>what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are

Pretty sure Jefferson never expected our system to be as stable as it is.

>>3259136
Yes, the trash needs to be taken out every once and a while.

He has it backwards. The problems with democracy originate from the people, not the leaders. The people get lazy and arrogant, demanding more and more from their leaders, while being less and less wiling to spend five fucking hours critically thinking about who they should vote for. If the Leaders of a democracy are inefficient, it is either the people's fault, or it is not really a democracy. This whole meme that every politician's endgame is to become dictator is totally innacurate, just like the meme that standing armies will eventually form a junta. The united states military proved jefferson wrong on that point, and our presidents have proved him wrong on leaders being inherently power hungry.

>>3259278
>and our presidents have proved him wrong on leaders being inherently power hungry.
am i being trolled

>>3259278
>If the Leaders of a democracy are inefficient, it is either the people's fault, or it is not really a democracy.

wew anon
i want to say there's something wrong with this statement but

>>3259139
Well there was a massive civil war where millions of Americans died, but yeah other than that its pretty stable.

>>3259361
Has there ever been a president who tried to subvert the democratic process? There have been corrupt presidents, lazy presidents, stupid presidents, but no authoritarian presidents. The presidential office has attained more power over the years, but so has the executive in practically all democracies. It's neccesary in a modern nation state, but not non-democratic.

>>3259381
the united states of america was founded as a republic not a democracy you moron

>>3259278
>The people get lazy and arrogant, demanding more and more from their leaders,

Idiot, in a democracy, the "leaders" own nothing. Elected officials are merely instruments of the people's will. If the people wish the government to redistribute wealth, then the wealth comes from the people themselves not the leading powers. The true danger in democracy is that an oligarchical class will form in time due to simple natural chance, and that this class will, under the guise of exercising their democratic right, ensure the perpetuation of their wealth through the manipulation of elections and bribery of elected officials. This oligarchal class, because they now hide in shadow instead of sticking their necks out directly into the public arena are able to manipulate the government into passing all sorts of schemes to perpetuate their position.

> just like the meme that standing armies will eventually form a junta.
The military Industrial complex has word with you.

>>3259381
>It's neccesary in a modern nation state
How so? In what capacity does the executive branch of government need to be able authorize military action without consent of any other body? Are you to tell me that the American invasion of Libya was a necessary engagement? Or perhaps the proxy war in Syria, wherein the CIA has effectually fielded an entire army of "moderate rebels" for the last several years, prolonging a pointless civil war to the point of creating such a power vacuum, that a Caliphate has managed to rise into power? In what capacity do executive orders, often written and fielded singularly by the executive, without input of any other dissenting or even moderating voices, have the right to supersede argued out legislation?

>>3259393
>republics and democracies are mutually exclusive

Are you retarded?

>>3259463
Nothing is more retarded than pretending that representative government is democracy. It's a form of oligarchy, and he ancients are rolling their eyes ancients idiotic modern propoganda that suggests otherwise.>>3259463

>>3259469
Indirect democracies are still democracies.

>>3259474
Not him but you know that ancient greek oligarchic states had elections right? Voting was considered an oligarchical institution vs peoples assembly a election by drawing lots

>>3259414
Because nowadays with modern travel and communication, shit happens in hours or days, not the months or weeks it used to. Sometimes a crisis happens and if the US can't respond to it immediately, bad shit will happen. The executive order fills this gap nicely. No, I don't think either of those interventions were good or neccesary, but just because a tool has been used for bad things, does not mean you should get rid of that tool. The works progress administration and other executive orders helped mitigate the great depression. Sometimes, executive orders are used to enforce judicial decisions as well, such as Eisenhower's EO 10730. It's just that, as things begin to happen quicker, we need government responses quicker, and I think executive orders straddle the line of being effective without overriding congress well enough.

>>3259395
t. Alex Jones

>>3259378
>Well there was a massive civil war where millions of Americans died
>millions
700k

File: snack that up.jpg (56KB, 760x572px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 760x572px

>>3259469
>the people voting for their representatives at local, state, and federal levels is an oligarchy