Americans don't deserve democacy

As the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy, I have no problems with "not deserving" the latter.

We don't deserve it - but sadly, it is forced upon us with disastrous consequences whenever the mob runs amok.
 
The fact is that election fraud is occurring. I suspect the Dems will be getting in on it as soon as possible, thought the Reps cornered the market.

It doesn't matter who's behind it- that it's happening like it is means we don't have democracy. That Americans don't care proves they don't deserve or want self-governance. So long as their masters keep them fat and comfortable, they're happy.

'But he is a good king'
 
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

democratic-republic

A democracy is one where the government is directly chosen by the people (i.e., through elections); a Republic is one where government authority is derived through the will of the people. Thus, a Democratic Republic would be one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.

What you assert/explain is certainly valid.
Thinking about does help to explain why many citizens on the "far-right" object to the United States participation in the United Nations. If the United Nations can exhert some measure of authority/ control over the actions of the USA, then the "ultimate authority and power" of what our government does no longer is entirely derived or rests upon the consent (expressed through our electoral process) of America's citizens.
One well known organization that articulates this view is the John Birch Society, which
"..opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), etc." The society argues that there is a devaluing of the U.S. Constitution in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this trend is not an accident.
 
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

democratic-republic

A democracy is one where the government is directly chosen by the people (i.e., through elections); a Republic is one where government authority is derived through the will of the people. Thus, a Democratic Republic would be one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.

What you assert/explain is certainly valid.
Thinking about does help to explain why many citizens on the "far-right" object to the United States participation in the United Nations. If the United Nations can exhert some measure of authority/ control over the actions of the USA, then the "ultimate authority and power" of what our government does no longer is entirely derived or rests upon the consent (expressed through our electoral process) of America's citizens.
One well known organization that articulates this view is the John Birch Society, which
"..opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), etc." The society argues that there is a devaluing of the U.S. Constitution in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this trend is not an accident.

I just don't like the fact that the lions share of dimes comes from our great nation. The UN is all for the redistribution of wealth on the global level......as long as most of it comes from the US. Not to mention just how many of these nations are run by tyranny and dictators that syphon off the funds. Nothing about a John Bircher mentality.
PS....it's not just a right wing thing...there are several on the left feel the same way
 
Oh, I get it, if your a Democrat you want Democracy and if your a Republican you want a Republic. If that is what one believes, so be it. I will not waste my time to argue. Nor am I going to argue if we are a Republic or Democratic form of government, at this point in history we have corrupted and bastardized the best of either forms of government to point we can say we are ruled under a "soft tyranny".

Republican Government: John Adams, Thoughts on Government

We ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

All sober enquiries after truth, ancient and modern, Pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this.

If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men, in whose breasts it predominates, so stupid, and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.

A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadley. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is Republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a Republic, is "an Empire of Laws, and not of men." That, as a Republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words that form of government, which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of Republics.

Of Republics, there is an inexhaustable variety, because the possible combinations of the powers of society, are capable of innumerable variations.

I like John Adams, I believe his views are the best ever expressed. I must admit I have not read much of anyone else and of John Adams I must re-read what I have read. I seem to need to read things a couple times to remember what was said.

I wonder if any other founder read as much or was as educated as John Adams, I really dont think so but as I have said, I have much to learn, which most likely I will not learn by the end of my short life.

What I do know is our founders never intended our government become what it is today which is a pot of tempting money for thousands of con-men, Republicans and Democrats.
 
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

democratic-republic

A democracy is one where the government is directly chosen by the people (i.e., through elections); a Republic is one where government authority is derived through the will of the people. Thus, a Democratic Republic would be one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.
What republican decided, and when, to call us a republic because it sounded like republican. Probably the same one that decided to refer to the Democrat Party.
 
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

My poor boy, study your History 101.................

The American's Creed
by William Tyler Page

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed,


a democracy in a republic,

a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

–Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.
 
51SHEK9H2NL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


174070.jpg


51ZZARD945L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg
 

You can call it what you will but our founding fathers referred to it as a Republic. In my eyes they hold a lot more credibility than you.

James Madison, Federalist Paper #14
The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html
 
Last edited:
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

democratic-republic

A democracy is one where the government is directly chosen by the people (i.e., through elections); a Republic is one where government authority is derived through the will of the people. Thus, a Democratic Republic would be one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.
What republican decided, and when, to call us a republic because it sounded like republican. Probably the same one that decided to refer to the Democrat Party.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
 

Forum List

Back
Top