myata

From f-ck up to f-ck up and back again. The mystery (uniquely Canadian) tale of advanced democracy. Look, it's a "landslide"!

See it for yourself. An experimental fact.

But I did not! I honestly asked the same question maybe a dozen of active posters here and the answer was always the same: no answer. Confusion and avoidance, in a matter as obvious is that. That is an objective fact verified by experiment, not called an assumption. I've no idea why you've counted me as a "leftie", assumption? Do all lefties, and them only see epithets like "genius" and "very honorable" applied to criminal bloodthirsty thugs as problematic, both morally and rationally?

No: I assumed nothing here. It's a recorded fact that among the entire buffoon-cheering crowd here you are the first one, and the only so far to openly and clearly disagree with something that he said. This is a sign of a working mind: it can differentiate and distinguish between observed events based on its own, individual point of view and the model of the reality (that is the intelligence). All cheer for every stupidity or worse, that the Idol dropped requires no intelligence on the other hand: only a dumb, automatic reflex. And now that we examined that, I will answer your question. I absolutely detest places where an officer could unload a magazine into an unarmed citizen before asking a single question, nothing to do with crime in progress. Even worse to me, is when they are backed and, effectively tacitly encouraged to continue such acts by the authorities. For no outrageous bucks or any other benefits would I agree to live in a place like that, if it looked better than the Paradise itself. And that said, I do not support random, wanton violent response either. Both don't make much sense to me. Between two versions of insanity, one doesn't have to choose.

House Republicans are de facto abetting war criminals. Today, International Criminal Court indicted two high level Russian army commanders with war crimes. By delaying critical aid: not a charity; the commitment given Ukraine for letting go of the third largest stock of nukes at the time, the House is helping these criminals. How can one look at it any other way?

OK let's finish the experiment: and what is your opinion? Do you count yourselves in "some"? Are Putin and Un very honorable geniuses, or criminal tyrant thugs? I've no problem answering your question. Only you first.

Some who? What are they called, those who think and talk of brutal dictator thugs as "geniuses" and "very honorable"? Why being shy, all of a sudden?

Responsible, grown up citizens who are representative of citizens choose the candidate for the party after intelligent and comprehensive discussions of critical issues who will be most effective in presenting the agenda to the country, and implementing it. Not the donor money. Not the theatrics show. How hard is it to see the difference?

No let's try an experiment instead: 1. Is Russia's totalitarian dictator Vlad Putin "genius" and "savvy". 2. Is North Korea's totalitarian tyrant Jong Un "a very honorable person". And now we will watch it, live.

But you can't tell anything new here. Sucking up to Hitlers was already tried and with a disastrous result. It only tells us that you don't have a brain developed enough to understand the facts, their causes and direct consequences of one's actions. You know that according to recent findings, pigeons and ravens are capable of that? Way to go.

By delaying critical help to the countries that need it, Johnson and his clique are playing directly into the hands of totalitarian thugs like Putin. This goes against every belief, tradition and principle of U.S. democracy in centuries. The betrayal of this magnitude cannot be shrugged away. All will be recorded for generations to examine. There's still time to act and it is: now.

You are wrong of course. The mentally blind: those who turned their eyes, and brains off deliberately and consciously won't see. No doctor will help with that condition - this is a historic and scientific fact, nothing to argue here.

This is what you do: you stand up to the insane and tell about clearly and calmly, as clearly and as many times as you can. All the way till the final point. Then you can say to yourself: yes you tried; you did your job before yourself, your principles and the future. And then, you make your choice.

The nomination process clearly not working. Both parties are failing their responsibility before the citizens and the country: to consider the best candidates for the leader position and nominate those of highest personal integrity, dedication to the principles and values of the democracy, program and vision addressing the problems of the country and the world; and the vigor to execute it successfully. One of the reasons in my view that it has turned from the crucial period of examination and discussion into some circus show, with tacit consent of the population and by design of the party elites. It has reached the end of the road where it looks little more than a theatrical show. I'll offer some ideas here on the ways how this can be rectified in full understanding of the likely futility. Still it cost me next to nothing, and even if for the record that no one will read, we tried. Stop the theatrics. Change useless nomination caucuses into country-wide citizen participation and party discussion assemblies that the technology of the day fully allows and supports. Leave no question unanswered and no concern not addressed. Move the live part of it around the country, this is how it was supposed to be: but you forgot. After the full cycle of discussions, where the candidates had the chance to present themselves, their positions, visions and programs, hold another, the national assembly. Give it days, or weeks to go again over all critical points and issues. And after that, make the intelligent, rational choice for the best candidate among the best. This is how grown up, intelligent adults do it. It's not some stupid kindergarten show anymore and a lot is at stake these days. Here. Not sure if anyone heard or could be bothered. But it's true, we tried.

It may not be, as long as there's no credible fortune teller around. But if it happens, it would do one thing with certainty: open the finish line to the demise of the most powerful democracy in the modern world. Because if not this trump, one of the following ones will get there for sure. The blueprint and the hammer are right before our eyes. All in the view of the rising Axis of tyrant thugs with nukes and a host of other problems at its heels. Maybe we discovered the reason why there seems to be no intelligent aliens around.

There's nothing unknown about what and who Trump is. Even Joe/Jill who hasn't graduated high school would know the difference if they 1) paid attention and 2) were doing the thinking. Paying attention and thinking is important and crucial because your democracy is not a fancy, not some kind of once-so-many-months entertainment show: it's a responsibility, and the strongest condition of its perpetuity. For a while the elites and the population conspired to see it as some kind of a match, contest, a show way over and eventually, in place of the substance. But when the essence of democracy goes only only an empty shell is left, you know what to expect: the first capable crook will take it over and use to their advantage. Would it be to yours? Why should it be? What would he care? This time there's no innocence, no surprises. They would be getting exactly what pushed for and ordered, the full value and worth of it, no claims and no "oh we didn't know".

Once in a while human folk wants to lose its rational mind and go dancing wild in the dark. I'm not sure if there's a theory to this end. But the examples, facts are just too many to count. There's something given, unavoidable about that. Has to be in the genes. The choice in the coming election is just as simple as that. One is unpleasant, not very rational. Honestly, I can't understand why the Democrats insist on the same course that keeps failing: at the time when the people are looking for a change, a new course come up with the candidate as deeply rooted in the status quo, as practically possible. Doesn't make any rational sense, to me. Not smart, and unpleasant. The other one, on the other hand, is just insane. There's not one sane, rational argument to choose that based on the body of facts that's growing with the speed of an avalanche. It carries every risk imaginable. So the test this time around is simple. No innocent ignorance or confusion. For some reason the Time is smiling on this humanity this time around - or giving it the last chance? Unpleasant and boring? Or plain insane? Sorry, no other options on this menu. You choose.

A much more serious issue is that if the coming decisions are seen to be divided along the partisan lines: it would signify nothing less than the end of an impartial, non-partisan justice system. The consequences of it would be difficult to predict. Possibly, the final slide in the erosion of a functional democracy in the country. Wouldn't be much different from any oligarchic banana state.

No need for history studies now as we can see the ethics erosion process playing out right before our eyes. Right now a significant faction of Republicans is de facto assisting the worst aggressive totalitarian dictator of our time. Long-standing claims, principles and values all going down the chimney - de facto, on one word of the cult Idol. A phone call, all it takes these days to depart from principles and values. For now, the assistance is passive: through pretend ignorance and all-telling inaction. But keep watching it. If tomorrow the Idol calls for a compromise and understanding with this evil, "genius" and "savvy", how many would dare to raise their voices? You know. You can see it right now, and there can be no mistakes. This is very much how it played out the last time.

I think that it means that any intelligent function, ability etc. is not a given, but a privilege and responsibility. One can always choose to abandon it; refuse and drop. And in that case, the result is no different from if it never existed. So, if one does not, and wouldn't think then the outcome will be the same as if the decisions were produced by a rock. Humanity saw it and tried it so many times, it's not even funny.

Also fully applies to: "think" and "assume responsibility".

There's a truth to it: a vibrant democracy requires independent citizens capable of critical thinking and making independent decisions. Otherwise the promise of a bigger handout wins by default.

Except it wants to, and actively strives to forget it at the first opportunity.

The house pet continues to play word games: with the long-held principles and ideals of America. Only this is not some chit-chat show. A betrayal of this magnitude will go into history. Every little face and finger will be recorded, and remembered. At this, very clear point, a large part of a formerly proud party is effectively playing into the hands of a worst totalitarian dictator and aggressor since WWII. This is a fact that cannot be covered by any lying words. The history will remember. As will the new world they are helping, and trying to build.

Let's recall that in this country there's a giant, huge risk to any broad and strict legislation: a near-total absence of accountability and extremely inefficient legal system. So, in the essence: an absence of a competent; trusted and impartial arbiter. It means the the criteria cannot be abstract and verbal ("hate speech"), they have to by physical: a demonstrable harm, or immediate and real possibility of it, resulting directly from the posted statement. No harm, the law cannot be applied because its objective aim is to prevent harm to individuals and not, to define legal and allowed versus illegal topics of a discourse. If the free speech is still a right here, not just a meaningless relic, decoration.