It seems to me that this entire conversation was based on the premise that the US is a democracy, which, as pointed out above it is not. Regardless, of whether or not the idea of a Democratic Republic is a system one advocates for, it IS the governing system established by the US Constitution. All Presidents have been elected by the electoral college. It baffles me that many are either ignorant of that fact or choose to ignore in putting forth their arguments regarding the election of the current President. When one begins with a false premise, the entire argument loses it's impact.

@Daryl You're late to the party . The United States has been a Corporate Oligarchy since 1867 . Politics is simply the constant search for another human being to worship . All politicians are thieves and liars . They can all go to Hell in the same casket .

Wow! So, on one side of our current political spectrum, we have one group that would prefer a smaller government, lower taxes, and less meddling in our lives. On the other side, ever increasing government intrusion into how we talk, who we associate with, compulsory medical insurance, increased taxes, slow economic growth, and a crumbling of what makes America unique by undermining rule of law. And you label the former as the tyranny of the minority, a kleptocratic dictatorship?

@Daryl I would love to hear the reasoning you use to reach that conclusion.

@Daryl I actually asked for "your" reasoning. Or, am I to assume by your response you let others shape your perspective?

@Daryl So what . If it was up to the popular vote , 4 states would decide the presidency . Not my circus , not my monkeys , anyway . I do not have representation in Washington , D.C. They can all go hang .

@Daryl Absolutely serious . The popular vote in the states California , Texas , New York and Florida would be the difference that decides the election . Eventually , if the Progressives get their way , illegal aliens would be the deciding influence in presidential elections .

@Daryl Correction . 5 states . The Communist hell hole of Illinois is in that list. You have no idea what is coming . The foreign invaders are working on conquering Texas and Florida .

@Daryl You're late to the party . The Corporate Oligarchy was established in 1867 . People vote for the candidate they believe is most likely to lie , cheat , steal and commit murder , for them . People want this corruption.

@Daryl Believe that lie , if you want to . At the birth of this nation , the statement was made that survival of the new nation depended on the ability to live according to the Ten Commandments of God . Obviously , the population has gone in the opposite direction

@Daryl You have made your choice . Eternity is forever .

@Daryl We'll see how it comes out , then .

@Daryl We can certainly see from which end of the spectrum you are coming. Thank God our founders realized the likelihood of the inevitable stupidity of the masses--particularly those in the city, and protected the nation--for an extra few years, at least--by the creation of the electoral college.

@MarPep It is impossible to reason with a disciple of Revisionist History . They neglect and reject the testimony of the Founding Era . Karl Marx did not write the history of the United States . Yet , people still talk as though he did .

@Daryl I don't see how he has been literally tyrannical though. Yeah, you might not like some policies, but he hasn't deprived anybody of their rights yet without due process.

I get that it is possible in the U.S. for minorities to have power and that you might not like THIS particular minority, but isn't the fact that minorities can have power a good thing in general? It kind of sounds like you are advocating for majority rule, which has not really proven to be very good for minorities. I guess I am a little confused at the outrage.

@Daryl To your point about Trump depriving Americans of due process when he does things that most Americans oppose without regard for their opinion, due process only applies when there is some kind of legal right at stake (ex. a deprivation of life, liberty, or property). While the majority of Americans might disagree with Trump's decisions, he has not deprived those people of a legal right. In fact, most (or all) of what he has done has been harmonious with his Article II powers as President of the United States. It is not a deprivation of due process for the President to act contrary to the will of the majority so long as he is still acting within the scope of his powers granted by the U.S. Constitution. As soon as he starts use force to deprive people of legal rights without due process, then I think he could be considered a tyrant. Until then, calling him a tyrant just makes the word mean a whole lot less. Say what you will about Trump, he is a lot better than the genuine tyrants that the world has seen--a lot better. I think "tyrant" is an important word that has a powerful meaning. Let's not reduce the meaning of the word by calling people tyrants who aren't tyrants.

I see your point regarding power of minorities and how that can be bad, but I don't think there is a viable alternative that also protects minority rights. The only reason the minority can have any power in the U.S. is because the Constitution is structured in a way that protects minority rights while granting majority rule. Of course, that does not prevent the minority from gaining power over the majority, but the majority can take it back--majorities naturally have more options for seeking recourse in a power imbalance. I think the only way to prevent the minority from being totally crushed by majority rule and will is to grant the minority enough power so that they have the potential to gain power over the majority. That tension keeps the minority or majority from totally taking over.

The framers were terrified of majority rule. Adams and Madison wrote about it. J.S. Mill and Edmund Burke also wrote about it. In Greece, pure democracy--majority rule--was seen as one of the worst types of government.

@Daryl I understand your fear of Trump--there is just a lack of evidence to support it. Therefore, I think it is, right now, irrational to call him a tyrant. If you have evidence of his actual tyranny, then I am willing to examine it with an open mind. I just doubt you will be able to pull something up that (1) has not been discussed ad nauseam on the news, (2) is not within his power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and (3) is something that past non-impeached presidents haven't done.

I am not saying we should sit back, relax, and let him do whatever he wants. I just think running around like a chicken with its head cut-off screaming about tyranny is a bad idea right now. I think once he starts to deprive people of rights without due process, then you can say he is a dictator or tyrant. Until then, that kind of language is overly dramatic and unnecessarily inflammatory.

I am definitely not arguing in favor of authoritarianism; I hope you aren't assuming that simply because I disagree with your assessment of the president. That would be intellectually cheap.

I don't think pure democracy is a good form of government--the U.S. has never been a pure democracy. I think a constitutional republic like the one we have is the best system the world is going to get to govern a country so big and culturally diverse.

Rule of law is keeping Trump in check. I am not concerned that it is being dissolved by his administration--I see no evidence of it. But, if you have some, please share.

I don't think the American experiment has failed. In fact, I think it is still thriving. Obama and Trump were both the types of people who would have become tyrants if they could have, but they are kept in check by the rule of law. In fact, I think Trump is probably very frustrated with the amount of power he has and that he cannot take more. This does not worry me. Ambition counteracts ambition. Judiciary & Legislature counteract POTUS.

I apologize if I sound dismissive, but I am just getting tired of people calling this president a tyrant when there hasn't really been anything more than policy differences.

@Daryl I don't think we have to agree on it. I disagreed with your statements about how the U.S. has a problem with a tyrannical minority due to a lack of evidence that the minority has in fact acted tyrannically. I don't think that Trump or his base have deprived anybody of their rights without due process. While I would agree that were he not reined in by the other branches of the government he would probably attempt to take over, I think that is the general tendency of presidents, not an exception. I think Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, etc. would all have taken total control if they ever thought it was possible. That is the nature of the person who runs for that position.

I understand the concerns with Trump's rhetoric, which may smack of corruption (I personally don't think so), but that makes it seem like gov't corruption begins with Trump. Corruption has always existed within our government, and I suspect it always will. There was a ton of shady stuff that happened under Obama.

I guess I would also just point out that the kind of alarmism that your comments at the top of this thread express tastes like the same flavor of alarmism that the Tea Party expressed under Obama. Obama was supposed to be the end of the republic but here we are.

@Daryl Obama wire tapped journalists and a presidential candidate. The Lois Lerner scandal happened under Obama as well as fast and furious. His AG met with a presidential candidate's husband in private while she was under FBI investigation. While I don't consider myself a Tea Party guy, I think they were partially correct about him. There was reason for concern.