America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[peach174]

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

OK, I think you did a better job of explaining her position to me than she did. (Maybe that's my fault - I'm NOT pointing fingers)

But my issue is with the claim that a republic is not a democracy or that the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

I also believe that the U.S. has drifted. So I'm not gonna argue against that point.

I've had a hard time understanding Peach. Imo that's because she/he was using different definitions of republic and democracy than I was. I was thinking is a more general sense of political science or humanistic philosophy, in which they are roughly synonyms, but democracy being more inclusive of forms of govt than republic.

And not to diss Peach individually, but I have to say there's a veracity problem. After Reagan, the "conservatives" adopted "starve the beast." They realized medicare wasn't going anywhere in terms of repeal, so they adopted the strategy of "let's cut taxes till we can't afford it." People were happy with lower taxes, but they still wanted to keep medicare.

SO NOOOOOOW, the fiscal imbalance is the fault of those who want medicare. There's a reason Mitt lost to an elitist with 8% unemployment.

And that is why I'm such a stickler for using the right word and attaching the correct definition.

It seems to me that so many people are constantly trying to change the definition of terms in order to press their political agenda. (For a good example look at the "evolution" of the term assault rifle)

You can't just change a word's meaning - it makes communication damn near impossible and perhaps that contributes to the inability of so many who disagree politically to communicate effectively.

Our TV programs and the media sure aren't helping that.

 

[peach174]

peach - I think the reason the vast majority of people in the United States believe we are a democracy is because we are.

I don't want to bicker, but I do want to disagree with your misunderstanding of the term democracy.

Democracy DOES NOT MEAN that every last decision is made by popular vote. (Maybe that is what a pure democracy would be if there ever had been one.)

Checks and balances does not rule out democracy. A Constitution that demands a super majority to abridge protected rights does not rule out democracy.

It is not a misunderstanding.
I am not the only one here on the board that is saying we are a Republic.
Look at how many Conservatives on the this board say the same exact thing.
How many times over the last 4 years that I have been here have we had this disagreement
Over and over again.
It's how we are being taught.

 

[Old Rocks]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

My deal little corksmoker. Every time I see someone parroting this phrase, I know that they are making a case for enforcing a "Conservative" policy which the vast majority of us do not want. Well, fuck you, buddy boy. That is what elections are all about.

 

[nodoginnafight]

peach - I think the reason the vast majority of people in the United States believe we are a democracy is because we are.

I don't want to bicker, but I do want to disagree with your misunderstanding of the term democracy.

Democracy DOES NOT MEAN that every last decision is made by popular vote. (Maybe that is what a pure democracy would be if there ever had been one.)

Checks and balances does not rule out democracy. A Constitution that demands a super majority to abridge protected rights does not rule out democracy.

It is not a misunderstanding.
I am not the only one here on the board that is saying we are a Republic.
Look at how many Conservatives on the this board say the same exact thing.
How many times over the last 4 years that I have been here have we had this disagreement
Over and over again.
It's how we are being taught.

We ARE a Republic AND a Democracy

(btw - the fact that there are other posters on these boards who agree is not exactly a shining testimonial. I'm talking DEFINITIONS not alternative opinions)

 

[bendog]

peach - I think the reason the vast majority of people in the United States believe we are a democracy is because we are.

I don't want to bicker, but I do want to disagree with your misunderstanding of the term democracy.

Democracy DOES NOT MEAN that every last decision is made by popular vote. (Maybe that is what a pure democracy would be if there ever had been one.)

Checks and balances does not rule out democracy. A Constitution that demands a super majority to abridge protected rights does not rule out democracy.

It is not a misunderstanding.
I am not the only one here on the board that is saying we are a Republic.
Look at how many Conservatives on the this board say the same exact thing.
How many times over the last 4 years that I have been here have we had this disagreement
Over and over again.
It's how we are being taught.

The distinction is that we are STILL a republic, your protests not withstanding. We have by popular measure adopted a more expansive view of federal (and executive) power than that of the Founders. You are changing the definition of democracy to fit your ideology.

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So what? Democratic principles and rights are enshrined in our Republic. At first the electorate was mostly white male property owners. Now it's every citizen over 18 mostly .

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The far left does care about the Constitution or do they care if this a republic or a democracy, they only care about forcing their religion on everyone and being the ruling party by enslaving the masses..

 

[peach174]

The majority of Americans are Conservative to Moderate.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The majority of Americans are Conservative to Moderate.

And what does that have to do with anything we've been discussing?
Are you suggesting that all conservatives define republic and democracy as mutually exclusive?
I have to disagree 100% if that is what you are trying to say.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

I do like the idea of recall......
perhaps we should limit the money Senators take for -election to that from people residents of their states....and no outside money can advertise for them either.

I believe the five republicans on the Supreme Court have said we may not do that with our own elections.

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

 

[bendog]

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. It doesn't prohibit the moneyed few from buying political favor, but it can force politicians to disclose donors. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The majority of Americans are Conservative to Moderate.

A majority of Americans are moderate to liberal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelin

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The problem with selective quotes is we can post competing quotes -- from the same man. Over time people change tastes and opinions change with new information or out of wounded pride in lost battles.

ex: a Wikipedia entry I came across had John Adams praising Thomas Paine for his pamphlets in the cause of the rebellion/revolution, and later on quoting Adams saying Paine was a dangerous radical and demagogue. I guess competing editors wanted to push competing views with "quotes"

Yes, i AGREEE but generally the people that use that saying, admire teh founders tremendously, I think it could perhaps show them their error.

There s Room for Direct Democracy in a Republic Cato Liberty

Direct democracy? Anathema!!!

My gawd, that is so unAmerican it isn't funny. It's a system foreign to our founding concepts of nationhood. Of course a Republic can have whatever version of democracy they desire, but that doesn't make all versions equal in practice

It is very American and would be a vast improvement over the corruption we see now.

gotta run...later

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

You people are ineducable. It's sad really.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

Logic? There is such a thing as faulty logic. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and lately it seems their own set of facts

Not all logic is created equal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Imo Peach has been consistent in asserting that America has been changed from a Republic into a Social Democracy. (not my terms.) That may not have been point "on' the thread, but .... everyone's entitled to their beliefs. And, imo there's some logic to it

OK, I think you did a better job of explaining her position to me than she did. (Maybe that's my fault - I'm NOT pointing fingers)

But my issue is with the claim that a republic is not a democracy or that the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

I also believe that the U.S. has drifted. So I'm not gonna argue against that point.

drifting is terrible? That was a cry during the early years of the republic. We drift back and forth -- omfg call FOX and MSNBC

 

[peach174]

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

You people are ineducable. It's sad really.

And we say you are indoctrinated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

peach174

The United States is not a Democracy. It is more of a Republic, with representatives for the people, such as Senators and Congressmen.
The reason that some Americans think that USA is a Democracy is because it holds some of the most important essences of the ideology: The Five Freedoms: Religious Liberty · Speech · Press · Assembly · Petition.
Just because it has those essences does not make us a Democracy.
You are seeing how we are a Republic right now, by how the Conservatives in the House is not letting full lefty ideology take over.
It happened under Wilson, F.D.R., Carter, Clinton and now Obama.

You have yet top show people HOW the USA is NOT a democracy. Try this: Democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What in the wiki page does not apply to the USA?