murica is a republic, not a demokarcy, libtard

“Murica is a republic not a democracy cuz protectin’ minority from the tyranny of the majority.” Then who protects the majority from the tyranny of Madison’s “opulent minority?” In our republic, aren’t our representatives drawn from the ranks of this minority? And if this is true, can’t we expect them to advance the minority’s interests to the detriment of an increasingly disenfranchised majority if their interests conflict? And this tyranny is hardly an unlikely scenario or some exceptional outlier, but is instead the rule. Take a look at the U.S.’s satrap client states: In Egypt, who protected the majority from the tyranny of a U.S. backed minority in the military and business establishment? In Nicaragua, who protected the majority from the tyranny of a U.S. backed Somoza family dynasty which turned the entire country into a private fiefdom? In Iran, who protected the majority from the tyranny of the Shah which he imposed with U.S. trained and financed secret police? Who protects Americans now from the tyranny of the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, and General Electric? Is it possible that a “republic,” as opposed to direct democracy, is really a fancy term for oligarchy and that Americans never noticed because for most of their history they were simply the bottom feeding beneficiaries of U.S. imperialism, first in its conquest of the continent in the 19th century and later in its conquest of a global economic system in the 20th century? If a government’s legitimacy is predicated upon the degree to which it is representative and if it is true that money determines who gets elected in the United States, then our government is unrepresentative and therefore illegitimate.