For goodness sake, New York Times. I expect better from you. Why on earth did you include 'England' as one of the 'countries' on your graph. England is not a country, the United Kingdom is. England has no parliament, no elected leader, no direct representatives. Only the U.K. does. That is pretty basic knowledge of our constitutional system. Please correct this, it is quite honestly embarrassing for all involved.
Yes, by the definition of the word, England could be argued to be a country. It's certainly a nation. But for the purpose of this video they should have used the United Kingdom, as that is what makes the most sense.
Democracy is less important than having a competent, united, and equally representative government with checks and balances. Democracy just so happens to be the best system we currently have for ensuring such a government. I hope something better comes along soon.
I think a better electoral system would help representing a more accurate will of a population. I think we should change to a ranked voting system. My personal favourite is Instant-runoff voting. Look it up; it's very interesting
No, it isn’t. A Democracy is essential a country that is purely majoritarian. So, essentially what that means is that the minority is 100% ruled by the majority. The majority gives and takes rights away from the minority. Most major philosophers have recognized the tyrannical evil that a pure democracy is.
This is an extraordinarily rosy-eyed, one-dimensional video about democracy. If we continue to assume that democracy includes formal rights for property owners and those who have accrued wealth, then we haven't learned very much about democracy. "Democracies" like the U.S. have always been founded on the dispossession and disenfranchisement of a select group of people, and though that group of people has changed over time, the fact of dispossession and disenfranchisement has remained. It's what has animated the U.S. from the beginning, and today wealthy white men continue to exploit and oppress workers, women, immigrants and people of color in order to maintain a grasp on power and profitability. This video limits its view by not taking into account all the various ways--economically, socially, and, thus, politically--people are oppressed well before they even arrive at the false choices presented to them on election day.
"You know, the path that this country has taken has never been a straight line. We zig and zag and sometimes we move in ways that some people think is forward and others think is moving back, and that's OK." President Obama.
Saying that US has been a democracy since its creation is quite a stretch. The word Oligarchy is way more appropriate to describe a political system where a ruling elite (white males) vote for their leaders while segregating and denying any rights for others. American political system from 1776 until 1960ies was nothing more than pure Oligarchy, plain and simple, morally inferior to the Authoritarian governments. Anyone who says otherwise is either totally ignorant of American history, or purposefully spreads US government official propaganda and disinformation (like this Corporate NYT propaganda video).
Personally I think democracy is barely better if at all than other systems. Many hereditary and absolute rulers were very good leaders both economically and socially. Like Alexander II of Russia or Elizabeth the first of England. While democratically elected leaders are sometimes horrible. Remember Hitler was democratically elected before he became a dictator. So basically I think what's important is how a leader rules rather than how he/she came to power.
What?! Completely ignores the role of so-called democracies like USA in not only DE-DEMOCRATIZING the Middle East and Latin America, but also its own solid trend in de-democratization of black and native communities!
1. Shouldn't the people in countries decide if they want "democracy". The U.S. comes and says you want "democracy" whether you like it/know it or not. 2. Democracy is a farse. I know it's impossible to vote on every issue, but shouldn't the people of a "democratic" country vote on important issues such as how their tax money is spent or whether their country should go to war or not. Yet the people don't decide on those important issues in "democratic" governments e.g. the u.s. It's only the powerful and/or rich who decide. Also, if democracy was so important to "western" countries, why do you support fascist and murderous governments like ISRAEL or dictators like the future (possibly) president of Indonesia? DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EXIST. The democracy experiment has failed.
The electoral method itself and “form” of politics bad NOTHING to do with with democracy. They are methods to *reach* democracy but not democracy (the public being represented) itself. A far better index is to state what policies the public wants and then state what policies the country actually applied the last year and check the correlation. 1.0 is democratic and 0.0 is not. USA and Europe have what is called plutocracy (business run) with voting mechanism attached to pretend it is democratic, whist both the system and even the voting mechanism have nothing to do with democracy itself. Democracy means the public are represented. The common Chinese public under socialism are represented better than common Americans, so China is more democratic than USA despite not having the voting mechanism.
You had to be a man with indisputable 100% greek ancestry, you had to complete military training, have no debt, an established residency, and even then, your right to participate in the government could be suspended by the counsel of the majority. Only about 10% of the total population could vote. It was more Greek oligarchy, a counsel of rulers, than it was Greek "Democracy"
First time I've ever commented on this channel, but this video is so superficial it makes my eyes bleed. Things don't 'just happen'. There are historical reasons why China or Turkey have taken their respective turns. Had a Marshall Plan been set up for the Soviet Union, Russia would have been an ally for life. Instead all she got was hair-brained privatisation and economic collapse. However, in this video, this historical moment is being reduced to 'polarisation', but this reading seems so parochial and linked to the way the US sees itself and how it thinks politics should be done. There's also the question of economics and the ruling ideologies in democracies around the 80s and 90s - one where the state was meant to get out of the way and allow the market to price everything. The myth was that democracy was needed for markets to run efficiently and remove corruption. Since 2008, what can be laughably called economic 'theory' (which isn't science) has been left in tatters. Mature democracies were left to 'socialise' the economic losses, causing suffering and slow growth for millions - this has made people really angry - particularly as inequality is rife in the OECD. Likewise into that political space left by 'democracies' authoritarian regimes have found they can run capitalism just as well, perhaps even better than democracies can. The offer they give their populations is that they can manage the contradictions in capitalism and while western states offer falling wages and degraded pensions, they say that they can provide the things people really want. Although I'm more Churchillian in outlook (democracy is the worst system, except for all the others), there is a sense that the model that swept away the post-war consensus has had its day. Simply leaving things to the market (which was tragically attempted in post-war Iraq) is simply a non-starter. Either there is a sense democracy can improve people's lives and shape or mitigate the effects of economic activity in a way that benefits the majority, or you simply have a forum for an unresolvable shouting match. Many other democratic states are able to compromise, look for common ground and continue democratic innovation. In contrast, the US looks like a relic and exactly what it is - a declining superpower that is no longer 'the model' people look to.
the problem is not democracy. its money in any form i don't care what type of government you call yourself as long as money is involved you live under a dictatorship
for some odd reason there's no mention on privatize campaigning in politics... or the simple fact there is agreements among people for particular things, but we still don't get those things. So the problem is polarization.. not the fact we don't actually have a representative government that's functional..
We don’t believe in American democracy anymore. The exploitation on Chinese interpreter is bizarre. It costs two house for Chinese to study in a democratic country but with a useless paper.
The US style of democracy is NOT what most people vote for (308'000'000 US-Citizens), it's what a chosen bunch of people (538 electors) vote for! Indirect democracy is useless because fewer people have to be "bought" or manipulated to vote in a Leader. Also the word "Leader" bothers me in context to democracy. i just have a hard time to believe that 538 People can truly represent 308 Million People. And i forgot that a future President only needs 270 of these elector on his side to become president...
I wanted to enjoy this video, but man some things bug me: 0:05 U.S. was not the first democracy, 0:48 England is neither an independent state, nor an alias for the U.K. NYT, get your facts straight.
2:09 Did they just call Singapore a dictatorship? As far as I can tell, probably the only thing remotely dictatorial about Singapore is the strict no chewing gum policy. But then again, what do I know.
@@gyurhanaziz7676 Yes, I watched that polymatter video later to realize that Singapore is not truly democratic and has certain authoritarian characteristics. Although, given it's features, I am not sure if it could be categorized as either of the two (i.e. democracy or dictatorship). It's something weird in between, but at the same time not very much alike the other weak democracies such as Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Brazil, India, etc. Since, as the polymatter video explains, people in singapore vote not to replace the ruling party, but to express their level of satisfaction with the governance, which apparently the ruling party always takes very seriously.
Yeah when Yeltsin was in power russia was really flourishing hahaha...... and where is Egypt after the Arab spring?? Lol has the name Mohammed Morsi been forgotten ..... please
There are no words to express the utter contempt, disgust and revulsion I feel being so smarmily lied to by NPC’S who’s moral compass came from reading Harry Potter novels and their gender studies ‘education’ Comparing Hungary & Victor Orban to Venezuela & North Korea shows why Sam Hyde should be democratically elected to the board of the NYT.
First there was one democracy, NO, It was not the USA but Athens circa 500 BC, You have to stop being so Americanocentric, It doeesnt matter if Americans are liberal conservative or whatever,,,they are ALL Americanocentric,
It seems to me that societies have to go farther than just democracy in evaluating a country being in a situation where it provides well being for its people. Democratic government has to also be thought with an effective state as far as providing security and a good socio-economic situation for all the law abiding citizenry. Otherwise what we get is these weak democracies which not surprisingly end up as dictatorships very fast
You just need to have leaders with a great vision for the future, democracy or not, Gulf is doing well without Democracy but on the other hand, Germany is doing well with democracy, so it boils down to the leader how the citizens live the country
Polarization in American politics is the result of the success of the conservative movement. That success has resulted in ever more extreme demands on the part of Republicans and encouraged their sense of political entitlement.
Every political scientist knows that the spread of democracy isn‘t linear, there are bumps on the roads and steps back, even though in the long run democracy wins. And wealth and democracy are correlated, but resource-rich countries always have been outlyers, like Saudi, Venezuela and Russia. So it‘s not wealth that creates democracies, but wealth and democracy are both results of accountable, fair and efficient systems. Dictatorships are often inefficient and corrupt which is why only countries rich in natural resources can stay dictatorships without too much public opposition against mismanagement
It seems that good people all over the world (in all countries) distracted and overwhelmed by their daily routines are stuck in denial of their inability to change their peaceful nature in the face of the unexpected: their countries are being taken right under their noses. But things can be reversed. It is not so wise for citizens to elect their leaders and let them rule as they please for a set period of years. As a matter of fact, this is stupid. Maybe people can have legislation where politicians can be fired on a daily basis if their conduct at work goes against human rights and freedom. Like any private company. If some people in government have the audacity to come up with a bad idea, why should they be allowed to continue serving their society? Perhaps the world needs a hybrid paper-machine vote system for all legislations. (yes, paper and computers are needed, not only computers with its vulnerabilities ). Some sort of Direct Democratic Republic. Where people can vote on each of the laws of their societies.
No one: "Democracy is still a pretty new system of government"
The Greeks:
Americans think they invented democracy 😂
„Yes” Socrates said long time ago. He was right.
For goodness sake, New York Times. I expect better from you. Why on earth did you include 'England' as one of the 'countries' on your graph. England is not a country, the United Kingdom is. England has no parliament, no elected leader, no direct representatives. Only the U.K. does. That is pretty basic knowledge of our constitutional system. Please correct this, it is quite honestly embarrassing for all involved.
Yes, by the definition of the word, England could be argued to be a country. It's certainly a nation. But for the purpose of this video they should have used the United Kingdom, as that is what makes the most sense.
Elliott Anderson true, and also San Marino was a democracy before the USA
They're americans, and over here we tend to use the two interchangeably.
Emagination Productions that doesn't make it correct
Elliott G D not a lot of fact in the video
Pros: Everyone can vote.
Cons: Everyone can vote.
The content of the video and the title is absolutely disconnected.
Democracy is less important than having a competent, united, and equally representative government with checks and balances. Democracy just so happens to be the best system we currently have for ensuring such a government. I hope something better comes along soon.
I think a better electoral system would help representing a more accurate will of a population.
I think we should change to a ranked voting system.
My personal favourite is Instant-runoff voting.
Look it up; it's very interesting
No, it isn’t. A Democracy is essential a country that is purely majoritarian. So, essentially what that means is that the minority is 100% ruled by the majority. The majority gives and takes rights away from the minority. Most major philosophers have recognized the tyrannical evil that a pure democracy is.
Nah a republic is the best form of government. Democracy is a joke
How a representative government with checks and balances is not democracy?
“A republic if you can keep it.”
This is an extraordinarily rosy-eyed, one-dimensional video about democracy. If we continue to assume that democracy includes formal rights for property owners and those who have accrued wealth, then we haven't learned very much about democracy. "Democracies" like the U.S. have always been founded on the dispossession and disenfranchisement of a select group of people, and though that group of people has changed over time, the fact of dispossession and disenfranchisement has remained. It's what has animated the U.S. from the beginning, and today wealthy white men continue to exploit and oppress workers, women, immigrants and people of color in order to maintain a grasp on power and profitability. This video limits its view by not taking into account all the various ways--economically, socially, and, thus, politically--people are oppressed well before they even arrive at the false choices presented to them on election day.
"You know, the path that this country has taken has never been a straight line. We zig and zag and sometimes we move in ways that some people think is forward and others think is moving back, and that's OK." President Obama.
Democracies work better when different political tribes can at least agree on what the facts are. We need to work on that.
That’s the point you agree on the facts argue the solutions.
was actually expecting them to talk about demagoguery... but seems like thats not part of US education.
"Democracy? More like DEMOCRAAAAZY!"
-Jahne M.
Disappointing that even the NYT doesn’t seem to recognise the difference between the UK and England...
Even the NYT? They're not exactly the smartest of the bunch so I'm not sure why you'd put them on a silver platter.
@@abren5974 Lol this is true... but of a silly comment I guess, though I just thought if they can't get it right... I don't know *shrugs*
hey they think the US is a full democracy which it hasn't been in over 30 years
Saying that US has been a democracy since its creation is quite a stretch. The word Oligarchy is way more appropriate to describe a political system where a ruling elite (white males) vote for their leaders while segregating and denying any rights for others. American political system from 1776 until 1960ies was nothing more than pure Oligarchy, plain and simple, morally inferior to the Authoritarian governments. Anyone who says otherwise is either totally ignorant of American history, or purposefully spreads US government official propaganda and disinformation (like this Corporate NYT propaganda video).
I agree with you, and I believe that our leaders are corrupt and incompetent. I also believe that the communist system in the USSR was a good one.
Personally I think democracy is barely better if at all than other systems. Many hereditary and absolute rulers were very good leaders both economically and socially. Like Alexander II of Russia or Elizabeth the first of England. While democratically elected leaders are sometimes horrible. Remember Hitler was democratically elected before he became a dictator. So basically I think what's important is how a leader rules rather than how he/she came to power.
What?! Completely ignores the role of so-called democracies like USA in not only DE-DEMOCRATIZING the Middle East and Latin America, but also its own solid trend in de-democratization of black and native communities!
"Could it happen to the United States? It still feels impossible"
The rest of the world:
The United States Isn’t a democracy
1. Shouldn't the people in countries decide if they want "democracy". The U.S. comes and says you want "democracy" whether you like it/know it or not. 2. Democracy is a farse. I know it's impossible to vote on every issue, but shouldn't the people of a "democratic" country vote on important issues such as how their tax money is spent or whether their country should go to war or not. Yet the people don't decide on those important issues in "democratic" governments e.g. the u.s. It's only the powerful and/or rich who decide. Also, if democracy was so important to "western" countries, why do you support fascist and murderous governments like ISRAEL or dictators like the future (possibly) president of Indonesia? DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EXIST. The democracy experiment has failed.
Exactly
Well if US is a democracy then why you can t control or ban guns as the majority of people wants?
1:30 "Look at Russia"
ok, I did, so you're telling me the Russian part of the Soviet Union got progressively more democratic until 1968?
"first there was one democracy" and then shows the us. What about the ancient Greeks?
That was more oligarchy. Only about 10% of the population met the strict criteria for being able to participate.
Jim Crow 10/10 full democracy according to these clowns.
The electoral method itself and “form” of politics bad NOTHING to do with with democracy. They are methods to *reach* democracy but not democracy (the public being represented) itself. A far better index is to state what policies the public wants and then state what policies the country actually applied the last year and check the correlation. 1.0 is democratic and 0.0 is not. USA and Europe have what is called plutocracy (business run) with voting mechanism attached to pretend it is democratic, whist both the system and even the voting mechanism have nothing to do with democracy itself. Democracy means the public are represented. The common Chinese public under socialism are represented better than common Americans, so China is more democratic than USA despite not having the voting mechanism.
NYT going Vox style nice
Palpatine: I love democracy
Democracy began in Greece in the 5th century and lasted over 185 years. You guys weren't the first.
You had to be a man with indisputable 100% greek ancestry, you had to complete military training, have no debt, an established residency, and even then, your right to participate in the government could be suspended by the counsel of the majority. Only about 10% of the total population could vote.
It was more Greek oligarchy, a counsel of rulers, than it was Greek "Democracy"
The democracy of today looks very different than 100 years ago as well.
Thank you for this guide I will be using it soon
India is becoming poor and undemocratic.
First time I've ever commented on this channel, but this video is so superficial it makes my eyes bleed. Things don't 'just happen'. There are historical reasons why China or Turkey have taken their respective turns. Had a Marshall Plan been set up for the Soviet Union, Russia would have been an ally for life. Instead all she got was hair-brained privatisation and economic collapse. However, in this video, this historical moment is being reduced to 'polarisation', but this reading seems so parochial and linked to the way the US sees itself and how it thinks politics should be done. There's also the question of economics and the ruling ideologies in democracies around the 80s and 90s - one where the state was meant to get out of the way and allow the market to price everything. The myth was that democracy was needed for markets to run efficiently and remove corruption. Since 2008, what can be laughably called economic 'theory' (which isn't science) has been left in tatters. Mature democracies were left to 'socialise' the economic losses, causing suffering and slow growth for millions - this has made people really angry - particularly as inequality is rife in the OECD. Likewise into that political space left by 'democracies' authoritarian regimes have found they can run capitalism just as well, perhaps even better than democracies can. The offer they give their populations is that they can manage the contradictions in capitalism and while western states offer falling wages and degraded pensions, they say that they can provide the things people really want. Although I'm more Churchillian in outlook (democracy is the worst system, except for all the others), there is a sense that the model that swept away the post-war consensus has had its day. Simply leaving things to the market (which was tragically attempted in post-war Iraq) is simply a non-starter. Either there is a sense democracy can improve people's lives and shape or mitigate the effects of economic activity in a way that benefits the majority, or you simply have a forum for an unresolvable shouting match. Many other democratic states are able to compromise, look for common ground and continue democratic innovation. In contrast, the US looks like a relic and exactly what it is - a declining superpower that is no longer 'the model' people look to.
the problem is not democracy. its money in any form i don't care what type of government you call yourself as long as money is involved you live under a dictatorship
*Why does the United States of America still have counties when democracy is a type of government below the monarchy?*
for some odd reason there's no mention on privatize campaigning in politics... or the simple fact there is agreements among people for particular things, but we still don't get those things. So the problem is polarization.. not the fact we don't actually have a representative government that's functional..
This is a video about angst. Didn't go deep enough, just meant to convey fear of what is supposedly to come.
These two claim that democracy is mostly new,but democracy has been around since the time of Socrates.
"American democracy works just fine" ha
Eww, an anarchist.
where is Egypt ? i feel offended
I don’t see much evidence in the video ....
Great video
The title was misleading
England isn't a country. The UK is a country.
Everything depicted in this video is childish behavior.
No,but your paper? YES
England is not a country, I think you meant the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Without representation and as long as we vote for 1 leader, democracy will always slip into dictatorship. Absolute power corrupts.
this is propaganda
goo6
How is it propaganda??
Can you elaborate?
+Felix sealion
yeah its basically "democratize or die"
This have psychological backround tho. Polarization is another word for Divide and rule.
100%
Ok everyone in the comments needs to understand that we're not a democracy. We're a Republic, and its better that way.
We don’t believe in American democracy anymore. The exploitation on Chinese interpreter is bizarre. It costs two house for Chinese to study in a democratic country but with a useless paper.
Full democracy like the US... voting once every 4 years is not power to the people...
The US style of democracy is NOT what most people vote for (308'000'000 US-Citizens), it's what a chosen bunch of people (538 electors) vote for! Indirect democracy is useless because fewer people have to be "bought" or manipulated to vote in a Leader. Also the word "Leader" bothers me in context to democracy. i just have a hard time to believe that 538 People can truly represent 308 Million People. And i forgot that a future President only needs 270 of these elector on his side to become president...
Families and cultures are healthier in non-democracies
Ugh. SO simplistic. Not for adults.
I wanted to enjoy this video, but man some things bug me: 0:05 U.S. was not the first democracy, 0:48 England is neither an independent state, nor an alias for the U.K. NYT, get your facts straight.
2:09 Did they just call Singapore a dictatorship? As far as I can tell, probably the only thing remotely dictatorial about Singapore is the strict no chewing gum policy. But then again, what do I know.
th-cam.com/video/Hkxf4SC_SBk/w-d-xo.html&feature=share
@@gyurhanaziz7676 Yes, I watched that polymatter video later to realize that Singapore is not truly democratic and has certain authoritarian characteristics. Although, given it's features, I am not sure if it could be categorized as either of the two (i.e. democracy or dictatorship). It's something weird in between, but at the same time not very much alike the other weak democracies such as Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Brazil, India, etc. Since, as the polymatter video explains, people in singapore vote not to replace the ruling party, but to express their level of satisfaction with the governance, which apparently the ruling party always takes very seriously.
India is also in the list Right there at the top with Russia, China...
Democracy can work just fine, imperialism can't, learn the difference!
Yeah when Yeltsin was in power russia was really flourishing hahaha...... and where is Egypt after the Arab spring?? Lol has the name Mohammed Morsi been forgotten ..... please
RUSSIA has always been a great country. Mind to use capital R when you spell it.
Um, the US wasn't the first modern democracy. That would be the Netherlands.
There are no words to express the utter contempt, disgust and revulsion I feel being so smarmily lied to by NPC’S who’s moral compass came from reading Harry Potter novels and their gender studies ‘education’
Comparing Hungary & Victor Orban to Venezuela & North Korea shows why Sam Hyde should be democratically elected to the board of the NYT.
It happens in Indonesia.
Democracy is cringe
Really good video
Classic western media talking like everyone else is the worst way to organize society
Great video! Perfectly explains the situation in countries like Russia and Turkey. Thanks New-York Times. Please make more videos like this
What do you know about Russia?
Yes, there is.
Yes - this is not one. It's a representative republic.
First there was one democracy, NO, It was not the USA but Athens circa 500 BC, You have to stop being so Americanocentric, It doeesnt matter if Americans are liberal conservative or whatever,,,they are ALL Americanocentric,
It seems to me that societies have to go farther than just democracy in evaluating a country being in a situation where it provides well being for its people. Democratic government has to also be thought with an effective state as far as providing security and a good socio-economic situation for all the law abiding citizenry. Otherwise what we get is these weak democracies which not surprisingly end up as dictatorships very fast
Prefer the New York times without face-to-face presenters
You just need to have leaders with a great vision for the future, democracy or not, Gulf is doing well without Democracy but on the other hand, Germany is doing well with democracy, so it boils down to the leader how the citizens live the country
Which entity is most responsible for polarization in America?
Hint: they made this video
Polarization in American politics is the result of the success of the conservative movement. That success has resulted in ever more extreme demands on the part of Republicans and encouraged their sense of political entitlement.
Every political scientist knows that the spread of democracy isn‘t linear, there are bumps on the roads and steps back, even though in the long run democracy wins.
And wealth and democracy are correlated, but resource-rich countries always have been outlyers, like Saudi, Venezuela and Russia. So it‘s not wealth that creates democracies, but wealth and democracy are both results of accountable, fair and efficient systems. Dictatorships are often inefficient and corrupt which is why only countries rich in natural resources can stay dictatorships without too much public opposition against mismanagement
change the title...
It seems that good people all over the world (in all countries) distracted and overwhelmed by their daily routines are stuck in denial of their inability to change their peaceful nature in the face of the unexpected: their countries are being taken right under their noses. But things can be reversed. It is not so wise for citizens to elect their leaders and let them rule as they please for a set period of years. As a matter of fact, this is stupid. Maybe people can have legislation where politicians can be fired on a daily basis if their conduct at work goes against human rights and freedom. Like any private company. If some people in government have the audacity to come up with a bad idea, why should they be allowed to continue serving their society? Perhaps the world needs a hybrid paper-machine vote system for all legislations. (yes, paper and computers are needed, not only computers with its vulnerabilities ). Some sort of Direct Democratic Republic. Where people can vote on each of the laws of their societies.
Lol it's like good cop bad cop, but sad boy happy girl instead :)
Man this is more buzzfeed than nyt
Great content!
yes evry thing
Production was a lot more scrupulous than usual! Good job Nytimes
And Winer is guess who.
past the post voting is wrong i’ll agree with that
1:27 Venezuela in rich... oh dear
“even free people” lol
Another topic : why is media slipping from fair journalism
Wait, since when is LATVIA rich ??? WTF... this is the most BS propaganda ever...
Exactly
American Democracy = capital-cracy.... one vote for one dollar haha
breach breach breach twenty four hour,not closed secret and Can check.
Perhaps anarchy is the highest stage of democracy. Therefore, we must strive for a totalitarian state system as in Putin's Russia.
Ideological poison!
India👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀
Maybe now liberals can start to appreciate the second amendment 😂
NYT want to be Vox eyy?
yet another biased view on the world
Alaskan hard labour gulags for the Dem's it is then.
Yeah, it's capitalism.
Oh vey
oh you shils......
Pravda west aka NY Times.
Identity politics, critical race theory, post modernism are our downslide.
Nailed it.
Wannabe blogtrash
Democracy = great. Capitalism, unchecked = sucks.