myata

There are democratic models that prompt and encourage citizens to participate. This just isn't true. Doesn't correspond to the reality. One duo twin is always guaranteed to win in FPTP. Winning most often or almost always is not the product of smart policy, connection to the public but a screw up of the other power twin that gets to rule with no accountability until next to everyone comes to hate it. Yes a guaranteed win, you just wait long enough until your buddy in power has screwed up one time too many and how does that stimulate anything, and could. If one could come up with a near-democratic system that makes less sense, both logically and practically it would be a feat of imagination and vision. In a minimally developed democratic society FPTP doesn't make any sense. It worked here (but no assurances for the future of course) only because its deep and far backwaters where nothing ever happens; and because it's parochial traditionalist backwaters that firmly believes that it can survive without improving and adapting.

Representative democracy in general, if not kept current and functional by active citizens may tend to produce detached governments that rule on behalf of the citizens increasingly for themselves, as a corporation and personally, as opposed to the country. FPTP exacerbates this problem to an enormous extent, creating isolated elites shelled from the outside reality to focus on their interests, not those of the society. At some point, certainly and unavoidably, any benefits of it will be outweighed by bureaucratic inefficiency; self-involvement and indulgence; overconsumption of resources with little positive outcome if any; rigidity and eventually, a systemic crisis and paralysis of public governance. Quite possibly in Canada we're approaching this phase even now.

Commander-in-Chief complaining that he doesn't have the money to fulfill the mission. Complaining to who, the enemy? Absurd. Ridiculous. Where do you find it? Only in the late, past its prime West. Look what if Putin, when he set out to destroy the West knew something, after all? What if chaotic pullout from Afghanistan wasn't a fluke? The future is watching. And it won't be fooled by any great words.

Up until 1980, the population of the country was under 25 million, possessing the resources of a quarter of the world. Stuck up in the far corner of the world, protected by a great neighbor against all threats. Still failed to convert the riches to a strong basis for a lasting broad prosperity, with cracks coming out in real time. Hardly an achievement to boast about, in any objective view. And the entrenched, isolated from the society political system was not the last factor in this outcome, certainly.

Yes, really. Putin these days is posing an existential threat to Western democracies. His success in any form is not compatible with anything they preached and claimed to stand for. Western democracies, in their present form and Putin cannot both advance to the future. Only one could, and will. His regime's trajectory was pretty clear from the turn of the century. This is two decades of deliberate blindness and blunt inaction. Longer than Hitler's rise in the 1930s. Bells of all kinds were ringing all kind of warnings, to no effect. All of this is a fact by the way. West wanted to believe, stubbornly and insistingly that it has a ticket to the future no matter what happens in the reality around it. It was wrong, obviously. No one can have it. It does not exist in the evolution. The moment you've gone too self-indulgent and weak to face the challenges it presents, you are handed another one though: to extinction.

The liberal elites of the West, blinded to anything by their pompous belief that the future is guaranteed and assured, again led, step by, and exactly in every false step of the past to the worst outcome possible. And even when the stark reality was looking them straight in the eyes, they still hesitated and dithered unable to come up with resolve and will to put up the necessary response: what is necessary is not the same, maybe even close to: what I can and want. The gap, one can call it "evolutionary" or even: "existential". Then, the common folks got tired and disappointed. Next, what? What great options are there? Sure, the next generation that is supposed to lead them, simply and plain bent on weakening it further, they aren't even trying to hide it. Orban, Trump, Poilievre the great leaders on guard of freedoms and democracy, remember? Not our business. The future is guaranteed and assured, just sign here and here. Ohoh. The climate change too. What's next, then? The evolution wrote no blank checks, remember?

And the example south of the border is the best and strongest argument against FPTP. Factual too. Extreme partisan division; an absolute loss of integrity and principle; the power for power only sake; endless power games only to get more power; dysfunction, division down to paralysis of will and act. All of this and more comes in the package with FPTP. Just wait.

So the Republicans do not support freedom and democracy as they liked to claim. This is the moment of truth, and it speaks more than words: it speaks everything there's to know. No, it's nothing to with the border security. Yes you can fight for border security, but it has nothing to do with the question, and decision: do you stand up for freedom and democracy? Will you? The answer is clear and it's already recorded in the history. Words do not count. Humans, you can fool with hollow useless words; but hardly the history and the evolution. Not a chance.

Look at this: in the times of WWII, West gave Russia simply uncountable supplies of equipment, difficult to imagine 18,300 (eighteen thousand) of contemporary aircraft only from the Lend Lease program was lost. In contrast, by today Biden administration gave Ukraine twenty (20) longer-range missiles. Russia routinely used dozens of those to attack a peaceful independent neighbor country, and in the 1990s Ukraine gave up her supplies of missiles and nukes in exchange for "guarantees" of security the true worth of which we can observe right now. Put the two in comparison, and contrast. What is it we're trying to say, with these numbers? No one can be that naive to not understand that this is not about charity, not even about keeping a promise. It's no secret that Putin's agenda is a menace to the security and very existence of the West; he set of to undermine and destroy it. The take cannot be avoided any longer: Biden is a weak Commander in Chief. He does not seem to grasp what is at stake here, and hesitates ostensibly being afraid to act when and as needed. Great words are never a substitute for will, and act that went missing that much we have learned from the history or had to. It needs to be said now, if only to avoid a too-late realization at a time of critical challenge.

The status quo will break it up as soon as the exports dough will dry out. Looks like we're out of options here. Change is not possible is rarely a great strategy in the evolution. There's that ten million old crab and that's about it.

We don't have it, never had it, so enough of meaningless talking and plain bullsh*t. What's the point of discussing anything with a colored picture book?

The public elected Trudeau on the promise of election reform, with a "landslide". He reneged on it. So yes, public wanted it; the elites, did not. This is a fact, words are not. There's nothing "complex" about the proportional system: the party with the highest count of all votes, wins. Soccer is "too complex" by the same stretch? Basketball? Complex is the bumbo dance whereby mediocre performers squeeze and massage votes into fake "majorities" to rule without any checks and controls by the society. This only speaks for the success of pumping misconceptions and barely covered lies onto the public's mind. And yes, we know that it works. Nazi knew that already.

It's the simplest system ever: the players who gained highest support from the citizens, one citizen one vote, every vote counts, get to rule. Not bumbo dance context. And the reason why you fail to grasp it seems to be quite clear too: you've been brainwashed, for example by endless repetition of, why being shy here, a lie. You are not the first one, and yes it, an endless repetition of lies generally works on the human herd. You do not have "representatives" here: a lie. Their loyalty is not to you but to their Central Committee; they call themselves "employees", formally and officially, go see it. People nominate their representatives, a lie. The government has a majority, another lie, and keep counting.

Because real parliamentary parties formulate their positions and objectives: what are the problems in the society? and how they would go about improving the reality for the citizens. It is important to me because I need from the government real positive change, effectiveness and efficiency, not useless words, blackhole-level expenses and an expectation of blind worship. I can't care less about any and all great words together if they wouldn't produce clear and visible positive result. Because it's a simple dilemma: either citizens check and control the governments, or the government will come to believe that citizens exist only to be ruled by them. I just happen to like the former better.

Did you miss the harassment and death threats, for years? Anyways it's fellow citizens who decided the penalty, they judged it fair and appropriate to the offense, including $75 mln in punitive damages to prevent this kind of malicious public claims in the future.

The answer lies in another plane though: can a rational argument be had with irrational, self-contradictory rules? No. The logic gives a clear answer: a single contradiction in the postulates allows one to prove anything. A system where anything can be right or wrong depending on the time of day, place, individual their looks what they had for breakfast cannot be rational: it's pure chaos. This argument cannot be decided by reason because the belief is based on abandoning it. Don't waste your time. In a rational system, a scientist and a theologist would make their predictions for a certain group of events. Who has better ones, wins the argument. Just ask if they would be interested.

And again, its cool for everyone to f@ck whatever way they like but this topic is not about f-ing nor all the specific ways of accomplishing the feat. Surely there are other opportunities and avenues?

It comes to less than a quarter per individual lie per plaintiff. Could it go any cheaper than that?

That's right, he lied 300 million times about each of the plaintiffs, that comes down to less than a quarter, per lie. What if we tax them, an idea? About $1 per instance should do the trick.

F@ck, we had a Dutch citizen explaining us how in a Dutch election citizens can appoint individual representatives in a proportional election (yes, there's a procedure) but look here comes the Supreme Wisdom and of course it knows better, always ready to explain and correct the wrongs of your ways. What can you do with those, what can you oh f@ck..

Look you're bringing up beaten up points that have been answered multiple times already. No, nominating an alternative to power duopoly is not a fair option where most of the population knows from the milk or DNA that only one or the other can rule. Please stop being ridiculous, repeating ridiculously naive beaver tales. To be a parliamentary party in the true sense you have to compete honestly and openly, on the same fair ground with all other competitors and win the highest number of votes not some fancy bumbo jumbo context. For a long time you manage to pretend that bumbo jumbo is a form of democracy too, but no these days, when it takes a reach of a finger to find out any fact it cannot stand any longer. Either you have the majority of votes, in an open and fair election; or you don't have a democratic government. One and only, is always true.

There was never any formal obligation on absolute monarchs to care about anybody or anything else but themselves. That much we know. Now, in a democracy it's supposed to be different, that was the whole point.

What's the population of the USA, over 300 million? That comes down to less than 50c per individual lie... could it go any cheaper?

In plain words, the elites invented and constructed themselves a system of public governance that artificially, by hands, exaggerates the level of popular support from mediocre at best, to great and stellar. They will parade and boast fake "landslides" and artificial "majorities" then shove them down the citizens throats without any effective checks and controls. Bestow upon themselves unearned and unreasonable privileges, entitlements and prerogatives, not to forget. This of course, is little less than an open ridicule of the citizens intelligence and all claims that they own their country and the political system that remain empty hollow words, whereas in the reality the duopoly guarantees and assures its survival forever. Shortly, it becomes the main and sole purpose of its existence, naturally and logically.

In the psycho's mind, he wanted merely to save his victims. The basic of political mass-murderous psycho- pathology. A murderous psycho belongs in a high-security lifetime cell because of what they did to others, not what was going in their sick minds. Makes all the difference, no?