Sadly, stratified Communist societies have oligarchs, and clients. Clients suffer, oligarchs don't. As for limiting the oligocracy, that may or may not be happening. It's hard to tell, through the secrecy.
Chinese communism seems to have some good habits as regards limiting corruption, but Soviet 'purge' information is spotty at best.
Khrushchev noted that Grigor Zhukov's memoirs (the field marshal was the lead Soviet commander in WW II) were probably faked. But, he didn't KNOW what became of Zhukov, or who wrote the memoirs. All the historic info he had access to, was... packed with lies.
Where the choice is between contaminants that: - I can remove myself e.g. bacteria, viruses in 3rd world rivers - I cannot remove myself e.g. fracking liquids in rich countries I'd choose the third world water
BTW, I think you mean Zimbabwe or Zaire rather than Zambia; the former are grizzly, the latter much less so.
None of them /insist/ you drink the water supplies contaminated with fracking liquid.
But they will pull every trick in the book to deny it happens and deny liability.
You could easily run the same argument about Hitlary and her "super delegates" - would she have got the Democrat nomination on merit?? That's what you *should* be concerned about AFAIC.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
And also what China's done in Tibet. Type that into a search engine in China and see how long you remain at liberty.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
The US process of working out which of the possible Republican and Democrat ic candidates gets the party nomination depends on vote-winning capacity ra ther than "merit" which does have the advantage that you can count votes, w hile merit resides in the eye of the beholder - and Cursitor Doom's idea of "merit" seems to be remarkably idiosyncratic.
Trump may be meretricious, though even "apparently attractive" strikes me a s overstating his appeal, but his "merit" has to have been negative.
ar vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, th ere will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will coun t. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat sta tes.
ular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will co unt. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive t o get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to che at as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat s tates.
Advanced industrial countries do generally seem to do a better job of regul ating voting, and voter registration, than the US can manage.
The US 1788 constitution was an interesting piece of work and something of a novelty at the time. Some of the features it pioneered turned out to be b ugs, and subsequent constitutions work a whole lot better.
It's high time that the US went n for some serious constitutional reform, a nd took advantage of the experience that has been accumulated in other coun tries that work better.
ular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will co unt. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive t o get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to che at as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat s tates.
I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states ra ther than just the few states that actually decide an election???
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.
--
Rick C.
--+-- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
opular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to c heat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.
ne an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???
Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that th ere will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.
popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
te, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote wil l count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incenti ve to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democra t states.
yone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all state s rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???
ll not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will no t be caught.
No one said it would.
The French elect their president by a two stage popular vote - the first ro und rejects all but the two most popular candidates, and the second round c hose between those two.
The French seem to manage this without anybody squalling voter fraud. There 's been quite a lot of work done on voting and voter registration since 178
8, and if the US adopted some of the more recent technology they might be a ble to discourage the Republican party from systematically trying to disenf ranchise the poor. The Republicans wouldn't like it.
Getting a president who has collected a majority of the popular vote does s eem to be a way of adding legitimacy to the office. Voter fraud doesn't see m to be a problem, even in the US. Trump has complained about it, but that doesn't make it a problem that necessarily needs much attention (any more t han that vital wall along the US-Mexico border).
US voter fraud is mostly Republicans finding ways of making it difficult fo r the poor to register to vote or to actually vote. And the Republicans don 't like the idea of people spending tax-payers money - mostly theirs - on i mproved systems that might thwart their schemes.
popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
te, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote wil l count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incenti ve to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democra t states.
yone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all state s rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???
ll not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will no t be caught.
I never said eliminating the electoral college would eliminate voting fraud . Who said that?
--
Rick C.
--+-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote w ill count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incen tive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democ rat states.
eryone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all sta tes rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???
will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood tha t there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.
ud. Who said that?
I thought it was you.
If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
d by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
r vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an inc entive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easie r to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Dem ocrat states.
everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all s tates rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???
e will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood t hat there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it wil l not be caught.
raud. Who said that?
n
ar vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
Is "stolen" synonymous with "voting fraud"?
If that is the way you took my statement, it is not what I meant. I was re ferring specifically to the issues with the will of the people being subver ted by the electoral college.
Tom Del Rosso is greatly exaggerating when he says democrats claim every "R epublican has been elected president since and including 1980" was "stolen" . The only two I am aware of being significantly in dispute were Bush v. G ore and of course Clinton v. Trump. Who disputed Bush v. Kerry? Perhaps s ome fringe crackpots.
--
Rick C.
--++- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ted by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will the y?
lar vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vo te will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an i ncentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be eas ier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for D emocrat states.
e everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???
ote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it w ill not be caught.
fraud. Who said that?
I think that voting fraud is a subset of stolen.
referring specifically to the issues with the will of the people being subv erted by the electoral college.
No big deal. Just hope you can see how I was thinking. You can steal ele ctions using vote fraud.
Dan
"Republican has been elected president since and including 1980" was "stole n". The only two I am aware of being significantly in dispute were Bush v. Gore and of course Clinton v. Trump. Who disputed Bush v. Kerry? Perhaps some fringe crackpots.
ected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will t hey?
pular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be e asier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.
ive everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in a ll states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election? ??
vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely ho od that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.
ng fraud. Who said that?
s referring specifically to the issues with the will of the people being su bverted by the electoral college.
lections using vote fraud.
Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.
--
Rick C.
--+++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Really? With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the Constitution and the law? And still doing that?
One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts (theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value over to the union(s) running GM.
And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.