Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

[Rumpole]

Don't want to take educated guesses? Why doesn't the word democracy appear in the Constitution nor Declaration of Independence?

Because 'Democracy' is a descriptive term, often poetic. "Republic', meaning essentially the same thing, is used more on documents, declarations, legal statemints, etc. America is listed as one of the 50 western democracies. The government calls America a democracy. All of academia calls America a democracy. "republic" and 'democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms. They are used interchangeabley, I'm 73, and during my entire life, throughout my rearing in schools all the way through college, no one ever denied America was not a democracy. So, I must ask: Why do you guys in the right, suddenly, (with in the last decade or so) insist on this nonsense in the first place? I'll tell you,. because republicans have only one the majority for president once in the last 30 + years, and you can't handle that fact and you needed to make up this shit that America is not a democracy to feel good about yourselves. Well, wake the fuck up, because to any degree a nation is not a democracy, to that same degree it is a fascist country, totalitarian country, a country of the rule of men, instead of the rule of law.

Why wasn't the RIGHT TO VOTE in the BIll of rights?

Now, try making the EDUCATED GUESSES without using the race card or "IDENTITY POLITICS" card in any way.

Would you be certain that they didn't intend to have ignorant masses t be seduced by false promises where the republic would descend into a demogoguery like it has become?

Are the reparation checks on the way? Yes or no? Demogoguery.

America is a democracy. That's a descriptive term.

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation: Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and...

www.britannica.com

Democracy or republic?​

Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and republic—left the answer unclear. Both terms had been applied to the assembly-based systems of Greece and Rome, though neither system assigned legislative powers to representatives elected by members of the dēmos. As noted above, even after Roman citizenship was expanded beyond the city itself and increasing numbers of citizens were prevented from participating in government by the time, expense, and hardship of travel to the city, the complex Roman system of assemblies was never replaced by a government of representatives—a parliament—elected by all Roman citizens. Venetians also called the government of their famous city a republic, though it was certainly not democratic.


When the members of the United States Constitutional Convention met 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.” At the same time, the British system was moving swiftly toward full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the framers of the United States Constitution met two generations later, when their understanding of the constitution of Britain would have been radically different, they might have concluded that the British system required only an expansion of the electorate to realize its full democratic potential. Thus, they might well have adopted a parliamentary form of government.

And

In short, 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.

[...]

At the Virginia ratifying convention some months later, John Marshall, the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that the “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy’ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.” The political party that he helped to organize and lead in cooperation with Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence and future third president of the United States, was named the Democratic-Republican Party; the party adopted its present name, the Democratic Party, in 1844.

Democracy is a broad term, both 'Democracy' and 'Republic' both have their broad meanings, and they have their narrow meanings. A democracy, as used by Madison, was the Athenian style direct democracy, but throughout millenia, it has a broader meaning. A democracy is a nation which has a number of qualities that comprise a democracy, some are, but not limited to:

• Free and Fair Elections: Regularly scheduled elections where all citizens have the right to vote without intimidation or coercion, and where multiple political parties have the opportunity to compete for power.
• Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to all individuals, with an independent judiciary to interpret and apply these laws impartially.
• Protection of Human Rights: Guarantees of fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as the right to privacy and security.
• The Separation of Powers: A division of government into distinct branches (typically executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent any single entity from gaining too much power.
• Majority Rule with Minority Rights: The decisions of the majority of people are respected, while the rights and opinions of the minority are also protected.
• Civil Liberties: Citizens have the freedom to express their opinions, form and join organizations, and protest peacefully without fear of retaliation.
• Political Plurality: Multiple political parties and ideologies are allowed to exist and compete for power, providing voters with choices.
• Transparent Governance: Government operations and decision-making processes are open and accessible to the public, ensuring accountability.
• Citizen Participation: Beyond voting, citizens are encouraged to participate actively in public life, including involvement in civic activities, public discussions, and government policy-making.
• Access to Information: Citizens have the right to access a wide range of information sources, including those critical of the government, to make informed decisions.
• Accountability of Elected Officials: Elected representatives are accountable to the people who elected them and can be removed from office for failing to fulfill their duties.
• Decentralization of Power: Distribution of power across different levels of government (federal, state, local) to better address local needs and prevent centralization of power.

Yes, a 'republic' has a narrow use, and a broad use. there are many types fo republics, a socialist republic, a calvinist republic, a democratic republic (a constitutional republic/representative democracy), etc. The term 'republic', essentially means a nation of either appointed or elected leaders, as opposed to a monarcy/aristocracy. As stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica, above, they are terms that are loosely used interchangeably. It's SEMANTICS.

But, if you say America is not a democracy, you'd be wrong, because though it isn't the kind of democracy Madison was afraid of, it is a democracy in the broadest sense of the term. Madison is not the final word on this, not by a long shot.

And, it is a republic.

Or, a 'constitutional republic'

Or a 'representative democracy',

Or a 'federalist constitutional representative republic'

Etc., or, ALL OF THE ABOVE, which IS the correct answer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Thank you for proving my point. Nitwits of your ilk just can't help themselves, no matter how hard they try.

/----/ You're welcome, Rumphole. So, what communist propaganda do you have for us today? Don't dissapoint.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Because 'Democracy' is a descriptive term, often poetic. "Republic', meaning essentially the same thing, is used more on documents, declarations, legal statemints, etc. America is listed as one of the 50 western democracies. The government calls America a democracy. All of academia calls America a democracy. "republic" and 'democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms. They are used interchangeabley, I'm 73, and during my entire life, throughout my rearing in schools all the way through college, no one ever denied America was not a democracy. So, I must ask: Why do you guys in the right, suddenly, (with in the last decade or so) insist on this nonsense in the first place? I'll tell you,. because republicans have only one the majority for president once in the last 30 + years, and you can't handle that fact and you needed to make up this shit that America is not a democracy to feel good about yourselves. Well, wake the fuck up, because to any degree a nation is not a democracy, to that same degree it is a fascist country, totalitarian country, a country of the rule of men, instead of the rule of law.



America is a democracy. That's a descriptive term.

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation: Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and...

www.britannica.com

Democracy or republic?​

Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and republic—left the answer unclear. Both terms had been applied to the assembly-based systems of Greece and Rome, though neither system assigned legislative powers to representatives elected by members of the dēmos. As noted above, even after Roman citizenship was expanded beyond the city itself and increasing numbers of citizens were prevented from participating in government by the time, expense, and hardship of travel to the city, the complex Roman system of assemblies was never replaced by a government of representatives—a parliament—elected by all Roman citizens. Venetians also called the government of their famous city a republic, though it was certainly not democratic.


When the members of the United States Constitutional Convention met 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.” At the same time, the British system was moving swiftly toward full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the framers of the United States Constitution met two generations later, when their understanding of the constitution of Britain would have been radically different, they might have concluded that the British system required only an expansion of the electorate to realize its full democratic potential. Thus, they might well have adopted a parliamentary form of government.

And

In short, 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.

[...]

At the Virginia ratifying convention some months later, John Marshall, the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that the “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy’ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.” The political party that he helped to organize and lead in cooperation with Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence and future third president of the United States, was named the Democratic-Republican Party; the party adopted its present name, the Democratic Party, in 1844.

Democracy is a broad term, both 'Democracy' and 'Republic' both have their broad meanings, and they have their narrow meanings. A democracy, as used by Madison, was the Athenian style direct democracy, but throughout millenia, it has a broader meaning. A democracy is a nation which has a number of qualities that comprise a democracy, some are, but not limited to:

• Free and Fair Elections: Regularly scheduled elections where all citizens have the right to vote without intimidation or coercion, and where multiple political parties have the opportunity to compete for power.
• Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to all individuals, with an independent judiciary to interpret and apply these laws impartially.
• Protection of Human Rights: Guarantees of fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as the right to privacy and security.
• The Separation of Powers: A division of government into distinct branches (typically executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent any single entity from gaining too much power.
• Majority Rule with Minority Rights: The decisions of the majority of people are respected, while the rights and opinions of the minority are also protected.
• Civil Liberties: Citizens have the freedom to express their opinions, form and join organizations, and protest peacefully without fear of retaliation.
• Political Plurality: Multiple political parties and ideologies are allowed to exist and compete for power, providing voters with choices.
• Transparent Governance: Government operations and decision-making processes are open and accessible to the public, ensuring accountability.
• Citizen Participation: Beyond voting, citizens are encouraged to participate actively in public life, including involvement in civic activities, public discussions, and government policy-making.
• Access to Information: Citizens have the right to access a wide range of information sources, including those critical of the government, to make informed decisions.
• Accountability of Elected Officials: Elected representatives are accountable to the people who elected them and can be removed from office for failing to fulfill their duties.
• Decentralization of Power: Distribution of power across different levels of government (federal, state, local) to better address local needs and prevent centralization of power.

Yes, a 'republic' has a narrow use, and a broad use. there are many types fo republics, a socialist republic, a calvinist republic, a democratic republic (a constitutional republic/representative democracy), etc. The term 'republic', essentially means a nation of either appointed or elected leaders, as opposed to a monarcy/aristocracy. As stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica, above, they are terms that are loosely used interchangeably. It's SEMANTICS.

But, if you say America is not a democracy, you'd be wrong, because though it isn't the kind of democracy Madison was afraid of, it is a democracy in the broadest sense of the term. Madison is not the final word on this, not by a long shot.

And, it is a republic.

Or, a 'constitutional republic'

Or a 'representative democracy',

Or a 'federalist constitutional representative republic'

Etc., or, ALL OF THE ABOVE, which IS the correct answer.

/----/ Hey Rumphole, by spreading this misinformation, you try to advance the need to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with mob rule. Reference Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.

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.

In addition: and shall protect each of them against Invasion; What Trump did with border security, and what Dementia Joe refuses to do.

 

[Rumpole]

/----/ Hey Rumphole, by spreading this misinformation, you try to advance the need to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with mob rule. Reference Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.

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.

In addition: and shall protect each of them against Invasion; What Trump did with border security, and what Dementia Joe refuses to do.

that doesn't prove that America is not a democracy. I gave you plenty of evidence to support my point, you have provided NONE that proves your point.

If you are so dumb you can't see that point, I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it to you. Reread my posts until you have an epiphany, well, you are due two:

1. I'm right and you're wrong.

2. You're dumber than shit.

 

[Rumpole]

Did you listen to Socrates's point and using the example of the two candidates? One being LIKENED to a sweetshop owner and the other candidate to a doctor? His claim and prediction within a democracy style of govt where everyone has the RIGHT TO VOTE will be very susceptible to the false promises from the sweetshop owner candidate by promises and PERCEPTIONS of free feasts for the people while also accusing his opponent of him hurting the people with his potions and tools?


Did you listen to it?

With an educated guess try and answer why the word democracy doesn't appear in the Constitution.

With an educated guess try and guess why the founding fathers didn't put voting into the bill of rights since it is such a vital aspect of a "democracy ."

Now, with that educated guess try not using the race card and identity politics in attempting to explain those.

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Socrates is right, democracy sucks. Most folks in government accept that point. Even Churchill complained about it.

but, since Soc took hemlock and kicked the proverbial bucket, he didn't have the wisdom garnered from the next 500 years of tyranny in Rome to know that the alternative is worse.

And Enter Churchill, whose famous quote said: "

'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'​

You are the perfect example of what happens to a man's wisdom, or rather, lack thereof, when you do not factor in all of history, and focus only on a point in time.

What the framers did was try their best, knowing that they didn't know that what they were going to do would even work, was to temper the excesses of democracy by establishing a bicameral legislature, a house of representatives, a senate, and an electoral college, noting that, in none of these institutions, was it ever intended for minority rule, the intent was just to better temper democracy's faults and to the best degree possible, preserve minority rights. But, never, never never did they intend on 'minority rule'. It was always about majority rule, and, if you want to find a term that describes majority rule, that term is democracy. And what kind of nation would have democracy? A constitutional republic. This goes back to my point,. they are not mutually exclusive terms. Where 'democracy' is high minded waxing poetic, 'republic' is more of a term for documents and pledges, more legalistic. But they are the same. And I have a lot of links in academia and the government and encyclopedia britannica not to mention Hamilton, himself, to prove it.

 

[dblack]

Socrates is right, democracy sucks.

but, since he died, he didn't have the wisdom garnered from the next 500 years of tyranny in Rome to know that the alternative is worse.

You are the perfect example of what happens to a man's wisdom, or rather, lack thereof, when you do not factor in all of history, and focus only on a point in time.

What the framers did was try their best, knowing that they didn't know that what they were going to do would even work, was to temper the excesses of democracy by establishing a bicameral legislature, a house of representatives, a senate, and an electoral college, noting that, in none of these institutions, was it ever intended for minority rule, the intent was just to better temper democracy's faults and to the best degree possible, preserve minority rights. But, never, never never did they intend on 'minority rule'.

Ok... gotta stop you right there. The dem harping on "minority rule" is a complete crock of shit. Whenever the majority can't get it's way, you whip out the "minority rule" thing, but that's NOT what's happening. When the majority is prevented from forcing its will on the minority - that's not "minority rule". The minority isn't making policy and forcing its opinions on the majority. All that's happening is no one gets to rule. Freedom wins instead. Dems hate that shit, I know, but you'll just have to get over it. It's not "minority rule".

It was always about majority rule, and, if you want to find a term that describes majority rule, that term is democracy.

Unlimited majority rule sucks. Democracy can work, but only if the power of the majority is tightly constrained. The only reason people are pushing back against "democracy" is because fools like you work feverishly to remove limits on democracy. When you take those limits away, when you start using majority rule to dictate anything and everything in society, the minority will revolt. Period.

 

[Rumpole]

Ok... gotta stop you right there. The dem harping on "minority rule" is a complete crock of shit. Whenever the majority can't get it's way, you whip out the "minority rule" thing, but that's NOT what's happening. When the majority is prevented from forcing its will on the minority - that's not "minority rule". The minority isn't making policy and forcing its opinions on the majority. All that's happening is no one gets to rule. Freedom wins instead. Dems hate that shit, I know, but you'll just have to get over it. It's not "minority rule".

Unlimited majority rule sucks. Democracy can work, but only if the power of the majority is tightly constrained. The only reason people are pushing back against "democracy" is because fools like you work feverishly to remove limits on democracy. When you take those limits away, when you start using majority rule to dictate anything and everything in society, the minority will revolt. Period.

Refresh your browser and reread the comment to which you are responding, I added to it, I'll copy and paste it, note the highlighted:

Socrates is right, democracy sucks. Most folks in government accept that point. Even Churchill complained about it.

but, since Soc took hemlock and kicked the proverbial bucket, he didn't have the wisdom garnered from the next 500 years of tyranny in Rome to know that the alternative is worse.

And Enter Churchill, whose famous quote said: "

'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'​

You are the perfect example of what happens to a man's wisdom, or rather, lack thereof, when you do not factor in all of history, and focus only on a point in time.

What the framers did was try their best, knowing that they didn't know that what they were going to do would even work, was to temper the excesses of democracy by establishing a bicameral legislature, a house of representatives, a senate, and an electoral college, noting that, in none of these institutions, was it ever intended for minority rule, the intent was just to better temper democracy's faults and to the best degree possible, preserve minority rights. But, never, never never did they intend on 'minority rule'. It was always about majority rule, and, if you want to find a term that describes majority rule, that term is democracy. And what kind of nation would have democracy? A constitutional republic. This goes back to my point,. they are not mutually exclusive terms. Where 'democracy' is high minded waxing poetic, 'republic' is more of a term for documents and pledges, more legalistic. But they are the same. And I have a lot of links in academia and the government and encyclopedia britannica not to mention Hamilton, himself, to prove it.

The point is that America is a democracy, that's a 'description', don't get lost in the notion that documents say 'republic', as they are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[dblack]

Refresh your browser and reread the comment to which you are responding, I added to it.

Ok, I did. The "minority rule" schtick is a dem con.

 

[dblack]

Refresh your browser and reread the comment to which you are responding, I added to it.

Do you agree that removing limits on democracy make it untenable? Just curious.

 

[Rumpole]

Do you agree that removing limits on democracy make it untenable? Just curious.

the answer is in the comment to which you just responded, refresh your browser.

 

[dblack]

the answer is in the comment to which you just responded, refresh your browser.

I did. You started in on the "minority rule" crap, a completely fraudulent concept. Blocking majority rule is NOT minority rule.

Majority rule is a shitty way to make decisions in society, and should only be employed when it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, freedom of choice is a much better way to go.

 

[Theowl32]

The right to vote can be found in Articles 1, 2 and modified by the 15th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments. Voters were called electors in Articles 1 & 2.

.

Yes, and it shouldn't have been that just anyone with a pulse over the age of 18 should have THE RIGHT to vote.

Now giving groups like blacks women and Natives etc the PRIVILEGE TO VOTE is different than a RIGHT. Once voting became a RIGHT the country was and has been in a slow descent.

Why?

As has been said. It is rather simple for politicians to make false promise after false promises with little accountability. Then a divide and conquer strategy is ripe to be implemented.

Combined with mass propaganda and the socialist tactic of ALWAYS ACCUSE OTHERS OF THAT WHICH YOU ARE GUILTY.

Voting is supposed to be a skill. Supposed to be privilege, not a RIGHT and like there is difference between a REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCRACY, there Is a difference between a RIGHT AND A PRIVILEGE.

 

[Cellblock2429]

that doesn't prove that America is not a democracy. I gave you plenty of evidence to support my point, you have provided NONE that proves your point.

If you are so dumb you can't see that point, I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it to you. Reread my posts until you have an epiphany, well, you are due two:

1. I'm right and you're wrong.

2. You're dumber than shit.

/——/ Pop test from the US Immigration test.

1. The Constitution.
2. Rumphole’s communist talking point.

 

[Theowl32]

/——/ Pop test from the US Immigration test.
View attachment 930205
1. The Constitution.
2. Rumphole’s communist talking point.

Well, in defense of the marxist, there is what it is supposed to be and sadly what it is.

This country has descended into a pseudo socialist/marxist reality.

NATURE
States that are nominally socialist, implying that democratic principles are adhered to in political decision-making, are not really so when the state governmental or party apparatus makes all fundamental decisions. Without referenda from the people on issues, full elections of officials, and self-management by organizations of labour and other productive classes, there exists a statist political ideology that wishes to draw all power to the centre.

BACKGROUND
Pseudo-socialism can lead to fascism, as was the case in Nazi Germany. The Dutch tried to maintain their colonial presence in Indonesia through attempts at state socialism.

≈=========÷======

We were supposed to be constitutional republic. Far from it now.

Have you seen Rule 213 passed last year in New York?

Section 213 - Judicial review and enforcement, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 213 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 213 - Judicial review and enforcement, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 213, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, and it shouldn't have been that just anyone with a pulse over the age of 18 should have THE RIGHT to vote.

Now giving groups like blacks women and Natives etc the PRIVILEGE TO VOTE is different than a RIGHT. Once voting became a RIGHT the country was and has been in a slow descent.

Why?

As has been said. It is rather simple for politicians to make false promise after false promises with little accountability. Then a divide and conquer strategy is ripe to be implemented.

Combined with mass propaganda and the socialist tactic of ALWAYS ACCUSE OTHERS OF THAT WHICH YOU ARE GUILTY.

Voting is supposed to be a skill. Supposed to be privilege, not a RIGHT and like there is difference between a REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCRACY, there Is a difference between a RIGHT AND A PRIVILEGE.

That's what you get when everyone is treated equally under the law, would you have it any other way?

.

 

[Theowl32]

That's what you get when everyone is treated equally under the law, would you have it any other way?

.

Yes, would have kept voting as a privilege rather than a right in order to prevent the wicked from manipulating the masses and large groups with false promises for votes.

Can't have ignorant people in masses voting cause that is what inevitably happens and is in fact happened to this country.

Without demogoguery, the citizens in masses wouldn't be walking campaign slogans, platitudes and tropes.

It's the best way to preserve the republic and its citzenry. However, that isn't what happened and the result is what we are seeing and we won't witness the true horror of demogoguery until the red carpet is rolled out for the true marxists.

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, would have kept voting as a privilege rather than a right in order to prevent the wicked from manipulating the masses and large groups with false promises for votes.

Can't have ignorant people in masses voting cause that is what inevitably happens and is in fact happened to this country.

Without demogoguery, the citizens in masses wouldn't be walking campaign slogans, platitudes and tropes.

It's the best way to preserve the republic and its citzenry. However, that isn't what happened and the result is what we are seeing and we won't witness the true horror of demogoguery until the red carpet is rolled out for the true marxists.

I actually blame it more on the media, they no longer hold politicians accountable Without them the demogogs would never get traction. It's the medias fault we don't have an informed electorate.

.

 

[Theowl32]

I actually blame it more on the media, they no longer hold politicians accountable Without them the demogogs would never get traction. It's the medias fault we don't have an informed electorate.

.

That's part of it, but they are all the fruits of the education system. That same education system that has been contaminated thoroughly by propaganda and all of that is the result of socialism being promoted under the disguise of the Robin Hood fairy tale.

The education system is nothing but one of the arms of marxist divide and conquer. Where those group of useful idiots, better known as John Lennon hippy professors with tenure. All led to believe they are so important while they polute the millions upon millions of irreversibly contaminated buffoons graduating every year. Now occupying all sorts of places of power in the courts and govt.

It's over and I blame its origin on the false notion of allowing anyone everyone to vote regardless of their education level.

Socrates, proven correct again about his prediction of democracy and of such irresponsibility.

 

[OKTexas]

That's part of it, but they are all the fruits of the education system. That same education system that has been contaminated thoroughly by propaganda and all of that is the result of socialism being promoted under the disguise of the Robin Hood fairy tale.

The education system is nothing but one of the arms of marxist divide and conquer. Where those group of useful idiots, better known as John Lennon hippy professors with tenure. All led to believe they are so important while they polute the millions upon millions of irreversibly contaminated buffoons graduating every year. Now occupying all sorts of places of power in the courts and govt.

It's over and I blame its origin on the false notion of allowing anyone everyone to vote regardless of their education level.

Socrates, proven correct again about his prediction of democracy and of such irresponsibility.

Socrates couldn't envision the forces brought to bear in a modern society. Marx on the other hand saw how to corrupt the system that was developing before his eyes. And even he couldn't envision the modern media and the internet and their influence on the masses. All that said, the time to stop the propaganda in the govt halls of indoctrination was the late 60s to the early 70s, too many generations have passed through them now, to really do anything. I hope it happens past my time, but it will ultimately end in conflict.

.

 

[Rumpole]

/——/ Pop test from the US Immigration test.
View attachment 930205
1. The Constitution.
2. Rumphole’s communist talking point.

Sorry, I don't engage with morons