America, so far, is exceptional in that it still exists after nearly 250 years and public attention,

It was when the sea levels were down

 

Gee, and yet, here you are!

Aint China grand?

What's a ROW?

You seem cranky today. Not superiority, but solid functionality. Do you have any idea how hard it is on a people for their government to taken down by either external invasion or internal revolution? The ability to corporately protect their young, their women, their culture for a time is completely out of their hands. It is an experience to be avoided at all costs. Our system works very well at avoiding this. You seem to have your nose way out of joint that this is even noted. Whatever your issue is, I'm confident that it's your own, and not because the relative stability and durability of our system was pointed out.

Throughout the history of government the experience has been that a small group controls a much larger group and at some point the much larger group overthrows them. The key to our system is that the much larger group always remains in control. Government has no inherent power, they have only derived power, and that power is derived from us, and it's legitimate function is to more perfectly secure our rights. This removes our motivation to revolt, because we already have what we would gain from revolt. So taking that insight and looking about the world, say to China, where you equate our vastly different systems. China most certainly has a small elite controlling a much larger population, by force, that is, they are already riding the tiger. At the point where the small group reaches for the whip in order to unjustly remain in power, the die is cast, at some point they will fall to revolution if they do not fall to external invasion, first.

So long as we keep power in larger group, we can keep our focus on external threat, and yes, we are richly blessed by geography - two good oceans and two good neighbors.

Do not fear, you are way past that.

You seem to have some sort of irrational hatred, or perhaps you are envious, but, I have done nothing wrong and neither has the author of the OP. Now go seize the day!

​

I love the way you make a great big deal out of refuting a position that your interlocutor doesn't even hold. Have you ever considered actually listening to what the other person has to say, and then responding to their points, rather than making things up and then attacking your own mental construct? Real discussion is much more enjoyable than self-stimulatory behavior.

 

I don't reply to personal insults.
Just to say the US is no different in any aspect of western democratic construction.
Though I don't think any orher would be as insulting.
ROW is rest of the world...of which it seems you know very little

 

I find just how much things change, over time, fascinating.

​

 

BTW since the US tends to find relatively weak countries to attack it is inevitable that it doesn't suffer the kind of destruction on its own territory that it inflicts on others.
Except once.
Your existence as a country is very short relatively speaking. It's existence reliés solely on the history of mainly Europeans who did all the hard lifting for you. And there have been longer peaceful democracies than yours.
And from what I see in here I wouldn't be surprised to see à serious national schism in the not to distant future.

 

I don't understand your point.

 

In fact, the 3/5ths clause, like the COTUS was anti-slavery.

“Let us grant, for the sake of the argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves. We are not compelled to make that admission, for it might fairly apply to aliens — persons living in the country, but not naturalized. But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.”
BLACK PAST, (1860) FREDERICK DOUGLASS, “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES: IS IT PRO-SLAVERY OR ANTI-SLAVERY?”, March 15, 2012.
https://www.blackpast.org/global-af...united-states-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/