₦airaland Forum

scully95:
.. strong institution that is controlled by 1 percent neocons.. is that what you call institution... an institution that has gone out of control.. one CIA has its own terrorist in Syria, now that terrorist fighting with pentagon's terrorist. turned Syria to a normal testing ground like most African countries..[/b]nations what it needs and don't need. an institution of

[b]1percent, by the neocons, by the Zionist.. all the main stream media, is controlled by the same crooks and this bastard here says crap about institution and compares it to Russia.. in Russia, the police don't kill anyone anyhow or even Africans there.. they live peacefully..

the masses do not carry guns about because there is a functioning institution in Russia... if your entire generation is being deceived by just changing the puppet known as potus every year but not the regime that controls the puppet itself.. it's saying the same thing and even worse than any president in Africa staying in power for more than a century..

what could be worse than a regime that is controlled by 1 percent...you should shut you dirty mouth when normal and well informed people are talking.. during the forum, Putin said, on two separate occasions that the super delegates dictate or choose the president for the people... where is the failed institution here.. all i see is just deceit parading itself as demo-crazy.

a failed institution that could not correct the institutional racism in the same land of dreamless African Americans.. those ones do not have dreams right..

a failed institution where you are being killed and highly discriminated against... you are even more likely to be killed in the same failed institution as an African American. the institution has failed the general masses on so many occasions and it's an institution for the super rich.



which institution is this agama lizard olodo talking about self.. the one that caused last recession stealing over 2 trillion hard earned money of the masses worldwide and this crook is saying junks.. russian institution did not steal the masses money like that..



Kennedy was killed by the same 1 percent because he did not do as they say.. now that is the most blood sucking institution..s in all human race. an institution controlled by 1 percent is no institution at all.

@ the Bolded, scully, gaddamit. Just gaddamit!

A working institutions where the color of your skin does determine your ability to attain justice in certain circumstances.

An outstanding institutions under which the likes of Michael Brown could be murdered in cold blood, and the white police officer was deemed not triable under the institution.

The same best working institution under which when a similar case of a whiteman was killed, then the policer officer was deemed fit to stand trial.

An institution serving as a custodian of the law where racial profiling is the other of the day in law enforcement duties.

An institution under which you are most likely to be stopped and checked if you are black.

A very good law abiding and human rights obeying functional institution that manhandles, choke, and kills at the slightest provocation, even when the situation is far more avoidable. A country ruled by law with an institution enforcing that law, and killed about 200 blacks (most of which were unarmed and for the slightest cause) in 2015 alone, more than any other race, despite making just about 13% of the population.

How wonderful are such institutions.

You have the wonderfully working institution wherein a Presidential candidate can win most of the popular votes and still end up losing the election, yet it is called ''a democrasy'' - in other words, the government of the minority, by the minority, and for the minority. What an aberration.


When a man is pointing at the moth in another man's eye, he too must not forget his own. And the above are just a tip of the iceberg.

The truth is treason in the empire of lies and delusion.

Lonehenge:
Yes, Russia does well in military engineering -military aircraft, tanks, miss nukes - and it has a well funded military industrial complex. But that's where it stops. Russia is not a country that is pushing the frontier of technological innovation.

Yes on the above, but again, wrong on the bolded. Contrary to what many people would want to believe, Russian inventors (both home and abroad) and their revolutionary innovations has constributed generously to the global scientific thought, helping us to enjoy the much of what the civilized world got to offer today.
From the invention of Catapillar tracks/tracks assembling in 1837, which gave the greenlight for the production of tractors and tanks globally, then to the invention of Electrically-powered railway wagons, Videotape recorder, radio,
Helicopter, Solar Cell, Transformer, Television, Petrol cracking, Synthetic rubber, Grain harvester, and so on, are some of Russian contributions to the global technological prowess. It is only a russophobe that would deny Russia its place in the history of technology.

I think our conclusion is both the same - Political influence is one of the primary reasons why the US is a superpower. It has the ability to influence Global governments/parliaments

Correct.

Firstly, It seems you think that US alliance rests on NATO. This is false. Many Non Nato countries for example Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, contributed troops to the Iraq War.

Secondly, countries don't "feign" alliance. If the US does not believe that it has something to gain from being in an alliance with a country, it simply won't do so. For example, turkey did not join the Iraq war, but it hosts many forward deployed US miliatry assets.

Thirdly, it seems you consider the role of an alliance to strict military sense. Greece and Hungary have good relationships with Russia, but they agreed to a US led economic sanctions, why do you think this is the case?

Firstly, i wasn't alluding that NATO is the only sphere of US political influence. I only cited the bloc as part of that US influential credibility, and the fear factor vis the percieved Russian threat. Like i said earlier, the US Power of influence is never in doubt, and its ability to build up alliance quickly, is second to none.
But the fact remains that, NATO as a bloc makes it much more easier for the US to weild that influence, and also, there is a limit to that level of that influence.

Secondly. My brother, some countries ''feign'' alliances, most especially when its a military one. For instance, what would a country like Montenegro gain or contribute, in purely military sense, if it joins NATO, if not for some of the largees or prestige that it believe might follow NATO's structural deployment, which of course is mostly constituted by US components? This is just an exaggeration though.

The fact here is that, a nation may join an alliance not because of the primary interest of that alliance, but because of a certain objective which is totally different or quite contrary to the primary objective of that alliance. When this is the case, that country has feigned its alliance motive.


Thirdly. No. Alliances are not strictly limited to military basics alone. We have economic alliances as well, but the fact is that, both forms of alliances are interdependent. Economic alliance is a precursor to a military one, and vice versa. The issue of Greece and Hungary you mentioned further corroborated my point on feigned alliance, though in very minimal terms. They have good relations with Russia but becos they must play along, they joined in the sanctions; but the fact that now they are on the verge of rebelling against the EU and the US, courtsey of the Russian counter measures, underlined the fact that there is a limit to the level of US political influence, and also that nations have objectives that basically runs contrary to alliance stated objectives. And when you consider that these two nations are members of NATO, then you can understand this reality better. If they are rebelling now just becos of market impacts, i wonder how NATO's Article 5 can compare them to go and engage in Nuclear war with the same nation.

The reality speaks for itself.

As Missy has mentioned, the existence of institutions does not mean that they function.

How many courts in Russia can overrule Putin? Well, i will tell you - NONE!

Missy's logic (citing Kenedy's killing) lonly appease to kids, and you would do well to stay away from them

What makes she think that institutions in Russia doesn't functions, but those in the US functions, and are the ones only democratic and legal? :-)Lets live that for now.

Which legal situation has arisen with Putin that he blatantly overuled?

Insinuations and facts differs, sir.
So, my brother, Lets not put the cart before the horse.

God bless

Missy89:
I dont mean to insult you but sometimes i just have to shake my head when you post. First, You need to look at how the institutions function not the mere availability of that particular institution that can be in existence in name only.

Why do you think people are were concerned when Putin was missing the last time because a sudden death of someone like Putin can lead to a crisis in Russia because of its weak institutions but Kennedy can be shot and life goes on.

America's have strong institutions and the survival of the republic doesn't depend on few individuals like Russia. That was his point

The US is a nation of laws, and not of men like Russia historically.

You see yourself? The last time i rescued you from Langley since your defection, and after we paid a visit to the zoharariel spiritual cleansing centre at Ijebu, i thought you have been completely delivered, but alas, i was wrong. You posting this trash is evidence enough that you are properly enveloped in the Frenzy of western crazy media propaganda.

First, it was your crazed western medias who cannot sell their news or papers at the stands without Putin, that actually went on the frenzy and made a crazy issue off nothing. What your likes failed to realize was that all economic, institutional and social activities were going on well in Russia when Putin went on his sabbatical leave to Nibiru to commune with Karl El, the 26th alien descendant of the sons of Rus. The world didnt stop in Russia, and life was bubbling all across the different 11 time zones, while your masters ministries of truth were busy formulating theories of how Putin had been assassinated, overthrown by a coup, blah blah blah. And when he finally reemerged from Nibiru, some of them having nothing else to say, suddenly started to point out that ''Putin had been doubled'' I almost laugh my head off back then.

Now, your logic on the issue of sudden death of a leader and the aftermat thereof, is very flawed while using it to determine strong institutions. First, you failed to acknowledge factors like what may have cause the death, how did the ordinary citizenries view the leader, etc. But what you want to believe is that, if for example it was clearly established as at that time that Kennedy was assassinated by a foreign government, especially when it was during the coldest part of the Cold War era, the yankees simply would have taken a bow and move forward with their lives, while Moscow who no doubt was the apparrent criminal would be taking a nice walk in Siberia, abi? If that is the logic behind strong institutions, then i wonder why America is a nation at the first place.

Contrary to what you want to believe, the sudden death of a leader will always put a nation in a full blown or semi crisis situation, depending on the nature of death and the level of political perception of the people. When Stalin died, life went on for ordinary Russians, except for the dark men behind the scene gunning for the post. Many simply do not have much love for the man. But it took just the assassination of an Austrian crown prince to cause a global war, one in which nations with strong institutions were dragged in and fought.

Another thing you fail to realize is that, the ideology and tenets governing of and in gauging and determining the strenght of institutions, varies from place to place in accordance with stated principles and traditional consciousness of a nation.

Until you can tell me how laws are ruling the US without men, and how men are ruling Russia without laws, i will rest on my oars.

Remain bless.

cstr9:
Any body with a brain clearly knows the US is well ahead of russia in every possible criteria. But then how wonderful would it be for both to work together and deal with the scourge of global islamic fundamentalism.
Both countries have a judeo-christian national history, and have a majority christian population, and could probably defeat the rest of the world if both militaries were aligned.

Apart from the economic perspective, the US is only ahead of Russia in Numerics. The rest of what you said is true, but how can they work together seeing the United States is basically at war with the rest of the world? Just wondering.

cstr9:
Give me one example of a russian domestic non military industrial technology that can compete with its american counterparts? I am not even talking of miltary jets and missiles.
Stop deceiving yourself. When a greater power(Superpower) fights a lesser power, the winner is obvious, though with a lot of bruises.

Non military keh. I don't need to swim in the gutter of delusional bias victim with you, dear brother. So, i will just leave you with only a hint. Ever held of Zil, Kalmaz, Ural, etc. Russian civilian tech and equipments are popular as much as their military ones, they are cheap, rugged and requires little education to operate. The fact that you don't see Russian trucks and bulldozers in use in the west, doesn't mean or deny their capability and competitiveness, since you don't see their tanks or armoured vehicles there either. Kalmaz (the manufacturers of Kalmaz military trucks) also manufactured about 40-50 thousand civilian trucks yearly, with about 14% of them exported. Just go to Cuba, and you will discover you are surrounded by Russian stuffs, from cars to lorries, tractors, oil derricks, etc. It is believed that 80% of the Cuban economy is tied to the Russian export market.
Also, formal states of the USSR and in Africa with roughly over a hundred million population, are some readily available market for Russian civilian equipments. The Russian civilian aircraft market is just another emerging factor, with the production of the latest Sukhoi 100 passenger jet, for which customers are already queueing up for supply. The US did not create the sanction war for nothing. It was meant to stiffle a resurgent Russia in both military and technological terms. And that is a fact.


Now, talking about a bigger power fighting a lesser power, pls don't kid your self: the day the US will engage Russia in open war, that would be the end of much part of the earth's population. Don't think you would be watching Hollywood movie where one man call rambo kills off a full country. The fear of Russia is the only reason why your oga still have NATO around. And thats a fact, my brother.

Talking about jets and rockets, are you kiddin me? Don't let me get angry and call Serbia back to the party of death in the air.... you better allow sleeping dogs lie so that flying coffins and bathroom basens won't be further exposed for what they are...

God bless you...

Lonehenge:
As a matter of fact, where it comes to technology, Russia does not stack up well against a host of countries, talk less of the United States. For example, South Korea is one of the best in the world in robotics, Japan in rail technology etc. Although theseo not spend as much on military, their technological advantage far outclasses that of Russia.

The US has the largest concentration of technology companies in the world. By FAR!!! It's not even close.

Wow! Thanks for your inputs.

I believe that when we are talking about technology, you understand that there are different areas of specialization and various components of craftmanship that embodies the term ''technology''? That South Korea excels in robotics and Japan in rail technology than Russia, so implies that Russia doesn't stack up well in technology, eh? This i must say, is plain ignorance, and a dozage of the popular misconception prevailing in the west. Russia's technological credibility is overwhelmingly entrenched in areas such as in Eletrical Engineering, Ship Building, Aerospace, Weaponry, Space Technology, Communications, IT, Nuclear technology, etc. The only difference between Russia and the likes of those nations you mentioned, is the issue of PR. The west far excelled Russia in PR vis Marketability, and the past history and economic policies of the Soviet Union didn't help matters, and its still haunting; though that is gradually changing. Even the United States you mentioned still relies on Russia's tech to launch into space. My brother, this is reality, not fiction.

The misplaced priority regarding Russia's technological prowess is mostly associated with kids who measured technological supremacy by the levels of smart phones and exaltic cars they see everyday, and knows from whence it came. But those who knows the truth about the Soviet past and the present day Russia, will know the sum of the matter.

The US is light million years ahead of Russia where it comes to political influence. This gives it tremendous ability to make global impact. If you study international law, you would realize that the tenets are mostly based on issues relating to US interest.

Yes. The US weilds much more political influence far ahead of Russia, and this was mostly made possible following the implosion of the Soviet Union. But you are not completely correct in asserting that the tenets of international law are mostly based on the interests of the US. Rather, they are ''affected'' by the paradigm of US interest. There were norms, and still, laws that governs the relationship of states in the international order prior to 1990 and thereafter. The implosion of the Soviet Union rent in tatters the written and unwritten laws of Checks and Balance among the power players, and from thence urshered in an era of unchallenged US power and oversight in the pursue of its core interest. Otherwise, the basic tenets of IT law was never based on the core interest of the US, but rather became affected by it after the Cold War.

you ignore the tremendous amount of alliance that the US can build up quickly in a short time frame. How many countries in the world can get other countries to go to war on their behalf - from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Like i said, the political influence of the US is never in doubt, but one real overlooked fact is that, such influence is overwhelmingly tied to the one same factor - the US economy. Some of these nations you see today feigning alliance with the US, are in because of the money. They hate the US as much as a terrorist do. I always laugh at the Hollywood pipe-like dream of a 28 member block destroying Russia, when war breaks out, its then people will realize how deeply hateful and resentful some of this nations are towards one another. Of course, they will continue to play along with their master for the time being, and lets hope that day never comes. Besides, US Influence has its limit per the target nation concerned. The US can influence much of NATO in its war against hapless states like Iraq, Afghan, Libya, etc, but when it comes to players like Russia or China, i doubt if much of them will walk that road with the US. The most they can do, they have done it, and one can only laugh at the angry response and frustration coming from some of them now, following the impact of the Russian counter measures. I wonder how the reaction would be when it comes to the theatre of blood-Nuclear for that matter.

I dey laf

3) You ignore the power of institutions. The US's ability to function as a superpower is not dependent on a single person. If Obama leaves the presidency, the US can still project its superpower status because it's public institutions are well established and are stronger. Russia en he leaves the stage?

Pls name one governmental/administrative institution in place in the US that is not available in Russia.

CFCman:
I'd say the Electoral College indirectly suppresses voter turnout because Republicans in New York may not feel that their voice would be heard if they know that all of NY's EC votes would go to the Democratic nominee.

But if they (Repubs) know that the candidate needs to garner no less than a third of the vote in the state, it motivates them to turn up at the precincts.

You see now? That was the exact situation i was explaining earlier on when i said ''faithless voters.'' Democracy is all about the vote count of every voter, but where the system discourages many voters from turning up at the prescints, the idea is totally defeated. A lot of Americans are yet to realize how the EC works, thats why many are still okay with it. But for the likes of you who knows the nitty gritty of the system, will never be comfortable with it, as long as it goes against the basic principle of Democrasy, which is the Majority.

CFCman:
^^
Interesting essay from you.

Although, I'm for abolishing the EC, I think a 'modified' popular vote system should be instituted. The modified popular vote system would ensure that voters in ALL states have a say in who becomes their president.

You have said it all, and the emphasis is 'ALL' voters should have their say. That is the exact essence of any democratic Electoral System, not the backdoor channel.

CFCman:
That's why the Nigerian law on electing a president and Vice President could work here in America.
The least populous states will have their voices heard if a nominee is required to garner no less than 1/3 or 2/5 of the vote in three-fourths of the states and DC.

Exactly!

Lucasbalo:
So Gore won more popular votes than George W but lost the Presidency because of the electoral votes. That's was the time I really wanted the popular votes to be the way to go. Bush took us to two worthless and unpopular wars that almost bankrupt the country and the economical effects are still being felt up till today. Hopefully, something like that would not be the case again.

That is my point. A man who was elected solely by the minority tend to become irresponsive to the wishes of the majority, unlike the man elected by the majority.

Yeah, we hope it never happens again, not only for the interest of America, but also for the world at large.

marvelous000:
[size=13pt][b]


I wanted to enjoy my sabbatical leave with some few days break, but I had to compromise, seeing how zombies are wanking over the place, just bcs putin re-iterated an overt fact that doesn't change anything.


Well, lot of factor make a country super power. E.g

-Financial sway(monopoly).

-Influence(hegemony)

-Allies

-military strength.

Now, a country being a super power doesn't mean that it's precocious in all of the aforementioned. It only means that it has the leverage to complement any of the listed factors with another, which is why you see united state of Armageddon, attack or impose sanctions on any lover of truth, justice and equity, who summone the chutzpah to question and resist her blood sucking taste for world dominance.
How is this possible? It's so bcs of her brainless allies, influence(zombies on this fora is a touch-stone), and financial monopoly, cos if it's by military might or coercion.

it wouldn't stop Russia from sending her into everlasting oblivion, if provoked.

It wouldn't stop Russia from unravelling the grotesque behind her messianic facade.

It wouldn't stop Russia from exposing her as a spineless sissy, who is only good at beating dry and malnourished muscle only used for intimidating and bullying helpless and defenceless nations.

It wouldn't stop Russia from striking fear into her heart; For it is said in the holy book of jah, that the wicked shall have no peace(the blood of yazidis and others yearn for vengeance on the daughter of Babylon).

It wouldn't stop Russia from looking her in the eye and telling her "go to hell," we'll kill your so called legitimate rebels(terrorists) with reckless abadone and "nothing can you fit do." permit me to use that phrase.

It wouldn't stop Russia from making a "coffin" out of the over hyped things it calls military hardware and software, neither will it stop Russia and china from paving way for financial revolution that will bring her financial monopoly to an ineluctable end.



TAPOUT
[/b][/size]

yeah. They so much want to believe that when Putin talk about 'superpower,' he was talking about military might and technological know-how, they have failed to acknowledge the rest of what was said in that article. One thing i have come to realise among these our brethren at the other end, is that, living in fantasy is best for the sustainance of their various warp beliefs regarding the reality, ditto Russia and the US: and as such, they tend to hang on to any straw and thatch that seem to support their myopic narrative. This is the reason some uninformed folks down here will tell you that Russia is nothing and is not relevant in the scheme of things, yet, the US sees it as the greatest threat to it, and when some shiit does happen globally, the first place Washington calls is the Kremlin. Right from time, the problem with man is the comprehending the TRUTH, and the truth in this case is that, as long as Russia remains on the surface of the Earth, the US can never fully achieve its notion of Unipolarism and exceptionalism, though it be called the superpower; the events in the Ukraine, in Syria, and in the South China sea, are testimonies to that effect.

Zoharariel:
My Luv, where have you been? I've been so worried about ya'

I hope you weren't in charge of the RQ-4 Global Hawk that was commandeered in Crimea with “Magrav Tech” & landed in simferopol?

Tell me, is it true that a bully never stops his belligerent behaviour until he has gotten his teeth knocked out ?

No, it never existed. And yes, a bully never stop till its teeth get kicked out like boy Alinko.

violent:
Appleyard and shym3xx will probably be feeling very confused. They just can understand how it is that Russia with all its nukes cannot be said to be on the same footing as the US. They forget that what makes a superpower is more than just nukes and a few powerful rockets. If this is all it takes, then North Korea should be doing pretty good on the superpower scale by now.

Nobody is confuse here, except the likes of your lots with a vague one-sided views who never want to believe in reality. Who was dragging superpower status with the US, aside US anti-Russia/China rhetorics? Has Russia or China at any time told you that they are more of a superpower than the US? Please furnish me with examples. All they ever wanted was respect and recognition for their own national interests and domestic ways vis-a-vis the stark reality of the multipolar global order, as against US notion of exceptionalism and unipolarism. And this is exactly what the lot of us here have been saying.
Nukes alone doesn't make you a superpower, and every Diick and Harry knows that. To be a complete Superpower, you need the SP TRIPLETS: The Economy, The technology and the Milltary Might. The 1st is the outstanding one as the rest two derives their potentials and validity from it, even though they are all interdependent. And as the superpower status implies, your Triplets MUST be totally above that of your opponents in terms of sophistication and quality, and the only area in which the US beat the rest, is in the economy. The US Economy is the Chief among the big boys (though China is fast catching up.) and it gives it comperative advantage above the rest. This is the ONLY area in the SP TRIPLET chain that put the US above Russia, and Putin simply stated the obvious- the economic power of the US makes it the SuperPower compare to the rest of the key players; not in the millitary or technological sense of it, as some of you would always want to believe. Aside economics, the US is only a superpower to third world countries, and you can keep that up your sleeves.

Remain bless.

Lucasbalo:
Overwhelming majority of Americans still like the system.

Then that is a plus for them.

blueAgent:
He is their to get Hiliary elected. His speech's and provocative style were all planned to ensure people choose Hiliary as the only alternative.

Really? Thats another for thought from another angle.

Lucasbalo:
Missy gave you a good answer. My problem is with you calling electoral system undemocratic and a sham. It's not. It's been serving America well for over a century.

I have answered her. I called the system a sham and undemocratic because it runs contrary to the principles of democracy which is mainly based on Democratic Majority. I was only speaking from a principle point of view, not to ridicule the US per se. If it is working well for them, no problem. But its noteworthy that many voices across the US are now calling for a change in the system.

Missy89:
The electoral college system was specifically designed to prevent one person one vote. The founding fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That is the whole point of a republic. Lol

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Many of the features of the Constitutional organization of the Federal government are meant to keep any branch or department from attaining domination of the others, but in fulfilling that function, they also serve as a safeguard against any popular majority, as represented then by the House of Representatives (and now by the Senate and the House of Representatives in partnership), from being able to oppress other citizens. Again Madison from the same work: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

This, i must say is plain ignorance. The hallmark of democracy is the ''ultimate will of the people,'' and the will of the people rest on the inate notion of the power of Thought and Conscience, the faculty from where individual beliefs and perceptions emanate and are put forward as ''interest'' by means of a formal and informal mode of ''expression'', which in this case, are by elections.

It is trite that these individuals interest varies in accordance with the stark disparity embedded in the human power of perception, and thus, democracy has always centred on the ''aggregate and proportional interest'' of the ''majority'' in deriving its legitimacy for the formulation and accomplishment of national ideology. That is why democracy is the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, NOT all of the people, but THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, because by the power of thought differential, it can never be all of the people.
This is what democrasy is all about in any democratic electoral setting - the Government according to the Electoral interest of the Majority, and not of the Minority. Therefore, any electoral system that termed itself a democracy but seek to achieve its legitimacy by means of a Minority, is a sham, a gross departure from the tenets of democracy and a complete bastardization of the meaning of the term. And this is exactly what the American Electoral system is all about. No matter how the likes of Mr. Morgan tries to frame it, the fact remains that the US Electoral College System that makes it possible for a candidate that won the most or popular votes and still lose the election, is not a democracy, and can never be a democratic system of electing leadership, let alone conferring legitimacy on it, because, legitimacy evolves from the sovereign, and the sovereign is the people from which it derives its validity - the ''Democratic Majority''.

The undemocratic and unpopular nature of this system is even more pronounced when one realize that in this 21st century, the US is the only nation practicing this gross aberration, and what an aberration it is.

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win. The will of the people means all of the people.

NEVER! The will of the people does not mean ALL of the people, and can never be ALL of the people. The proponents of the democratic system quite envisaged that the overall interests of every members of the population differs, and cannot be represented equally at the same time, hence; the will of the overwhelming majority is held as basics for compromise and consensus . Thus, in a democracy, the will of the people is represented by the aggregated and proportional will of the Democratic Majority, not the other way round. Any other way is an aberration.

And that is the underlying reality.

Lucasbalo:
Appleyard, please explain to me how the electoral system is a sham and anti democratic ?. Even with the electoral system for the presidential election, everyone votes still counts in America know something Americans don't know.

Hmm. I have discussed this US electoral college system with some of my American friends in time past, and i discovered that, in the course of the discussion, the only argument most of them could muster is that, the system has been working for years, and as such, there is nothing wrong with it. But they are wrong. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies associated with the system that many people don't even know.

For instance, the Electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to clinch the Presidency by winning just eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. And i want to believe that some of you good Americans are aware that about 3 to 4 times, the Presidential candidate that won the popular vote lost the election? And we should call it ''democratic''? Tufieeh!

The underlying fact here is that, by design, the Electoral College system fundamentally undermines the basic principle of one man-one vote denoting undemocratic realities such as:

(1)The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators.
This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to quadruple than triple. Can this be a good thing?

(2) States with smaller populations have far more representatives per population than states with larger populations. E.g, residents of the three least-populated states -Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota - have one congressional representative for every 200,000 people, while those in the three states with the highest population - California, Texas, and New York - have only one congressional member for every 670,000 people. This representational inequality clearly gives citizens from small population states a much stronger voice per citizen than those residing in large states when it comes to electing the president. Is that fair? :-(

(3) Forty-eight states allocate all of their Electors to one candidate (Maine and Nebraska use proportional representation). This state-level decision of how to allocate Electors produces the issue of swing-state distortion, where citizens in states that are relatively evenly split between the two parties have far more influence in selecting the president than citizens in states where a majority are clearly voting for one party. Moreover, citizens are often discouraged to vote in presidential elections if they know that the allocation of all of their state’s electors is a foregone conclusion. Campaign activity exemplifies the implications of this all-or-nothing allocation issue and its egregious undermining of the principle of one citizen-one vote. Candidates rarely invest campaign funds in states that aren’t “in play” - i.e., states whose electoral votes are considered to be already won or lost based on large margins of victory in previous elections and on current polling.
For example, in the 2008 presidential election, the campaign of then-candidate Barack Obama spent nearly $40 million on advertising in Pennsylvania, a swing state with twenty-one electoral votes, and about $25,000 in Illinois, with an equivalent number of electors. The Obama strategists knew that there was no reason to spend any time courting voters in his home state, Illinois, since he would clearly win the majority of Illinois’s popular votes and all twenty-one of its electoral votes. Republican and third-party supporters in Illinois had no chance of having their voices heard and citizens living in Illinois were being told very clearly that they are much less important than those living in Pennsylvania. You see it?

(4) “Faithless” Electors: After all of the undermining of one citizen-one vote that is described above, there is still the issue that the Elector doesn’t actually have to vote for whom they pledged.
For example, in 2000, D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons abstained rather than vote for Al Gore as she had pledged. Her feeble protest resulted in silencing the voices of thousands of D.C. residents.


If democrasy is the goverment of the MAJORITY, then this system is CERTAINLY anti-democratic, and thats why i called it a sham. Like Cfcman said, it needs a channge.

NaijaTalkTown:
I have always found it funny that you actually believe Is real 'can never be defeated' but I never knew you were a religious bigot.

I didn't quite get your post, brother. Anyway, i was only alluding to the propensity of Christian-Muslim conversion rate the author was talking about. Nothing more.

glacswhite:
Op...u be Mumu..Delta dey wear those kind Cloth and Cap?....Islam wey Everybody dey run Commot even Hausa People are denying their Religion...Abeg Close this Tread...is just like Saying that ''Jesus has Approved Murder and Fornication as Righteousness'' which can never happen

BUHARI turning to a Pastor is Even Likely than 104 Deltans turning to Islam

Your head dey there jare.

agabusta:
Don't mind the hypocritical West. They are just looking for countries to rule indirectly in order to control their way of governance, control their international relations to others, control their economy, control their domestic issues, etc.

Any country that resists is given bad press. US will never beam their search lights on human right violations of their allies. E.g. Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and it's Arab friends are the principal reasons the civil war in Yemen is being sustained. US and co will turn a blind eye to that, but will be eagle eyeing Russia everywhere.

Which is no big deal actually, because it has implications for their strategic interest as a country, it's just the hypocrisy involved in the double standards that is pathetic.

Very pathetic.

stanech:
There was a national crisis. Trump was the first to respond, at 4:30am. That means his people woke him up to let him know about the shooting - just like the President.
Trump immediately tweeted out his sympathy etc. Then hours later, started talking about solutions. That's leadership.
Meanwhile, Hillary didn't say anything until morning, and even started her message with "I just woke up to the news". Her aides didn't even bother waking her from yet another one of her long sleeps. That's not presidential behaviour.
The next day, Trump delivered the speech that Obama should have given.
And now, a few days later, Hillary and Obama are finally saying similar things to what Trump said on Sunday.
So you tell me, who the hell are they saying isn't Presidential? Surely the person who doesn't bother waking up, or the person who umms and errs through a statement of meaningless platitudes is not Presidential.

''Thou shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free..'' John 8:32.

When people put reality above sentiment, the truth will always gain a voice, even though its often locked up in the cupboard of falsehood. You have spoken the truth.

Keep it up, brother.

CFCman:
I'll propose a new constitutional amendment that will get rid of the Electoral College, and ensure that all (85% or more) votes cast in the general election count. The Electoral College is a relic of the 18th century which doesn't fit into the 21st century.

If US governors are directly elected by the popular vote, why can't American presidents be elected via the same method? The Electoral College system virtually suppresses turnout to an extent. For instance, there will be little or no motivation for Republicans to come out enmasse to vote for their party's nominee in November, ditto for Democrats in South Carolina.

My amendment would be thus:

28th Amendment
(1) A nominee for President of the United States shall be deemed as the winner of the Presidential election if he/she wins the most valid votes cast AND no less than 1/4 of the valid votes cast in 2/3 of the states and Washington, DC. [could be a combination of 33 states and DC or 34 states].

(2) If a winner doesn't emerge through sub-section 1, then the House of Reps and the Senate would cast ballots for president and vice president respectively.

My brother, I have been amazed over time why many people still don't see the slipshodly sham of a so-called electoral democracy been practice and imposed on the American people. I sometimes wonder how you can define a system to be ''democratic'' when it fundamentally undermines the basic principle of one citizen-one vote? A system that denies citizens in their capitals the right to have a voting representative in Congress. The flaws and behind-the-book nature of this system is even more pronounced when you realize that no modern democracy or any other country in the 21st century, like you rightly noted, is operating or has adopted this anti-people electoral model.

The system is a sham and anti-democratic. The likes of your recommendations are long overdue.

IdeeEsperanza:
The *****s know the winner.

You mean to say, the ''elites,'' right?

''Commandeered and landed safely''. Like Iran like Russia. Does Magrev technology rings a bell? Of course it does. What about Testla? Putin had already told Obama last year that ''the time of the Messiah has began,'' but for the crooked man he is, he will never take it serious....

When Russia took Crimea, a remarkable prophecy was fulfilled....

Pls read and be wise...

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1950.htm

but for those who are wired to die with their eyes wide open, nothing is ever real! No, not even their own reflection on the mirror. Its all conspiracy theories, and so they will continue to applaud the hawks of war and dance to the drumbeats of death, making a tinkling with their warped analytical feets of mendacity, mincing as they go through the valley of the silent ones, gyrating to the eerie but subtly camouflag rythm of the afterlife, totally oblivious to nature's call of duty and logical sense of reason, while basking in their delusive euphoria of unhinged democratic self-independence - the road to hell.

I repeat: self delusion is the worst form of mental disorder.

Believe it or not, the Clock is now one minute to midnight. May the matchless grace of Oghene deliver those western leaders and the many unaware brethren we have here from going down to that pit where there is no buttom. How i wish this wasn't happening in my time, but what will be, will be, and what had been, had already been.

Now we can only pray and hope for the best.

kinibigdeal:
Hmmm....Very convincing explanation's. But you know what my confusions are on this issue, if US are backing ISIS, why are they beheading American citizens and planting explosive device in US? You earlier talked about the disintegration of ISIS into two group, one backed by US and the other independent. How long can a group sustain such independence without any western intelligence backing? ISIS may be supported by US but the killing of their citizen is another debate. You and I are aware of the recent massacre.

I get your point. The killings Its all part of the show - the ruse war on terror - call it collateral damage. Americans like every other westerners had to be killed in order to instil the necessary fear and reality of terror, and also to give credibility to the notion of terror, and to woo the people's will and support as the legitimate ticket to perpetually continue in this endless act of war on terror, while using the opportunity to squeeze constitutional liberty, inter alia, by way of emergency legislation sequel to Martial law.

So, whenever you see or hear of such terror attacks, especially in America and in some places in the West, know that it might have happened with either by an express connivance of the government thereof (for the essence of what is called "false flag" operations,) or by an act of negligent conduct on their part.
This doesn't mean there are no authentic terror attacks, of course, there are; but its no secret that the government is also complicit in such acts either by covert malicious oversight or gross negligent intent. Take for instance the Boston Bombing before which, the US authorities were furnished with information by the Russian authorities regarding the extremist vhews and radical ideology of the two terrorists brothers, long before they carried out the devilish crime. But the American authorities simply refused to follow up on them. Either this was done intentionally or by the extreme case of pure negligence, as there was no other viable excuse that would have suggested otherwise. At the end, it gave the authorities more impetus to get more and more on the dèfence budget, to go out and attack and bomb one place to another in the name of terror which they created. We all know about the false flag of 9/11 and how they created the terror excuse to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. What about Libya? The ultimate winners at the end of the day, is the elite that owns and control the MIC, the oil multinationals and the banksters.

It will interest you to know that cracks are now appearing in the recent Florida Orlando gay-club killings. I watched in awe when an eye witness from the bar was telling ABC news live that ''there was a 2nd gunman by the door...,''
and as the eyewithness was explaining further, ABC news quickly cut off the conversation and switched to a different feed entirely that was not related to the case on ground. The question is: what were they trying to hide? :-O Now, there is the news of one of the SWAT team cops ''laughing in the background.'' Are you in a comic show or what? :-O

But when folks like us point out such anomalies like the ones above and similar cases like ''Sector 7'' going down on a free fall in 9/11, (which every building engineer has ruled impossible,) the Paris attack in Which one of the Criminals ''miraclelously'' left his ID Card behind, (even an armed robber will not go to a place of crime with his ID card on him, talkless of a professional murderer) in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, etc, some people who knows next to nothing or simply cannot deduce facts from fiction, will tag you a conspiracy theorist, which in itself is a term coined to derail the truth movement and discredit the credibility of the critical thinker.

My brother, as far as terrorism is concerned mostly in the US led West, the government is 75% complicit.

Stay bless.

Zoharariel:
There is credible intel that Amerika, Britain & France are covertly planning to draft soldiers from their ex-colonies to serve as cannon fodders in this inevitable war between the Empire of Chaos & Russia , just like they did in ww2.

GMB must maintain utmost neutrality in this divenely ordained war, else the blood of any Nigerian sacrificed in this war will be on his head.

The great questions of the time will be decided, not by speeches & resolutions but by iron & blood.

In the meantime, let the nuclear fallout between the Good & Evil begin. Not A Step Backwards - Go Russia!

Bad market. No single Nigerian or African soldier would go and die for Britain and its war chest. We haven't forgotten the diabolic British policy of Divide and Rule vis Indirect Rule that are still incapacitating our national life till date. (no thanks to our zombie and corrupt leaders.) And we have seen how these hypocrites really helped us during boko and ebola. So, i don't see how they would succeed in convincing us to be their canon folders. We go just sit down here they observe them committing suicide, and when the remaining ones would start running to Africa amidst the Nuclear holocaust, the Africans we also chase them back just the same way they are doing to us now.

This prophecy said it all...

"All that I have seen of war before is only child’s play compared to this one, and it will be ended with a nuclear atom bomb. The air will be so polluted that one cannot draw one’s breath. It will cover several continents, America, Japan, Australia and the wealthy nations. The water will be ruined (contaminated?). We can no longer till the soil. The result will be that only a remnant will remain. The remnant in the wealthy countries will try to flee to the poor countries, but they will be as hard on us as we were on them.

http://www.inthebeginning.com/articles/norway1968.htm

I just pity how this countries are gradually deploying to their own graves..

Pathetic... Man is a failed project.

kinibigdeal:
Let's agree with all you have said. What about a group called "Al-Nuara". Al-Nusra is said to be an affiliate of Alqueeda. Earlier this year we were told of the new affiliation between ISIS and Al-Nustra. Al-Nustra has two agenda, to force the syria forces backward and unleash terror on Americans. Who are this group actually, can we say its an affiliation of ISIS also backed by US? i still dont know why bahrain, jordan, qatar, saudi arabia, UAE and turkey are backing the ISIS?

Yes! Al Nusra is an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. It has and habors the same ideology like ISIS - to recreate and reestablished an islamic caliphate - but Al Nusra is more distinctively patient and methodological in character. While ISIS has declared its de facto islamic state/caliphate and tries to legitimate it by conquest, Al Nusra, on the other hand, has taken after Al Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri's method of formenting a religious and social revolution by embedding itself within an indegeneous insurgency, and the Syrian brouhaha with so many of such groups, provided it the perfect environment to achieve this strategy and hence, its overall aims. And due to its subtlety and insidious nature, its therefore very threatening and more difficult to defeat than IS. It is no secret that the US is known to support many or both sides of a conflict, provided that its immediate or long term goals are or would be realized. That is exactly what is happening in Syria: funding both YPG and Al Nusra alike for the main objective -taking out Assad, even though this two groups are enemies on the field any day, any time.

As for the nations you mentioned, the aim of them backing ISIS in Syria, is twofold. To take out Assad and pave the way for their dream Mideast -Europe oil pipeline, which must pass through Syrian territory to come into fruition, since Iran, the alternate option, is already out of the question.
The other reason is the issue of Sunni vs Shia power and dominion tussle in the very heart of the MidEast. The likes of Turkey and Satan Arabia has invested so much to see a sunni dominated power house and influence, but unfortunately for them, the entrance of the Bear into the ''Damascus Dragon'' has completely thwarted and make desolate all their efforts.

But make no mistake about it: the last has not been heard from Syria. We can only hope for the best while expecting the worst. God help the MidEast.

Stay well.

kinibigdeal:
Maybe its a sarcasm though. But the confusion here is, if US is giving ISIS a tactical support, who are they bombing in Syria? is it the government forces or same ISIS they are financing. Who US is actually combating in Syria is not clear.

It is very clear, brother. For the US, the Islamic State is a means to an end, and an end to a means. The formation of IS was meant as an excuse to consolidate on the ruse ''war on terror,'' but the primary objective within was ''divide and conquer'' of blacklisted entities. This was very apparent in the revelations by formal US General, John Wesley Clark, on the US plan to take out 7 governments among which are Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, etc; and the Islamic State was a part of that means to ensure the take out.

However, there is a problem that have arisen with the ranks of the IS. There are now groups who have become defiant to the central authority and has formed their own independent cliches, running their own activities and making decisions independently, outside the IS central authority, and hence, beyond the reach and control of the US and its western partners in crime. This is the reason you see the US who previously ''ran out of ammos'' to bomb IS oil tankers, suddenly finding some bombs to strike at Certain IS groups and taken out their leaders. Why? These are groups that have gone completely out of US control and pursueing their own objectives to the detriment of the overall US plan.

Therefore, whatever they are doing now against IS made a lot of sense. The IS they created and have refused to bomb ever since, is not the IS they are witnessing today. Uncle Sam is fast losing control, and the only way now is to go the Russian way.

Also bear in mind that the US have plans to break up Syria, using the so-called moderate rebels, But with an increasingly independent IS on ground, and with regime forces to deal with, on the other hand, that dream is becoming more unlikely. Thus, it makes sense in taken out or immobilizing one foe right now, and deal with the other later on. Its a very good strategy.

You will understand better the crux of the matter when both the US backed rebels approaching from Majib, and Russia backed Syrian army approaching from the south, would meet in Raqqa against IS for the final showdown.

It would be hell on earth.

crestedaguiyi:
Till Hillary becomes POTUS,I will call this dude crazy.

He edited the original post so don't be fooled

I have always believed in the cosmic orderliness of events. Pls, what was the first post like?

kinibigdeal:
I wonder how Putin is going to go about it. Christianity is a none violent religion, so how is he going to force Christianity into turkey through a none violence religion. It will be very difficult for Russia Alone to eliminate ISIS in syria since ISIS ve got tactical support from US, turkey and others

Lol. When he talked about bringing Christianity back into Turkey, that was purely out of sarcasm embedded in hyperbolism-an exaggeration on emphasis. When codedly reinterpreted, what he actually meant was that, Russia would make life more difficult for Turkey as much as Syria is concerned.

On the side of tackling ISIS, that is nothing to worry about, as already, much gain is been made by the Syrian government and Russia to overthrow the takfiris sons of Lucifer, and there is little the US and the likes of Turkey can do to help them right now. The Russia air campaign together with Hezbollah and Iranian special Ops, plus with the Desert Hawk forces on the ground, have ensured that all Turkish, Saudi aids/support and all western Weapon air-drops for IS, are so far ineffective and a waste of money, as they are being destroyed from time to time.

Raqqa is the last major stronghold of ISIS in Syria, and the SAA back by the Russian Airforce are already moving in to retake the city. When you see a body like IS resulting to suicide attacks as in Fallujah-Baghdad, and Aleppo-Damascus, then know that the game is getting over for them. This is more evident in the fact that they are no longer controlling much of the territories they previously captured before the Russian engagement.

The tables have turned, and its now in ''game over'' mode. Bye bye takfiris, freedom to Syria and peace to Europe.