America isn't a Democracy!

>America isn't a Democracy!

Why do these people exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/History-United-States-Its-People/dp/096527358X
barnesandnoble.com/s/A History of the United States and Its People?_requestid=707782
youtube.com/watch?v=0TndayxhoWU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

People who think democracy and republicanism are mutually exclusive are probably below 90 IQ. It isn't even worth engaging with them.

Because it is a constitutional republic you fucking braiet.

the republican party has existed since the colonists came over here

Words matter.
Although the people have a voice, the founding fathers railed against direct democracies.

This is why we have representatives, an electoral college and originally only free white land owning males could vote.

It might be a "democracy", but if a democracy can be shitted on through nepotism, manipulation and fraud, it's not REALLY a democracy then, is it?

Wtf are you talking about? It's a republic. Yes there are democratic elements to a republic but the American govt is not a democracy. Is this a fucking troll or retardation on parade?

Fuck democracy and voting.
Dictatorship now

>Cucktatorship NAO!!
Just stop.

...

>originally only free white land owning males could vote.
Where did it all go so wrong

Because while the US has systems in place that are similar to a democratic framework's, it isn't a full democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

OP you are either an absolute brainlet or the world's worst troll. Western governments are not democratic, they are all moderate oligarchies.

"Direct Democracy" is a misnomer. It's just called "Democracy".

For purposes of modern propaganda, people have created two separate terms, "direct democracy" and "representative democracy". Then, they put the definition of democracy somewhere under the title "direct democracy", and are free to use the term "representative democracy" to disguise their preferred form of oligarchy. What follows is a semantic game wherein the supporters of oligarchy claim all the legitimacy, glory, and history of democracy, and insist that it ought to replace all other forms of government.

If you picked up the relevant Classical texts you would know this to be true.

Also, another troubling this is that people like you seem to think that democracy is limited to the legislative process. Again, totally wrong. For example, even if Americans adopted a broadly democratic legislative assembly, they would still be left with an oligarchic judicial system and other institutions.

So, basically, I'm eating fully comped sushi and you are a fucking brainlet slave who eats "food" at taco bell

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

>could vote
Right there

Literally CNNs game plan

True. Though it could have worked had (((they))) not fucked it into the ground.

Unironically it was Andrew Jackson, a populist, who ran on a platform of extending the vote beyond land owners to all white males. It's the one thing I hate him for.

>Although the people have a voice, the founding fathers railed against direct democracies.
Do you think this was due to the limitations of the time? Representative governments were necessary for large populations because the hassle of traveling and voting constantly would be too intrusive for the common man.

Now that we have access to an instant global communication network it seems like a representative body is no longer necessary.

If we could work out a way to prevent cyber fuckery, the internet could serve as a vehicle to move past the representative government model.

I would love to hear philosophical arguments as to how a republic is objectively better than a democracy. It seems like putting a bunch of popularity contest winners in charge isn't the best possible system.

Because it's republic

A democratic republic

federal republic

It's true though. You are a one party system where every election is a thinly veiled intern of the party.

>I would love to hear philosophical arguments as to how a republic is objectively better than a democracy.
I think asking the average Joe to be able to make an informed decision on all of the little shit (or even big shit for that matter) is asking wayyyy too much.

For one thing, people are busy. They have jobs and social lives and all that other stuff that keeps them from spending hours researching and getting actual information.

Secondly, I don't trust average people to be able to think critically enough to make the right decision, even if they have info. The representative system isn't perfect, but a pure democracy is border line retarded

A democratic federal republic

Jimmy Carter said we're an oligarchy, not a democracy.

I did not know that.

it isn't a DIRECT democracy
it's a democracy just not one where the populace as a whole votes for issues

each state should be and is treated as an individual country with its own needs in mind
each state needs a say more than the millions of illegal aliens in California that would rule the vote otherwise

no thats a libtard explanation
that was only a small part of the reasoning

the main part was to make sure that individual states retained autonomy rather than letting the 4 or 5 states with the biggest populations rule over the rest of the country

state autonomy is far more important than majority vote

We were not supposed to be a "democracy". This nation was founded as a constitutional republic, big difference. Go read a book, quit being part of the problem.

How can a president with 4 years possibly get anything done? We need a Pinochet or Hitler.

In our REPUBLIC, all power and authority is inherent in the people.
LIMITED aspects of that authority is then delegated by constitution to democratic means of
collective governance to preserve and protect the remaining freedoms in the people.

There are some pretty good books on American history but you have to be careful, it's super fucking political and most books are extremely biased.

>history biased
Color me surprised.

Presidents aren't supposed to "get anything done" you retard. You're supposed to hijack the existing political parties and hire politicians to be your patsies and pass your agenda. The Koch brothers unironically are doing it correctly.

Protip: anyone can join either of the two main political parties. In fact I'm pretty sure there's nothing that says you can't join both, depending on your state. Get involved in setting the agenda and you'll have real influence.

This nation was also founded as allowing slavery, but I doubt you'd argue we're "supposed" to be a slave-owning nation.

>but I doubt you'd argue we're "supposed" to be a slave-owning nation.
We'll you're wrong. Slavery should still be a thing. It made the best use of nogs, they can meet their potential that way.

>Presidents aren't supposed to "get anything done" you retard.

Exactly. Fuck that shit. Kill the commies. Fuck centrist bullshit. Build the wall.

It's actually a "democratic" republic. However, I think the people you're talking about are referring to the fact that the rich have overwhelming control of the political system via campaign finance and control of the media (and therefore overwhelming influence over public opinion).

amazon.com/History-United-States-Its-People/dp/096527358X
This looks pretty good. Just watch out for that niggerfaggot Howard Zinn and his cuckery book.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

>out of stock
Shiiiieeeet

I've often mused about a system similar to the American system where we vote for Presidents that are more like kings, all powerful except they're unable to change the constitution which would be much smaller than our current one
every four years (or 8) they could elect a new one but they can re-elect one person as much as they want and the ppl can vote to impeach a current president whenever they want

this would give the ppl more direct control over the government and eliminate all the bureaucracy and a lot of the problems of the current system

ofc the constitution would have to outline a very strict system of who gets to vote
my recommendation is that only highly educated male (land-owning?) US born citizens get to vote

> the rich have overwhelming control of the political system via campaign finance and control of the media
Wrong. It's because they hire people to join BOTH political parties and push the agenda they want. The control over the media and public opinion is to first make people accept the agenda that has been decided for them, and second to keep them distracted from the real levers of power: control over the political parties.

YOU are free to join the dominant political party in your area and start contributing to policy creation RIGHT NOW. The commies have been doing it for a hundred fucking years, it's time to fight back.

one big problem with this would ofc be the president trying to use the military to stop people from voting

or trying to use the media to make sure everyone wants to vote for him again

barnesandnoble.com/s/A History of the United States and Its People?_requestid=707782

can you faggots read my comments they're actually inciteful AF

Do you know anything about the average American? Le 56% face man is "the average American". You don't WANT him to have more direct control over the government.

The current system is a filter for IQ and ambition, by being both very complex and full of bullshit you have to deal with. The founding fathers intended this.

That's interesting, restricting the voting would be critical though. Otherwise it'd quickly turn into a run away welfare stste where someone like Obama would never leave office because he get churning out gibs

Thanks senpai

>Not understanding the necessity of mixing the three types of government
>Calling others retarded
Commies - The masters of the Dunnig-Kruger effect.

Patently insane. Direct democracies are horrendous forms of government. Athens was a shitstorm - sending their best general to conquer Sicily and then recalling him to be tried for war crimes before he even arrived. Unsurprisingly he defects shortly after and BTFOs them.

Monarchy
Aristocracy
Democracy

The Greeks learned through experience these must be mixed. The Romans were the first to put it into practice successfully.

This is the main problem with the US. Voting power should not be given to those who benefit more from the destruction of the state than its preservation.

See: Hurricane Looters

It had nothing to do with technological limitations. The idea of "direct democracy" being some sort of ideal end game or "next step" for the western liberal democratic system is new meme. The unwashed masses don't understand how to run society. Civilization is inevitably hierarchial because its a reflection of the hierarchy in nature. Trying to go against that basic truth as impossible as it is destructive. Thats why America was set up as an aristocrstic republic. Only white, land-owning males over 25 were supposed to be able to elect representatives. Universal suffrage in the name of "progress" transformed us from an aristocracy to a democracy and things have spiraled out of control because of it

I've been lurking for 5 days on this "le 56% face" and internets search provide zilch. What is this meme mean?

>Wrong. It's because they hire people to join BOTH political parties and push the agenda they want.

Basically exactly what I said, and media control has extreme impact, too. To suggest it doesn't is breathtakingly delusional.


>YOU are free to join the dominant political party in your area and start contributing to policy creation RIGHT NOW.

>(Implying being free to join a party means you can attract the funding needed to win an election.)

There are Trumps out there, but not everyone is a Trump. The point is that the rich have an enormous advantage when it comes to influencing the political system. I hadn't even mentioned lobbying.

It's just a meme

Its representative republic, niggar

because USA is run by Jewish oligarchy

Um no, 1854.
Retard.

It's called a representative democracy like most European counties

yes.. ppl on welfare could not vote
criminals could not vote
women and those who identify as women cannot vote
people with very low IQ or mentally retarded cannot vote (not just things like ADHD or Autism, actually retarded people)

and women cannot participate in government or be elected to any public office

The Jew remains in power no matter whom is elected "leader". If this is democracy, fuck it.

How do you keep Jews out?

Wow. I always wondered who did that but never bothered to look it up. One might say my jimmies are rustled. I did not expectbit to have been him.

The truth is that no country lives in democracy! The only democracy was that of Athens. Now we live kn representative governaments

idc about jews I'm not a retarded storm nigger
and it doesn't matter

your "jews" can't keep power if the ultimate power lies in the hands of the president and the ppl constantly vote for presidents that keep the rich from exploiting everyone

the biggest economic class - the middle class will have the most power in this system
if the President doesn't keep the middle class happy then they'll just impeach him

>wants to put his friends in charge of shit
>wants to destroy banks
>wants to gib monies to voters
Jackson was a communist.
>hurr national banks!!!
Wasn't a problem till Jews.

it's not tho
R E P U B L I C

>>(Implying being free to join a party means you can attract the funding needed to win an election.)
Not what I was implying at all. In fact I was directly stating that deciding the policies of the party is far far more important than winning elections, as they're all just corrupt fuckwads who'll do anything for money.

Being rich is an advantage when you can hire people to infiltrate political parties for you and implement policies you want. But there's literally nothing stopping you from doing it yourself, without hiring people.

What kind of fucking newfag are you? The meme is incredibly self explanatory.

Switzerland.

NO, It was because they have no problem recognizing that only taxpayers should vote.

for example... and I'm gonna go by stormfag logic here

if the people voted a jew into office and he started using his power to only benefit rich jews then the majority of ppl will see this and eventually realize they're getting screwed and impeach him

Read the history book I posted. Seriously, if you're going to stay on this board and shit it up, you need to do your reading. You can't be redpilled until you know the truth.

Fair enough

>then the majority of ppl will see this and eventually realize they're getting screwed and impeach him
1. That doesn't happen. The "majority of ppl" you stupid fucking phoneposter, do not notice shit.

2. You can't impeach a dictator without violence unless you have a legislature more powerful than the dictator.

Read a book on constitutional government, kiddo.

Mixing the three types of government is the top tier strat. The mistake in the 1987 constitution is that they basically lopped off the king component. The balance between aristocracy and democracy was originally pretty good though. Ironically the executive of the US has morphed into one of the most powerful executive positions in history even though its technically supposed to be very weak. Its seems like its just natural that a king figure will rise if theres a void to be filled. The whole thing is really busted because its evolved into something no one could have possibly predicted. We're going to need a new constitutional convention soon. Might be technically possible after 2018 elections

Threads like this are why i still come here. Ive no contribution other than great discussion.

>Might be technically possible after 2018 elections
Can you imagine the salt?

youtube.com/watch?v=0TndayxhoWU

Wow, I figured this would actually be the first post.

Right, so a representative democracy instead of jury (direct) democracy, so in other words democracy.

That is correct, or rather the distinction between nominal and real.

Look, another retard.

>a full democracy
That's a phrase that doesn't have any real meaning. What if jury (direct) democracy existed, but people could decline appointment, and the developmentally disabled were excluded, or those under 18 years of age? Is it suddenly no longer democratic? Of course it's still democratic, democracy meaning any system where the consent and participation of the governed is to whatever degree the basic organizing principle of the body politic. You're just dumb and don't understand what words mean.

Look, a monkey who expended 900 characters to express what could've better been said with the following:
>i am basically a nigger with a 1-ounce brain

kill yourself

I've already compensated for this

a dictator will only be able to take advantage of this system if the police and military support him
this is already the case with our current system
if the President wanted and the military supported him then he could tell the military to just overthrow the rest of thw government
what stops that from happening?
nothing but the good will of the military and the mentality that the military protects the freedom of the people

and the constitution would establish that one sacred duty by the military is to protect the ability of the ppl to vote and impeach the president

and the precedent would be established that the president must make the people happy or be impeached

It's a representative republic.
You're either baiting or ignorant.
Democracy = popular (mob) rule and we don't have that (thankfully) or Hillary would have won.

my system would only fall apart if the military becomes more loyal to the president then their countrymen

and I think a big part of what stops that from happening is the constitution and American culture

Still doesn't make sense. You're saying that one can just magically change the policies of a major party, going against the will of the party's major financiers. Doesn't happen. Bernie couldn't even do it when he had support of a majority of voters. The Dems rigged it against him. Trump only won because he had his own money, and because the media's shilling against him backfired somewhat.

You're wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
>that's not how the military works
>that's not the purpose of the military
>that's not how police work
>do you even know about the oath of office
>that's not what stops the president from have a coup
>what is diffusion of powers

You want the benefits of an efficient government but you're ignoring the terrible risks. What you're proposing is not better than the current system, in large part because you're outright ignoring how state and local governments play a role in the American system of governance. You've been brainfucked by too much MSM focus on the federal government, I bet you can't even name your mayor and governor, let alone your state legislator.

The left would literally burn down cities over it because it would signal their demise once and for all. For all their talk of revolution and shit, the left actually opposes anything that threatens to fundementally change the power structure because they ARE the establishment. Theyve put so much effort into centralizing power that theyve overlooked a backdoor failsafe we have. 2/3 of the state legislatures are what is needed to call a constitutional convention. 3/4 to ratify it whatever it comes up with. The GOP only needs to flip a handful of key seats to make this possible. The dems alienated average Americans so much during Obama's term that theyve lost control of politics at the state and local levels in most of the country

wtf are you saying retard?

did you read anything I said?
how is your dicatorship established without support of the military

and I was in the military unlike you apparently you dumb faggot
the oath doesn't prevent shit
it's the culture that respects the oath and values freedom of the people that matters

you've failed to point out any flaws with my system except saying that there'll be a dictatorship that ignores the constitution

and then you turn right around and point out everything that prevents the military from establishing said dictatorship

unless you can tell me how the 3 branches of government and checks and balances somehow makes the military loyal to the people

those two concepts are completely unrelated

>The dems alienated average Americans so much during Obama's term that theyve lost control of politics at the state and local levels in most of the country
That makes my dick hard

A republic is by definition a representative democracy, wtf are you people talking about?

You still gotta clean up your own country, Denmark.

>you've failed to point out any flaws with my system except saying that there'll be a dictatorship that ignores the constitution
Actually I pointed out a bunch of flaws based on your misunderstanding of how anything works in American government. The way things are now is much much better than what you're proposing.

>and then you turn right around and point out everything that prevents the military from establishing said dictatorship
Actually I didn't point out what's preventing that: high rates of gun ownership among the population, concentrated most highly among people distrustful of the government.

Compare the state legislature control now with when Obama came into office. The dems had everything and they blew it bigly. This country fucking hates them. Big shithole cities and minorities are the only thing keeping democrats relevant

>You still gotta clean up your own country, Denmark
Idk if this place can be fixed

>Right, so a representative democracy instead of jury (direct) democracy, so in other words democracy.
But we are not
See the elector college

its a republic you fucking mong

>WA and CO purple
Oh my

>Right, so a representative democracy instead of jury (direct) democracy, so in other words democracy.

We use representative democracy for lawmaking. But we are a constitutional republic.

In a real democracy, we could all vote to have you hanged without a trial. In a republic, you have rights which supersede majority rule/opinion. Although maybe we should embrace straight democracy so brainlets like you who fetishize it could get a taste of mob rule. Fucking idiot. I don't know if people like you and OP are really this ignorant or if you're just moronic trolls.

A Republic, by definition, is any nation without a king.

People like you need to be shot in the fucking street.

Sure it can. Take JBP's advice: sort yourself out. Start with cleaning your room. Then the rest of your house. Then clean up your personal finances and your family. Then start cleaning up your neighborhood. I don't know if you have local school boards like we do here, but they REALLY need help here to fight back against the communist agenda.

>Actually I didn't point out what's preventing that: high rates of gun ownership among the population, concentrated most highly among people distrustful of the government.

so you're telling me that the military is afraid of the armed populace and knows they would fail to control them

holy shit I believed you were intelligent for a little while now I realize you're a complete moron

and you didn't point out any flaws all you said was how great the current system is
and that my system would fail because it isn't the current system

and never pointed out what exactly would go wrong with my proposed system
and since you haven't done that I now realize you're an idiot with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation