SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Authoritarian leaders are seen as far more trustworthy than politicians in more openly democratic countries across the emerging world, according to data compiled by the World Economic Forum.
Leaders in Singapore, the Gulf states and Rwanda are rated as having the highest ethical standards in the emerging markets, closely followed by their Chinese and central Asian counterparts.
In contrast, politicians in democracies such as Brazil, Paraguay, Nigeria, Mexico and Romania are seen as exhibiting the lowest ethical standards.
Overall, among the 20 emerging market countries rated as having the most trustworthy politicians in the 2016 survey, 13 are rated as "not free" by Freedom House, a US government-funded non-governmental organisation, with three classed as partly free and just four classed as free.
Among the 20 emerging markets whose politicians are seen as having the lowest ethical standards, not one is classed by Freedom House as not free, with six free and 14 partly free.
https://www.ft.com/content/79d1ce36-8ca9-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731
Might be paywalled, but I got in using my normal combination of noscript, self-destructing cookies, and referrer spoofing (from google.com).
Text without charts: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2016/10/1823541-polls-show-low-approval-of-the-ethical-standards-of-leaders-in-latin-america.shtml
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 19 2016, @09:52AM
I guess it works. People in the US don't believe that the elections are rigged.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pslytely Psycho on Wednesday October 19 2016, @03:30PM
Show me some REAL evidence they are as no one has found enough fraud to throw an election, at least not at a national level. infowars and other tinfoil hat fringe sites do not count. (I've seen the sites you link too. A grain of truth embellished with amazingly convoluted lies to prop up their propaganda.)
What is established, 31 false votes in a billion in 14 years.
And the recent confiscation of 24,000 (mostly minority) registrations in Indiana was over 10 possible bad registrations. All caught before anyone voted. So this is basically voter suppression in action. Something there IS a vast amount of evidence for.
Dude, like I said to you before, do you even ATTEMPT to find out the truth?
Just because the Creamsicle Charlatan says it doesn't make it true, he's just prepping for his loss and want's an excuse to act like the spoiled rich kid he is.
And no, I don't like HRC much better, but I'm voting for the platform and not the candidate anyway. (Not that I expect the platform to be enforced, HRC is much too far right for that, center-left at best.)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 19 2016, @04:07PM
voter suppression, right. First, we gerrymander districts to include only minorities, then we suppress those minorities? Somehow, that just doesn't add up. The gerrymandering alone is enough to ensure that the minorities get only a couple seats in congress, and minority voters outside of those gerrymandered districts don't count anyway.
Voter suppression. Right, got it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @05:15PM
No, no, don't try changing the subject. Where's ANY evidence for widespread election rigging? It can't be done with votes, which is why you need to have Supreme Court justices step in to throw elections.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:14AM
Widespread? Why does voter fraud have to be widespread, before it becomes an issue? Remember the Iowa caucus? The vote was so close, that six precincts were decided with coin tosses. And - Hitlery won all six coin tosses? (I think it was six, pretty sure, to lazy to look it up.)
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:44AM
"
voter suppression, right. First, we gerrymander districts to include only minorities, then we suppress those minorities? Somehow, that just doesn't add up. The gerrymandering alone is enough to ensure that the minorities get only a couple seats in congress, and minority voters outside of those gerrymandered districts don't count anyway.
Voter suppression. Right, got it."
Uh, yeah, that kinda defines it. Thanks for the support.
Nice goal post relocation skills ya got there by the way!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:55AM
I hear that goalpost nonsense from time to time. The thing is, if you focus on one tiny part of a problem, you don't see the "big picture". There's no need to suppress the vote in a district that has already been allocated to the minorities, nor is there any need to suppress the vote in districts where the minority vote is nil. The public is once again being misdirected from a real issue, to a non-issue.
The real issue is, the voting mechanism should be so secure that no one can cast a fraudulent vote. The mechanism should be so secure that hacking into it and/or manipulating the tallies is near impossible. And, there should should be an accountability trail, a verifiable count, which no one can dispute.
How in hell do we do a recount, when there is nothing to count? Oh, but, here again blind faith steps in. <sarcasm> Computers are fast and accurate, they can't count wrong. </sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:35AM
While I agree they should be better. There will never be a system so secure that fraud can not happen at all.
You started to narrowed topic of voter fraud, and only expanded it to gerrymandering when I called you out thereby deflecting from what I stated so as not to answer to proof of widespread voter fraud and essentially 'moved the goalposts.' So it is a valid observation.
Gerrymandering is voter suppression and it makes it even easier to do as is puts them in a group that can be easily targeted, as Mike Pence has done in Indiana.
Thanks again for proving me correct.
Still waiting on evidence of widespread voter fraud in a national election.
That was your original accusation.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:57AM
Here is a reasonable evaluation of voter fraud - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ [washingtonpost.com]
Now, the thing is, it doesn't need to be "widespread" to be concerned about it. This year, I test the waters, to see if I can get away with it. Next year, I run a larger test. Then, if everything works, in the 20xx presidential election, I really turn the machinery up, and decide the election.
If we could be certain that not more than one or two people voted fraudulently in each voting district across the nation - we might decide it isn't important enough to prosecute. But, if one person gets away with it this year, next year ten, the next year 100 - it's easy to see where that leads.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom - and the guy who coined that phrase wasn't talking about active duty military alone.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:02AM
So, you post proof the system works, at least in this case.
You're on a very slippery slope. You failed to cite your statement and instead, cite my statement exactly.
Voter fraud in a national election is so rare as to be non-existent.
Dude if 14 years worth of data that shows essentially nothing has you running scared, you need help.
This discussion is quite confusing. You show evidence that disproves your original statement and supports my assertion. You then use some very convoluted logic to try to make a speculation that could happen. However, your original statement quite clearly asserted that it was already happening.
Damn, have a hit man...got a g of fine ass Bodhi High Honey Oil, cleanest around!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:44PM
"so rare as to be non-existent"
Because it is rarely PROVEN that voter fraud has occured, then we shouldn't even bother about voter ID's and such.
Voter fraud exists. People try to game every system. It doesn't seem very prevalent - is that because it doesn't happen much, or is it because we seldom catch the perps? The Republicans are the ones who want verifiable photo ID presented at all elections, and Democrats don't want that. This tells me that the Dems probably hope to manipulate an election.
Tell me something - how many elections was it necessary for Adolph Hitler to manipulate?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:57PM
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/10/19/2121211 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday October 21 2016, @10:11AM
I reserve judgment until I can see the unedited version. O'Keefe is the one who selectively edited the abortion scandal tapes.
So the filmmaker here is discredited, and as far as I can tell refuses to release the raw footage.
That speaks volumes.
And of course I believe it likely happens on a small scale in a national election, but widespread takes way too many people in cahoots with each other. And a secret can only be kept indefinitely if only two people know, and one is dead.
As far as Hitler goes...Germany is what, approximately 85% the size of California? (At that size it takes far fewer people but I think cities and municipalities of smaller size would be and have been more effective targets.) He didn't have to throw an election. Two elections put the Nazis in power and Hindenburg had no choice but to place him as Chancellor as they had the majority. The closest thing to fraud would of been Heinrich Brüning, who tried to, through concessions to the Nazi party, avoid direct elections and extend Hindenburgs term. He obviously failed.
The Wiki article is quite fascinating. I had forgotten most of the details since High School is now nearly forty years in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932 [wikipedia.org]
Reasonable voter ID laws I have no problem with. But if you have a disenfranchised group, and you put them these laws in place with no assistance to help those obtain said ID, then you are suppressing votes. My DL is good enough here. As is a State ID. But we have our ballots sent and we drop them off at designated places like the library, and other drop off points are everywhere, which is another thing I see used to suppress. Early closing times and limited access to cast votes. Voter suppression I feel is a much more effective way to throw an election. After all, actual fraud has a tendency of showing itself.
The earliest American voter fraud accusations I recall (next to impossible to google, a zillion pages of Trumps allegations and I got tired of looking 15 pages in trying to find some history) were between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans (long before the parties split) around IIRC 1790 or so. These allegations are as old as voting itself, and yeah, it has happened at times. However, keeping the concerns alive is a good thing, as it makes us wary, I just see no evidence of it on a widespread scale, and as long as we're discussing it and do our upmost to keep it in check, I think we'll be ok.
I vote policy, not personality. Republican policy hasn't existed in years...proof of six years controlling both houses and they are the most ineffective congress ever. Also I find three things that make me never vote republican.
1. The injection of Evangelical beliefs into their lawmaking I find to be very disturbing. I will never vote in favor of Theocracy. We are a secular country and I want to see it stay that way.
2. The Norquist pledge.
3. The backroom deal to block any Democratic proposal, regardless of merit, to make Obama a one-term president, putting their loyalties to the party rather than We The People.
And yes, I know the history and all the warts both parties carry, but a choice is to be made. We have managed the two most vile candidates I can remember. A viable third party would be nice, socially liberal and financially conservative (yes, I do smoke too much weed...hahaha). Our current third parties are both too shallow for me to have much interest in. Libertarians are just Republicans with gay friends who smoke pot, and the Greens are too focused.
I don't like the current Democratic Party either, however their platform (if only they would stick to it..sigh...) is closer to my beliefs than the current Republican Party.
1968 (George Wallace/Richard Nixon/Hubert Humphrey) 1964 (Barry Goldwater/Lyndon Johnson) are kind of similar in having multiple shitty candidates. We survived them, we'll survive this....at least I hope so!
Well enough for tonight, off work, time to get a buzz on and play some Kerbal Space Program...See ya!
I wish you a fine day.
**personal note, off-topic**
Is that your birth year in your pseudonym? Only asking as it would make us of similar age....1959 here.
Again a fine day to you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 19 2016, @05:44PM
Show me some REAL evidence...
He can't. I, however, can provide some evidence that points to the opposite.
Voter Fraud Is Very Rare In American Elections [fivethirtyeight.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @06:01PM
Show me some REAL evidence they are as no one has found enough fraud to throw an election, at least not at a national level.
It depends on what is meant by "rigged". If by "rigged" they mean that the actual results are being altered in one candidate's favor, then I see no good evidence of that. But our elections are indisputably rigged in the sense that they suppress third parties by design; third parties have to go through various procedures in all 50 states to get on the ballot in each individual state, which wastes a significant portion of their already scarce resources; third parties have to deal with the the fact that, even if they satisfy all the criteria to get on the ballot in a specific state, there is a somewhat high chance that those in power will find a ridiculous excuse to keep them from getting on the ballot or just stall for time; third parties have to deal with winner-take-all systems in order to get elected into many positions in the country; and third parties have to deal with the fact that our voting system is one-person-one-vote instead of a ranked choice voting system, which encourages the shortsighted majority to always vote for the 'lesser' evil or not vote at all. Our political system is certainly rigged in those ways, and that is, in my opinion, far worse than a mere rigging of the results. There is no democracy in this country.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:54AM
I hear a lot about third parties in the US. I think you should aim higher than that.
My Parliament has 7 parties represented. In a nation of just over 4 million people.
Parliament in the past has had as many as 8 parties, and we have always had stable government, sometimes we have even had stable minority governments.
That's a really good thing, because the ruling party has to negotiate to get things done, and so they have to be prepared to compromise.
Everyone agrees that some of the parties in Parliament are absolute idiots, but we disagree which ones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @06:04PM
And no, I don't like HRC much better, but I'm voting for the platform and not the candidate anyway. (Not that I expect the platform to be enforced, HRC is much too far right for that, center-left at best.)
Then, if you aren't shortsighted, you'd do well to vote for a candidate who actually appears to be principled.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:38AM
"Then, if you aren't shortsighted, you'd do well to vote for a candidate who actually appears to be principled. " Not this year, there isn't one.
It's far more important to defeat the Creamsicle Charlatan, and besides, our 'Third Parties' are just different weak blendings of the two current ones. Neither one presents a true departure of business as usual. So I vote for the platform I agree with more. Currently Democratic because of the hard right turn in the GOP and their binding themselves so hard to the Evangelicals. I will never vote in favor of theocratic leadership.
Trumps comments tonight in the debate showed his personality. He tried, and did very well for himself, I'm certain it was difficult for him, but much better than I expected and even sounded inspiring at times. He still came off as intolerable though. And his off the cuff remarks like "Such a nasty woman" I predict will seal his defeat. It was completely uncalled for and I think will take on a very big life in the next few days.
Since he said basically that he won't accept losing the election, I can't see this man accepting the limitations he would find in the Presidency, nor can I see him debating policy with other nations and controlling his apparent need to insult everyone.
At worst if he were elected, he would be even less effective than Obama as he would face the opposition of his own party as well as the Democrats, hmm, he might actually unite them for once...LOL!
Of course we knew Trump would not do well in the debates, he did, after all face a 30 year masterdebater. She's wanked and deflected everyone for a long time so at least we know what we get, and we see here faults clearly without the need to sensationalize them. And hell, even Trump once said, "We had some very good economies under Democrats, and Republicans, but we've had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans"
Before I get called out to cite that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCB6RvRojIQ [youtube.com]
Someday there will be a candidate I can believe in. He (or She, Trans or possibly an android) will probably turn out to be the Anti-Christ Mark III, but, this year I'll go with the good ol' reliable Anti-Christ Mark I, as I find the Mark II model completely unbearable and Satan's pot smoking Republican and Cthulhu's tree-hugging Democrat fail to inspire.....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @04:06PM
How did this get modded up, its no where near insightful. While the choice of candidates sucks, I tend to blame the populace for that. I have yet to see ANY credible evidence that there is enough voter fraud to be anything more then a blip on the screen.
Give me sources that show voter fraud impacted a national or even a state election. Hell show me where voter fraud has influenced the election of a dog catcher. Any reasonable source will not be discounted out of hand. I would even read a brietbart article to see if there is some kernel of truth. Give me something or quit your bellyaching.