myata

He said those things; he tried to do some of them. And the logical outcome of them is right before our eyes. Let's understand what has transpired here. That extreme right in Europe we're hearing about, it works entirely, 100% within the democratic political system. Never, ever it questioned the foundations of democracy, such as the legitimacy of democratic elections. Netherlands, Italy, France, Slovakia: it just doesn't happen. The Republican party just whizzed by and through this red line first by tolerating it, and then encouraging with repeated nomination, shrugging it off like a normal, regular thing. And it didn't even as much as notice. It took the tiniest of nudges to dive into it happily, "the unity". This is what happened here: the party is taking itself outside of the framework and foundations of democracy. In its current views, now stamped and sealed with the nomination, it's perfectly fine to claim elections they don't like "stolen"; refuse to certify them; "find" the votes needed even fraudulently; encourage social discontent and riots; spread outrageous lies. You know something, right? This is no democracy: democracy just doesn't look like that. It's the third world. Chavez and Maduro do that. Putin does that, routinely. So what if it becomes normal and acceptable, and even encouraged? Now we can see where this path would take the society and the country. And we wouldn't be able to claim we didn't know.

Many of us do, not everyone graduated though, as it seems.

Are you folks in the same K-grade class? Must be hilarious, those were such fun and carefree times.

Watch the automatic jerk reflux when nothing intelligible could come out of the dead brain. Observe it over and over. What surprises?

No: those are the objective facts of reality. You "don't buy" the facts, cannot accept the objective reality? Tell me what you are the first one of that tribe. But no, I'm not in the least interested in alternative private realities. What you buy or not is your problem only.

See how the liars want to make it only about different "talking points" regardless of their connection to the reality and truth? They exist in their own world where the reality is secondary to their objectives and they can blow it like a bubble. But bad, bad for you when it bursts as it does, always. The reality will continue to exist, and will always catch up no matter the temperature of the lies. Watch Venezuela. To be fair I'm not sure this trend can be attributed solely to one side of the politics. It's the binary system that makes it a zero sum game: it's much easier for any politicians to score points by blaming the arch-opponent than by showing a real record of achievement. As all animals, politicians adapt to their environment, incentives and stimuli.

No, one shouldn't ignore the reality: he said those things; and he tried them; and here, right before our eyes is what happens if or when they are shrugged off and becomes usual and normal. Someone can close their eyes, whistle and look away but there's simply no way anyone could claim that they didn't know: what it looks like; and quite likely, is.

I encourage everyone to watch the events developing in Venezuela right now. This is how innocent games with "just find me those votes" and "won't have to vote again" end. And sure, Maduro is a "tough leader". No way we couldn't have known.

The will for a change has to come from somewhere and accumulate and focus into real, tangible change. Words, talking is not change in itself. That may be the answer to your question: sure change is possible; but Canadians, as Americans will have to gather the desire; intent; will and power to effect it. This is only the test of the evolution: change costs. And the other side, the entropy one is very clear: bread and circuses, unknown iteration only this time: with nukes. The bottom line: nothing lasts forever. No guarantees or promises. Move ahead or fade and perish. Only the evolution.

Maduro had 35% in the exit poll, ended up with 51%. Someone has found "those votes". They didn't have to vote in Venezuela since 1998. Think about it now.

Just think about it this way: imagine every one of the future presidents would do what he did; all of it; and a bit more, nothing too much only to stretch it. Because they can - and why wouldn't they? Tried that? How do you like it, that way?

Memory problems?

Democracy is not reduced to the rule of the mob. Someone wants us to forget that. Really desperate. Just see what happens if they could get their way: - Any loser could claim the elections they don't like "stolen" with zero evidence; - Any loser president could order themselves "votes", just as many as they need to "win". Putin and Maduro know the trick. - Congress and courts reduced to the function of lapdogs of "tough" leaders. Reminds you of something? In their own words? See it for what it is now; the eyes and the brain they are telling us something.

and those he did ...

Yes he has. Probably would have, just didn't make it.

The process have to be build to involve citizens continuously throughout the political cycle. Townhalls on important issues; country-wide non-partisan discussions; plebiscites, both binding and informational. Nominations, nothing like the pageants now, the opposite of it: down to the point, interactive and informative. If and once a citizen becomes a consumer, advertising is 80% effective. Deafening contradicting messages result in numbness of mind. It's a one way road to total and irreversible alienation.

No. You gave a very narrow interpretation of it, while ignoring, purposefully and deliberately a much broader factual one. This is an individual who already tried to undermine, and allegedly, overturn a democratic election. He expressed admiration for authoritarian dictators many times over. Now he hints that people won't have to vote again because it'll be fixed beautifully. Could Putin have said that? Could Maduro? People who think and care about their democracy should certainly take a note.

His repeatedly announced admiration for every single "tough" thug in the world. Very factual attempts to overturn a democratic election, by sheer invention of the "fraud" that never happened in the reality. How can this not be a valid and very factual context to his ramblings?

Yes, there's a truth to the thought that only active and responsible citizens can keep democracy alive, any system can be corrupted otherwise, and will be. We're living to see it unfolding right before our eyes. A meaningful change is called for, and needed desperately.

I tried to discuss that in another topic. A group of conscious political players can try a new political model based on conscious involvement of citizens throughout the cycle. Either, it could point a new alternative direction. Or if the circus still wins, the democracy of this type can be doomed.

You are lying again and I'm getting tired. What context explains "don't have to vote again"? Why wouldn't one vote, again? What could be cause? This is what Putin is saying. This is Maduro showing, "no need to vote, it will be fixed". You don't see it and ready to accept any impossible quasi "explanation" from your idol lying mouth after he spilled more of what he thinks and just couldn't hold it back? OK: that speaks about you, hardly the objective reality. But the people who can still see and think have the right to see it for what it is, not what it's trying to lie.

And before any more lying bullsh*t, freedom of speech applies fully and unconditionally for the citizens. Officials and participants in the democratic governance though cannot undermine its principles, such as wanton lying of stolen elections and such. It used to be a tradition, common sense but it isn't working anymore. The sanction has to be swift and strong, to discourage reoccurrence. Otherwise grain by grain and step by step the democracy will be eroded, just as it's unfolding right in front of our eyes.

My idea is that any candidate, appointee etc in the democratic system has to affirm full and unconditional acceptance of its principles. Or face an expulsion, via due process. One cannot undermine the principles of the democracy, knowingly or otherwise, while claiming the right to manage it. Sure, as said citizens have the right to end their democracy any time they like. But there has to be a clear process for that, for example, a referendum. It cannot happen again, via boredom and/or drowning in loudmouth lies. That would be irrational and stupid.

In any case, combined with the admiration for "tough" dictator thugs he demonstrated on countless occasions these cannot be dismissed as innocent slips of the tongue or out-of-context quotes. There are serious and real, factual indications that he may think that he could "fix" democracy indefinitely. The public has seen it and must be fully capable to make an informed responsible judgement.

I think it's you trying hardest and desperately to not see what's staring right into your eyes. Not once he said "you won't have to vote anymore". That word, it means something, in the common language. Why would any honest politician say something like that? Either these are random ramblings and if so, it certainly needs to be noted by the public. Or something more sinister he is trying to allude. And in any case, a power-hungry liar desperate to get to the power by any means. How can one not see it?