Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> On 11 Maijs, 05:01, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Henry Alminas wrote:
>>> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:toydnT3XcYU6prvVnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> vello wrote:
>>>>> On May 10, 12:51 pm, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>
<edae48a8-9853-4e22-9fb4-5c4aa3f18...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>> vello
>>>>>> <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> Martin, Putin don't needs the post of president. Say, Stalin rules
>>>>>>> without keeping ANY official position.
>>>>>> I would disagree with you, Vello.
>>>>>> Putin and Medvedev are both intelligent enough to realize that
Russia
>>>>>> cannot be taken seriously as a major country if it doesnt get its
act
>>>>>> together with respect to rule of law and a system of government
closer
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> a western democracy than is now the case.
>>>>>> The country is now prosperous enough to concentrate on thee
details, but
>>>>>> it is still "Russian/Soviet" enough for them to be somewhat alien
and
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> yet fully trusted.
>>>>>> Putin made a major effort to pull off a first in Russian history: a
>>>>>> completely peaceful transfer of power.
>>>>> What you have in mind with this? there is even less 2power change"
>>>>> then back in days Putin gets seat from Yelcin: in both cases not
>>>>> electorate but president himself finds successor guy, but Yelcin
>>>>> really retires but Putin seemingly will run Russia again, just this
>>>>> time from seat of PM.
>>>> And?
>>>>> His assumption of the prime
>>>>>> minister****p can be interpreted as a cynical power play, but it can
also
>>>>>> be understood providing a set of training wheels for the young and
>>>>>> relatively inexperienced Mr. Medvedev. Given the Amrican practice
of
>>>>>> having a Bush dynasty and possibly a Clinton dynasty, this is far
from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> most cynical game on the block.
>>>>> It's up to american voters do they prefere Bushmans or not as
>>>>> presidents.
>>>> The answer is NO.
>>>>> American practice is to ELECT presidents - now it is also
>>>>> practice even for Ukraine.
>>>> American election system is today to put mild not exactly democracy:
one
>>>> vote of "superdelegate" in Demparty is worth of 10,000 "ordinary"
votes.
>>> You, the standard russkie genius, should at least be able to
>>> distinguish between a nomination process by the Democratic party
>>> and the national elections.
>>> But - in that the no-name russkie claims an IQ of 171 - perhaps
>>> russkie IQs are determined (ahem) using a radically different
>>> measure.
>>> <<much high-IQ garble deleted>>
>>> Best - - Henry
>> Aha, here comes Henry, so Dems' election system is wrong and national
>> system is different. Aha.
>>
>> Now remind me who won popular vote in 1999 and why popular vote was
>> discarded to hand Bush a presidency.
>>
>> As to my IQ - I took the test - you know I ams slow in general but
>> rather fast to learn. I run them several in a row - I remember first
run
>> I made something like 90+, second run ~ 110, then I produced a number
>> close to the one you are so impressed.
>> Believe me the IQ number if not total crap it is very tricky. Not only
>> because I am a genius. Much more genius than Colbert (he is a Genius).
>> So if your child show'WRONG' number - spit on it. I tell you this as a
>> professional. Not as the Obama sup****ter.
>>
>> VM,
>
> Democracy isn't defined by having a popular vote to elect a president.
> In Latvia, Parliament chooses the President; in Estonia, Parliament
> or, if no one gets a 2/3 majority, Parliament + local
> representatives... in the UK, the head of state is a hereditary
> monarch, in Germany he or she is elected by an electoral college, etc.
> Granted, none of the above have very many powers. But the person who
> does hold the most power, the PM, isn't directly elected in most
> cases, either. The President of the US isn't _supposed_ to be directly
> elected, and there are ppositive aspects to the electoral college.
> Eight of those reasons, as well as negatives, are listed here --
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
>
> Regards,
> /P
>
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
>
Nice try, but the bottom line stays unchanged no matter what you or
Henry say:
It is not popular vote which decides who is to be the US president.
Period.
That means one and not a happy consequence - there is a twilight zone in
the election process where rules have nothing to do with "democracy" as
one taxpayer - one vote. I.e. one can cheat.
How to fix that glitch I do not know, but it helps to understand clearly
that it exists.
In caricature way it reflects what is going right now with Dems
nomination - Billary hops between "nominee must have most delegates
(meaning supers)" to "nominee has to have the popular vote" depending
where the centaur sees an op****tunity to slip through at the given
moment. F*** cor****ate whore.
If, in a bad dream, I see her as a nominee then only to see how she
would drown in filth the poor grandpa who still cannot remember that
Iranians are not Arabs nor Sunnis. Have you his last gem? He said that
if he is a pres then he will not start another war for oil. Because it's
time to bomb Iran. Republicans are really in a bad shape nowadays.
VM.
|
