Is America a democracy? I dont think so.

You vote for a president - democratic
The president, elected by the majority, decides for all population - democratic
You vote for local governors - democratic
The governor, elected by the majority, decides for all locals - democratic

If the US is not a democracy then all other related countries are also not thus democratic states do not exist since Ancient Greece.

 

We are not a democracy and were never intended to be.

When I was cleaning out my parents house, I found a box of books that had belonged to my father. Two of those books were Civics textbooks; both editions of the same textbook, but separated by about 30 years.

The first one (the earlier one) had a very involved section discussing the differences between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic, and why we were the latter and not the former. It included the Founders' very pointed commentary about the dangers and pitfalls of democracy, and the reasoning of why we should never allow ourselves to be evolved towards being a democracy.

Do we use certain democratic processes? Certainly. Are we a democracy? No.

Sadly, the next edition of that same textbook had the entirety of the section regarding the differences between a democracy and our Constitutional Republic expunged. I had intended to preserve those two books for posterity, but somehow they disappeared and I was never able to find them again. But, the education they gave me on our status as a Republic, and the concerted effort to try and twist us into a democracy that followed, has been invaluable to me.

 

The electoral college makes sure very state has a voice and prevents a simple majority vote - not democratic. A presidential candidate cannot win simply by gaining the majority of national votes. They must win enough electoral votes from the states.

Our nation is based on laws, not majorities. A simple majority cannot change the Bill of Rights, or the provisions of the Constitution.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

 

That's pretty judgmental. On what do you base this conclusion?

 

Democracy = tyranny. Surely you know that?

 

The UN is for the most part a parliament for tyrants. It is seldom very useful.

 

I call Miami "North Cuba". The defacto standard language is Spanish. Don't expect to be able to survive there if you don't speak it. (I mean like getting/keeping a job, etc, not that you're going to be killed.)

 

Regions can have profound effects, they are still not nations

 

No. Democratic institutions are under attack everywhere. The US is a classic oligarchy where wealth and political power are concentrated in the hands of a diminishing elite who's interests are served by the mechanisms of the state.

 

Democracy means that all the voting population is in the legislature and makes the laws at meetings of that voting population Best examples I can think of offhand are Periclean Athens and/or the town meetings of New England. (NOT the "town meetings" where legislators talk with some of their constituents, those are campaign stunts with neither substance nor effect)

Republics are as outlined by Plato in his eponymous work. Best example is the Constitution of the United States, as it has been practiced for over two centuries. The major feature of Republics is that elected representatives look after the best interests of their constituents as a full time job. The Electoral College is NOT a defining characteristic of a Republic, btw.

 

Good point.

 

Your whole point is based upon a title? Give me a break. So I guess there can be no doubt that North Korea is a Democratic country, right?

 

That is a nobility. A major characteristic there is that the ruling elite is very limited and designed to become more so, not less It is usually hereditary and formally recognized as such, often with titles, though it doesn't have to be. In the US we have technically universal suffrage.

And I don't want ignorant hayseeds disenfranchising me. If you're so ****** disagreeable you have to live around racoons then go reside among them without imposing your wild men on our country.

 

I didn't say that, you said it. I said it was treason. It was giving aid and comfort to an avowed enemy of this country, Iran. As for your "proven in a court of law when", I'd like to see the charges brought even if they were acquitted, put them out of the "elder statesman" business permanently.

 

Your silly proclamations don't warrant any response but for you, referendums aren't required in a democracy and constitutional limits protecting the rights of individuals from the will of the majority does not preclude democracy.

 

We are both.

 

Democracy is the direct rule and especially lawmaking by majority referenda. For one among many possible examples, a Homeowners' Association in a small neighborhood where each homeowner votes directly on fees, landscaping, pools/tennis-basketball courts and maintenance is an example of a "Democracy." I can reference hundreds of HOAs across the country that govern this way without boards, representatives, bylaws and other indicia of a "republic" with dirty, unsafe pools and crappy, unsafe basketball courts due to support for the maintenance one year and none the very next. Not only can it easily lead to unjust results, but it is inefficient, stifling commerce, innovation and the formation of capital due to dire uncertainty from one moment to the next.

It's perfectly fine to refer to "democracy" colloquially or idiomatically in describing parts of, or even the general nature of the U.S. government (or any other government), but Democracy as an actual governing form is unstable, capricious and inevitably unjust due to tyranny of the majority, free riding, other factors. Far more close to the truth than other zany exaggerations such as calling the U.S. an "oligarchy" though. The problem arises when people refer to our government as a "Democracy," mean it literally, "educate" the young and impressionable in the error PURPOSEFULLY, and use that towards activism appealing to overturning the rule of law on demand outside of established processes put in place in the Constitutional Republic to stifle capricious changes that lead to injustice, chaos and eventual anarchy. These hurdles include balance of powers and checks and balances, the amendment process, legislative process, other numerous baffles in place, for maintaining foundational principles in our government, most especially human rights.

In a Democracy, a national referendum could make Trump the king, disband Congress, bring back Jim Crow, imprison the press, outlaw abortion nationally, nationalize bank deposits, and reverse those things just as easily. People who appeal to "Democracy" tend to consider only one edge of the sword, where "the will of the people" comports with their own, without considering the whole alternative, that things could just as easily go against their individual notions... and instantly instead of in accordance with difficult process.

The Republic can of course be changed in similar ways... if you can get through all the baffles and hurdles put in place specifically to prevent such. It's not perfect either, but far less susceptible to caprice and arbitrary manipulation in short order. Also, calling the U.S. a "Democratic Republic," a "partial Democracy," a "form of Democracy," is just as inaccurate as calling a whale a "partial fish" because it is an animal that swims in the ocean. People can call a banana a lemon, they are both yellow, and be wrong. There is a point where mass public, national referenda could make the U.S. qualify as a "Democracy." We are nowhere near that currently. There are -0- national public referenda in the U.S.

When it comes to the actual governing form in place, which is completely distinct from the names and platforms of political parties that change over time (another factor that I believe causes much confusion..."we are Democrats so we support a Democracy" or "we are Republicans so we support a Republic," NO. Error), we have easy research to do. At the time of the Constitution's framing and ratification, the term "republic/republican" was used exclusively to describe the form of government created in sources such as The Federalist Papers. The term "democracy" was never used as such, and any references to it derogatory. This is because the Framers saw democracy not as a sustainable governing form, but as it is, enabling tyranny of a majority on demand that leads to instant instability and a "government" that is no government at all, one step removed from anarchy or another king.

 

Most humans are quite capable of evil. Even ordinary people. Milgram and Zimbardo both documented that. Zimbardo described it as the Lucifer Effect.

Yes, Hitler, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Netanyahu and many other heads of state have ordered evil actions.

 

Want to see a great example of where "Democracy" leads? Manson Family, or any other group that starts as a group commune and ends up a cult, whether the inevitable "Great Leader" is named Manson or Kim.

 

Let's set this myth, this conspiracy theory perpetuated by Fox News to rest once and for all. Please approach this topic with some logic and critical thinking.

The 2015 agreement freed up Iranian assets that had been frozen under sanctions. Called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal included Iran and the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

The agreement only affected sanctions imposed to punish Iran for its nuclear program. Iran has other assets that remain frozen.

Some conservatives have put the amount released after lifted sanctions as high as $150 billion, but another estimate from Iran’s Central Bank topped out at about $29 billion in readily available funds, with another $45 billion tied up in Chinese investment projects and the foreign assets of the Iran’s Oil Ministry. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, believes the actual total is between $25 billion and $50 billion.

Little of that money was under the control of the United States or any U.S. bank. Most of it, Habibi said, was in central and commercial banks overseas. Furthermore, it was Iran’s money to begin with, not a payment from any government to buy Iran’s cooperation.

The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, reviewed this cash transfer in a 2018 report. It gave a total of $1.7 billion.

That was the amount that U.S. and Iranian negotiators settled on to resolve an arms contract between the United States and Iran that predated the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran had paid for military equipment, and it was never delivered.

As of 1990, there were $400 million in that account. Negotiators agreed that accrued interest would add $1.3 billion to the amount, which is a lot of money — but 25 years is a long time for interest to build up the balance.

The United States sent the money to Iran in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. Trump embellished when he mentioned barrels and boxes. Reports at the time said the money was packed and loaded onto pallets, similar to how other bulk goods are shipped.

 

It's Republicans who are incapable of even making up their own slogans (MAGA was originated by Reagan.) Republicans will believe ANYTHING as long as the guy saying it tells them they are the Master Race and feeds them bullshit about how they're better than anybody and they don't have to ever think or work or even bathe, just so long as they're MURICANS. It's not Democrats who want the USA to be a safe space for Republican snowflakes who can't compete with the rest of the world

 

Oh please give it up already. Liberals take a cookie cutter approach to everything. Not realizing that big city solutions do not, nor cannot apply to small town concerns.

 

No one is saying they can, but neither can small town concerns apply to big cities. The President is supposed to be the President for EVERYBODY, not just his "base"

 

Yeah? Tell that to Obama, Clintoon, and every other Democrat scumbag POTUS there was. They COMPLETELY ignored the Conservative majority in this once great country.