent them in questions of politics and diplomacy as opposed to something like Switzerland which sees the people vote directly on policies without having politicians as middlemen.

Right wing people keep trying to pull the "We are a Republic" card as if its a "I win" when in reality it just shows that they dont understand their own arguments and just parrot the talking-points of someone they follow on twitter or whatever.

[Juxtapose]

The founding fathers understood democracy to mean rule by majority.

[Syntosi]

Explains why they were so cool with not allowing women and people not owning property (or just slaves) to vote I guess. Not sure why you think that is relevant today though. Also if you are confused, you should read this reply dripping with sarcasm.

Yes the founding fathers understood that USA was a democracy, some of them definitely did not like that aspect of it either but it was the final version of the system that they ultimately agreed upon. And just like how slavery in USA has changed a lot since, so too have voting and such to become more democratic than it was originally.

Your line of reasoning is literally the same one that people who support slavery uses, just to point out how silly your argument actually is.

[Juxtapose]

In the declaration of independence and in the Constitution there is not one mention of a democracy. This was deliberate by the founding fathers.

Democracy back then meant majority rule and a swift doom to the government. That's why in the beginning of this post I led with a bunch of quotes by the founding fathers to show that.

People today use democracy interchangeably with republic and it is not the proper way to use the term.

[Juxtapose]

When the Constitution was formed only land owning white men could vote and they could only influence the house of representatives, no other form of government. The president was elected and still is elected by the electoral college, the Senate used to be selected by the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court to this day is decided by the president who is decided by the electoral college.

Calling America a democracy is a joke.

[Syntosi]

*claps* Congratulations on finding out that the Founding fathers did not like the word "Democracy". Shame that their dislike of the word "Democracy" and what it represents does not in any way, shape or form detract from the fact that USA is still, and was always a Democracy.

When the constitution was formed they explicitly did not say anything about who could vote because the founding fathers could not agree upon it, therefore left it to the states themselves to decide. However, they did still outline elections which is the defining characteristic of a Democracy no matter what silly name the founding fathers wanted to call it.

A horse by any other name is still a fucking horse. It does not matter what you want to call it, but that is besides the point really.

Republics and Democracies are not even in the same category. A republic is about the position of leadership of the country, basically if you have a king or not. Its not about how that position is filled, and there are republics without elections that functions as monarchies. Democracies is about how people, such as those in Republics, are put into power. You are confusing apples with oranges because you dont even have a fundamental understanding of the topic while trying to misquote the founding fathers.

[Juxtapose]

"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."

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

[Syntosi]

Cool. And? Nothing about that disproves the fact that USA is a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

It absolutely does actually.

[Syntosi]

No it does not. It just shows that the founding fathers were not particularly happy about Democracies. So what? Pretty much the entirety of the constitution was a compromise because they could not agree behind a single vision. They can bitch and whine all they want but they could not think of a better system in the end. USA is a democracy, claiming its a "Republic and not a Democracy" is a silly attempt at semantics, and I say silly because it fundamentally fails at even that.

[Juxtapose]

A democracy is majority rule. Simply electing representatives to partially represent you is not a democracy.

[Juxtapose]

https://youtu.be/KZOtEbwwfOM

[Juxtapose]

From an FBI member to us

[Syntosi]

Well how convenient that I just made a reply to that video because it was hilariously stupid.

What a load of word salad.
"A Democracy is a political system in which the people periodically by majority vote at the polls select their rulers" Which is fucking false but whatever. "The rulers then have absolute power to make whatever laws they please by a majority vote among themselves" which is also fucking wrong but what else is new?
vs
"In a Constitutional Republic the people also by majority vote at the polls select rulers" which is again FALSE, "who make rules by majority vote among themselves but the rulers can not make any laws they please because the constitution severely restricts their lawmaking power"

... He just fucking described a constitution. Nothing about anything he just said had ANYTHING to do with republics (and he appears to not even know what a Republic, much less a democracy is). He then goes on about a bunch of philosophical claptrap about "the ideal of a Democracy" etc.. which is just his biased and hilariously wrong opinions.

[Syntosi]

"electing representatives to partially represent you" is called representative democracy. I wonder if "Democracy" has anything to do with "Representative Democracy"?

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry Leftist, but no. The Republic is a hybrid of representation by population and representation by territory. It *has* Democracy in it, but that is not it alone.

[Syntosi]

@Curmudgeon That is also wrong. There are Republics that function on aristocracy which is an Oligarchy analogue. For example the Roman Republic who was ruled by an unelected "noble" class.

Its more accurate to say that Republics has no position on the "source of power", be it something like the people or otherwise and instead operates from whatever other political system you combine it with. It is not a hybrid solution, it simply has nothing to do with it at all and is in a whole other category as such.

[worldscolide]

It's a fucking constitutional, representative republic. The only thing a democracy has to do with the US is process of how we elect our representatives. That is it. We vote on nothing else. Even president is limited to electors following the popular vote, not directly voting for the president.

But most democrats are low intelligence shit stains that never took a civics class.

[Syntosi]

What you are describing is "Representative Democracy" where people vote for politicians to represent them in an elective body.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Here is the wikipedia page and you can see USA is proudly mentioned as an example.

What you mentioned with people directly voting for policies is called a "Direct Democracy" and is fairly rare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Wikipedia page here.

What I can take away from this is that you dont understand what democracy means and you are confusing it with "Direct Democracy".

[Juxtapose]

The USA when it was originally founded only had white land owning males as voters and they could only vote meaningfully on the house of representatives. The entire rest of the government was completely unelected by the people.

So now you can vote for senators and there's less restrictions on who specifically can vote. Big whoop, that's still not a democracy. The founding fathers didn't even think America was a democracy.

[worldscolide]

Wikipedia = invalid source..

[Juxtapose]

Yep, it would be marked as an invalid citation in my high school and get you a talking to by the teacher.

[worldscolide]

It's invalid in high-school and college, and in literally all academic societies

[Juxtapose]

Yep, it's mostly polluted with far left biases and they all start reading the same incorrect shit and think it's what is reality.

[Syntosi]

Invalid source eh? Well okey then, ill just copy what I said elsewhere here then:

www.britannica.com/topic/representative-democracy
"The United States and France are republics that have played an important role in the adoption and spread of representative democracy."

www.thoughtco.com/representative-democracy-definition-pros-cons-4589561
"In the U. S., representative democracy is employed at both the national government and state government levels."

www.yourdictionary.com/.../representative-democracy-system-examples
"United States - The federal government of the United States of America is a representative democracy."

legaldictionary. net/representative-democracy/
"representative democracy exists when Americans vote for representatives in the local, state, and federal governments. However, direct democracy also exists when those citizens turn their ballots over and vote for the proposals listed at the state level."

[Syntosi]

Also for the record, wikipedia is now accepted as a source in most academic institutions provided that you support it. The era where wikipedia was instantly disqualified is long gone. You need to stay up to date my dude.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah I would have to see that for myself concerning wikipedia, I don't believe you.

All you are showing me are people who are confused about what a democracy is.

I will keep saying it as often as I need to. Electing people to represent you as a fraction of the government is not democracy. Democracy is majority rule.

The meaning of democracy has been twisted but the founding fathers understood what it really meant. That's why they hated it.

[Juxtapose]

You don't elect the president, the electoral college does. You don't elect the Supreme Court. So that's both the executive and the judicial branch that are completely immune from voters.

Then you have the legislative branch which originally voters could only choose members of the house. And these representatives are far more beholden to lobbying groups and corporations than they ever will be to individual, everyday voters.

[Syntosi]

That is not actually what a democracy is. Pretty much any sort of voting would qualify it as a democracy, it does not have to include all the people or even control all of the power in the country. Its more complicated than that but suffice to say that your understanding of what a Democracy is falls into the "oversimplified" category and that you are wrong because of it.

[Juxtapose]

@Syntosi no, the founding fathers described it rather well and I am sticking to what they said about it.

[Juxtapose]

Like I said, that's like voting on your breakfast in a North Korean prison and then proclaiming it a democracy. It's absurd.

[Juxtapose]

A democracy is where the people have the majority of the power themselves through their vote.

[Syntosi]

But they never said USA was not a democracy. The just said they did not like Democracies, which is fair I suppose, but sometimes you have to do things you do not like which includes having founding fathers allowing things like slavery and democracies to be institutionalized in USA.

And again. Literally EVERYONE agree that USA is a Democracy, except for you and some dude in 1966. You are fighting a losing battle here.

[Juxtapose]

Also known as, rule by majority.

[Juxtapose]

Appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy. Loads of people used to believe the Earth was flat, doesn't really amount too much these days now does it? Some good their belief did them!

In the declaration of Independence and in the Constitution the United States is not called a democracy even once. The fact that only a small fraction of the government is actually influenced by voters and how the founding father said things like..

"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.”

Should clue you in.

[Juxtapose]

"to much

[Syntosi]

I am not saying "Most people", I am saying all people.. because its an established fact. What you are saying does not even make any sense since Republics has no internal mechanism for elections, that is not what they are about. Elections where citizens vote is entirely a Democratic thing and has no connection to Republics outside of some Republics adopting Democracy in this area which makes them by extension a "Democracy".

You got two choices here really. Either you accept the fact that everyone defines USA as a democracy, which includes every academic institution, OR you have to debate me on political philosophy which you will also lose because Republics has nothing to do with elections and its super easy to point out. Trying to quote founding fathers is a waste of time since its irrelevant to the conversation.

[Juxtapose]

No you don't get to make me do anything, I will do as I please. My last response was sufficient and you invoking a logical fallacy and reiterating your previous points is not changing my mind.

[Juxtapose]

The people who created America actively hated democracies and they did not consider what you call representative democracy to be democracy.

[Juxtapose]

For good reason too.

[Syntosi]

No, it just proves that the founding fathers did not adopt democracy willingly and probably did it in as limited fashion as they could get away with. The truth of the matter is that the only real alternative to a Democracy is a Monarchy, Oligarchy or an Anarchy. There are a few different versions of these but it basically boils down to Democracy=Many, Oligarchy=Few, Monarchy=One or Anarchy=None.

That is literally the full spectrum of choices that the founding fathers had available. There literally are no other options that is not already covered by these categories. So unless you are sitting here claiming that USA is a monarchy or something then you only have one choice by default, just as the founding fathers did.

[Juxtapose]

@Syntosi in full frankness I believe that in actuality? America is an oligarchy. Both in the formation of its government and how it actually is put into practice. The people who have the real power are a few people with money who have connections in a lot of places and are not voted for by any of the public.

[Juxtapose]

If you have ever listened to George Carlin you know what I'm talking about.

[Juxtapose]

And if you look at other western countries and how they operate in actuality instead of how they are supposed to operate on paper? They are mostly oligarchies as well ruled by much of the same people.

[Syntosi]

So you are sitting here today, claiming that the founding fathers established the "We the people" country as an oligarchy after they got tired of crusty old men telling the population how to live their lives? No, that is not only just wrong but also incoherent. Sure, there is an argument for the rich and powerful to wield a lot of power in a corrupt government but that says nothing about the actual structure of said government. And again, this is established fact. Everyone but you have come to the understanding that USA is a democracy.. because it is..

[worldscolide]

@Juxtapose our pledge of allegiance to the flag also calls us a republic.. "to the republic for which it stands" some people are just too stupid to understand.

[Syntosi]

@worldscolide
Just because its a Republic does not mean its not a democracy. They are not mutually exclusive or even related to one another. I am not sure how much more explicit I need to be about this before you google it or take up a text book. You are just plain wrong.

[Juxtapose]

@Syntosi "representative democracy" is not democracy at all.



Americans only vote on the legislative branch and that's it. Even then their votes are not meaningful unlike a direct democracy.

In a democracy the power would be within the people and their vote ABOVE ALL ELSE. The executive and the judicial branch would both be determined by the voters.

[Juxtapose]

America is much more accurately described as a constitutional federal republic that is an oligarchy. Right now the people in charge aren't too nice!

[Syntosi]

@Juxtapose
No, Americans vote on many things including local elections and even some direct democracy AKA voters voting directly on specific motions like the process of "Statute law affirmation" in Nevada. You are also misunderstanding the whole power dynamic.

The power is not IN the people, the power COMES from the people, or "the many" (it does not have to be everyone as long as its a significant enough subset of society to qualify for being a democracy). It does not matter how much or how little power is invested in for example the elective body, they could be quite frankly dictatorial, as long as its originating from the people through voting those people into power then it still counts as a democracy.

Also, its very important to point out that in USA there might be different branches of government but only the elected ones has the legal right to act on behalf of the country, in essence to wield their powers. In other words, the judicial branch does not have the right to for example write new legislation and simply have to follow the rules and stipulations set by the constitution and the elected representatives.

In other words, all the authority to wield actual power in the US government is held by positions that are voted on by the population. Why is this? Because its a Democracy, like I have been saying.

[Juxtapose]

No actually the actual power rests within special interest groups and as I showed you, the common person is not represented. People did not vote for this kind of thing and they did not want it.

When did people vote for representatives with the intent to have them institute civil asset forfeiture? When did people vote for corporations to become people in citizen's united?

The people are not represented at all. At all at all! To call this current system a democracy is a sham.

[Juxtapose]

The representatives don't represent the people, they represent special interest groups that pay them. The people are a distant after thought that they occasionally throw a crumb or two towards in order to placate them.

[Syntosi]

People voted for it the moment they did not take their responsibilities as an informed voter seriously. Having representatives that does not represent their voters is not a failure in the system, its a failure in the voters themselves. In a democracy you get the government you deserve, for good or ill. If you do not take voting seriously then you are going to get a dumpster fire.

Voters who does not inform themselves can easily be taken advantage of. Simple as that.

[NaultD]

More know fact people in this country are know to fight for more freedoms? Just because some old hat long dead said it was impossible it's worth fighting for today.

This is why we call our representatives and volunteers for representatives and potential become representatives themself and advocate for rights that are closer to democratic process today then the founding of America.

So the ability to make laws back then still have the same purpose as today and into the future.

[Curmudgeon]

It's a Representative Federal Republic. In fact, it is NOT, and never should be, "one adult person, one vote". It is a hybrid of representation by population and representation by territory, hence the Senate.

In terms of Bad Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the Constitution, by reading into it magical crap that Just. Is. Not. There, never mind the Roe vs. Wade or Obergefell vs. Hodges Bollocks, Reynolds vs. Sims was the real "Sex Pistol" that has damaged our Constitution, ruining Representation by County within larger States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

[RavVid]

Australia pinched parts of the US constitution so I am quite conscious that the US is a republic not a democracy.

With the same borrowed structure of a house of representatives and senate we are a democracy without being a republic. The Australian people voted down becoming a republic in 1999.

Jefferson and Franklin remarks are highly accurate on democracies. I particularly like Franklin's.

I don't think you guys are missing out on much. The two wolves are minority interests now and the lamb is normal people.

[Julie4]

How does being a republic prevent you from being a democracy?

[RavVid]

@Julie4 It doesn't and the US clearly has become so. The first emphasis was on a republican system and rightly so. There was a lot of thought given to prevent a strong man taking over as had happened in England with Cromwell.

As it is currently minorities are more likely to dominate majorities in democratic systems.

[Julie4]

Hmm ok, but I don't understand the author's point in saying that the USA is not a democracy.

My English must be really bad lol

[RavVid]

@Julie4 Your English is excellent.

I think the point is the US was conceived as a STABLE republic first rather than a democracy. Democracy came later.

It is quite possible the US President is elected by a minority of voters because of the electoral college system. It is really a state vote for the President. States get x college members to elect. Some states are winner take all. 50% plus 1 vote means all the college votes go to one Presidential candidates. Some states assign college members proportionally - 60% of votes would (roughly) give 60% of college members to that candidate.

After the popular vote, the college members do the real vote. College members could change their minds.

Trump asked for State legislatures to over-ride the people vote so maybe that is still possible.

So it doesn't look that democratic but all voting systems are an approximations of the will of the people. Nothing is perfect.

The truly democratic voting system is exhaustive ballot. Everybody votes and the least popular candidate s removed and everybody votes again with the least popular being eliminate each time. Eventually you end up with the least disliked candidate but perhaps not the most loved.

France approximates that with two rounds of voting. Australia approximates with preferential voting which asks if your first preference doesn't succeed who would you then vote for.

Technically the US voting system might not be that democratic but it is in practice.

Australia embodies a state vote as well as a people vote and it is a necessary feature of a federal style gov't.

[DryGermanGuy]

How many times do we have to read this MAGA nonsense? Democracy is the umbrella term for many different implementations: e. g. a direct democracy like Switzerland has or a presidential republic like the United States. Still, all of them are democracies!

[Juxtapose]

That's not what the founding fathers thought.

[DryGermanGuy]

@Juxtapose
And some of them might have written down that the sun revolves around the earth, because that’s what religion dictated them. Don’t you get it? The founding fathers used the verbiage and knowledge available to them at the time. Hardly comparable to what historians and researchers can tell us today about 2500 years of democracies, starting with the Greeks!

[Juxtapose]

The founding fathers knew that democracies fall apart.

[monorprise]

They have redefined democracy to include almost every form of goverment.

By the current "definition" China is a democracy too, after all they do hold elections. You just have to be a member of the communist party for the vote to matter.

[gorydetails]

An FBI agent in 1966 nailed the current situation.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KZOtEbwwfOM

[Juxtapose]

I am going to use this like no tomorrow. Thank you!

[gorydetails]

He even calls the leftist attempts to muddle the language.

[Syntosi]

What a load of word salad.
"A Democracy is a political system in which the people periodically by majority vote at the polls select their rulers" Which is fucking false but whatever. "The rulers then have absolute power to make whatever laws they please by a majority vote among themselves" which is also fucking wrong but what else is new?
vs
"In a Constitutional Republic the people also by majority vote at the polls select rulers" which is again FALSE, "who make rules by majority vote among themselves but the rulers can not make any laws they please because the constitution severely restricts their lawmaking power"

... He just fucking described a constitution. Nothing about anything he just said had ANYTHING to do with republics (and he appears to not even know what a Republic, much less a democracy is). He then goes on about a bunch of philosophical claptrap about "the ideal of a Democracy" etc.. which is just his biased and hilariously wrong opinions.

[Juxtapose]

That's because people in the not so distant past actually knew what those terms meant so it confuses you.

[Juxtapose]

America is a constitutional federal republic.

[Syntosi]

Complete nonsense. Republics is about the structure of government, Democracy is about the actual governance. Republics is the who, Democracy is the how. Or to put it in even simpler terms since I think this is flying over your head.

Republic says you have a president rather than a king and Democracy says that president is elected by voting.

[Juxtapose]

Electing a few representatives who affect a small fraction of the government is not democracy. There are two branches of the government which are completely untouchable for the voters.

[Juxtapose]

That's like saying in a North Korean prison if they let you vote on your breakfast then you have freedom.

[Syntosi]

You say USA is a "Constitutional Republic" and not a Democracy

I say that the UK is a "Constitutional Monarchy". Why do you think there are elections in the UK? It says "Monarchy" right there in the name! Exactly where is says "Republic" for USA! That must mean that this part of the sentence stands for how elections are made! Why is the UK not ruled by lines of monarchs and instead ruled by elected representatives?

THE WORDS! WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

Honestly though. You are really dumb. Go read up on what a Republic actually means.

[Juxtapose]

"You are really dumb."

Aww getting triggered are we?

The United Kingdom isn't a democracy either if they don't have direct democracy without checks and balances blocking the people's vote. A democracy is characterized by majority rule.

[Syntosi]

Triggered? No. I find this therapeutic actually.

So if the UK shares a similarity and one is a "constitutional republic" and the other a "constitutional monarch", where do you think this similarity comes from? If we are talking about voting then its not the "Constitutional" part I can tell you that much. Its almost like "Constitutional Republic" says absolutely jack shit about how elections are held and managed in the country. Almost like there is another descriptor that is missing... maybe something like.. I dont know.. "Democracy"? But with representatives.. almost like a "representative democracy".

Imagine if there was such a thing? Maybe its wikipedia page would be something like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

and maybe it would contain certain countries that are famous for having such a representative democratic system like:
"Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy: for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy) ... and the United States (a federal presidential republic)"

But that would just be baseless speculation right? After all, USA is a "Constitutional Republic" and as a result no such things should exist because that is totally how the world works.

[Juxtapose]

@Syntosi Wikipedia is not a valid source first of all.

Second of all, like I said, a small amount of elected representation doesn't amount to a full-blown democracy. That's like saying America is a socialist country because a small amount of the means of production is under government control.

[Syntosi]

Ahahaha! And you think some random dude trying to sell their book in 1966 is a better source of information than Wikipedia? But sure, by all means, lets look for "better sources".

www.britannica.com/topic/representative-democracy
"The United States and France are republics that have played an important role in the adoption and spread of representative democracy."

www.thoughtco.com/representative-democracy-definition-pros-cons-4589561
"In the U. S., representative democracy is employed at both the national government and state government levels."

www.yourdictionary.com/.../representative-democracy-system-examples
"United States - The federal government of the United States of America is a representative democracy."

legaldictionary.net/representative-democracy/
"representative democracy exists when Americans vote for representatives in the local, state, and federal governments. However, direct democracy also exists when those citizens turn their ballots over and vote for the proposals listed at the state level."

I mean at this point I am just going down the list of google. Its almost like this is a very basic fact and that no one else is confused about except for you people.

[Juxtapose]

@Syntosi see my most recent reply to you in another post on here.

[SotiCoto]

Your post seems more about explaining why democracy is bad than proclaiming America isn't one... I mean I don't really care about the etymology one way or another, but I don't abide mob rule. I live my life my own way, and have no care to be ruled by the Ad populum fallacy.

I'm not American, mind you, but Britain isn't really any different in this regard.

[AviatorTom]

Whatever the process, American citizens vote for the politicians that represent them, and in that sense, the US is a democracy, specifically a democratic republic.

[Syntosi]

Yeah, Republic basically just means that USA does not have a king. It is not about whether or not USA has democratic elections which is a separate subject and the answer is "Yes, its a Representative Democracy".

[AviatorTom]

@Syntosi Thanks for describing it better than I did. 🏆

[Juxtapose]

That's not what the founding fathers thought.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Yep and it annoys the crap out of me when people get it mixed up

[Syntosi]

You are literally mixing it up RIGHT NOW. Republic in this context just means USA does not have a king. It does not mean you are electing your representatives, that is what a Democracy is and why USA is both because they mean different things.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

@Syntosi republic in the context of America means that we’re not a 2 party system. This debate is becoming popular because of words spoken about this topic by people considered to be founding fathers and visionaries of what this country is. They were all historians and predicted almost everything happening wrong in our country along with the reasons why.

[Syntosi]

A two party system is a direct result of how the election is performed. Things like handing over all the power to the winning party means that the opposition can only exist as a competitor by being unified, in other words a winner and a loser. As such its a design flaw in how elections are run in USA on a fundamental level, which if the founding fathers had such prophetic predictive powers they should have been able to predict alongside the creation of political parties.

A proportional representation would mean that even if a 3rd party only got 20% of the votes they would still have power and be relevant in politics and as such break the 2 party monopoly. Simple fix, weird that the founding fathers did not foresee it in my humble opinion.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

@Syntosi they did, you just don’t understand how it’s supposed to be because it’s a foreign concept to us now

There’s supposed to be no parties. You’re not supposed to need anybody backing you other than people who do so voluntarily as individuals.

The electoral college was meant to work in conjunction with this decentralized way of electing people.

You’re supposed to have just as good of a chance as say Biden or Tucker Carlson or a janitor or anyone else.

The press’s role is supposed to be communicating people’s messaging in a direct way.

[Syntosi]

"Supposed to be" is a bad excuse. Political parties do not exist because they are a requirement, they exist because they provide an electoral advantage which means they will win by default against any other without an equal advantage. As such, if you permit political parties to exist, they will dominate your politics by default.

The electoral collage has nothing to do with helping people not part of parties to enter politics. They were a solution to a purely logistical problem of how to conduct elections in a massive undeveloped country without proper infrastructure and low technology. A problem that no longer exist I might add and at which point the electoral collage itself has become a problem.

And no. The founding fathers were not stupid enough to think that a janitor had the same chance as someone like Biden to become president or elected for office outside of a political party. They knew enough about how politics works and the history of it to understand that at most they could help minimize the problem but not in a million years actually resolve it. We will eliminate world hunger before we create a society where everyone has an equal chance to become elected.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

@Syntosi why do you think they wrote so much about this stuff? Because they thought they had the formula for this country absolutely perfect?

Before anything else, they’re visionaries.

If a house is burning down and someone says “we should try to save the house” nobody says “ nah let it burn, we’ve done all we can”

Unless it’s a volunteer dept. maybe.

They get some fucking water and try their best.

What’s the point of having that kind of attitude?

[Syntosi]

You are the one who proclaimed their foresight and such, not me. I see them as fallible humans who did not necessarily have any more grasp on politics than people today but we at least benefit from hindsight. But this is all kind of besides the point.

The founding fathers designed USA to be a democracy, or in other words have elected officials. The Republic part is in the structure of the government I. E no king at the top but a president and the constitution is just an extra protected legal document.

So saying USA is a constitutional republic is true, but says nothing about elections or such. It is not a complete description of the country as some people here appears to think. Saying USA is not a Democracy because its a Constitutional Republic is like saying USA is not capitalist because its a Constitutional Republic.

[MrOracle]

Yes. I've known and understood this since at least 4th grade. And it's right there in the Constitution, and in the pledge of allegiance. "And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands."

[OtterMan68]

semantics.
Most people realize when you say "America is a democracy," they don't mean an absolute democracy, but a democratic republic.
We still vote for our leaders, and many people vote directly for state and local issues.

[Juxtapose]

The founding fathers were pretty clear about their distaste for democracies.

[OtterMan68]

again: when people say the US is a democracy, no one is implying it's a direct democracy

[Juxtapose]

"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."

[Juxtapose]

Clearly a democracy is rule of majority. A republic is where you take representatives and they have to go through a system of checks and balances which is a far cry from democracy.

[OtterMan68]

so you disagree with me? You think when people say "The US is a democracy" they mean direct democracy?

[OtterMan68]

see below

[Juxtapose]

I think people are largely ignorant and don't know what the term originally meant and over time the term has become muddled and vague.

[OtterMan68]

did you know that during the Enlightenment, to be a liberal was to be for free trade and less government, and conservatives liked strong monarchies and mercantilism?

[Juxtapose]

Well now there are different labels. Social liberals are differentiated from classical liberals quite keenly. Likewise there is a classical version of conservatism too.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Yes. The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

[PreferNot2Say]

We were never meant to be a democracy. We are a Representative Republic.

[Summeroflove]

Seems DEMOcrats are the ones who think that. It’s a little d democracy but a republic at that

[lightbulb27]

yes, ya gotta wonder why certain people go around talking about our democracy.

[yahyahyah]

Most countries are not democracies. There are different versions of democracy and there is no perfect version.

[MacDaddyRico]

Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, our country is an oligarchy.