QuoteJohn F. McManus
For many generations now, Americans have been brought up believing that the United States is a democracy and that democracy is a good thing. And those beliefs have been reinforced by virtually everything we see and hear as adults.

Consider the frenzy now taking place over the contested 2020 presidential election results. According to both the mainstream media and liberal politicians, President Trump's and his supporters' efforts to expose vote fraud and count only legal votes constitute an assault on democracy. For example, the heading of an opinion piece in the New York Times, by editorial board member Jesse Wegman, claimed, "The Republican Party Is Attacking Democracy." A Vanity Fair headline similarly warned, "Republicans Still Rushing to the Frontlines in Trump's War Against Democracy." And former President Barack Obama said recently that democracy has been "strained" by what Trump has been saying.

But it is not just leftist politicians who call the United States a democracy. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is now Trump's attorney, told a Pennsylvania Senate committee hearing on election irregularities, "If we allow elections in the future to be conducted the way this election was conducted, we will have lost our democracy."

Yet not everyone agrees that the United States is a democracy. At the same hearing, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano said, "You know, you have to forgive people because we are a constitutional Republic, so I'll forgive those that say democracy."

https://thenewamerican.com/magazine/tna3702/page/112408/

Good read.

When some Karen asks Trump after he cleans House and the Senate, literally, and asks Trump: "What have you given us"?

His response should be: "Your Republic Back, If You Can Keep It"...

H/T to Ben Franklin...

Great article.

It's always been a pet peeve of mine when someone calls us a democracy, even POTUS, Rush, all our Reps even say it.
It's time to force the issue! I always call everyone out when the say democracy, but it's time to start writing letters, now that we're in the midst of taking back our Republic.

I agree. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Mr. President,
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present
approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have
experienced many instances of being obligated by better information, or fuller
consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought
right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am
to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most
men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all
truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in
a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their
opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the
Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost
as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a
certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens,
Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right - Il n'y a que moi qui
a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are
such;  I doubt too
whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a betterbecause I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of
Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe
farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end
in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so
corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their
joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their
passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such
an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to
find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish
our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded
like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation,
only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent,
Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is
not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have
never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and
here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the
objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might
prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great
advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among
ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any
Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion,
on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom
and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the
people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in
recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the
Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts &
endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the
Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a
little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this
instrument.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/article-917/file-5483.pdf

Quote from: stjames1_53 on January 17, 2021, 03:50:02 AM
Mr. President,
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present
approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/article-917/file-5483.pdf

Franklin was a socialist at heart...

Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2021, 06:22:35 AM
Franklin was a socialist at heart...

I have my doubts about that.
A true socialist doesn't believe in a BoR.

Quote from: stjames1_53 on January 17, 2021, 07:33:24 AM
I have my doubts about that.
A true socialist doesn't believe in a BoR.

Actually there's been a lot written about his words, a simple search will show it.

Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2021, 10:05:08 AM
Actually there's been a lot written about his words, a simple search will show it.

Like political persuasion, labels change.
He did not embrace socialism as a political practice. He did believe in independence from government and self-reliance. He also believe, fully, in the BoR. He detested the "Welfare Clause" in the CONUS fearing what would happened, did.
Socialism back then wasn't the same as it is seen today. It has developed into the Moocher Class.
Naw, none of these things support the claim that he was a Socialist, but rather a Unitarian; another thing whose definition has changed over the centuries.
In order to  apply those definitions, one must look into the state of affairs of the political climate then and today.
He did not believe that government should be the teat of the Individual.
Remember, that the only duty the US government had to the general public was to protect our shores and borders, and that means was to be provided for by the government by tariffs and duties collected on imports and exports. Franklin knew that if that were the only means of operating, then the size of government ( as a consumer of tax monies) would be kept small.
I doubt that Franklin believed in total government control, cradle to grave.
His support of the BoR denies that claim that he was a socialist.
His support to keep government small also denies that claim.

Quote from: stjames1_53 on January 18, 2021, 02:56:37 AM
Like political persuasion, labels change.
He did not embrace socialism as a political practice. He did believe in independence from government and self-reliance. He also believe, fully, in the BoR. He detested the "Welfare Clause" in the CONUS fearing what would happened, did.
Socialism back then wasn't the same as it is seen today. It has developed into the Moocher Class.
Naw, none of these things support the claim that he was a Socialist, but rather a Unitarian; another thing whose definition has changed over the centuries.
In order to  apply those definitions, one must look into the state of affairs of the political climate then and today.
He did not believe that government should be the teat of the Individual.
Remember, that the only duty the US government had to the general public was to protect our shores and borders, and that means was to be provided for by the government by tariffs and duties collected on imports and exports. Franklin knew that if that were the only means of operating, then the size of government ( as a consumer of tax monies) would be kept small.
I doubt that Franklin believed in total government control, cradle to grave.
His support of the BoR denies that claim that he was a socialist.
His support to keep government small also denies that claim.

I said nothing of total govt control, so cut the shit! There is much written about Franklin, just take the time to do the research and find out for yourself.

Quote from: Solar on January 18, 2021, 04:48:14 AM
I said nothing of total govt control, so cut the shit! There is much written about Franklin, just take the time to do the research and find out for yourself.

Well, I had hoped to have a civil conversation, but I guess not..............

Quote from: stjames1_53 on January 19, 2021, 02:27:04 AM
Well, I had hoped to have a civil conversation, but I guess not..............

It has been noted over decades Franklin was all about consolidated power while others worked to contain his enthusiasm.
Do a search, read the Federalist papers, you'll see what I'm referring to, but what I've learned over 6 decades would take too much of my time precious to explain it to you.