Throwing Mud On Democracy

F

Flanders

Verified User
I never heard a Democrat call this country a republic, not during the impeachment trial, nor did I ever hear a Democrat admit that the U.S.A. is a republic. That amounts to a shit-load of Democrats I heard speak, or read, throughout all of the decades in my long adult life.

NOTE: Convincing the American people that this country is a democracy is a conspiracy that began in 1917.


Making the World “Safe for Democracy”: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
​

Admittedly, I taped Pelosi’s circus so I could specifically fast-forward when the House Managers were talking. I did not have to listen because I am pretty sure not one House Manager called this country a republic.

Should I feel ambitious after the circus leaves town I will word-search the words democracy, and republic, in the full text of the trial. If nothing else, I would like to know the number of times democracy was said by House Managers and by Trump’s lawyers. (A few of President Trump’s lawyers said “republic.” I heard it said in a few segments of the trial I listened to.)

A great big ‘thank you’ goes to Walter E. Williams for this article:


During President Donald J. Trump's impeachment trial, we'll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing. One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy. If we've become a democracy, it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders, who saw democracy as another form of tyranny. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation's two most fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our founders held for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Alexander Hamilton agreed, saying: "We are now forming a republican government. (Liberty) is found not in "the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. ... If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."

John Adams reminded us: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Marshall, the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

Thomas Paine said, "A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is."

The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections. That means heavily populated states can't run roughshod over small, less-populated states.

Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states, namely California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41% of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7% of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government "of the people." Instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states. It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared.

It's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers' distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress "shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied." When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we're in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn't be trusted.



​
Democracy and Tyranny
Walter E. Williams
Posted: Jan 30, 2020 12:01 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2020/01/30/democracy-and-tyranny-n2560191
​

Finally, never say that I secretly harbor a modicum of respect for democracy in a corner of my soul. You can honestly say that I never miss a chance to throw mud on democracy.
 
Democracy across the pond:


When the United Kingdom exits the European Union late on Friday, Brexit will be hailed as a victory for British democracy. Three times Britons voted to leave the EU and “take back control”: in June 2016, when the Leave campaign won at the EU referendum; in the general election the following June, when the vast majority of voters cast ballots for parties promising to fulfill the referendum will of the people (even though the Conservative party itself only achieved a minority government); and finally in December 2019 — the second general election in as many years — after months and months of Remainer parliamentary obstruction, Britons overwhelming elected Boris Johnson on the pledge to “get Brexit done.” Third time’s the charm.

But is this really a victory for democracy? Yes, on the face of it, if by democracy you mean one person, one vote. On the other hand, Britons were subjected, figuratively and literally, to months of their elected representatives in the House of Commons hell-bent on frustrating that self-same will, all in the name of parliamentary democracy.

The prime minister and no less than Elizabeth II, fulfilling their legitimate constitutional powers to prorogue Parliament, were vetoed by an unaccountable UK Supreme Court, “miraculously” imbued with the ability to augur that the Head of State and her First Minister were motivated by malevolent intent against democracy. Thus vetoed, Boris Johnson was forced to return to the Commons, cap in hand, to the repellent glee of Remainers. Brexiteers were rightfully outraged, while the establishment was unconvincingly nonplussed. They hear “the fury in your words, but not your words,” to summon up Shakespeare.

What is it about democracy that Brexiteers dislike? Most would never put the question so bluntly and, if queried, would proclaim themselves the most proud and patriotic democrats in all of England. Except … Why do politicians and more perniciously, “public” servants, put their interests above those whom they have sworn to serve?

Were justification required, we could put the blame on Edmund Burke, who infamously told his Bristol electors that MPs “owe you, not his industry only, but his judgment.” Furthermore, “he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion,” Burke protested.

Burke’s political nostrum, however, had its limits even in his own day, let alone in ours. In truth, we need go no further than to admit that public officials are usually no more “public-spirited” than the general run of the populace. Perhaps even less so.

Brexiteers who are fully committed to British independence don’t stop at limiting the power of Brussels. They’ll extend it to Westminster, too. Here they enjoy the support of the late Victorian political economist and (classical) Liberal MP, W. E. H. Lecky. “This increase of State power means a multiplication of restrictions,” Lecky wrote. “It means an increase of bureaucracy”— them again! — and a “constant increase of taxation, which is in reality a constant restriction of liberty.”

Lecky was an early opponent of the evils attending democracy and taxing powers, joining John C. Calhoun before him and Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek (as well as many others) after him. “No danger in representative government was deemed greater than that it should degenerate into a system of veiled confiscation,” Lecky observed, “one class voting the taxes which another class was compelled to pay.”

So while not disavowing democracy outright, few Brexiteers are happy with its results. Like most public disaffection, democratic dissatisfaction has been roiling under the surface of public discourse for decades. UK governments shifted from Conservative to Labour and back again, sometimes even comprising a coalition when circumstances warranted, but nothing seemed to change for the better. If anything, the state of British politics only worsened. Until Brexit came along.

American satirist H. L. Mencken was devastating in his critique of the common voter. “He not only doesn’t long for liberty, he is quite unable to stand it,” he wrote scornfully. “All else is affectation, delusion, empty words.” But Mencken never met a Brexiteer, for whom liberty is the sine qua non of his existence.

We may no longer need question why the Brexiteer has an uneasy relationship with democracy, seeing as how the burgeoning State robs him not only of his liberty but of his tax dollars, too. More to the point, however, is just how far Brexiteers are willing to go to regain both their freedom and their hard-won earnings. Is their outrage confined to Brussels, or are they willing to take on Westminster, too?
​


Brexiteers Don’t Want Democracy; They Want Freedom
And by George, they’ve got it: The UK leaves the EU this weekend.
by Stephen MacLean
January 30, 2020, 11:14 AM

https://spectator.org/brexiteers-dont-want-democracy-they-want-freedom/
​

​


I cannot answer for the Brits, but I know that Americans are chomping at the bit to take on the federal government; i.e., liberalism, Socialism, and the Parasite Class’s democracy.
 
Flanders said:
I never heard a Democrat call this country a republic, not during the impeachment trial, nor did I ever hear a Democrat admit that the U.S.A. is a republic!!
Click to expand...

You need to improve your level of education, and you need to stop allowing yourself to be told what to think by Sean Hannity.

By definition, a republic simply means a system of government that does not have a monarch, an emperor, or a king.
And, lacking a monarchy, it purports to be a government that is representative of the people; a government where the people have influence.

That is exactly why nations such as these call themselves republics:

Peoples Republic of China (aka, communist China)
Republic of North Korea (aka, communist North Korea)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (aka, former USSR)
German Democratic Republic (aka, former communist East Germany)


A democratic republic, and representative democracy, a direct democracy, or a western European constitutional monarchy are all accepted as forms of democracy. Period, end of story.
 
Who in the hell is going to read an opinion blog from the likes of "townhall" and "spector," get real, summarize it in your own words and get back to us
 
this line of "the USA is not a democracy" is one of the original GRU ( the new KGB) propaganda lies to be spread on the internets


it was the begining of the push by Putin to defame Democracies world wide


the republican party is sooooo stupid they saw it as a way to trash the name of the Democratic party


the one they all refuse to pronounce correctly even in all congressional records


there is no Democrat party


just like there is no Republic party


the republican party proved their hate of democracy every time they lie about the name of the most populated party in this nation


They proudly HATE the vast majority of American voters


evil lives in their souls
 
Flanders said:
I never heard a Democrat call this country a republic, not during the impeachment trial, nor did I ever hear a Democrat admit that the U.S.A. is a republic. That amounts to a shit-load of Democrats I heard speak, or read, throughout all of the decades in my long adult life.

NOTE: Convincing the American people that this country is a democracy is a conspiracy that began in 1917.


Making the World “Safe for Democracy”: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
​

Admittedly, I taped Pelosi’s circus so I could specifically fast-forward when the House Managers were talking. I did not have to listen because I am pretty sure not one House Manager called this country a republic.

Should I feel ambitious after the circus leaves town I will word-search the words democracy, and republic, in the full text of the trial. If nothing else, I would like to know the number of times democracy was said by House Managers and by Trump’s lawyers. (A few of President Trump’s lawyers said “republic.” I heard it said in a few segments of the trial I listened to.)

A great big ‘thank you’ goes to Walter E. Williams for this article:


During President Donald J. Trump's impeachment trial, we'll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing. One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy. If we've become a democracy, it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders, who saw democracy as another form of tyranny. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation's two most fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our founders held for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Alexander Hamilton agreed, saying: "We are now forming a republican government. (Liberty) is found not in "the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. ... If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."

John Adams reminded us: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Marshall, the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

Thomas Paine said, "A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is."

The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections. That means heavily populated states can't run roughshod over small, less-populated states.

Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states, namely California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41% of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7% of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government "of the people." Instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states. It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared.

It's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers' distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress "shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied." When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we're in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn't be trusted.



​
Democracy and Tyranny
Walter E. Williams
Posted: Jan 30, 2020 12:01 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2020/01/30/democracy-and-tyranny-n2560191
​

Finally, never say that I secretly harbor a modicum of respect for democracy in a corner of my soul. You can honestly say that I never miss a chance to throw mud on democracy.
Click to expand...

WOW! THAT WAS ONE BIG LOAD OF HORSE SHIT!

Wow! AND ALL THAT TYPING!

a92cc1b967a70bd31abb9c6b5bcf096b.gif
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Is that why Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic-Republican Party (later, "Jeffersonian Democrats") in the 1790s?
Click to expand...

To Tranquillus in Exile: They did not found the Democracy-Republican Party.

Do not confuse democratic ideals with democracy.
Seven or eight years ago I began referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I refuse to associate today’s Democrats with democratic ideals. No one can make the case that the Democrat Party is in favor of individual liberties, while just about anyone can easily make the case that the Democrat Party is all about collectivism.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...n-Of-The-Party-Of-Liars&p=2797672#post2797672
 
evince said:
now as yourself why the right hates the word Democracy?
Click to expand...

To evince: Short answer: Line up with the Founding Fathers who hated democracy, or line up with Democrat parasites who would be eating out of a dumpster without their tax dollar incomes.
 
Flanders said:
Do not confuse democratic ideals with democracy.
Click to expand...

To Tranquillus in Exile: Democrats are not confused. They do it deliberately, or else they are so ignorant they believe their own lies about democracy:

During MSNBC’s impeachment coverage on Friday, host Lawrence O’Donnell stated that “American democracy once again revealed its most serious structural flaw: the United States Senate.” And called on Democrats to focus more on winning the Senate.

O’Donnell began by saying, “When you’re watching the United States Senate on days like today.
​

Here comes the unholy marriage between democracy and democratic ideals:

It’s always important to remember that you are not watching democracy in action. The Senate is now, always has been, and always will be, an anti-democratic institution. Because the Senate does not represent people. The House of Representatives represents people. That’s why it’s called the people’s House. The U.S. Senate represents land. And because people are not evenly distributed over our land, the 760,000 people of North Dakota get two United States senators, and the 39 million people of California get two United States senators. California gets 53 members of the House of Representatives, and North Dakota gets one. And that is fair.”

He added, “And so, to the people on Twitter today who found themselves despairing at the Senate’s anti-democratic action, and said things like, democracy died today. No. American democracy didn’t die today. American democracy once again revealed its most serious structural flaw: the United States Senate.”

O’Donnell continued that if Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) can win in a red state, then Democrats can win the other Senate seat from Montana, and in states that already have one Democratic senator like Arizona, Maine, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Ohio.

He concluded that Democratic voters need to focus more attention on winning the Senate.


​
MSNBC’s O’Donnell: The Senate Is American Democracy’s ‘Most Serious Structural Flaw’
by Ian Hanchett
1 Feb 2020

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...ican-democracys-most-serious-structural-flaw/
​

NOTE: Yesterday I surfed into a NY Times reporter/editor. I do not have the Youtube or the exact quote but she said something like America has been a democracy for over 2 centuries:



Gay got a degree in political science from the University of Michigan. I suspect she got her master’s degree from Saul Alinsky University.

Surprise, surprise! To Gay, everything is defined by non-existent racism:



Finally, I am so used to journalists and Democrats double speaking our constitutional republic into a democracy I no longer pay attention. If I posted a message every time I heard one of them newspeak democracy there would be no time left over to comment on any other topic.


newspeak (noun)

Deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public.
​

XXXXX
​


doublespeak (noun)

Intentionally deceiving language. Not an outright lie or a tactful euphemism, but systematic use of ambiguous, evasive words and sentence structures to say one thing but mean something else. Commonly associated with bureaucracy, military, and politics, it is often practiced in commerce also as a calculated attempt to (1) avoid or shift responsibility, (2) distort reality by making the bad, negative, or unpleasant look good, positive, or pleasant, and vice versa, and (3) confuse by using unfamiliar or concocted jargon.
​
 
Flanders said:
Seven or eight years ago I began referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I refuse to associate today’s Democrats with democratic ideals. No one can make the case that the Democrat Party is in favor of individual liberties, while just about anyone can easily make the case that the Democrat Party is all about collectivism.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...n-Of-The-Party-Of-Liars&p=2797672#post2797672
Click to expand...

Notice that Democrats use the phrase ‘democratic values’ instead of ‘democratic ideals’. Democrats get the same result they desire from both phrases: CONVINCE AMERICANS —— AND THE WORLD —— THAT THE U.S. IS A DEMOCRACY.


Secretary of State Antony Blinken is telling American diplomats deployed across the world to admit to their country’s failures when promoting human rights and U.S. democratic values, Politico reported recently.

Politico obtained a cable containing Blinken’s instructions sent to U.S. embassies across the globe Friday.

Biden’s State Department chief pointed out that populist and authoritarian forces threaten democracy as a concept abroad and in the U.S. due to “political polarization, disinformation and misinformation, and low levels of trust in government.”

Blinken, the top diplomat in the U.S., also bashed his country for its “human rights failures,” noting that too many Americans continue to experience various forms of discrimination.

The U.S. State Department sent the cable days after Blinken announced that the Biden team had invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and U.S. Special Rapporteur on minority issues to make an official visit to America.

Although Blinken did not explicitly say the U.N. envoys would be able to investigate rights abuses in the United States, Politico reported that is likely the purpose of their visit.

Politico revealed Friday:
​


The cable is strikingly frank in acknowledging America’s internal challenges, a risky political move given current conservative anger over educational and other attempts to highlight U.S. failures on sensitive issues such as race.

…
In promoting human rights and democracy abroad, U.S. diplomats should make “clear that we ask no more of other countries than we ask of ourselves,” Blinken states.
​


The secretary’s message does not mention any critics. Still, his comments echo criticism from China and Russia, which often highlight America’s struggles with race and other issues to question U.S. credibility as an advocate of human rights and democracy.

It might be “painful, even ugly” to acknowledge America’s flaws, Blinken wrote. However, he asserted that such honesty “helps disarm critics and skeptics who would use our imperfect record at home to undercut our global leadership on these issues.
​

Note that Blinken does not push democratic ideals:


The secretary also ordered American diplomats to push human rights and democracy as a top priority even in U.S. allied nations with abusive governments.

Blinken admits that the Biden Administration will have to carefully balance its “myriad of national interests” with the fact that some of America’s close international allies are human rights abusers and even dictatorships, Politico pointed out.

“While some instances we will need to adjust the pressure we apply to avoid a rupture in the relationship, there is no relationship or situation where we will stop raising human rights concerns,” he wrote.

Blinken reportedly left the door open to the possibility of the U.S. applying pressure privately in some cases.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was quick to condemn Blinken for being more willing to beat up on America than repressive regimes such as Cuba.

In defending Blinken, unnamed senior State officials reportedly asserted that diplomats would also continue to highlight America’s successes.

“We still have a lot to be proud of [and] we still have a lot of faith in our resilience. We still have confidence in our ability to work through these things,” one official reportedly said.

Blinken’s instructions to diplomats are reminiscent of the Obama-Biden administration’s apologist approach to foreign policy, which embraced the notion that the United States is a flawed nation that must seek forgiveness for the sins of its past.

U.S. diplomats promoting American exceptionalism — U.S. values and ideals — as worthy of emulation when advocating human rights and democratic values abroad.
​

I assume Breitbart’s Mr. Mora made a mistake when he married American exceptionalism to values and ideals:


Former President Barack Obama’s apologist foreign policy marked a departure from the venerable tradition of U.S. diplomats promoting American exceptionalism — U.S. values and ideals — as worthy of emulation when advocating human rights and democratic values abroad.

Blinken has highlighted flaws in America’s human rights record in the past, soon after China voiced similar criticism, a move that some Republicans believe made the United States look weak.

His message to diplomats will likely trigger a backlash from conservatives who condemned the Obama-Biden administration’s apologist foreign policy agenda.
​


Report: Blinken Telling Diplomats to Admit U.S. Flaws When Promoting Rights, Democracy
by Edwin Mora
20 Jul 2021

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...it-u-s-flaws-when-promoting-rights-democracy/
​
 
Cypress said:
You need to improve your level of education, and you need to stop allowing yourself to be told what to think by Sean Hannity.

By definition, a republic simply means a system of government that does not have a monarch, an emperor, or a king.
And, lacking a monarchy, it purports to be a government that is representative of the people; a government where the people have influence.

That is exactly why nations such as these call themselves republics:

Peoples Republic of China (aka, communist China)
Republic of North Korea (aka, communist North Korea)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (aka, former USSR)
German Democratic Republic (aka, former communist East Germany)

A democratic republic, and representative democracy, a direct democracy, or a western European constitutional monarchy are all accepted as forms of democracy. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

We are a Republic of States. We are not a straight democracy. We do not choose our Presidents via popular vote. But rather, by State electors based on that states population.

Of course, you knew what the thread author's intent was and instead of honestly debating it, chose to postulate strawmen and deflections. I wish you were educated. Really I do.
 
The USA is a republic. A republic is a representative democracy. The founders designed this republic to prevent tyranny of the majority, to protect the rights of the individual from being denied because a majority didn't like it. It's why they designed a 3 piece federal government that had checks and balances that still had the people as the power over them. It's why they designed a house of the people, a chamber of the states, and an office of the nation, so that all 3 groups had equal representation in the government.
 
Flanders said:
To SmarterthanYou: No it is not. The Founders created a Constitutional Republic because they wanted no part of democracy. Is that why you and your kind try to:
Click to expand...

there are different kinds of democracies..........a constitutional republic is a form of democracy because the people do vote for their representation........not sure why that's difficult to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top