Who is the King of the U.S.A.?

Who is the King of the U.S.A.?

Oh say can you see, — that you are an oligarchy?



I assume here that most Americans are bright enough to know that they live in an oligarchy and not a democracy.

Do you believe that redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom of the U.S. socio economic demographic pyramid is a good idea or a bad idea?

Do you think the American oligarchy can be turned back into a real democracy where the poor are considered instead of ignored, if not abused?

Poverty is the worst form of Violence. Mahatma Gandhi

Do you think that we can persuade our owners to stop their violence against the poor?

Which of our oligarchs would you say is the King of the U.S.A.

Should the U.S. government find its balls and ask its King to stop abusing the poor?


One of the major purposes of the U.S. Constitution was to guard against the US becoming a democracy. Democracy was not seen by the founders as good thing, and there are numerous anti-democratic provisions in there, plain for all to read. The US isn’t a non-democracy because of the greed of whomever; it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The US can’t be turned ‘back’ into a democracy because it never was one to begin with.

there are many princes of industry, there is no king. the membership requirement costs billions. as i predicted some while back the new frontier=membership, possibly as soon as 1 generation hence, will be in the trillions

the leader of the pack, hiding behind tradition, is of course QE 2, with assets approximately around 10 trillions

warning-the final word is as of yet not out, whether tradition is worth the price. there are things no amount of money should buy.

Yes this is interesting. I hadn’t looked into American political life or thought very deeply until fairly recently. It was after reading some of the work of Sheldon Wolin where he examined the constitution and The Federalist Papers that I learned what you are here mentioning, that it was a built in feature of the republic from the start and not a development over time. I don’t think that is common knowledge though, and I am fairly sure there is something of an effort to have people believe they are living in a democracy (in America and elsewhere) when they truly (or technically) aren’t.

I think there is even, in theoretical circles, some confusion about how exactly to define a democracy — for example, should it be defined as a form of government where the governing body is made up of the demos themselves? Would such a thing be possible? (Perhaps on a small scale.) In The Social Contract by Rousseau, under the chapter called Democracy, he says:

I agree with your last. I think it has always been an oligarchy.

I do not know your constitution enough to comment on the rest.


Then we should get the princes to elect a King so that we might get him to grow some balls.

Americans would have to grow some first though. I hope they do because the world is counting on them.


That’s fine. Just know that the electoral college is in the Constitution, and so is the idea of a bicameral legislature which includes a Senate composed of two members from each state regardless of the population of the state. The Supreme Court- appointed for life by the President, and in charge of interpreting the Constitution- is in the Constitution as well. These are the anti-democratic elements I have in mind.

King Koch


Treasurers and bankers.

Devil’s advocate :
Why care about those that refuse to help each other and demand that some faceless government support them? The masses fight and harm each other or ignore each other. Why care when they do not?

We are getting closer.


Again, I am not aware of everything in the U.S. but I hear that damned near all of your senators and governors are almost always re-elected and to me that shown an unthinking electorate or a system that has been bought.

The fact that you also have outlawed a third party adds to that thinking.


They would serve the money men more than being the money men.

There may be a few near the top though.


The masses will hurt each other for a time but eventually recognize that the slavery they live under is the root cause of their discomfort and anger.

That fear is what keeps our owners as anonymous as they can make themselves and you can be sure that they spend quite a bit on security.

That is partly why I advocate for a transparent system so that we can actually know who our owners are.


I’m certain what you’re putting here is true enough (from Oxford’s online dictionary if I am not mistaken), but it is still nonetheless one definition of democracy.

In the Federalist you find lines such as:

You bolded the word Republic in the Oxford definition of democracy, but it is clear from the words of the writers of the Federalist that they were conscious and clear that the republic they were building was not a democracy…

Another question which might be asked is, what is a definition really? And to anticipate, how are they formed?

You are working from a very strange definition of either ‘fact’ or ‘outlawed’.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”

That’s why I said that.

This is very close to the capitalist defense. Accumulation of capital controls society in ways that befits a social contract best, especially in an increasingly close knit, informational world. lack of ideology, which seems to be increasingly the case, would create a vacuum filled panick, no government could tolerate. that’s what happened, for instance to
pst fascist Italy, they went through governments more often then did people changed shoes.A political vacuum is a dangerous thing, if not let to be governed by ecenomic expediency. Besides, fortunes are made and lost, and only a handful of big capital remains in private hands. The argument is kind of convincing, any refutation?