Pop Quiz - Was the United States of America designed as a Democracy?

[DamianTV]

Very simple question. Please explain your answers.

[Swordsmyth]

The founders specifically rejected democracy, they created a republic so that the rights of minorities would be protected.

[Jamesiv1]

The Founders would have wrapped their arms around the MAGA and enjoyed a loving embrace.

[DamianTV]

The founders specifically rejected democracy, they created a republic so that the rights of minorities would be protected.

Yup.

I think what has happened is people are drawing False Conclusions:

• Democracy means People can Vote
• All other forms of Govt, including Republic, means the People Do NOT Vote

It is this Falsehood that I think has caused the shift toward Perceived Democracy. In reality, we have neither a Democracy, nor a Republic. MSM constantly makes sure that the idea of America being a Democracy is constantly repeated. I think this also comes with Political Bias, as believing that the US are a Democracy creates a Voting Association with the Democratic Party.

When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Congress, a lady asked him "Sir, what have you given us?" to which he replied "A Republic, Ma'am, if you can keep it". If someone needs more proof, have them recite the Pledge of Allegiance. "... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...".

For the unaware, we need to explain the KEY differences between a Democracy and Republic.

• In a Republic, the Law applies to Everyone
• In a Democracy, only the Majority has Rights and Minorities do not

The term Minority has NOTHING to do with Race or Heritage because there are SO MANY ways to divide people into groups. People can be divided by Race and Heritage, but it is not the only way. Democracy is promoted because it is Divisive, which pits people against each other, and you end up with Whites vs Non Whites. Lets think differently for a sec, and observe if there are other ways people can be Divided, with the INTENT of causing conflict:

• White vs Non White
• Male vs Female
• Poor vs Non Poor
• Religious vs Non Religious
• Immigrant vs Non Immigrant
• Democrat vs Non Democrat
• Sexually Straight vs Non Sexually Straight (LGBT and all that)
• College vs Non College
• Vaccinated vs Non Vaccinated
• Privileged vs Non Privileged
• Moral vs Non Moral (by applying different Labels)
• Obedient vs Non Obedient
• Vegetarian vs Non Vegetarian
• Global Warming vs Non Global Warming
• Health Insurance vs Non Health Insurance
• Employed vs Non Employed
• Social Media vs Non Social Media
• Privacy vs Non Privacy
• Guns vs Non Guns
• Free Speech vs Non Free Speech
• Marijuana vs Non Marijuana

I think thats more than enough to make the point, and is NOT a fully inclusive list.

The idea is nothing short of GROUP THINK PSYCHOLOGY. People who identify as members of any Group have a habit of accepting the ideas and concepts of that Group without first Challenging the idea or concept in ANY form because the need to be included in the Group is so exceptionally powerful that it changes a persons way of thinking, and displaces individual ideas with the ideas pushed by the Group. The message is always the same. It causes individuals to focus on Divisively identified characteristics so the non leadership members associate themselves with the Underdog status, thus, clamor over themselves so "they get a vote too". Group Members are taught, and reinforced, to see Majority as a Threat to their existence, because "only in a Democracy do the People get to vote" which is NOT true at all!

The GROUP will protect me, and Majority is a THREAT.

That is the core idea behind the Divisive tactics because people dont have any idea which Party is really the Majority. What they are missing is that in a Republic, ALL people have Rights, yet in a Democracy, only the Majority has Rights. This is the PRIMARY purpose of Polls. Polls create associations with "who is the Majority", so people attack the Majority in order for them to be recognized as having purpose and value to their Group.

Polls are Divisive.

Polls are so divisive in fact, that people abandon their Individual Ideals and replace them with Group Ideals. The purpose of the Divisiveness is to create Confusion. The Confusion causes all people to focus on changing the ideas of others, demanding they "join" their Group, and while that happens, the RULERS of this WORLD exploit and take advantage of the Confusion and rise to power.

Ask yourself for a moment if you have ever felt confused. Now consider the source. Did you read an article, watch a video, or take a look at the News, or just have a discussion with someone who has an opposing point of view? Is that confusion disorienting? Do you feel more knowledgeable, or less? Now, most importantly, did you notice what else happened while focusing on what caused your Confusion? This is the oldest trick in the book, the Magicians Redirection. While everyone is confused, they stole your Rights and your Future by causing conflict. The people that you argue with, and reject you from their Groups, those are NOT their own ideas. Youre talking to Followers. But dont think for ONE SECOND that getting ahold of the leaders of those Groups will enable you to have ANY influence over that Group what so ever.

Knowing how you and others are manipulated enables you to separate people from their Self Assigned Groups and once again establish a meaningful relationship with the people around you in a way that does NOT empower the Elite. Teaching others the ways of manipulation enables them to think for themselves, which is where the Root of Liberty is formed, Individual Freedom begins in the Minds of the Free.

[oyarde]

What it has become is the worst traits of a democracy while not having the best traits of a Republic .

[DamianTV]

How many people do you know that would flat out insist that the US was designed as a Democracy? Are they Democrats or Republicans?

(Not what it is, we know it is neither a Democracy or Republic.)

[Anti Globalist]

The Founders said the US is a republic if you can keep it.

[DamianTV]

The Founders said the US is a republic if you can keep it.

Obviously we couldnt. More importantly tho, why couldnt we keep it a Republic? What went wrong?

[Swordsmyth]

Obviously we couldnt. More importantly tho, why couldnt we keep it a Republic? What went wrong?

It was sabotaged from the very beginning, Franklin was one of the saboteurs, he thought it was funny to add "if you can keep it".

[Cleaner44]

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.
http://constitutionus.com/

[DamianTV]

*bump*

I wonder who voted Yes, the US is a Democracy? Who ever you are, youre lucky I chose to not make the poll public...

[Swordsmyth]

*bump*

I wonder who voted Yes, the US is a Democracy? Who ever you are, youre lucky I chose to not make the poll public...

I'd guess it was the Texican but he would have bragged about voting.

[DamianTV]

I'd guess it was the Texican but he would have bragged about voting.

Could have been a misclick also, but with only 10 votes, rather unlikely. It does show that the idea that "only in a Democracy can people vote" is prevalent even here.

[CaptUSA]

How many people do you know that would flat out insist that the US was designed as a Democracy? Are they Democrats or Republicans?

(Not what it is, we know it is neither a Democracy or Republic.)

True story: I once had a guy tell me he voted Democrat because he believed in Democracy.

That was probably 30 years ago and was probably what started my apathy. Most people's voting habits are governed by a vague visceral response system that is so easily programmed. It's impossible to change that with any rational argument. It's like explaining the benefits of the internal combustion engine to a cat.

[shakey1]

Nonstop propaganda has caused most folks to misinterpret the founder's original intent.

[phill4paul]

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.
http://constitutionus.com/

Perhaps the most relevant post in this thread. Notice that there is not a mention of the majority nor minority of any individuals. The Rupublican form of government is specifically for how the Federal government and the individual STATES interact with each other. Of course that went out the window in the War of Northern Aggression.

[Ender]

It was sabotaged from the very beginning, Franklin was one of the saboteurs, he thought it was funny to add "if you can keep it".

It was not a joke, it was a warning- Hamilton was the ultimate saboteur.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

[Swordsmyth]

It was not a joke, it was a warning- Hamilton was the ultimate saboteur.

Franklin was also a saboteur, he was actually caught being a British spy during the revolution and if you can't see how he thought "if you can keep it" was a funny inside joke I don't know what to say.

[Ender]

Franklin was also a saboteur, he was actually caught being a British spy during the revolution and if you can't see how he thought "if you can keep it" was a funny inside joke I don't know what to say.

He was not caught as a British spy- this originated as conjectures from British know-nothings who have tried to interpret Franklin's letters/documents in whatever manner.

Franklin was a member of the colonies' Committee of Secret Correspondence. He dealt with many aspects of the Revolution, including getting France to help the colonies. I am sure he had a handle on all sides of the game, as any spymaster would and should.

http://www.historynet.com/benjamin-f...-spymaster.htm

[r3volution 3.0]

The founders created a popularly elected government, and attempted to limits its powers by means of a constitution.

The attempt failed, naturally, and so what we have is a popularly elected government with unlimited powers (and an impotent constitution).

[PierzStyx]

Very simple question. Please explain your answers.

It isn't simple. The US is a combination of democracy and republican systems. A straight democratic system obviously involves direct democracy, something that has never existed. A straight republican system has a class of rulers that direct the government and the people have little to no say over who these people are going to be. Example, look at Rome. The people had some veto powers in their different assemblies, but they only elected a single office- the Tribune. The powers of the government were separate as a way to balance the competing powers of Executive (in Rome's case the Consul) and the Legislature (in Rome's case the Senate).

The American system sought to balance both of these ideas. The people would have direct election through the House of Representatives. Likewise they would elect the President directly in their various States. The Electoral College is often accused of being anti-democratic, but this just isn't true. In a system where the States are independent sovereign states as in the early American government the President of the federation was elected directly by the people, then each state took part in the College representing the direct will of the people of the State. These are all elements of democracy. Likewise, republican elements are introduced into the system through the original appointment of the Senate by the legislators of the states the Senators are from. Even then there is an element of democracy in it as the Legislatures that appoint Senators are directly elected by the people of their States. The other major republican element was the separation of powers between separate branches, whereas democracy in its purist form had no separation of powers or limits.

The point is that neither system dominated the United States. It is best referred to as a Democratic-Republic or perhaps a Republican-Democratic.

As for how well it worked, well go back to 1800 and ask any black man or woman how well their human rights were protected. In regards to the millions of slaves, America was neither democracy nor republic but a totalitarian dictatorship which completely dominated, robbed, tortured, and murdered millions through absolute military rule. The case was barely better for Native Americans. And it was a totally authoritarian system for women as they had little to no property rights, could not vote, could not consent to be governed, and were therefore dominated by a system of government in which they had no representation. No person could rightly say the rights of these millions of people were protected in any fashion.

[PierzStyx]

He was not caught as a British spy- this originated as conjectures from British know-nothings who have tried to interpret Franklin's letters/documents in whatever manner.

Franklin was a member of the colonies' Committee of Secret Correspondence. He dealt with many aspects of the Revolution, including getting France to help the colonies. I am sure he had a handle on all sides of the game, as any spymaster would and should.

http://www.historynet.com/benjamin-f...-spymaster.htm

Anyone who thinks Franklin was a British spy is an imbecile.

[PierzStyx]

It was not a joke, it was a warning- Hamilton was the ultimate saboteur.

Hell yes he was. Hamilton was a monarchist who gave a speech during the Constitutional Convention that wanted to create an "elective monarchy." The man wasn't a closet monarchist, he was openly a monarchist. And he had no love for either the republican or democratic principles in the US Constitution. He merely wanted to concentrate as much power as he could into the hands of the few. If you want someone to blame for the Oligarchy's inevitable development, Hamilton is the one you should start with.

[Swordsmyth]

He was not caught as a British spy- this originated as conjectures from British know-nothings who have tried to interpret Franklin's letters/documents in whatever manner.

Franklin was a member of the colonies' Committee of Secret Correspondence. He dealt with many aspects of the Revolution, including getting France to help the colonies. I am sure he had a handle on all sides of the game, as any spymaster would and should.

http://www.historynet.com/benjamin-f...-spymaster.htm

America has been under the influence of the shadow Nobility from the beginning, Ben Franklin was a cloaked British noble see:
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/...nfranklin.html
And http://mileswmathis.com/ben.pdf

More in other papers at: http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html

[r3volution 3.0]

America has been under the influence of the shadow Nobility from the beginning, Ben Franklin was a cloaked British noble see:
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/...nfranklin.html
And http://mileswmathis.com/ben.pdf

More in other papers at: http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html

"It's not the fault of communism that the factories don't work, comrade, it's the capitalist saboteurs."

~=

"It's not the fault of representative government that we have creeping socialism, it's the shadow nobility."

...or maybe each system is faulty enough on its own that no outside explanation for its failings is necessary.

[Swordsmyth]

"It's not the fault of communism that the factories don't work, comrade, it's the capitalist saboteurs."

~=

"It's not the fault of representative government that we have creeping socialism, it's the shadow nobility."

...or maybe each system is faulty enough on its own that no outside explanation for its failings is necessary.

"It's not the fault of the nobility that almost all of the countries they controlled turned into socialist parliamentary governments"

The world is the way it is because the rich and powerful wanted it that way, it is an uphill battle for the rest of us to limit or alter their choices.

[r3volution 3.0]

"It's not the fault of the nobility that almost all of the countries they controlled turned into socialist parliamentary governments"

The world is the way it is because the rich and powerful wanted it that way, it is an uphill battle for the rest of us to limit or alter their choices.

There is no need to posit some "they" hiding out in an undersea lair to explain these things. For instance, you surely can see the connection between (a) voters liking free stuff, (b) politicians liking to get elected, and (c) politicians giving people free stuff? The internal dynamics of democratic politics are already a sufficient explanation for the growth of the state.

Conspiratorial explanations, even when factually correct, are superfluous. Yes, it might have been villainous behind the scenes influencer X who actually shepherded some bill through Congress, but he was just filling a role created by the system itself; if not him, it would have been someone else. It's like explaining the failures of communism by pointing at the lazyness of individual factory managers, ignoring how the larger system ensures that factory managers will be lazy.

Put another way, if "they" corrupted the system, that's an indictment of the system being corruptible.

[Swordsmyth]

There is no need to posit some "they" hiding out in an undersea lair to explain these things. For instance, you surely can see the connection between (a) voters liking free stuff, (b) politicians liking to get elected, and (c) politicians giving people free stuff? The internal dynamics of democratic politics are already a sufficient explanation for the growth of the state.

Conspiratorial explanations, even when factually correct, are superfluous. Yes, it might have been villainous behind the scenes influencer X who actually shepherded some bill through Congress, but he was just filling a role created by the system itself; if not him, it would have been someone else. It's like explaining the failures of communism by pointing at the lazyness of individual factory managers, ignoring how the larger system ensures that factory managers will be lazy.

Put another way, if "they" corrupted the system, that's an indictment of the system being corruptible.

"THEY" created the system to be corruptible.

[r3volution 3.0]

"THEY" created the system to be corruptible.

What features of the system make it corruptible?

[Swordsmyth]

What features of the system make it corruptible?

It's a long list, I have discussed some of them before.

I may list some here later.