You ignored the constitutional requirement that I pointed out, and you pretend it says something that it does not say.
You then falsely equate the two.
There IS a difference.
The DIFFERENCE is the key.
Politicians and other types of wanabe tyrants ALWAYS talk about "democracy" BECAUSE they don't like the constraints of a republican form of government.
For that reason, many of us INSIST on pointing out that the USA is REPUBLICAN in its legal form and NOT a democracy.
There are democratic ELEMENTS when it comes to voting for (a) local government, (b) state legislature, (c) state executive branch, and (d) members of House of Representatives.
But senators and president were NOT by democratic vote.
The checks and balances, along with the constitutional PROHIBITIONS against the federal government's powers are what made the American system unique, and are the ONLY reason we still have some vestages of liberty left.
It has been a tough nut for the wanabe tyrants to crack -- though they have been trying since the foundation.
Many of us view it as TREASONOUS to claim that the USA is a "democracy," when we know damn well that such a thing leads to tyranny, which leads to communism, which is a form of slavery.
The OP's quote from Marx is wrong. Democracy does not lead to socialism. It is much worse. It leads to slavery.
Without the checks and balances of a REPUBLICAN form of government, you end up in slavery.
THIS is why it matters to call out the FALSE claims.
Democracy ends and tyranny begins when 51% realize they can vote to take away the property and other rights of the other 49%.
We are on the brink of that reality ... RIGHT NOW.
republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.
You are stripping our the nuance between types of democracies and making like it's an either/or choice. It is not.
Is the US a democracy? YES.
Is the US a Republic? YES.
Is the US a direct democracy? NO.
There are democratic ELEMENTS
Yup. Built in. Because republics are democracies.
Many of us view it as TREASONOUS to claim that the USA is a "democracy,"
So Reagan was a traitor?
Again this argument seems to lack all nuance.
Without the checks and balances of a REPUBLICAN form of government, you end up in slavery.
Our Republican form of government allowed slavery.
Again you can all forms of republics. Dozens of countries are republics. Saddam Hussein ruled over the Republic of Iraq.
I think your argument starts talking about the character of the county more than the form or government.
Representative democracies like republics are imperfect and made up of imperfect men and women. You can have constitutional republics with crappy constitutions.
One of the reasons we have the ability to amend our Constitution.
This is deeply ahistorical at best,
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." -- Ronald Reagan
"Democracy is the superior form of government, because it is based on a respect for man as a reasonable being." - JFK
"We want democracy to survive for all generations to come..." - Dwight Eisenhower
“I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state.” - Barry Goldwater
Great quotes, but they were ALL wrong, because ...
US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:
So, you should be asking: What IS a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy, and why did the Founding Fathers REQUIRE it?
Yup. A Republican form of government is a democracy.
It's a type of democracy.
Baptists and Lutheran's are both Christians.
It's kinda of modern arrogance to ignore 200+ years of history and said claim they didn't know what they are talking about.
The founders and most every single politician since then were against direct democracy. They were in favor of representative democracy.
Fact check: FALSE.
You ignored the constitutional requirement that I pointed out, and you pretend it says something that it does not say.
You then falsely equate the two.
There IS a difference.
The DIFFERENCE is the key.
Politicians and other types of wanabe tyrants ALWAYS talk about "democracy" BECAUSE they don't like the constraints of a republican form of government.
For that reason, many of us INSIST on pointing out that the USA is REPUBLICAN in its legal form and NOT a democracy.
There are democratic ELEMENTS when it comes to voting for (a) local government, (b) state legislature, (c) state executive branch, and (d) members of House of Representatives.
But senators and president were NOT by democratic vote.
The checks and balances, along with the constitutional PROHIBITIONS against the federal government's powers are what made the American system unique, and are the ONLY reason we still have some vestages of liberty left.
It has been a tough nut for the wanabe tyrants to crack -- though they have been trying since the foundation.
Many of us view it as TREASONOUS to claim that the USA is a "democracy," when we know damn well that such a thing leads to tyranny, which leads to communism, which is a form of slavery.
The OP's quote from Marx is wrong. Democracy does not lead to socialism. It is much worse. It leads to slavery.
Without the checks and balances of a REPUBLICAN form of government, you end up in slavery.
THIS is why it matters to call out the FALSE claims.
Democracy ends and tyranny begins when 51% realize they can vote to take away the property and other rights of the other 49%.
We are on the brink of that reality ... RIGHT NOW.
I didn't ignore anything.
When you say republic or republican form of government it is understood, as it was understood by the founders, to be a representative democracy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government
republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.
You are stripping our the nuance between types of democracies and making like it's an either/or choice. It is not.
Is the US a democracy? YES.
Is the US a Republic? YES.
Is the US a direct democracy? NO.
Yup. Built in. Because republics are democracies.
So Reagan was a traitor? Again this argument seems to lack all nuance.
Our Republican form of government allowed slavery.
Again you can all forms of republics. Dozens of countries are republics. Saddam Hussein ruled over the Republic of Iraq.
I think your argument starts talking about the character of the county more than the form or government.
Representative democracies like republics are imperfect and made up of imperfect men and women. You can have constitutional republics with crappy constitutions.
One of the reasons we have the ability to amend our Constitution.