Russians

[partlyscot]

I have only one suggestion for oldsalt. Next time there is a Trump rally in your area, put on one of your minis, and go attend.

[crfriend]

Were it not for those omissions there probably wouldn't have been a Saddam Hussein to fight w/ in the second war.

And the region would be in precisely the same situation as it's in now.

It had been understood for years that when Saddam Hussein left power (one way or another) the place was going to explode -- and that was why Bush senior didn't prosecute the thing to the bitter end. His advisers had been telling him that all along -- and whilst primarily a matter of diplomacy, the military, or at least the reasonable factions therein, completely understood that. Armies do not like to be placed into unwinnable situations, and saner heads prevailed and managed to salvage things.

So, when Junior jumped in and toppled the strongman, a power vacuum was created and enabled precisely the fiasco that's happening there now. Make no bones about it, Saddam Hussein was a bad character -- but at least he kept the lid on and the region was relatively stable. We can't say that now. In any event, the current mess was pretty much inevitable. The United States merely made it happen sooner rather than later.

[Grok]

One thing we should forget about-voting by electronic means. Stick to old fashioned ways to maintain integrity.

[crfriend]

One thing we should forget about-voting by electronic means. Stick to old fashioned ways to maintain integrity.

Voting via electronic means is pretty much a necessity now in many larger communities. Contemplate the amount of time (and the cost) of manually counting all the votes cast, say, in Los Angeles.

Electronic voting can be just as accurate - if not moreso -- than manual counting given a few basic and common-sense guidelines. First off, the voting system must be self-contained and not connected, directly or indirectly, to the Internet; the source-code must be freely accessible and verifiable by election authorities and interested members of the public; and the systems involved should run continuous background diagnostics to ascertain basic functionality and potential intrusion/tampering.

Many small to medium-sized communities use hybrid systems, such as mark-sense technologies, where a paper ballot is clearly and unmistakably marked showing voter intent and then the paper ballot fed through a reader that sits atop the "ballot box". Systems such as this allow for very simple recounts -- so long as the paper ballots haven't been tampered with (this is one function of election observers). Of note is that all-electronic systems do not allow for this, so the security and protection of the computing environment must be assured by technological means (air-gapping, NO wireless access, no open USB ports, continuous diagnostics, &c.).

Dr. Douglas Jones, whom I know out at the University of Iowa (USA), has written extensively on this, and many of his recommendations have been adopted. He's also a CS type so understands computers. The above link is to a list of links, most of which are both interesting and informative.

As far as integrity and accountability goes, that's why elections have observers -- both official and unofficial -- and tend to be very open affairs. Transparency makes fraud quite difficult.

One thing the USA desperately needs is a way to get rid of politicians once it's known that they do not represent the electorate. That alone would cut down on the sometimes disastrous outcomes of "protest votes"; as things stand now, the only way to get rid of "elected officials" either involve the intricate machinations of impeachment (which is impossible if the one to be impeached is of the party currently in power) or various illegal means.

Finally, of what use are elections in an oligarchy? Why not just recognise the facts on the ground, announce the new system, and save the expensive and annoying farce that US elections have become?

[oldsalt1]

Partyscotty if you can get me a ticket I'll do it in a mini in a minute

[dillon]

I can't cover everything so I will start with healthcare. You say increases in health care is proportionate to increases in the health care industry.. So what you are saying is our increases in cost for the product are reasonable because the cost of the product went up. An average increase in premiums of about 35 % is an increase in premiums of about 35% no matter how you try to double talk it.

Yes we helped get rid of some very bad people in the mid east. But can you say the people are any better off now..

And in one breath you say we have bring freedom and democracy to the mid east. Than you castrate Bush for starting the commotion.

Sorry I can't keep up with your novel length postings . Lets work on short stories.

Just remember one more thing

Remember to have a good holiday Dan

First, had you troubled to read my remarks, maybe you'd understand that healthcare costs caught up with the losses incurred when most of the country were provided coverage. Current increase projections are in line with inflation in the healthcare industry, which is about three times what the national inflation rate is. These are costs you would have borne by some means...either by more debt added to indigent care, or by higher taxes to support more Medicaid. But why don't we approach it from the analytical POV. Your party could have supported a public option to the ACA...they failed to do so because most of their constituents were already covered, and they could use it as a political weapon.. Now you are paying for their intransigence. Choke on it. Let me show you what that means. The overhead for the government-run medicare system is 1.5%; the overhead for private insurance is around 20%. Now tell me where your money is going. I suggest it's going to CORPORATE WELFARE.

The people in the middle east are not better off, because they are in the same position they were in in 2005...dealing with either repressive dictators or repressive religious dogma...about where I expect us to be when Trump gives free reign to Christian Conservatives. If you think religious repression is wrong for Muslims but right for Christians, then you are as bad as ISIS.

I never said it was our responsibility to bring democracy to the Middle East; that was Bush's lie, not mine. I suggested that our words and deeds should match out national values. I will say that the region deserves freedom and democracy, and that we both know the traditional American policy has been, instead, to prop up brutal dictators, primarily because it has been easier to get oil from a dictator. Do you believe the Saudi Theocracy, which perverts Islam to justify the supremacy of the Saudi Royal Family, is out of step with American values? Do you believe American democracy is good for all nations? If so, then stop voting for presidents who LIE about it and support dictators.

As for the "castration" of Bush, Cheney did that, not me. perhaps you meant castigate?