Democracy is "mob rule."

[Crepitus]

It's a constitutional republic. Derp.

Do you think the people ratified the Preamble? Here's a clue: the states did. Derp.

So?

Show us where, Genius. Anywhere in the DoI or the Constitution. Take your time.

LMF'nAO!!!

And I bet you'd call me a statist.

You people are totally fucked in the head.

 

[norwegen]

LMF'nAO!!!

And I bet you'd call me a statist.

You people are totally fucked in the head.

No, Statist, I wouldn't call you a statist.

Not to your face, anyway.

 

[alang1216]

But with the protections and Proportional Representation, the US would be much better.

we have those things, don't we?

 

[alang1216]

I would call the filibuster a critical weakness, not that it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

And your system is irredeemably flawed, as illustrated by its present dysfunction.

Our democracy is 250 years old, it is just in need of a little freshening up. It is nothing that can't be fixed.

 

[San Souci]

I had another reply to me talking about Proportional Representation that was essentially "Democracy is mob rule".

So, Proportional Representation, which is the closest we're going to get to pure democracy in a mass election system, is it "mob rule"?

How would Germany be "mob rule" and the US isn't?

What is it about Denmark that has mobs controlling everything?

The US has two political parties that control EVERYTHING. Germany and Denmark and other PR countries have many more parties. They have representatives that REPRESENT the voters, not the money, they have more sensible politics instead of the partisan politics in the US.

So, how is Democracy mob rule?

Who gives a shit anyway? The USA is NOT a "Democracy" as you describe. It is a Representative Republic. And ALL other foreign Countries suck anyway. Germany prospers while the USA protects them. PS--You are free to MOVE to Denmark any time.

 

[Natural Citizen]

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Democracy is mob rule.

Actually America is a compound Republic. That being a combination of a central and state Republics, with the state Republics holding the majority of power over the 'strictly limited' federal Republic.

Each American government, Federal and State, is a Republic. Such a form of government is expressly guaranteed to each State by the United States Constitution. (See Article IV, Section 4.)

This makes the American system a combination, of Republics. A ''compound Republic'' as noted in The Federalist number 51 by Madison.

"Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." (See Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)


Now. Placing that aside.

"A Democracy'' is a form of government premised on the idea of a rule by omnipotent majority scenario, while ''democracy'' itself is merely a popular type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people.

More clearly, "a Democracy" and "a Republic" are dissimilar forms of government. Not only are they dissimilar forms of government, they are antithetical forms of government. Grasping this is critical to comprehension and discussion of the fundamental principles involved.

So it's important to distinguish the double meaning of the term. It is critical to distinguish form of government versus popular type of government.

In ''a Democracy'', The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

"A Republic", on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The definition of ''a Republic'' is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution, adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment, with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A. Our republic is a representative democracy. Derp.

B. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.".

C. Government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Abraham Lincoln.

D. The United States was founded as a democracy. It continues to be a democracy and will always be a democracy no matter how many times you treasonous bastards try to change it.

You are in dire need of reeducation. Seriously. Heh heh.

Start with studying the difference between a form of government and a popular type of government.

Until you at least demonstrate that you've shown that initiative, you have no business in this kind of discussion without supervision. You're simply not qualified.

Respectfully speaking, however, and to your credit, most of the electorate is observably in the same situation, given so many clear fasehoods posted in the thread thus far.

 

[JGalt]

You were just given the dictionary definition, you fucking ignorant idiot. But I repeat myself.

I just gave you the definition of what the founding fathers had in mind when they formed this government, you ignorant piece of shit. Would you like me to shove your fucking dictionary up your gaping ass?

Are you so stupid stupid that you think the founding fathers used a fucking dictionary to write the fucking constitution?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Unfortunately, PR just creates political gridlock.

And the US doesn't have political gridlock with FPTP?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What you're hearing is a conservative who's party is clinging to power with a minority electorate through institutions like gerrymandering and the US Senate.

I know, but also a party that loves the system because they're comfortable with it, and get rich from it from the corruption.

 

[Stann]

I had another reply to me talking about Proportional Representation that was essentially "Democracy is mob rule".

So, Proportional Representation, which is the closest we're going to get to pure democracy in a mass election system, is it "mob rule"?

How would Germany be "mob rule" and the US isn't?

What is it about Denmark that has mobs controlling everything?

The US has two political parties that control EVERYTHING. Germany and Denmark and other PR countries have many more parties. They have representatives that REPRESENT the voters, not the money, they have more sensible politics instead of the partisan politics in the US.

So, how is Democracy mob rule?

It's not, mob rule is what would have happened if the January 6th attack on the capital was successful.

 

[frigidweirdo]

we have those things, don't we?

No, the US does not have Proportional Representation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not, mob rule is what would have happened if the January 6th attack on the capital was successful.

Well, personally that's my feeling too. But it's so easy for the people in power to tell people it's "mob rule", a negative sentence, so the rich can keep their power.

 

[alang1216]

No, the US does not have Proportional Representation.

It's too bad we don't, it would be an improvement I think but it would come with it's own problems. I think ranked-choice voting would also be an improvement and wouldn't require a complete reworking of our system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's too bad we don't, it would be an improvement I think but it would come with it's own problems. I think ranked-choice voting would also be an improvement and wouldn't require a complete reworking of our system.

There are always problems with democracy. But PR has more oversight. Which is the list of countries which are the least corrupt, has lots of countries that US PR at the top.

 

[Ivan88]

the US was not founded as a government by the people; it was supposed to be a government of law. Not a government of the mobs; a government of law. Not rule of the majority; rule of law.

In 1774, the American Declaration of Rights said the American People never consented to being Governed.
Some decades before that English Nobles were discussing affairs in their North American colonies, when one of them said the Americans (Cherokee, Iroquois, and other North American nations) enjoyed much freedom, prosperity and happiness and were a threat because their happiness would infect the English colonists and make them copy the Native nations.

And despite agent provocateur George Washington's French & Indian war which he started, Americans wanted the freedom that the Natives had which may have led to the 1774 Declaration of Rights.

The American Revolution was created using those desires as a catalyst. After the revolutionary war ended, American Men sought to exercise their Rights to regulate their public servants who had consented to being so regulated.
And those governed men is where the American version of "government" started. It had little to do with "democracy".

Democracy was a Richman's racket that told the peasants they could vote on stuff. But, the Richman hired Solons, top notch speakers, who could sway the peasants to vote the way the Richman wanted.

Today the same game is played, TV etc. sways the peasants to vote for "representatives" that are blackmailed, extorted or bribed to vote the way the Richman wants.

And under their administrations, we have adopted the Talmudic anti-Christ Noahide Code that legalizes rigged elections to conform to what the Talmudists want.
President Trump was too infected with Talmudic mentality to effectively oppose a rigged election, and deserved to get kicked out.

If You know this, You know that voting is useless and even worse that useless.

 

[JGalt]

In 1774, the American Declaration of Rights said the American People never consented to being Governed.
Some decades before that English Nobles were discussing affairs in their North American colonies, when one of them said the Americans (Cherokee, Iroquois, and other North American nations) enjoyed much freedom, prosperity and happiness and were a threat because their happiness would infect the English colonists and make them copy the Native nations.

And despite agent provocateur George Washington's French & Indian war which he started, Americans wanted the freedom that the Natives had which may have led to the 1774 Declaration of Rights.

The American Revolution was created using those desires as a catalyst. After the revolutionary war ended, American Men sought to exercise their Rights to regulate their public servants who had consented to being so regulated.
And those governed men is where the American version of "government" started. It had little to do with "democracy".

Democracy was a Richman's racket that told the peasants they could vote on stuff. But, the Richman hired Solons, top notch speakers, who could sway the peasants to vote the way the Richman wanted.

Today the same game is played, TV etc. sways the peasants to vote for "representatives" that are blackmailed, extorted or bribed to vote the way the Richman wants.

And under their administrations, we have adopted the Talmudic anti-Christ Noahide Code that legalizes rigged elections to conform to what the Talmudists want.
President Trump was too infected with Talmudic mentality to effectively oppose a rigged election, and deserved to get kicked out.

If You know this, You know that voting is useless and even worse that useless.

Don't have a clue what you just wrote, but it does sound purty. That was about the Joos, right?

 

[Stann]

In 1774, the American Declaration of Rights said the American People never consented to being Governed.
Some decades before that English Nobles were discussing affairs in their North American colonies, when one of them said the Americans (Cherokee, Iroquois, and other North American nations) enjoyed much freedom, prosperity and happiness and were a threat because their happiness would infect the English colonists and make them copy the Native nations.

And despite agent provocateur George Washington's French & Indian war which he started, Americans wanted the freedom that the Natives had which may have led to the 1774 Declaration of Rights.

The American Revolution was created using those desires as a catalyst. After the revolutionary war ended, American Men sought to exercise their Rights to regulate their public servants who had consented to being so regulated.
And those governed men is where the American version of "government" started. It had little to do with "democracy".

Democracy was a Richman's racket that told the peasants they could vote on stuff. But, the Richman hired Solons, top notch speakers, who could sway the peasants to vote the way the Richman wanted.

Today the same game is played, TV etc. sways the peasants to vote for "representatives" that are blackmailed, extorted or bribed to vote the way the Richman wants.

And under their administrations, we have adopted the Talmudic anti-Christ Noahide Code that legalizes rigged elections to conform to what the Talmudists want.
President Trump was too infected with Talmudic mentality to effectively oppose a rigged election, and deserved to get kicked out.

If You know this, You know that voting is useless and even worse that useless.

I think you ate up one too many conspiracy theories. Maybe in Russia voting doesn't count, but here in the United States that matters a great deal. It's our most sacred right.

 

[MarathonMike]

And your system is irredeemably flawed, as illustrated by its present dysfunction.

Even with our problems, America is better than your country.

 

[Stann]

No, the US does not have Proportional Representation.

I'm afraid the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. Not only in the United States but the entire world it's becoming more and more urban. Thus more and more socialized. It's an inevitability. The electoral college was designed so the smaller states would have more leverage against the more populous, bigger states. It's creating a bigger and bigger imbalance.