> Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy. a) That depends on which subjective definition you are using, and also whether you re

> Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy. a) That depends on which subjective definition you are using, and also whether you realize your definitions are subjective. b) It isn't possible for you to know what is "necessary" or "ideal", thus you are speculating. > Again, squinting too hard. Speaking (and perhaps even thinking) in popular but misinformative catchphrases may not be ideal. > American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doesn't make every other self-proclaimed democracy actually the same. This is true if considered independently (not in the context of this conversation), but what is the "but no" part referring to? > Your noteworthy note is not that noteworthy. Your subjective opinion appearing to you as an objective fact is noteworthy. > Curricula are almost entirely controlled by state and local school boards. There is how things are supposed to work, there is how things are claimed to work, and then there is how things actually work (and even this is a substantial simplification). Talking about that last one is...culturally frowned upon. > The federal DOE has extremely limited requirements by design to prevent the exact thing you're accusing them of doing. Maybe this is part of the problem! Regardless: I think it is time the public stopped taking all this nonsense lying down, and behaving as if we are helpless observers trapped in a stream of reality in which we have and can have no control over. From below: >> Thank you for sharing your opinion! Very interesting. Is this interesting to you? > I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay. When you say "that's okay", what is it you are referring to? Reality?