One of the corner-stone of modern "democracy" is a declared necessity of elections necessary for authority rotation.
But literally none of "democtrats" ever talk about rotation of higher level authorities, like IMF, WEF, WHO and other persons and institutions that represent higher levels of authorities than country leaders.
According to the logic of "democrats" if you must have a right to elect a local sheriff or mayor, with many order of magnitude you must have a right not only select all that global institutions, but also must have a right to vote for changing state regime, political system and other things that is much more important than some prime ministers or presidents.
If "democrats" do not even allow a thought about electing bosses of local bosses, than their idea of "democracy" is just a hoax.
Obviously there is no any sense to choose from puppets of one master, regardless of if master is some person or some institution.
Until "democrats" began to talk about direct elections and rotation of UN, IMF, WEF, WHO and other global institutions, there are no any sense to take their propaganda seriously at all.
PS: That is not about validity of elections procedure itself, we all know that they could be easily rigged, it is about giant and obvious hole in logic of "democracy" propaganda.
PPS: It is also about worldwide "democrats", not just US Democratic Party alone.
Sounds like you have a guilty conscience.
Inception towards death represents the "way" for the life within. Life perceives the consequences of being moved as inspiration to adapt to. There's no deceit in perceivable inspiration; yet one is constantly tempted to ignore it for the suggested information by others.
I'd rather be ruled to a just king, like King Loius IX, than a sham republic.
More technically, though, OP, we live in a oligarchy. Now, it's an iron law that oligharcies always form, but theoretically in a republic the oligharchy is somewhat meritocratic, from all classes, and should reflect in a vague way at least will of the majority of the people on important topics.
Medieval Kings don't run free societies. There's no such thing as a "Free Society" once Rome is gone to Zionists who call themselves "Christians".
I'd rather live in a just society, than one that is hypocritically saying it's free, when it's not. We live under anarcho-tyranny.
edit to add: the only benefit of "democracy" is that if rulers fuck up to bad, we can replace them. They've taken that from us. Therefore, there is no benefit to living in a democracy/republic and thus it would be better to live in a just society, even if not free.
Which a society ruled over by Zionist god-emperors and you just freeze and starve to death while working for a landlord...isn't.
That is the elite's ideal society.
See that straw man you set up. Yes, that one over there. The one with the tiny hat and a big nose. Oh, now you see it. Good, good. Okay, now that you recognize that is NOT what I'm talking about when I say a just society, perhaps we can restart this conversation.
KING, noun - "sovereign; ruler of the universe; from unitas; the state of being one; oneness". An allegory for each ones free will of choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want).
Not very different from what happened to Europe a millennium after ancient Rome, really.
they’ve been trained to love their “scientific” dictatorship
a) this represents ones authority...choice.
b) this represents how others utilize it...choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law.
c) to consent to elect anything suggested represents ones ignorance of being the response-ability (choice) within natural law.
d) DEMOCRACY, noun [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.]. The possession aspect represents the choice of others occupying ones own when consenting to their suggestions.
e) the living need to resist dying...not following the suggestions of leaders towards death.