Spectacular f-up is not "a landslide"!

[myata]

The same story is unrolling almost simultaneously in two of the last vestiges of the binary "winner takes all" political system in the democratic world.

The pattern is painfully familiar: a government soaked and drenched in unchecked power, with no effective controls or accountability goes through a series of throes before loosing all connection with the reality and the people. A "landslide" then? nope. Not a chance. F-ups don't make and aren't even close to merit even if they are those of the opponent. They made appear as such only and exclusively by the setup of the system, where only two valid options exist so there's no objective standard of performance and you only just have to do a dust grain better than the other guy - or just wait till he's bored and tired. In the reality however, there can be no connection, exactly zero, between the merit of side A and the failures of its opponent. Obvious? James's mess doesn't mean that Ian is a genius! How hard can it be? But the mystery lives on, if only in this one area of our collective life. More, they will probably end up being almost identical twins of each other, for one good reason: they do not have any meaningful incentive to improve when they are guaranteed the prize, sooner or later not if, when.

An equal competition in a group of peers where some are fully focused and incentivized to achieve their best is nothing like this tired pantomime, OK let's show something but most importantly, wait for our buddy's f-up. It's gonna happen, sooner or later. There are only two of us at this trough: one, two me or you and f-ed be all who want a different choice, any different.

Of course there can be no miracles in this universe of logic and empirical fact. And then, this is the prime reason for the debilitating decline of function that can be observed in all relics of it what remain in the modern world. Change, adaptation, progress is the law of life and evolution. Nothing lasts forever and nothing can be best, forever. Something what was OK in the 18th century is not a match for the 21st. And those who just wouldn't get it will go the way of the dinosaurs, sooner or later. This is also a law of the evolution.

[ExFlyer]

WTF??? You ran out of meds again???

What is that diatribe supposed to be about??

[myata]

Really, it's as bizarre as it gets: those who invented this system want to convince the public that a mediocre record of public administration, followed by a sequence of failures - in the sum, failures and losses for the society, can be somehow a good thing ("landslide", right) only because it led the other gang to the power. Just wow. Can nonsense - or a lie be more plain and dumb? And it works, amazingly!

[Moonbox]

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

WTF??? You ran out of meds again???

What is that diatribe supposed to be about??

The sentiment isn't bad, even if it's overwritten.   Here's my summary:

Our dysfunctional politics are a direct result of our apathy and/or ignorance, resulting from but also encouraged by bad-faith politicians on either side who are more interested in enriching themselves.  Why?  Nobody holds them accountable. 

Instead, we get a performative pantomime where one side just points the finger at the other, whips up rage and emotion, whilst offering nothing positive or honest themselves.  This is easiest to see in the USA, where you have obvious figures like Nancy Pelosi trying to defend how Congress' and their family's stock market portfolios outperform the indexes by ~12% per year because of insider trading, but that this should continue to be allowed because of "mumble mumble, something about free markets."

Like...yeah, Donald Trump is a nightmare, but you're absurdly crooked too.  

[myata]

31 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Here's my summary:

There's an even simpler one: when we limit the choice of the candidates, we reduce the quality of the selection. And when we limit it to the absolute minimum, it is reduced to the lowest level possible. Theoretically. Down below, it cannot be democracy. And even here, some funny odor.. elitism? oligarchy?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The sentiment isn't bad, even if it's overwritten.   Here's my summary:

Our dysfunctional politics are a direct result of our apathy and/or ignorance, resulting from but also encouraged by bad-faith politicians on either side who are more interested in enriching themselves.  Why?  Nobody holds them accountable. 

Instead, we get a performative pantomime where one side just points the finger at the other, whips up rage and emotion, whilst offering nothing positive or honest themselves.  This is easiest to see in the USA, where you have obvious figures like Nancy Pelosi trying to defend how Congress' and their family's stock market portfolios outperform the indexes by ~12% per year because of insider trading, but that this should continue to be allowed because of "mumble mumble, something about free markets."

Like...yeah, Donald Trump is a nightmare, but you're absurdly crooked too.  

honestly  he should pay you to translate more often. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The sentiment isn't bad, even if it's overwritten.   Here's my summary:

Our dysfunctional politics are a direct result of our apathy and/or ignorance, resulting from but also encouraged by bad-faith politicians on either side who are more interested in enriching themselves.  Why?  Nobody holds them accountable. 

Instead, we get a performative pantomime where one side just points the finger at the other, whips up rage and emotion, whilst offering nothing positive or honest themselves.  This is easiest to see in the USA, where you have obvious figures like Nancy Pelosi trying to defend how Congress' and their family's stock market portfolios outperform the indexes by ~12% per year because of insider trading, but that this should continue to be allowed because of "mumble mumble, something about free markets."

Like...yeah, Donald Trump is a nightmare, but you're absurdly crooked too.  

based on that, I would say he has a point. 90% of the problems with a democracy are directly related to the voter.

Democracies power is Unleashed when the voters are invested in making sensible decisions without strong party loyalties that blind them. And we do have a problem with that in Canada, and in fairness in just about every country

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

There's an even simpler one: when we limit the choice of the candidates, we reduce the quality of the selection. And when we limit it to the absolute minimum, it is reduced to the lowest level possible. Theoretically. Down below, it cannot be democracy. And even here, some funny odor.. elitism? oligarchy?

We don't limit the choice of candidates. The list of candidates that people pay attention to is limited.  

[myata]

14 hours ago, Moonbox said:

We don't limit the choice of candidates.

But of course we do. In this system we have exactly two central committees that rule and decide everything. The little faces are there only for decoration, they have no real voice can't vote their mind and conscience on anything.

Down below is of course, the central committee system. Well known in history as well.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, myata said:

But of course we do. In this system we have exactly two central committees that rule and decide everything. The little faces are there only for decoration, they have no real voice can't vote their mind and conscience on anything.

Down below is of course, the central committee system. Well known in history as well.

There will likely be six parties in the debates next year. It is beyond re tarded to claim that we only have two choices

Perhaps even more to the point one of those parties is the CPC. A party that didn't exist until about 20 years ago. We managed to create a brand new party from scratch with new leaders and new executives and everything and new MPS candidates and it was completely different from the PC party that preceded it or the reform alliance. It is 100% possible to create brand new parties and have them take power and form government within a few years of their Creation in Canada

But you have to lie to make yourself feel better about your absolute bullshit. And then you can't even speak clearly.  What a pathetic little broken person you are

[myata]

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.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

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.

So you think if you keep lying you'll somehow start to be right?

[myata]

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?

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

Ironically, we all can prove this boyscout right and me wrong by extension 

Or with common sense. Or reason and logic. Or facts. They all point to you being wrong so......

The very fact that our government right now is only in power because a third party is propping it up makes your statement that there are only two parties in Canada who run everything absolutely asinine.

[myata]

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.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, myata said:

One can prove that a choice exists only by showing it being real.

So you're saying the only way that you can prove that something exists is to prove that it exists.

Well I can't argue with your logic. Or your stupidity

Da proof is da proof a wen yoo have da proof den dere's da proof! 

[myata]

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.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Thats right, to show it in the reality. That's the meaning of the word for people who can think. 

It really isn't. And if you have proven one thing conclusively on this board it's that you have no idea what words mean.

As noted canadians have many many times completely changed the political picture with new parties or coalition parties or multiple parties etc. Currently there are two parties that hold power in Canada and one party this is opposition.

It's already been shown. So all you've proven is that you are not quite as smart as a first grader

[myata]

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

Edited June 9, 2024 by myata

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

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

the reality is that what you say is incoherent dribble. It is clearly by choice. If you willfully choose to sound like an imbecile and people treat you like an imbecile then really it's your problem not anyone else's.

[myata]

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.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, myata said:

How could something be proven to be real if it doesn't exist in the reality?

Define reality. Good luck with that, scientists and philosophers have been at it for about 4,000 years now with no luck but you take a crack at it

And no, lots of things that are real cannot be shown. Talk to Einstein about that. Or Higgs. Or even better yet Heisenberg.

And in any case I have already demonstrated that the reality is we have more than Two political choices in Canada so you're wrong either way

Repeating nonsense and behaving with the intellectual capacity of a four-year-old will not change the simple fact.

[myata]

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

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, myata said:

Babble sh*t or babble lie? 

So your babble is either shit or a lie? THOSE are the two options you're putting forward? Did you MEAN to say that?

Personally if you're making us choose like that i'm going to say your babble is mostly just shit.  Lying requires a bit of thought and i'm not sure i see the evidence of that. 

[myata]

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!

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, myata said:

No amount of babble sh*t or babble lies can make something that doesn't exist in this reality appear out of hot air.

Sure it can.  In case you were unaware, perception is reality. For example, it's been proven to you that you were wrong about what you said several times yet you persisted it as if it is absolutely true. For you that's your reality. You make things appear out of hot air with your battle shit and babble lies all the time.   It's not reality that there's only two parties in canada yet you insist that's true.