Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BTW a horse can call its self a pegasus but that doesnt make it a pegasus
This is your answer.
The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.
Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?
what do they hope to gain?
The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.
Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?
what do they hope to gain?
The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.
Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?
what do they hope to gain?
Representative Republic not a democracy have you really forgotten that already?
Voting is a privilege. It is not a right. That is as true today as it was when the Constitution was written.So you think voting is a privledge?
The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.
Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?
what do they hope to gain?
Mind control, what else?
People who think that they live in a nation with a government is of the people by the people and FOR the people might start taking that phrase seriously.
Why they might even start using terms like liberty, equality and FRATERNITY and demanding that this nation take such concepts seriously, too.
Can't have that happening when the masters have spend the last 40 years telling people that society is an illusion, that everything good in life has to do with private wealth, and that GREED IS GOOD, can we?
The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.
Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?
what do they hope to gain?
Caplitaism and capitalism must be synonyms.The left wing buzzword for this week is "definitions".
I have it on good authority that next week's talking point will be "synonyms".![]()
TM repeating things over and over doesn't change the reality.
We are a constitutional republic. Yes we do have democratic elections but our GOVT itself is still a constitutional republic.
Facts:
United States Government type - Government
Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Opinion piece
America*is a Constitutional*Republic . . . NOT a Democracy
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. . .
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
There is an important distinction between a republic and a democracy which can be found at the heart of where each government derives its authority.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 10:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. . .
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
You can go back to Plato for how these terms have been understood since antiquity, if you have the time to read "The Republic".
Or you could just take the next seventeen minutes to educate yourself.
Either way, if you believe a republic is a democracy or that our Founders designed, wanted or left us with a democracy, it's time to go back to school.
The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.
Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?
what do they hope to gain?
Representative Republic not a democracy have you really forgotten that already?