What exactly IS a "republic," as distinct from a "democracy"?

[pecksniff]

A lot of RWs on this board keep pounding on this point, but it's not clear what they mean by it. When anyone insists "America is a republic, not a democracy," what they usually mean by it is that America is a federal state and not a unitary state -- which is both true and important, but has nothing to do with any difference between "republic" and "democracy." The United States is a democratic republic -- as opposed, to say, an aristocratic republic, like the ancient Roman republic with its more-or-less hereditary senators, or the old Venetian republic where the doge was elected but only noblemen could vote, or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the king was, again, elected by the nobles assembled in the sejm. (The antebellum American states of the South were also aristocratic republics for all practical purposes, controlled by the slaveowning-landowning gentry class, to the exclusion of the majority even of whites.)

N.B.: "What the United States Constitution sets out" is not for these purposes an adequate definition of "republic."

What countries other than the U.S. are republics as opposed to democracies?

 

[CornusKousa]

A lot of RWs on this board keep pounding on this point, but it's not clear what they mean by it. When anyone insists "America is a republic, not a democracy," what they usually mean by it is that America is a federal state and not a unitary state -- which is both true and important,

In the most simple terms possible yea that's pretty much it.

 

[ll74]

A lot of RWs on this board keep pounding on this point, but it's not clear what they mean by it. When anyone insists "America is a republic, not a democracy," what they usually mean by it is that America is a federal state and not a unitary state -- which is both true and important, but has nothing to do with any difference between "republic" and "democracy." The United States is a democratic republic -- as opposed, to say, an aristocratic republic, like the ancient Roman republic with its more-or-less hereditary senators, or the old Venetian republic where the doge was elected but only noblemen could vote, or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the king was, again, elected by the nobles assembled in the sejm. (The antebellum American states of the South were also aristocratic republics for all practical purposes, controlled by the slaveowning-landowning gentry class, to the exclusion of the majority even of whites.)

N.B.: "What the United States Constitution sets out" is not for these purposes an adequate definition of "republic."

What countries other than the U.S. are republics as opposed to democracies?

Honestly this is going to be a shitshow. But it could end up bringing out some fun admissions

 

[pecksniff]

Aren't there any republics that are unitary? France has a unitary system, Germany has a federal system -- I should think France is just as good a republic.

This also needs to be answered.

 

[Rightguide]

A lot of RWs on this board keep pounding on this point, but it's not clear what they mean by it. When anyone insists "America is a republic, not a democracy," what they usually mean by it is that America is a federal state and not a unitary state -- which is both true and important, but has nothing to do with any difference between "republic" and "democracy." The United States is a democratic republic -- as opposed, to say, an aristocratic republic, like the ancient Roman republic with its more-or-less hereditary senators, or the old Venetian republic where the doge was elected but only noblemen could vote, or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the king was, again, elected by the nobles assembled in the sejm.

N.B.: "What the United States Constitution sets out" is not for these purposes an adequate definition of "republic."

What countries other than the U.S. are republics as opposed to democracies?

Educated people know what the founders meant by "a republican form of government," educated people know what a Republic is as opposed to a full blown democracy. A true democracy is a tyranny of the majority, democracy is mob rule. Educated people have read the arguments in the Federalist Papers. But here, for your much needed edification, are some views of the Founders on the subject:

Alexander Hamilton: "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."4 Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease…is DEMOCRACY."3


Thomas Jefferson declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."


Benjamin Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."


John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”


James Madison: “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” — Federalist Papers No. 10.

 

[pecksniff]

Educated people know what the founders meant by "a republican form of government," educated people know what a Republic is as opposed to a full blown democracy. A true democracy is a tyranny of the majority, democracy is mob rule.

Only if you mean by that a system like in ancient Athens, where the ecclesia, the assembly of citizens, was all-powerful and unchecked. But nobody now uses that system, which only works in a city-state anyway.

Do you mean a "republic" is something representative, rather than directly democratic, or what?

John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

Historically, that has never happened, not even in Athens.

 

[CornusKousa]

But that only applies to a federal state. Aren't there any republics that are unitary? France has a unitary system, Germany has a federal system -- I should think France is just as good a republic.

Yes, which as much as that irks the (D)'s and left, is the USA.

Idk...idc.

Thomas Jefferson declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Which is EXACTLY what (D)'s are wanting to do.

Historically, that has never happened, not even in Athens.

You should try reading a history book sometime.

Or just pay attention to democracy in modern times, Venezuela for example.

 

[pecksniff]

You should try reading a history book sometime.

I know enough history to know the oft-quoted "Tyler Cycle" or "Tytler Cycle" (sometimes misattributed to historian Alexander Tytler) --

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

-- describes something that has never actually happened in human history. Some republics/democracies have self-destructed, but never by that route. The Roman republic, for instance, did not end because the plebs voted themselves largesse from the treasury; it was killed by ambitious noblemen. The Athenian republic fell to superior military force -- foreign force, not any domestic faction.

 

[CornusKousa]

-- describes something that has never actually happened in human history.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

^^Is happening in the USA right now.

Voting yourself generous gifts from the public treasury is what (D)'s are all about and man they are super popular among the have-nots.

Has happened in Venezuela just a few years back...and on and on and on.

The historical list of this happening is extensive.

Many refer to it as "gnawing the hand that feeds to a bloody stump." happens every single time the 'progressive' utopian welfare state is tried.

 

[Rightguide]

Only if you mean by that a system like in ancient Athens, where the ecclesia, the assembly of citizens, was all-powerful and unchecked. But nobody now uses that system, which only works in a city-state anyway.

Do you mean a "republic" is something representative, rather than directly democratic, or what?



Historically, that has never happened, not even in Athens.

You're hopeless, asserting bullshit you do not know and have never studied.

 

[njlauren]

Problem is people confuse "Democracy" which is a political system, with "Democratic", which is a modified.

In a Democracy the people hold the power, they make major decisions by majority vote. Switzerland I believe is a Democracy still, in that the people vote to decide. In the US, New England Town meetings are examples of direct democracy. Under this system it is by majority vote, and every citizens vote is equal to another.

A republic is where people are represented by politicians. In some systems they are appointed (autocratic republic), in ours we elect them so we are a democratic republic. This holds both on the federal and local/state level, though as I noted in some places they use direct voting, or like a ballot initiative.

In many cases we are not even really a democratic republic. In a Democratic Republic one vote would count as much as another, it doesn't in this system. For example, while Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes in the popular vote, Biden really won based on maybe 200,000 votes. The elector college, like the Senate that gives it part of its numbers, is not Democratic. Between gerrymandered districts and the fact that Montana, with a population less then the county I live in, has 2 senators and outside impact in the Electoral college has led to this. In a sense, of the 7 million votes cast for Biden more than Trump, only 200,000 really counted, those in the right states. Basically our system is also autocratic because as we are seeing with the GOP, a party can sadly too easy game the system to give them outside influence.


And yes, the founders feared mob rule, it is why we aren't a Democracy. They knew majority rules can often lead to abuses, all one has to do is look at the Jim Crow South or the GOP states today, who claim if a majority supports it, must be legal. The electoral college was designed as a brake, too, as designed the electoral college was supposed to act as a check against a popularly elected demagogue. The electoral college, like the Senate, were appointed by state legislatures or governor and were felt to be a check against mass power bc presumably being educated people, would use their power to check a despot. The EC no longer does it, now the EC represents tyranny by the minority.

On the other hand we could have been a Democracy, the founders unfortunately didn't trust the Supreme Court, and understandably so. It took the Supreme Court a while to establish itself as the ultimate check and balance, and the conservatives have been trying to decimate it from the beginning, arguing that if the majority passes a bill and the court feels it violates the intent of the constitution it is "making law", which is horseshit (on another note, the US legal system is NOT a statutory system, ours is based in English law which in turn is based both in legislative law and precedent set by judges. things like Trial by Jury happened because of legal precedent in English common law). A constitutional democracy with a strong constitution and an independent judiciary can check mob rule; the problem as we see today with the GOP legislatures and the GOP supreme court is if it is their mob, like 1/6, it is okay.

 

[pecksniff]

You're hopeless, asserting bullshit you do not know and have never studied.

See post #8. History is something I know a lot about.

 

[njlauren]

Yes, which as much as that irks the (D)'s and left, is the USA.

Idk...idc.



Which is EXACTLY what (D)'s are wanting to do.



You should try reading a history book sometime.

Or just pay attention to democracy in modern times, Venezuela for example.

Actually it is the other way around, we have a minority, the 35% of the country that are hard core Trump supporters trying to force their way on the majority. The religious freaks, the white nationalists, the rural white blue collar voters, all want to try and return to the past and force everyone else to live in their delusion that the US was meant to be America of the 1950's, dominated by whites alone, white men of course, under the heel of conservative/backwards religious leaders and not to mention where minorities "the good ole boys' don't like should live in the shadows, afraid.

A system that is based on minority power that is way out of what most people in this country feel and believe is known as Apartheid. Funny part is the only 'right' that seems to be objected to by MAGA is the right of whites to automatically get first crack at everything; they want a place where if jobs open up, if you are white you compete against only other white men, then if the job is still open, everyone else fights for it. They want a world where 'their' religious or social views are the only ones allowed and where they are allowed to openly hate other people who are different. Just look at what is going on in so called "red states" and it doesn't take a genius to figure out, it is much like sports once were lily white, they fear competition, they want the world of the 1950's where in many places if you were white you had it made with jobs and such, because they didn't let anyone else compete.

 

[CornusKousa]

Actually it is the other way around, we have a minority, the 35% of the country that are hard core Trump supporters trying to force their way on the majority.

That must be why (D)'s are the ones trying to consolidate power in DC

That must be why (D)'s are the ones trying to effectively eliminate states and erode civil rights right?

A system that is based on minority power that is way out of what most people in this country feel and believe is known as Apartheid.

You need to learn how to use the dictionary.

No it's not.

Funny part is the only 'right' that seems to be objected to by MAGA is the right of whites to automatically get first crack at everything; ​they want a place where if jobs open up, if you are white you compete against only other white men, then if the job is still open, everyone else fights for it. They want a world where 'their' religious or social views are the only ones allowed and where they are allowed to openly hate other people who are different.

Yes, all 1500 of them.

Just look at what is going on in so called "red states" and it doesn't take a genius to figure out,

And it's nothing like what you were talking about.

YOU might want to go look at what is going in in red states instead of just believing everything RAW/Salon tells you.

it is much like sports once were lily white, they fear competition,

Racial discriminations at the end of a federal gun is not competition.

they want the world of the 1950's where in many places if you were white you had it made with jobs and such, because they didn't let anyone else compete.

No, that's a lefty fantasy.

 

[CornusKousa]

See post #8. History is something I know a lot about.

So you're just wildly dishonest.

Noted.

 

[pecksniff]

Educated people know what the founders meant by "a republican form of government,"

What we know is that they were designing a federal state. What we need here is some definition applicable to other kinds of states.

 

[njlauren]

I know enough history to know the oft-quoted "Tyler Cycle" or "Tytler Cycle" (sometimes misattributed to historian Alexander Tytler) --



-- describes something that has never actually happened in human history. Some republics/democracies have self-destructed, but never by that route. The Roman republic, for instance, did not end because the plebs voted themselves largesse from the treasury; it was killed by ambitious noblemen. The Athenian republic fell to superior military force -- foreign force, not any domestic faction.

Pecknsniff-
You are right, that passage you are responding to has about as much truth as George Washington and the Cherry tree. It is right wing illusion, that Democracies lose their faith in God, they lose their faith in self reliance, they want to live off the government and it is nothing more than basically the GOP mantra of today, how the US was founded by rugged individualists, how the US was really made by the wild west, it is all the usual bullshit......


And anyone promoting cycles like that is an idiot, it is like Toynbee and his cult. Usually those creating these cycles use them to promote their idea of things, it is like religious people claiming that we went downhill after Churches lost their power to the secular, it is horseshit (anyone reading the history of Europe after the decline of Rome would see the fallacy of that). History doesn't repeat itself, but people do, there are things human beings routinely do, time and again.

Jacques Barzun wrote a brilliant book "From Dawn to Decadence" that I think was more close. He argues civilizations go through patterns, of growth and change, of expanding knowledge, then they kind of lose steam. Western Civ is about 500 years into one of his cycles (roughly from the time of the reformation and the renaissance) and he makes the point that there comes a transition time, which we may be in. The patterns we see are there, those who promote religion as a cure for things, those who promote distrust of institutions, and yes, the backlash against learning and intellectualism (the cult of ignorance is strong, just take a look at anti vaxx stuff, like vaccinations make you magnetic *snort* or the idea that being ignorant is a sign of greatness or 'common sense').

Governments in general die because they never quite fundamentally figure out how to maintain succession. In an elected government, it is the problem of how do we have our best and brightest representing us? Looking at people like Cruz, Hawley, Greene and the rest, the guy who asked if we could shift the orbit of the moon to defeat climate change, and you see the problem. In a dictatorship, like Rome, the problem is that succession often is the most brutal or immoral person making it (or like Donald Trump, the biggest liar). Plato in his republic tried to answer that then admitted it was a fantasy, for the reasons we have today. Put it this way, when I vote for someone, I want someone smarter than I am, someone who is better than I am, and relying on their judgement, not wanting someone who is 'just like me' or 'just regular folk', yet in this country we often have people elected who quite frankly are fools.

The real problem? Human beings are frail. I just finished reading the memoirs of William Shirer and if you look at why the French Republics kept failing, why Weimar fell, it was because as a legislature they were so caught up in internicine warfare they forgot about the country, those that wanted a monarch back in France (and Germany) fought against the socialists and the demoratically minded, and you ended up with a mess that didn't work. The set pattern of the opening quote is not historical analysis, it is historical propaganda likely to prove the point that the good old days were better because X, not because it has truth.

 

[ll74]

Pecknsniff-
You are right, that passage you are responding to has about as much truth as George Washington and the Cherry tree. It is right wing illusion, that Democracies lose their faith in God, they lose their faith in self reliance, they want to live off the government and it is nothing more than basically the GOP mantra of today, how the US was founded by rugged individualists, how the US was really made by the wild west, it is all the usual bullshit......


And anyone promoting cycles like that is an idiot, it is like Toynbee and his cult. Usually those creating these cycles use them to promote their idea of things, it is like religious people claiming that we went downhill after Churches lost their power to the secular, it is horseshit (anyone reading the history of Europe after the decline of Rome would see the fallacy of that). History doesn't repeat itself, but people do, there are things human beings routinely do, time and again.

Jacques Barzun wrote a brilliant book "From Dawn to Decadence" that I think was more close. He argues civilizations go through patterns, of growth and change, of expanding knowledge, then they kind of lose steam. Western Civ is about 500 years into one of his cycles (roughly from the time of the reformation and the renaissance) and he makes the point that there comes a transition time, which we may be in. The patterns we see are there, those who promote religion as a cure for things, those who promote distrust of institutions, and yes, the backlash against learning and intellectualism (the cult of ignorance is strong, just take a look at anti vaxx stuff, like vaccinations make you magnetic *snort* or the idea that being ignorant is a sign of greatness or 'common sense').

Governments in general die because they never quite fundamentally figure out how to maintain succession. In an elected government, it is the problem of how do we have our best and brightest representing us? Looking at people like Cruz, Hawley, Greene and the rest, the guy who asked if we could shift the orbit of the moon to defeat climate change, and you see the problem. In a dictatorship, like Rome, the problem is that succession often is the most brutal or immoral person making it (or like Donald Trump, the biggest liar). Plato in his republic tried to answer that then admitted it was a fantasy, for the reasons we have today. Put it this way, when I vote for someone, I want someone smarter than I am, someone who is better than I am, and relying on their judgement, not wanting someone who is 'just like me' or 'just regular folk', yet in this country we often have people elected who quite frankly are fools.

The real problem? Human beings are frail. I just finished reading the memoirs of William Shirer and if you look at why the French Republics kept failing, why Weimar fell, it was because as a legislature they were so caught up in internicine warfare they forgot about the country, those that wanted a monarch back in France (and Germany) fought against the socialists and the demoratically minded, and you ended up with a mess that didn't work. The set pattern of the opening quote is not historical analysis, it is historical propaganda likely to prove the point that the good old days were better because X, not because it has truth.

Very thoughtful and sincere response.

 

[njlauren]

That must be why (D)'s are the ones trying to consolidate power in DC

That must be why (D)'s are the ones trying to effectively eliminate states and erode civil rights right?




You need to learn how to use the dictionary.

No it's not.



Yes, all 1500 of them.



And it's nothing like what you were talking about.

YOU might want to go look at what is going in in red states instead of just believing everything RAW/Salon tells you.



Racial discriminations at the end of a federal gun is not competition.



No, that's a lefty fantasy.

No fantasy, let's look at reality:

-Senate in gridlock. Why? Because we have states like Montana and Wyoming and the like, that are almost lily white, look like the 1950's, that have outside power against places that look like the real America. How the heck is Montana, with a population of 500,000 where most of the people are involved in natural resources, representative of the country?

-Red State America, with districts so gerrymandered that if we didn't have a republican Scotus, would be thrown out. Not to mention all the cute things, like saying the legislature (dominated by the GOP thanks to Gerrymandering) has the right to decide who is president. You call that majority rule, that is basically Putin's russia, it is a political party giving the vote to their party no matter what.

-the blue collar rural types whine and moan about lost jobs, they whine it is all because jobs were 'given to women and blacks' by the federal government. The reality was their jobs went overseas (thanks to the politicians they slavishly follow). Then they cry that high tech jobs don't come to where they are, that it isn't fair, GOP politicians do their best to get Uncle Sam to pay to install high speed internet in rural areas, in the red states, and of course subsidize it so it is really cheap (it isn't in the rest of America, we pay through the nose for it). And still the jobs don't go there...

Why? Because the self same red states think education is a frill and refuse to pay for it, they cry paying any taxes to educate their kids, then wonder why good jobs don't come there. Put it this way, the heartland of the GOP, you take a look at the educational systems there, they suck, pure and simple.

And I stand by my claim of apartheid. When 35% of the country can lock up the senate, it is apartheid, pure and simple, it is trying to maintain white, Southern/Rural/Working class power in a country that has moved on, pure and simple. We haven't been dominated by rural areas since the mid 1800's, but that is what we see today.

 

[ll74]

Problem is people confuse "Democracy" which is a political system, with "Democratic", which is a modified.

In a Democracy the people hold the power, they make major decisions by majority vote. Switzerland I believe is a Democracy still, in that the people vote to decide. In the US, New England Town meetings are examples of direct democracy. Under this system it is by majority vote, and every citizens vote is equal to another.

A republic is where people are represented by politicians. In some systems they are appointed (autocratic republic), in ours we elect them so we are a democratic republic. This holds both on the federal and local/state level, though as I noted in some places they use direct voting, or like a ballot initiative.

In many cases we are not even really a democratic republic. In a Democratic Republic one vote would count as much as another, it doesn't in this system. For example, while Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes in the popular vote, Biden really won based on maybe 200,000 votes. The elector college, like the Senate that gives it part of its numbers, is not Democratic. Between gerrymandered districts and the fact that Montana, with a population less then the county I live in, has 2 senators and outside impact in the Electoral college has led to this. In a sense, of the 7 million votes cast for Biden more than Trump, only 200,000 really counted, those in the right states. Basically our system is also autocratic because as we are seeing with the GOP, a party can sadly too easy game the system to give them outside influence.


And yes, the founders feared mob rule, it is why we aren't a Democracy. They knew majority rules can often lead to abuses, all one has to do is look at the Jim Crow South or the GOP states today, who claim if a majority supports it, must be legal. The electoral college was designed as a brake, too, as designed the electoral college was supposed to act as a check against a popularly elected demagogue. The electoral college, like the Senate, were appointed by state legislatures or governor and were felt to be a check against mass power bc presumably being educated people, would use their power to check a despot. The EC no longer does it, now the EC represents tyranny by the minority.

On the other hand we could have been a Democracy, the founders unfortunately didn't trust the Supreme Court, and understandably so. It took the Supreme Court a while to establish itself as the ultimate check and balance, and the conservatives have been trying to decimate it from the beginning, arguing that if the majority passes a bill and the court feels it violates the intent of the constitution it is "making law", which is horseshit (on another note, the US legal system is NOT a statutory system, ours is based in English law which in turn is based both in legislative law and precedent set by judges. things like Trial by Jury happened because of legal precedent in English common law). A constitutional democracy with a strong constitution and an independent judiciary can check mob rule; the problem as we see today with the GOP legislatures and the GOP supreme court is if it is their mob, like 1/6, it is okay.

This comment is also great. This post did not disappoint on either side of what I had expected

 

[njlauren]

What we know is that they were designing a federal state. What we need here is some definition applicable to other kinds of states.

The same people who designed the federal republic also designed the state ones, too. John Adams wrote the mass constitution (still in use), Madison wrote the Virginia one. All 50 states adopted pretty much the federal system, even though the federal constitution doesn't require it. All states have a bicameral legislature and a governor (how they are elected, how they are represented varies from state to state, and the balance of powers is defined). All states have a constitution that defines how the government works, it defines things like voting and things like education and the like, it defines how debt limits are set, it defines terms in office, and it is very much patterned after the federal constitution. Not to mention that states are checked by the federal bill of rights and amendments, a state cannot write laws even if their state constitution allows it that apply to one group and not others, as much as they have tried. Some states let citizens have easy access to the ballot with resolutions, orthers make it more difficult. Some governments are true democracies, run by town hall meetings, but most are elected officials as well.

Basically the states are local demoratic republics that mirror the federal

 

[CornusKousa]

No fantasy, let's look at reality:

-Senate in gridlock. Why? Because we have states like Montana and Wyoming and the like, that are almost lily white, look like the 1950's, that have outside power against places that look like the real America. How the heck is Montana, with a population of 500,000 where most of the people are involved in natural resources, representative of the country?

So what if they are white?? Why is that such a re-occurring problem for you?

What's "real America" look like??

Because they are part of the union, and thus deserve the same rights and respect as every other state and citizen.

-Red State America, with districts so gerrymandered that if we didn't have a republican Scotus, would be thrown out. Not to mention all the cute things, like saying the legislature (dominated by the GOP thanks to Gerrymandering) has the right to decide who is president. You call that majority rule, that is basically Putin's russia, it is a political party giving the vote to their party no matter what.

It's absolutely nothing like Putin's Russia, which you clearly know little to nothing about

If you're not the authoritarian here, why is the GOP running states that they were elected to run, such a huge problem for you??

Why can you not do "progress" in blue states?? And leave the 34+ states who don't, alone to manage their own affairs??

-the blue collar rural types whine and moan about lost jobs, they whine it is all because jobs were 'given to women and blacks' by the federal government. The reality was their jobs went overseas (thanks to the politicians they slavishly follow). Then they cry that high tech jobs don't come to where they are, that it isn't fair, GOP politicians do their best to get Uncle Sam to pay to install high speed internet in rural areas, in the red states, and of course subsidize it so it is really cheap (it isn't in the rest of America, we pay through the nose for it). And still the jobs don't go there...

Again, all 1500 of them.

Most just want you New Englanders and left coasters to mind your own fuckin' bidnizz.

The rest of this is just .... ranting.

Why? Because the self same red states think education is a frill and refuse to pay for it, they cry paying any taxes to educate their kids, then wonder why good jobs don't come there. Put it this way, the heartland of the GOP, you take a look at the educational systems there, they suck, pure and simple.

Whatever, it's THEIRS.

Why does it upset you so much that people hundreds if not thousands of miles away that you don't know, don't live and raise their kids the way YOU think they should??

And you call other people authoritarian...LOL

Get some self awareness.

When you want the feds to go put a gun to other peoples heads and force them to raise their kids how YOU think they should be raised? You're the authoritarian.

And I stand by my claim of apartheid. ​When 35% of the country can lock up the senate, it is apartheid, pure and simple, it is trying to maintain white, Southern/Rural/Working class power in a country that has moved on, pure and simple. We haven't been dominated by rural areas since the mid 1800's, but that is what we see today.

White?? LOL again, what's wrong with white people??? Why are white people such a problem for you??

Stand by your laughable hyperbole, no skin off my dick.

 

[pecksniff]

What's "real America" look like??

More like a street-crowd in Manhattan than one in Boise.

 

[CornusKousa]

More like a street-crowd in Manhattan than one in Boise.

So Boise and Idaho aren't "real America" ??

What the fuck is "real America" then??

 

[pecksniff]

So Boise and Idaho aren't "real America" ??

What the fuck is "real America" then??

Real America is ethnically diverse.