The Democratic Party’s Concept of Democracy

I call the Democratic Party the Democrat Party because there is nothing democratic about this political cabal. Although the video above is just confirmation, will it have an impact on the people or the political elite? The answer is no. There was no outcry when Hillary Clinton fixed the 2016 Democrat Presidential primary. The Democrats and media are more concerned about tearing down the Republic than giving people a “choice”.

So where does this leave us? We know that voting in a system rigged by political elites is not the answer. If Donald Trump did not have the personal financial resources for his presidential run, we would not have him for President. No one would argue that the Republican Party wanted Mr. Trump to run for President. While Mr. Trump has had much success as President, the media and the “undeplorables” will never acknowledge this fact. Just as the majority of Americans will not acknowledge the fact that political parties are the source of all of all problems. Ask yourself a simple question: how many people are rich enough to go against the political elite? How many would it take to drain the Deep State swamp? Does this nation have the time, patriots and morality to recover our Liberty?

David DeGerolamo

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Civil Unrest, Domestic Enemies. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Democratic Party’s Concept of Democracy

  1. Exring says:

    I would like some clarification on the first sentence of the post. I believe that the term used as a name of the Party of Democrats should be the Democrat party. If that were not the case and the Party is the Democratic Party then those that are members ought be called “Democratics”. Can anyone clarify that issue with me? Otherwise, I see calling that Party the Democratic Party a good, if not Great, propaganda move because it implies something that the video refutes. I can understand why the DCCC is running the attorney. He will, likely be, a much better “practiced” liar.

    In fact, I would contend that they (attorneys) should NEVER be allowed to be in Congress or the Presidency since it is a “conflict of interest”. They are members of the Judiciary (I believe they are called Officers of the Court). By the rules set down in the Constitution (and all, including B.O. consider that we all intend on following that document) as Officers of the Court and members of the Judiciary they should be limited to that Branch. And, just in case someone suggests they don’t act as attorneys while in the other offices, I don’t believe that is realistically possible. The Judge suggesting to the jury that they disregard the last three things they heard is as unrealisitc (no one can undo a flatus).

Leave a Reply