PS According to him he's a Democratic Socialist. I know you try to soften it by saying "Social Democrat," but you know, fuck yourself.

Socialism: the economy is centrally controlled by elites
Democratic Socialism: the economy is controlled by mob rule, and the elites implement the things the mob votes for.

Both are centrally controlled economies. The only difference is that after a century of the socialist elite learning that failure had serious consequences they though of a new great scam to stay in power: let the success or failure be the responsibility of the socialist mob.

They are two versions of the same dumb idea. I'm not fooled.

Also, socialism is antithetical to individual freedom and minority rights. With democratic socialism the majority (labor) votes on the rights of the minority (investment). Would you accept that in any other part of society. If that is the governing principle then whites should be able to vote on the rights of blacks, right? You agree? Majority rule, right? Should straight people be able to vote on the rights of gay people? I mean, this should be okay to you if the only thing that matters is what the majority votes, right?

You can go live in Europe. I'd rather deal with the bad parts of being a self-governed free American, as corrupt and imperfect as our system has become, than be subject to the whims of a mob.

Wrong. We don't have a democracy. We have a republic. Haven't you heard about those "damn obstructionist Republicans" for the last 6 years? That's becuase even though they represent the minority opinion they have the power to stop a temporary majority from permanently destroying the entire system. It's almost like the founders did that on purpose. If so...that would be unique. It would be...like...the greatest form of government in the history of the world. Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

If you think the US is run by majority rule you need to get off FJ and crack a book. You are too stupid to talk about this.

You think democracy is synonymous with individual freedom? So, you think the way to run a society, the way that's best for individual freedom, is to have the majority decide what's best for everyone? So, you have no problem with slavery then as long as the majority votes that it's okay? Are you okay with Jim Crow and banning gay marriage as long as the majority votes for it? You're under 18, aren't you? You've heard this word "democracy," but you don't really know anything about it, right?

You can't have it both ways. If your guiding principle is that the majority should rule, then even when the majority does something horrible the principle is still valid. If the majority votes to ban gay marriage then that's the way it should be. That's the governing principle. It is also incompatible with individual freedom and minority rights. Since you didn't say how old you are, I'm going to assume I'm right. You are a kid. You certainly talk like one. You know almost nothing.

democracy = freedom of the majority

Constitutional Republic = freedom of EVERY individual

OR

democracy = mob rule

Constitutional Republic = self governed

OR

democracy = freedom for the majority

Constitutional Republic = freedom for all

Constitutional Republic (most freedom)> democracy (less freedom)

You have never heard of liberal-democracy? The concepts work in tandem.
Majority rule => oppression of minorities rights and liberties
Total individual freedom, without restrictions on actions => welcome to Somalia

Constitutions are the bargaining between the government and the people. Give up a little of your freedoms (money and restrictions on actions that violates others), and have get security to keep your liberties and safe from others, who might oppress you.
You seem like the kind of guy, who would quote B. Franklin with the "give up this, and you don't deserve that" quote, but B. Franklin had no idea what he was talking about. He can't have read, Hobes, Locke, Rousseau, Tocqueville (for good reasons) and all the other political scientist who point to the relationship between the government and people as mutual beneficial and necessary for liberty to prosper.