myata

Effectively these two barriers: that have close to zero meaning in the today's reality, prevent the possibility of any other agenda or group/party coming to power with near-perfect success. Not a single chance, in going on two centuries. Possible only theoretically and then, a wi--ide stretch. The system does what it was intended and designed for keep the others away from the public trough. Effective and efficient management of public matters and assets, maybe was never a priority.

Humanity will try to hang on to an impossible hope right to the last second before its blown away by some passing asteroid. And this time the hope is: "we have this thing, United Nations". United, right. A patented terrorist sitting in so called "security council" and approving deals with another terrorist. Has a veto too, try translating that to an intelligent alien. And a well known hot air buffoon that admires thugs and dictators every and each time, no exceptions unless except maybe Islamic, is somehow supposed to fix that. Is that what insanity looks and feels like - or way past it, already?

The public "votes" for one of the two central committees here (any one, of the two). They will take care of all and every matter as they always do. The public doesn't need to know any bothersome details, it needs to be happy with the privilege that was granted generously and express mostly complete satisfaction and joy. Such a happy democracy.

This is again a false analogy and either the author does not understand the difference that is quite obvious, or deliberately attempts to confound it. 1914 was a war that was caused by a conflict of imperial interests and triggered by actions of certain personalities. In the world of that time, there were no mechanisms to prevent it. Now, we have, purportedly at least, a world security framework and it has clear guidelines and rules that specifically and clearly disallow and prohibit brutal force and aggression in the relations between countries. So when one country decides to violate them, without any rational argument there are no other options for a resolution than: 1) enforce the declared rules and restore the order: by the way, what we have in our everyday life, or 2) let go of the rules, discontinue them and have no order. One simply cannot have a pretense of an order, and its egregious, blatant and obvious violation of it at the same time and place. It remains to note that the second case would not at all lead to any peace, because the aggressor was rewarded, can repeat same behavior anywhere and any time; any one imitating the aggressor could do the same with no consequences; effectively leading to the state of the 16-18 century, only with nukes. And this is nothing less than a certain, confident setting for an all-out nuke war, nothing would do it more certainly. Now, what isn't clear here? What could be the confusion?

Imagine: you have an agenda that you think is important to the people and addresses their needs. You have a group of close-minded peers, a team that will work together to implement them. You come to the people and tell them: here's what we're going to do if you trust us; see what we have; see who's in the team; this is the plan and the course of action. Ask us any questions and we will give honest, meaningful answers. Now let's see how many votes we can muster. The agenda and team with the most votes have the highest trust of the people and will have the right to implement it. This is not what we have here, and quite the opposite of. The duopoly and it always works together to keep itself in place, sets strange, illogical conditions that work only to keep it in its place. The agenda and the team isn't enough. First, you have to register XYZ so called "representatives" (that they aren't, quite obviously: a trick) and pay a lot for it: for a useless, meaningless routine. So, one barrier. The next, in these chunks that we have drawn between us, you have to get more votes than either of us or you're screwed: your votes disappear, just flushed down to waste like in some putinland. How is it fair? It was acceptable to the folks in the 18th and 19th century because it was marginally better than the absolute rule or dictatorship. Two centuries on, it's the lowest, minimal level of democracy if it can still qualify as such. How is "vote for us or it's like you don't exist" a fair and equal choice? It is not. The reality matters and the only thing that matters over and all any pretty words and tales.

Why do you folks want to look funny? What is more important, no scratch it, the only sense and the meaning of the process: the ritual or the outcome? If the former, then Putin and Xi have it, some voting ritual; Un could have it too if only bothered. And if it is about the latter, you have it right before your eyes: two central committees have been ruling the country, in turns, since 1860 or something like that. No matter how you "voted" any other way was, would and can be reflected in the outcome. How can you beat your own eyes, or binary logic? Beats me.

We are living in a bizarre unprecedented time in the history. Read this carefully: the so called "Security Council" where a known aggressor and terrorist is sitting and enjoys the right of veto has agreed a ceasefire plan with another known terrorist. In what sane world can one find this? This is the history's first, and we thought this was called "progress"?

No amount of babble sh*t or babble lies can make something that doesn't exist in this reality appear out of hot air. Anyone with a working brain knows that. Have fun in your drawn convertible!

Babble sh*t or babble lie? Anybody's guess. One thing is certain though: it cannot be real.

Levesque sure, but he's idea was of the independent Quebec. Trudeau? Apart from from the breathtaking discovery that a century on, an independent country should have its own laws, never understood the obsession with that figure. Is it a macho thing?

How could something be proven to be real if it doesn't exist in the reality? What is real can be shown. You want a real car that one can sit in and drive or a cute pic in the beavertale book? Why do you care about the difference? A real choice is that that can be shown in the reality. Everything else is either a useless babble or a lie. Babble lie, sure. Pick one, with some here I can't really tell the difference.

There you have it: the foundation of the whole platform. What I say is enough, should be. And the reality, isnt' important.

Just think of it, and not too hard even.. yes its possible in this physical reality)

Well there are many options given the progress of technology and the proximity of the elections. As Russia and China know and shown. But let's stop here, as in the absence of evidence it could be classified as "speculation").

Thats right, to show it in the reality. That's the meaning of the word for people who can think. First graders (up to) or dumb may not know the difference, the liars would pretend to not notice. That's pretty much all options, objectively.

Well, to be fair one boyscout here is well known to be prone to focusing on other people, in contrast to their arguments. In grade two they would normally already know the difference.

One can prove that a choice exists only by showing it being real. Any dictator can paint or sing imaginary choices. So until proven real and in the reality, down to two it is. Putin and Xi have one.

Ironically, we all can prove this boyscout right and me wrong by extension - and it would only take a minor, tiny effort. Do vote in it if you have to - just don't cast it for the default duo. Easy, as we have such a wealth of choice as just promised (if not that l-word, granted). C'mon folks let's do it! What's one election where the proof of democracy itself is at stake? I'm sure he'll support the idea too, enthusiastically. And why wouldn't he right?

Could it be because it changes nothing? Same tired, grossly over-compensated mediocre management interspersed with showings of tired talking heads and necessary, staple failures, from serious to spectacular? Or only for the entertainment value? When democracy becomes a circus for the citizens, it may just go away. The Romans 400 BC know.

It's said exactly that. There's no documented final proof either way. That does not mean that there cannot be arguments, including strong ones in favor of either. You don't accept anything but the final, documented proof: not a problem, it's your choice. The balance of likelihoods of the hypotheses based on the arguments is, more or less, an objective statement. For example only, if one is estimated as 2%, whereas the other 0.02% then the former is more likely to have occurred, objectively. So please don't mix up and confuse two very different things: your individual perception; and an objective estimate of the likelihoods by certain qualified, independent and impartial jury.

The two central committees run the country as if its their feudal property. No checks and balances. No independent oversight. Non existent accountability. There are three or four pseudo parties that everybody knows have exactly zero chance of forming the government. "Winners" routinely form false majority single-party governments with zero transparency or accountability with just over 30% of the popular vote. Believe your eyes and your brain, or ears and cute beaver tales. No: can't be both. Not a chance.

You seem to be confusing "the supporting arguments" with "the proof". They are not the same. Yes, there's no final proof for any of the hypotheses at this time. It doesn't mean that they have no arguments, nor that the arguments have to carry equal weight. Think of it, this happens all the time in the civil courts: there may not be definitive evidence either way; one has to decide the likelihood of either hypothesis on the balance of the arguments that were presented. It doesn't mean that they are equal or have to be. One of the hypotheses can be judged as more likely, as of this time and based on presented arguments. It's not the final truth, but until a) such definitive evidence emerges or b) new and essentially different meaningful arguments put forward, it would be the best conclusion one could have.

Actually I think these cases should now be brought forward and published. Better still by an independent citizens inquiry, as self-serving political agents cannot be trusted. If only for the record. If we couldn't get it right, maybe someone somewhere could, based on this experience.

No, you don't seem to grasp it. Britannica Dictionary definition of HYPOTHESIS. [count] : an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion. A hypothesis has to be formulated correctly; it has to be based on some valid supporting arguments. And it has to be verifiable at least in principle. A wild guess, like "the aliens created Covid to populate Earth" will not be considered a valid hypothesis by any serious scientist because it cannot satisfy these conditions. In other words, a hypothesis has to describe some possible reality based on all the knowledge available to date and without contradiction to it. Artificial and natural origins of Covid are both valid hypothesis at this time. They have different supporting arguments and there's nothing wrong with evaluating their likelihood based on the arguments that support them. If you have no clue about the subject try to learn more rather than strutting your ignorance.

No: there's some to solid circumstantial evidence favoring one hypothesis without much for the alternative one. This is the objective state of the matter as we speak. To produce an analog of Covid virus artificially, these main pieces would be needed: know-how; technology and the constituents; and formulated objective. All three were present exactly at the point and time where it originated. Covid-like original agent, specific manipulation that makes it highly transmissible in humans, production of hybrid agents: all confirmed. It would take a rarest of the chance to turn out to be only a random coincidence. So: beyond reasonable doubt? Maybe not. Balance of likelihoods: I don't see how and why not. And for a reflection, if its more than LOL and you would like to find out and understand more: one of the studies indicated that the increased mortality of Covid can be caused by a mysterious coincidence of a certain sequence in the Covid spike protein and that in the human epithelial cell. It can make human antibodies attack healthy cells not just those with the virus (i.e., cause autoimmune response), causing excessive damage to organs, including lungs. If we ever get the final answer shouldn't that count too?