BBC article on “What if California Seceded?” (Montclair: cost, racist)

[teddyearp]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I outlined this hypothetical scenario in a post a while back.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

. . . the complete obliteration of <snip> and the Civil Rights/Voting Rights Act,<snip>

I seriously do not know where anyone comes up with this horsecrap. Except for the 'reporting' from CNN and MSNBC. And we know how honest they are, one of the best latest examples by CNN about the Catholic School kids at Washington D.C.

Our country is not, nor will it ever go backwards in regards to REAL racism we overcame in the sixties. Other Civil Rights however, like 1st and 2nd amendment rights, that is another story.

[teddyearp]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

We're already the most dysfunctional democracy in the developed world.

That's because we're not a Democracy. We're a constitutional Republic.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by teddyearp

Our country is not, nor will it ever go backwards in regards to REAL racism we overcame in the sixties. Other Civil Rights however, like 1st and 2nd amendment rights, that is another story.

The Supreme Court already struck down a critical piece of the Voting Rights Act.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...95O0TU20130625

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by teddyearp

That's because we're not a Democracy. We're a constitutional Republic.

Best response to this.

Simply, that they have no idea what they’re talking about and are trying to look smart.

I’d say probably pretty much every single top answer here is critically wrong in some way, shape or form. That includes egregiously incorrect definitions of what a republic is, and an insanely narrow, cherry-picked definition of “democracy.”

I’d say that the top five answers would easily—easily—fail a basic civics test.

Representative democracy is a subset of democracy, alongside the separate (but related) idea of direct democracy. You can’t unilaterally decide that it’s not just because you say so or because the Ancient Greeks didn’t practice it. You don’t get to just redefine words to suit your argument, and “representative democracy” is and remains an accepted term.

We, as citizens, elect representatives to stand in our name and carry out our will. Their authority to do so is based on the premise that they act in the name of the people they represent. Democracy is a broader term that includes more than “direct democracy.”

If we followed that definition, the United States would likewise not be a republic, since we don’t follow Rome’s government structure.

Meanwhile—in modern terms—a republic is simply a country without a monarch. There’s more to it—legitimacy derived from the citizen body is a big part—but that’s the most essential part.

A country can be a non-democratic republic (see: North Korea), a country can be a democratic non-republic (see: Great Britain). And a country can be a democratic republic (see: the United States).

The United States is a democratic republic. Or, more fully, a constitutional federal democratic republic, because our government functions formally along the lines set by the constitution and we are fundamentally organized as a federation of states.

“Republic, not democracy” is a ridiculous false dichotomy.

[teddyearp]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

The Supreme Court already struck down a critical piece of the Voting Rights Act.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...95O0TU20130625

Interesting. That is from 2013, yet I thought everyone was saying it was President Trump who everyone had to worry about being racist and would be rolling back these things.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by teddyearp

Interesting. That is from 2013, yet I thought everyone was saying it was President Trump who everyone had to worry about being racist and would be rolling back these things.

He is racist.

[joejerryronnie]

Having to deal with the current political climate in this country, as well as the twin towers of lunacy - Trump and AOC - I think my brain has already seceded from humanity.

[Justin Scott]

I’ve always been intrigued with the idea of California seceding from the United States. I’m even more intrigued if Oregon and Washington would join us. However, in a perfect world, it would be us (California), Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii all seceding and forming a new country.

[teddyearp]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

He is racist.

Who? Trump? Prove it.

[Mistermobile]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Point of the article (and thread) isn’t politics ... nor whether this is likely or realistic. The Article demonstrates how critically dependent America is in nearly every imaginable way - on California.

And the point in posting is to educate chicken-littles on how strong this state is in spite of various frustrations and flaws:

BBC - Future - What if California seceded from the US?

$376 billion.