Latest Count: Clinton Has 395,000 More Votes Than Trump

Her lead is up from 225,000... and all the votes still have not yet been counted.  Welcome to American "democracy".  We can stick our heads in the sand and ignore this (again), or we can work to change our electoral system.  It would be helpful if we all stopped drinking the Edward Bernays style Propaganda Kool Aid.

Long ago, James Madison said that the opulence of the wealthy must be protected from the majority.  He also stated that democracy is the most vile form of government.  John Jay, also a signer of the Constitution and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated that those who own the country (property owners) should rule it.  Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.  Other Founders referred to the tyranny of the majority.  Benjamin Rush, one of our Founders, said that a simple democracy is the devil's own government.  John Adams, the second U.S. President, claimed democracy soon degenerates into an anarchy.  Gouverneur Morris, the writer of the Final Draft of the Constitution, stated that the tumults of democracy terminate in despotism.  Fisher Ames, the framer of the 1st Amendement to the Constitution, claimed that democracy is the most violent of despotisms.  Even the respected Thomas Jefferson said that democracy is mob rule.  Long story short--- our Founders were against having democracy as our form of gov't.  They succeeded in that quest.

Despite the above, our current/recent leaders at the highest levels keep referring to "our democracy".  They rarely ever refer to our form of government by its proper name, our Republic.  The two types of gov't are not the same.  We don't have a democracy in the USA.  We've never had one.  Most other developed countries do have a democracy...and they haven't devolved into anarchy, or tyranny, or mob rule.  What they have done is a better job of protecting the majority from the Super-Rich... a better job of it than our gov't has done.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Democratic Socialism?

A seemingly growing minority in this great land believe that we should convert our form of government to that of Democratic Socialism, or a Social Democracy. They further believe that many unfulfilled "needs" (e.g., a need for national health care coverage) exist amongst the populace, and that a Constitutional Republic is inadequate to meet them. These people are found amongst both Democrats and Republicans. They have been changing our form of government bit by bit by means of Legislative Absolutism for decades, passing laws in areas where the Fed Govt has no Constitutional authority to act. All for the "good of our society".

The only question is: where do we draw the line? Even if we commoners all agree on where that is, it is highly doubtful that the Powers-That-Be will want to stop there. Why anyone thinks that "democratic socialism" will stop at the point of democratic socialism is beyond me.

"Power corrupts, and..." ~ Lord Acton

"There are two enemies of the People: criminals and the government. Let us bind the second with the chains of the Constitution, so that it does not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

That's exactly what the Founders did: they bound government with the chains of the Constitution. Just because that happened in the late 1780s (and this is 2007) does not mean that the rules no longer apply.

Many feel that last quote is an anachronism at best, a quaint dictum that is no longer applicable in modern-day America. Many others, however, feel that it is a timeless Truth---more applicable now than ever before; and the same folks also believe that the existence of a "need" does not justify any means of fulfilling that need, particularly force.

I really get amused with people who believe that the Founders' concepts are "out-of-date", "old-fashioned", and "from a bygone era". Funny thing...those people never include the concepts of due process, free speech, the right to privacy, civilian control of the military, etc.; they only include items such as the limitations of the Constitution on the central government, or the right to bear arms, or anything else they personally think gets in the way of some Statist agenda.

In our system of government, we have a distinct, legal way to change the rules governing government---Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those who sincerely believe in democratic socialism---and that amounts to (at most) about 20-25% of the populace, notwithstanding all the hoopla to the contrary---need to lobby for a Constitutional Convention, or a series of Amendments... that is, if they want to do things according to the Supreme Law of the Land. [I think all would agree that our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Socialist Democracy. Change it if you can, but do that legally.]

This is all just common sense, and so obvious...is it not?