Slop.

I'm not sure why you feel the Senate is somehow the lone proof of the Founding Father's "secret tricks," that's a pretty weird hill to die on. And I wasn't aware that I was expected to define Democracy. I could easily do that, with a simple definition of "electing one's own leaders," but I'm sure you wouldn't accept that definition, nor literally any other definition I would offer, including verbatim quotes from accepted dictionaries.

I don't feel it's the lone proof and nothing I've said would suggest that - I simply want you to respond to the critiques of the constitution which you have so far largely avoided. If you define democracy as electing one's own leaders, tell me about the electoral college. That's an institution that is very easy to understand as a handbrake on democracy - I'm sure even you can suss that one out if you spend a little time thinking about it. Work through that one and let me know how it's democratic.

This forum has an agenda, and I understand that, but it's too bad that real debate isn't allowed here, just bad-faith confirmation bias.

We'd love to debate you if you would actually address the critiques, but you won't. Is it because your undergrad degree was a participation trophy? Is it because you know you can't do it? Hard to say.

You still didn't address the Senate at all. This is why I keep bringing it up. You refuse to address it. We can move on to the electoral college afterwards and even more explicit obvious anti-democratic levers the founders chose, but until then it's remedial debate with a guy who claims to want to debate but continues to be terrified of actually doing it.

If you're not a teenager you should probably feel deeply embarrassed and just delete all of this and maybe rethink your life.