Global Freedom Is on the Decline
A new report says 83 percent of the world's population is less free today than it was in 2008, and the gap between the world's most and least free countries is growing.

The vast majority of the world's population is less free today than it was about a decade ago—and all residents of the world's 10 most populated countries have seen their freedoms decline over the same period.
That's the most worrying takeaway from the annual Human Freedom Index, an annual report produced by the libertarian Cato Institute and the Frasier Institute, a Canadian think tank. This year's index, released Thursday, ranks the United States as the world's 15th most free country out of the 156 jurisdictions included in the analysis.
The top five freest countries are Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, Estonia, and Ireland. Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Venezuela, and Syria are at the bottom of the rankings, which take into account 82 indicators of economic, personal, and civil freedoms.
Somewhere has to be considered the freest place in the world, but the global trends are moving in the wrong direction. Since the first report was published in 2008, the authors of this year's version note that about 83 percent of the world's population has seen freedom decline. The gap between the most and least free has also widened, with some 40 percent of the world's people now residing in countries that rank in the bottom 20 percent for overall freedom.
"The decline in fundamental rights represents a disturbing trend that was occurring even before the world experienced the COVID-19 pandemic and its social and political effects," writes Ian Vásquez, vice president of international studies at Cato. "The areas that saw the largest falls globally were freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, assembly, and civil society. Although our report does not yet pick up freedom data from 2020, we fully expect to see a deterioration in global freedom indicators in future reports."
Freedom in the United States is on the decline in both absolute and relative terms, according to the new report. In 2008, the U.S. ranked seventh in the world but has steadily slipped lower, though it still ranks well ahead of the global average:
But the decline in freedom in the United States is nothing compared to what has happened in Hungary—a country now routinely (and wrongly) held up by segments of the nationalist right as an example that America should seek to emulate. Hungary ranks 59th in this year's index, down from a high of 29th in 2009. Recent efforts by strongman dictator Viktor Orbán to curtail freedom of expression and erode the rule of law are clearly reflected in the ratings, with Hungary now ranking considerably less free than its European neighbors:

As Reason noted last month, the twin threats of political populism and the COVID-19 pandemic have triggered an erosion in democratic values across the globe. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, a nonprofit based in Sweden that has been tracking democracies around the globe since 1975, warns in a new report that the number of countries that are becoming "more authoritarian" by the group's calculus is three times the number of countries that are moving toward democracy. This year is the fifth consecutive year in which the trend has been moving in that direction.
Freedom and democracy are not necessarily synonymous—and sometimes can be quite in tension—but democratic governments throughout history have done a better job of protecting and promoting freedom than more authoritarian regimes. Now, the two values seem to be declining in tandem.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If more people would just comply with the mandates we would all be more free.
Thats what Hitler told his Guests.
He gave them free showers and everything!
And the trains ran on time!
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.XEh Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online....
For more details.......... Visit Here
Same goal. Everyone could be ' safe' From THE OTHER!!
(safety defined as killing...THE OTHER)
I'm able to receive $80 per/hr to do some small tasks on home computer. I certainly not imagined that it'd even achievable but my top buddy made $27k just within a month just working this opportunity and she has convinced me to avail. Know new instructions visiting following link.
netjob1.com
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.XEh Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online....
For more details.......... Click Here<b
This listing is extremely suspect as it has New Zealand as one of the freest countries in the world.
The New Zealanders have just given up their guns and are now being oppressed with Covid restrictions.
It really did not take long from gun prohibition to political oppression.
And they are holding up Hungary as an example of dictatorship.
Orban has resisted mass moslem immigration and is doing what the people of Hungary elected him to do.
It is the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who are the wanna be dictators to force Hungary to lose its native culture.
So this list is pure junk
We offered the world order!
You don't say.
But why compare 2021 to 2008?
My personal data collection shows global freedom dropping precipitously in just the past 2 years, and I'm not sure why.
Pre ACA....
and I'm not sure why.
Whatever freedoms you lost on 2020-21 were on you, anti-vaxxer Trumpist.
Nah, I voted to recall Newsom.
When voting with your hand doesn't work, switch to voting with your feet.
I’m not that flexible.
...and if that fails, well, governments can be overturned by several boxes. The ballot box is, by far, preferrable...but the ammo box does exist.
voting should be with ammo
25 yard target. gun of your choice. Hit the squares on the targts to register your vote.
Cant shoot? Cant vote.
I think we need to go with the “unbeaded king “
type of government.
Mean tweets!
We deserved it.
We could've voted Hillary, we could've voted against Brexit, we could have not made fun of Justin's cosplay, we could've ignored the Uighurs, we could've supported the TPP.
The Davos crew didn't want to hurt us, but we forced their hand and need to learn our lesson.
"We could've voted Hillary,"
Wait....2024....youll be able to vote for the criminal, gas- lighting, pearl clutching, sadistic, nihilustic, anarchist, whinging, drunken, sarcastic , egalitarian socialist bitch.
Shes being trotted out as an animated corpse right now to begin to:
1. deflect attention from what a miserable failure Biden is
2. Start programming people to pay attention to verbal flatulence from her psychotic ranting maw
3. give her a chance to resume pissing
( and moaning) about how the election was stolen from her.
Sarcasm detector failure.
Modest inflation in the price of spittin tobacky.
It’s nothing now compared to the 70’s.
Damn that was freedom. And I’m a guy, the chicks were as free as the wind.
Global Freedom Is on the Decline
Now that we've informed you about Gobal Freedom, put your mask on, social distance and show me your vaccination passport that's less than six months old or has a booster tag on it.
Speaking of this, how in the fucking fuck is this not a top news story:
Moderation hell, trying again.
The Black Green Party sounds like a gangrenous leg. Or a wicked witch.
Red Green Party forever.
DAS RAYCISS!!!
Or something.
This just in.
Poor schmucks that werent free to NOT get a Mengele-Fauci Vaccine take note.
NOW THEY ADMIT: ( Drudge)
Moderna- heart risk
JnJ- blood clots.
Fuck safe and effective. Ill take my chances with a $ 50 prostitute and risk catching it and get Permanent Natural Immunity before Ill get the Mengele- Fauci Experimental vacvine!
If women don’t find you handsome, they may still give you a handy.
No shit jackass. If you cared about freedom, you wouldn't have supported Biden. You deserve less freedom
"unless I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden" - t. Eric Boehm
He was literally Hitler, Kuckland! There were all those mean tweets and women letting him grab pussy. Plus the bureaucrats and journalists hated him, and if anyone knows anything about being hated, it's journalists.
How were we to know that Biden wouldn't be a woke Ron Paul.
"in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden"
Said every closet Lib- Prog ever...
Trojan Horse occupants.
They deserve the pounding, the rest of us don't.
yeah but when crap splatters, it lands on everyone
..
New Zealand, eh? Why not throw in Australia while you're at it?
The less said about Australia and Canada, the better.
throw Australia out.
Great Britain did.
America: "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
Australia: "send us your prisoners"
Seeing New Zealand at the top tells me the study is junk.
NZ served as the template for shutdowns in the west. Australia now serves as the future.
Yeah, these 'freedom/freedom of press/best places to live' indices (as one would expect) reflect the biases of the institutions putting them together. If you agree with COVID lockdowns, and most credentialed people in the West do, then a little lockdown of a few hundred million people with threat of arrest and internment is just nothing to see here, move along.
When your focus might be, "did the president say mean things to journalists in tweets" then sure, America lost a ton of freedom for about four years.
Red herring much?
Hopefully lockdowns will be in the rearview before too long.
... said one Jew to another in 1939.
Jesus Fucking Christ. If public health measures during a pandemic are really your idea of a slippery slope to a repeat of the fucking Holocaust, then you need to get off the internet and get a fucking life.
You need to study history. You think it went straight from jews happily living their lives in Germany to concentration camps and zyclon B overnight? Or did it start by slowly eroding the rights and slow dehumanizing Jews (aka the slippery slope)?
Don't forget in under 2 years we went from 2 weeks to slow the spread, to just until Easter, to who knows when we'll go back to normal, to until the vaccines are available, to until everyone has had a chance to get the jab, to guess you still need the mask even if you got the jab, to get the jab or lose your livelihood, to locking down again for a very benign variant that has barely killed anyone, to maybe vaccinated means 3 shots and not 2. They're already working on putting the unvaxed on the no fly list.
And even if you don't buy the argument of the slippery slope comparisons do you really think power hungry leftists who 100% support violent protests in favor of what they like (like BLM and Antifa) will suddenly become against violence against people they hate (like the unvaxed). There are plenty of leftists who openly wish death on the unvaxed and if one thing the last decade has shown us is what starts as fringe positions for the left becomes mainstream pretty damn fast (you remember a time when Bernie Sanders was a nutty outlier? or when $15 minimum wage seemed insane?)
You give the left FAR too much credit for having non violence as a principle and that at a certain point they will actually be satisfied and not wanna push further.
Just like the Jewish problem.
Godwin much?
Not while I'm still waiting for my 2016 investment in cattle cars to pay off, no.
First they told us to stay at home. Then they told us to get vaccinated. Then they MURDERED US!!!!
First they told us to wear a yellow star, then they told us to take a shower.
Sarcasmic's not big on historicity.
Or anything else.
We already have a yellow star. Despite that I'm a fully remote employee (that by Biden's law is exempt) and that (at the time) there was a stay on 100 employee vaccine mandate, my company already told everyone they must submit their vaccination status to HR or be fired.
If you want to be free, then just be free. The true measurement of a societies' freedom is found in the peoples' ability to say "no" to their government. It is well past time to say no.
Historically, quarantines have been temporary. And that's what lockdowns are. Quarantine at home.
Don't take that as me saying I support lockdowns or that I'm saying they're no big deal. I'm not saying that at all.
But historically this shit doesn't last forever.
Or as the Persians say: "This too shall pass."
Yeah, the government will give their power away willingly.
I think you’re getting dumber.
Trust them.
The Indians did.
Why the fuck bring up temporary nature when these have been anything buy temporary?? And then claim you dont support it? Wtf.
It's been 2 years and it's not slowing.
At what point do you stop giving them the benefit of doubt?
When they stop paying him.
It is really the conservatives fault as he will tell you.
Of course he’d say that.
He's totally not a Democrat, Jesse. He swears he isn't.
Don't you dare think he is or then you're something, something, a troll.
In America, it’s because we have surplus democrats. Get rid of the surplus democrats. Problem solved.
Wood Chipper.
Except it is slowing. Nobody is telling me to wear a mask at the grocery store. I don't know anyone who's out of work for not being "essential." My coworkers are returning to the office.
Equating temporary quarantine with systematic genocide is... insulting to anyone with intelligence.
I'm betting I'll still be wearing a mask to the grocery store this time next year. A large swathe of the country is still subject to mask mandates.
We're well past 'emergency' and into 'this is the longterm'. There will never be zero covid. I'd rather not live the rest of my life with a mask on in public.
The whole crisis declaration isnt cases or dying. Its ' hospitals full."
The Stupid Bastards have had THREE YEARS to build Covid facilities.
Dim Fuk ( Biden) wants to throw trillions out the window to Build Back Better.
.Why not build these centers?
Keep virulent patients out of hospitals.
Its deliberately not being done.
We have PSYCHOPATHS in charge.
Equating temporary quarantine with systematic genocide
I didn't. I asked you when you'll stop giving the benefit of doubt, and your answer was "It's not in my backyard".
Depending on where you are and what you mean by slowing. In places like California and New York, they are reactivating restrictions, some offices are reclosing, etc... Would you consider segregation and 2nd class citizenry by vaccination status (something that was feared and foretold by conservatives in 2020 but didn't actually exist until mid 2021 and might soon be federal law) as slowing? would you consider get yet another jab after your existing 2 as slowing?
And you have to be a fool after 2 years of promises starting with "just 2 weeks to flatten the curve" to believe this is temporary. And if you think leftists hold non violence against people they hate as a principal or that at some point they're ever satisfied and don't wanna push further, you haven't been paying attention.
2 weeks to lockdown, you remember that? That was promised as temporary too.
Historically, quarantines have been temporary.
Historically, quarantines applied to the sick. Not everyone.
Lockdowns are a totalitarian power grab wearing a science skin suit.
Shouldn't North Korea be the last on the list? Yet it's not even included in the report.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-12/human-freedom-index-2021.pdf
Free healthcare.
They’ve eliminated obesity too.
Nope. Jeff is still here.
I was wondering about NK too. I guess actual, murderous concentration camps don’t qualify as a metric…
No data.
"A new report says 83 percent of the world's population is less free today than it was in 2008"
That's a shame.
But as Koch / Reason libertarians, we have the answer. Just invite 83% of the world's population to immigrate to the US.
#OpenBordersWillFixEverything
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Ah! Now we know which sockpuppet writes "Libertarian" platform planks to import criminal terrorists uninspected, invite adult cross-dressers into the little girls' room and put the physical restraint of rights-violators into the hands of vigilante gangs.
"invite adult cross-dressers into the little girls' room"
Leave Joe Biden out of this!
You Hater.
Joe Biden likes to invite himself into the shower with his daughter. From at least the age of ten, according to her.
That is a madeup fairy tale. Here is some more their "work". then24 and national file are extreme right Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy websites based on the promotion of unproven/debunked claims and a Strong Pseudoscience purveyor based on using junk science to support claims. Failed Fact Checks Was Nancy Pelosi’s son an executive for a Ukrainian gas company? – FALSE
Says the sons of Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry are all on the boards of “energy companies doing business in Ukraine.” – FALSE
Is the United Nations office in New York recruiting paramilitary troops for disarmament and reintegration of U.S. civilians? – FALSE
A yearbook photo shows Mark Kelly dressed as Adolf Hitler. – False
CDC Inflated COVID Numbers and violated federal Law. – False
“Pfizer [COVID-19] vaccine confirmed to cause neurodegenerative diseases”; “mRNA vaccines […] can integrate into the human genome” – Inaccurate
The Australian government seized and forcibly vaccinated 24,000 students. – False These guys are so crazy they make QAnon look like a dictionary.
Maybe seek help, that word salad suggests a mental pathology of some sort.
"That is a madeup fairy tale."
Well if it is, then she made it up. His daughter is the one who wrote it.
You are a made up fairy tale. Straw man much? I didn't see anyone quote from those sites. You just try to copy and paste shit onto people that you don't agree with.
Oh, and I almost forgot ......POLITIFUCT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dbruce - the d is for dipshit.
Ot made up. Maybe her memory is shit and it didn’t really happen, but she has some kind of recollection of this. Your denials mean nothing anyway. You’re a shill here to mindlessly carry water for democrats.
You’re beyond worthless.
dbruce, read this:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring
Won't you ever learn?
he likes to wash " down there".
Cue Jaws music....
But the decline in freedom in the United States is nothing compared to what has happened in Hungary
And we'll just leave Australia out of this because we're all friends here.
Well those losses of freedom align with the marxist narrative so they don't count.
Australia just wants to be Austria now.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2hOLm_k6eCs
While virtually all of the news media (including WSJ and Fox News) have repeatedly claimed (despite zero evidence) that the increase in violence against Asians was caused by Trump calling covid the "China Flu", six black males have been arrested for committing 70 crimes against Asian women.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/17/6-men-arrested-after-committing-70-crimes-targeting-asian-women/
Its not crime when yous black.
You RAYCISS!
" Help, Help Im being repressed!" Holy Grail
They are just getting retribution for the less colorful Asians scoring higher on those racist tests. It's not a crime if they are recovering what's theirs.
Has anyone measured altruism versus time? I'm betting money and laying odds the answer is no. Juxtaposing graphs showing the waxing of altruism as justification for the initiation of force, and the waning of freedom from coercion might be misinterpreted. All the money and effort that has gone into packaging incompetent anarchists (Rothbard), Jerries with Hitler mustaches (von Mises) and promoters of coercive mixed economies (Popper, Nixon, Reagan--not Mencken, Nietzsche or Rand) as "libertarian" could be wasted if people were to get the right idea.
You got the causation backwards. It's not that waning altruism cause the initiation of force, it's that socialist and progressive states destroy altruism.
Incompetent anarchists are still preferable to fascists like you.
Fascism is ( was) anti Socislism in Italy.
I think you need to rethink your drink.
You need to read up on history.
Protestants were anti-Catholic; they are still both Christians with nearly identical beliefs.
Fascism is a branch of socialism and the left: they are collectivist, anti-free market, anti-liberal ideologies. The main difference is the victim groups they focus on (working class, ethnic minorities, etc.).
"Fascism is ( was) anti Socislism in Italy."
Mussolini called himself a socialist, he instituted socialist policies, he created socialist institutions, he published "Il Trentino veduto da un Socialista" ("Trentino as seen by a Socialist") in the radical periodical La Voce, when he was a journalist he worked exclusively for socialist newspapers, then he started his own socialist newspaper called Il Popolo d'Italia and the Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista ("Revolutionary Fasces for International Socialist Action").
"Some still ask of us: what do you want? We answer with three words that summon up our entire program. Here they are…Italy, Republic, Socialization...Socialization is no other than the implantation of Italian Socialism…"
"Socialism has to remain a terrifying and a majestic thing. If we follow this line, we shall be able to face our enemies."
"The law of socialism is that of the desert: a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. Socialism is a rude and bitter truth, which was born in the conflict of opposing forces and in violence. Socialism is war, and woe to those who are cowardly in war. They will be defeated."
Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State." - Benito Mussolini
Now read this:
The Socialist Economics of Italian Fascism
Yes, Socialism and fascism of the same thing .
Actually, I have aesthetic/intuitional a non-reasoning, non-logic, approach, That may be more convincing for some.
Look at socialist and fascist art. As stylistic movement, you can’t tell them apart. Because they’re the same genre.
Pier Paolo Spinazzè
Thomas Hart Benton
Diego Rivera
Gerardo Dottori
Mario Sironi , Not Pier Paolo Spinazzè
National Socialist Germans Workers Party... Yeah definitely anti socialist. Moron.
"Fascism is ( was) anti Socislism in Italy..."
You need to do some reading and seriously STFU regarding subjects of which you are really ignorant.
Has anyone measured altruism versus time?
I was going to but figured we'd all be better off if I didn't judge others.
Don't fool yourself, the vast majority of humans don't value freedom, it makes no difference who wears what label.
To Old Man Hank.
" Free-dom?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bYkNptOJns
If those are the Top 5 countries in their index, the Cato and Frasier institutes are staffed by either idiots or statist propagandists.
But, then, we already knew that.
Soros
> Institute
>Statist Propagandists
> Idiots
Yep. Nail on head
With all the trouble Soros has caused, how are he and his sons still alive? How has some intelligence agency from a country with an axe to ground not had them eliminated in some kind of black op.
Soros is wealthier and more powerful than most presidents and dictators on this planet and they seem to be difficult to kill even for superpowers like the US, China, and Russia.
...who dont want to...apparently.
Actually, we know from archives that there have been several foreign leaders that the US government wanted to kill but failed.
Countries can declare war. Soros can’t.
Krugman has said for a decade to ignore Estonia.
Moderna vax- herat risks
JnJ- blood clots
JnJ doesnt work on Omygod- cron
"Fhupid Fhitheads"
Bender, Futurama
FJB 100X
When you turn your country into an open-air asylum, expect to get a keeper. Not that I'm thrilled about what's happening, but I sure as hell understand it. See Weimar Republic.
While on an alleged and arbitrary "freedom index", perhaps Hungary isn't looking so good, I suspect if you polled citizen satisfaction, Hungary would score a hell of a lot better than the US and most of the other countries on top of your freedom survey.
Really? In what way is Orban a dictator? He has been democratically elected, he is preparing for another election, and he has had high approval ratings through much of his presidency. And the reason he has been popular is because he is seen as the only viable alternative to the progressive, illiberal, authoritarian technocracy in Brussels. Much as I dislike Orban, his demonization tells you more about the people demonizing him than about him.
The root cause of the loss of liberty is the push for global authoritarian progressive technocracies; voters around the world grasp at any straw that they think might restore some semblance of freedom and self-determination.
But the attempts by other European nations "to curtail freedom of expression and erode the rule of law" are not reflected. In the UK, you're a criminal if your teach your dog the Hitler salute or say something mean about Muslims; in Germany, the government spies with impunity on political opponents and people who object to its COVID policies; in Australia, little old ladies are arrested for walking in the park by themselves.
And to an actual libertarian, how is that a concern? Libertarians are concerned with liberty, subsidiarity, and self-determination, not with what Europeans or progressives call "democratic values". Those "democratic values" are little more than naked, authoritarian majoritarianism and technocracy.
But, of course, to make that distinction would require a libertarian writer at a libertarian magazine.
progressive, illiberal, authoritarian technocracy in Brussels.
you forgot "unaccountable".
In what way is Orban a dictator?
The claimed ills are: Euroscepticism, banning NGO's and immigration restrictions.
1 and 2 are mostly leftist tears, 3 mostly happened because Hungary was a major stop during the migrate crisis (read: importation of replacement serfs).
Those seem to be policies that Hungarians actually want…
Democracy only works when it has the correct outcome /progressives everywhere.
Famous American progressive:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Edward Bernays, Propaganda
Wonderfully said, NOYB2.
As a sidenote: Where are the freest countries in your opinion?
That depends a lot on who you are, how wealthy you are, how old you are, and what kinds of freedoms you value.
If we're talking about living in a society where people are free as a whole, the US is probably still the best on balance, though the entire West is engaged in a race to the bottom on liberty.
If you are wealthy and don't care (or even revel in) the enslavement and desperation of the people around you, any place where you are a lot wealthier than the rest of the population is a good place to live. That's no doubt why people like Pelosi are happy living in SF, and why many Brits and Americans retire poorer Mediterranean countries.
Sadly, I do care. I am one of those unfortunate people who likes to be able to look at myself in the mirror without cringing - At least about my moral rectitude. 🙂
Actually, this explains a lot about JFree, Tony, etc. If you're going to cringe looking in the mirror anyway, might as well make the most of it.
"? He has been democratically elected"
THAT never goes badly....
Do you have a point to make? By all means, go ahead and try to justify how Orban is a "dictator" and the German or Australian prime ministers are not.
Democracy = mob rule.
Your angry retaliation is not a point.
Nor a score.
Cuba. Democracy. Failure.
Democracy can be many things: mob rule, majoritarianism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, meritocracy, etc. Many forms of democracy suck. But, by definition, none of them are headed by a dictator.
I didn't try to "make a point". I asked you to explain what you meant.
Either you agree with me that Orban is not a dictator, in which case, I don't see what you are trying to get at.
Or you believe that Orban is a dictator, in which case you are welcome to advance an argument to that effect. "Democracy is mob rule" is not an argument that Orban is a dictator.
What's this doing to my freedom index?
Because moar testing.
At least they aren't hiding it any more. When you put the bullshit reason in the text of the article, and nobody pushes back, your audience is too far gone.
""but I’m certain they’ll be higher than they’ve ever been,” Bedford said."
Even if they have to lie about it.
Rigged outcomes are easy.
So are Earth Girls.
local virologists
Remember when the occupation of 'virologist' was pretty exclusive to military weapons research and the CDC? One of the perks of every barista having a Ph.D. I guess.
Good and hard
Kamalas Motto.
The last time here that they reported Hungary to have declined a lot in freedom, it was apparently measured by 3 things:
1. headed by a strong man
2. restricted immigration
3. installed more pro-boss people in news media that were already state-run
To say freedom of expression is on the decline is ridiculous. With the rise of the internet, users are free to communicate with millions across the globe instantaneously at negligible cost. That's an amazing expansion of freedom since some 25 years ago, Few bother to avail themselves of this freedom but they are free to do so if they choose. If anything there's been a decline in the attention of the user, thanks to a concomitant rise in distraction.
People get cancelled or even jailed for unpleasant tweets and postings. Definitely a severe loss of freedom of speech.
Not surprising that you wouldn’t acknowledge this since you support so many infringements of freedom.
10 years ago, we didn't have the outlets to express our views to everyone as easily. In the last 2 years, those outlets have made sure that "bad" views are far more difficult to share. I don't know which is worse, no opinions getting out, or only the ones that the private companies choose should get out.
You're free to start your own private company. That you choose not to, doesn't negate your freedom.
No, we’re really not. Your friends create lots of impediments to anyone who tries.
Seriously, fuck you and your idiotic comments. Marxist slaver piece of shit.
If Donald Trump can do it, anyone can. You've no excuse but your laziness and lack of conviction.
Where has this happened? It hasn't.
Trump is addressing stadiums jam packed with adoring fans clapping themselves silly. That's freedom, not Marxist slavery.
"People get cancelled or even jailed for unpleasant tweets and postings"
That's always been the case. Nothing new about it. People were fired and lost their livelihood for trying to organize a union in their workplace, for example. In places like Russia, China or Iran, speaking out could get one killed, still can.
A ubiquitous internet enhances our freedom. New techniques in encryption enhances it even more. Trump was cancelled by Twitter but he is still free to express himself, on many different venues, from stadiums to his own web ventures.
You want freedom that's simple, prohibit government from initiating force.
100000000000000000000
000000000000000000000 ^^
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1471924487402795010?t=SVZ-5Fl98-5ggWAzwSqjUw&s=19
JUST IN - France's PM Jean Castex announces law to transform the "health pass" (vaccinated, recovered, tested) into a "vaccination only-pass" to "put stress on the unvaccinated."
Recall the last tine the People decided to put stress?
1798 here we come!
Mon Corps, Mon Choix! Bitches!
https://twitter.com/Leftylockdowns1/status/1472009097511845893?t=01SLztLdBwAreYm-Zhv5Gg&s=19
Bad news: the 6th Circuit has dissolved the 5th Circuit's stay of the OSHA mandate. Haven't read gotten much into the decision yet, but the first paragraph is concerning: "recognizing that the 'old normal' is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models"
...showing that the real goal is overturning the old norm.
For 1,000 points, in which system is that the goal?
Gorsuch to the rescue!
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1472021803782578178?t=NCo1TTSyT8z5wgkfMtO-aA&s=19
NEW - Pfizer is now testing 3 injections of its #COVID19 jab in babies and preschoolers. 2 shots didn’t "appear strong enough for some." (Sky)
https://twitter.com/RuthAPeterson/status/1472022639556239367?t=KoA3VvGwWLS_Yw85nbgEjA&s=19
Our employer allows the vaccine or test. The catch is they charge you $30/test, and you have to have one every 3 days. That isn't a choice.
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1471815761672998919?t=ysecJ1H8GDY4NQR9kADUFg&s=19
.@NYCMayor De Blasio defends vax mandates: “Human beings are pretty predictable. If you say, ‘Your paycheck depends on it, or your ability to enjoy life, and go do the things you want to do,’ people will make the practical decision … but we’re not pushing hard enough" [video]
Hitler and Stalin operated on the same principles!
The Emperor said " go to the Temple and offer sone incense and well let you live, Christian."
This reminds me of CPD Chief Gary McCarthy when he essentially said that gangs were killing gang members who lost a gun because they were so scarce and valuable and that we need to take analogously stringent measures with gun owners who lose their weapons.
https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1472027913637834761?t=hZhIk6X-Yak6ylbUCFknEw&s=19
Michigan State University demands booster shots for all students and staff. Also, you must wear your mask.
This is what happens when you comply with unreasonable demands. It simply creates more demands. [Link]
https://twitter.com/AmandaLuvsRoses/status/1368757015238041600?t=xnblK0Chf63r8iX3-8aa_g&s=19
Let me repeat....the National Institutes of Health has a link on their Understanding Systemic Racism page to a document that lists individualism, objectivity, and right to comfort as characteristics of white supremacy culture.
"individualism, objectivity, and right to comfort as characteristics of white supremacy culture."
Sounds good to me. So theyre really saying they want everyone to not be that, to BE un- comfortable, subjective and a Collectivist.
IOW, Communist.
So do the Borg.
New Zealand? ???? I'll take Belarus over New Zealand.
New Zealand? ???? I'll take Belarus over New Zealand.
Right. Because pandemic restrictions are so much worse than your plane being forced to land by a jet fighter so that they can arrest you for being critical of the government.
Anyone care to refute this guy?
Hello Sir, Thanks For The Nice Article And Great Information.
ᐅ Afilmywap Download New Latest Bollywood Movies
Go back to India, creep.
Oh, youre already there!
New Zealand? Really?
America has been the worlds leader in freedom and liberty, and that ended Jan. 20th, 2021. Did you expect the rest of the world not to follow?
Depressingly, America is still the world leader in liberty: other countries have deteriorated even more rapidly.
Libert = prosperity, and the socialists of the world are busy draining that...
If "liberty = prosperity", then a number of rather authoritarian countries would exceed the US in terms of liberty. Liberty is more than just prosperity.
"New Zealand"
How the fuck are they top 5?
Because the only thing you know about life in New Zealand is that they have strong pandemic restrictions.* That makes them as bad as Nazis, if many of the posts above are correct.
*(9.56 cumulative deaths per million population in New Zealand; U.S. 2,420.51 - all of the top 5 countries are well below the U.S. in that statistic, by at least 1000.)
0.0000095.
Zero, statistically which is why they ignore them.
So, outside of their freedom crushing restrictions, they are hella free, eh?
So, outside of their freedom crushing restrictions, they are hella free, eh?
I don't know, do you? If you don't understand how they got into the top 5 of that list, then maybe it is because you don't. Maybe reading that report would give you insight into how they scored each country. Maybe there is always tension between freedom and security and public health. Is it freedom crushing to have police that carry guns and bust in and raid people's homes looking for drugs? And being unaccountable the vast majority of the time when they shoot and kill people during these raids when no guns or drugs are found? There is a LOT more to freedom than public health restrictions.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that these restrictions are not indicative of freedom? Why make a deflection, Jason? That's a fallacy.
Yes, it is possible that New Zealand's pandemic restrictions are indicative of them being authoritarian in other areas, but that would still need to be demonstrated with facts. Everyone I was replying to was simply assuming that to be the case. I wasn't deflecting. I was probing to see if they knew of anything else that would be evidence that New Zealand wasn't "free" and thus didn't deserve the rating. That no one has pointed to anything else lends support to my initial statement that they don't know anything else about New Zealand's government besides the pandemic stuff.
Also, no one is disputing that New Zealand's policies seem to have been effective, so far, at least. So maybe their efforts to balance public health and "freedom" have the support of their people. Unlike in the U.S., where a large segment of the population has fought against much less restrictive efforts as being an unjust imposition on their freedoms, and we have a hugely outsized proportion of the worldwide death count from the disease to show for it.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1472217482438004740?t=mrpStnhpp-3eG_UyGoBKnQ&s=19
JUST IN - Netherlands to impose hard lockdown effective from tomorrow until at least January 14th (NOS)
Drudge.. 40 % asymptomatic.
IOW not sick.
Vaccines now admitted as DANGEROUS.
Freedom and democracy are not necessarily synonymous—and sometimes can be quite in tension—but democratic governments throughout history have done a better job of protecting and promoting freedom than more authoritarian regimes. Now, the two values seem to be declining in tandem.
Freedom is going to "sometimes" be "in tension" with any form of government. Does anyone know of a system of government that is more reliable at protecting the freedom of the people?
This was actually the most important aspect of the American Experiment. Freedom of Speech, the Press, Religion, and our other rights were the goal. But democracy* was the means of achieving that goal.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
*Since the pedants will come out, I will say now that, like almost everyone else, I use "democracy" in the broad sense of holding elections for legislators and other officials. That's what "consent of the governed" means to me. When a finer distinction is necessary, then feel free to argue for which is better among those systems that fit that broad category.
Protecting democracy means protecting voting rights, the security and accuracy of elections, and ensuring that those in power don't manipulate elections to keep power and that they give up that power when they lose. Anyone that seeks a role in government that doesn't fully support all three of those necessary components of democracy shouldn't be let anywhere near power in this country.
Democracy isnt freedom.
Its inventor, Alexander the Great, hiding behind his Mommys skirt, set upon the mid East to conquer it with his army, but NO MONEY TO PAY THEM.
Ahem...
So as they conquered cities, they promised to leave them more or less alone if they PAID TAXES.
Starting to sound nauseatingly familiar?
Rather " democrat?"
From some book like History of Greece or
The Cambridge Ancient History, I dont recall.
Democracy is a generic term for many different forms of government, including Athenian democracy, majoritarianism, democratic socialism, parliamentarian democracies, social welfare states, Christian democracies, technocracies, libertarian countries, minarchies, and many others. All it means is that the power of government somehow derives from the people (as opposed to God or a dictator or a monarchy).
You're welcome.
And there’s a tension between voting rights and election security.
A system that’s secure is more difficult to access, and a system that’s easy to access is less secure.
The most transparent election would make everyone’s vote a public record. So there’s a tension between election transparency and privacy.
It’s a really complicated question to determine the best set of policies to strike the right balance here. Therefore, I would be really careful about accusing people of threatening democracy based on their election policy preferences.
That "tension" only exists because there is the notion that citizenship should grant you an automatic right to vote on every issue.
If you tie voting to taxation or land ownership, the problem pretty much takes care of itself.
That "tension" only exists because there is the notion that citizenship should grant you an automatic right to vote on every issue.
And people don't vote "on every issue", they vote for representatives that are supposed to study each issue and decide what would be in the best interests of the whole. And a majority of all citizens decide who is going to do the best job at that, changing their mind and throwing existing lawmakers out if they don't like the way things are going. That is how a government obtains the "consent of the governed". If those in power get to pick and choose who gets to vote and on what topics, then there are people being governed that aren't even being asked for their consent, and it isn't a full democracy.
If you tie voting to taxation or land ownership, the problem pretty much takes care of itself.
Hey, we could make it so that people had to pay a specific tax just to be able to vote. That would clearly be a fair way to decide who gets to vote, right? No chance of that being abused.
Or you could be required to serve in the military to earn the right to vote.
I wonder if that would change our ideas about war?
Or you could be required to serve in the military to earn the right to vote.
I wonder if that would change our ideas about war?
You saw the movie Starship Troopers and thought it was the ideal system of government? Join the Mobile Infantry! Service guarantees citizenship!
Uh, no.
But it would change our ideas about war.... And not in the way that Starship Troopers implies.
Yes, a movie made by an ignorant European authoritarian snob mocking the work of a thoughtful writer who raises political questions in his writings.
Like Verhoeven, you have been so indoctrinated into authoritarianism yourself that you actually believe that our system of government amounts to "consent of the governed".
What makes you think Verhoeven was sympathetic to authoritarianism? I take the message of the movie to be quite different. The point was to seduce the audience into emotionally sympathizing with the fascist nature of the government and then make them think about how easy it was to do that. Thus, I take it as a warning about falling for propaganda that would lead one to support war and giving government too much power.
I haven't read Heinlein's book that it was based on. (An article I just read points out that Verhoeven only read the first couple of chapters himself and then put it away thinking it was sympathetic to fascism. Heinlein is described as an "anti-communist liberal" by that article, and it says that the original screenplay was more in line with the source material.
Verhoeven's "point" is glaringly obvious; he overloads the movie with fascist symbolism. The problem is that Verhoeven evidently doesn't know what fascism is. The society in Heinlein's and Verhoeven's Starship Troopers seems to have a thriving free market, great wealth, and great ethnic diversity; i.e., the opposite of fascist states.
In his book, Heinlein actually described something more like Athenian and Roman democracy. The problem Heinlein is concerned with is that if you give people universal suffrage with no obligations or skin in the game, democracy tends to fail. This isn't a new insight, many political philosophers recognized this, as did the Founding Fathers. Heinlein just described this idea in a sci-fi story for teenagers and eliminated the disagreeable parts of Athenian/Roman democracy, in that citizenship is available to anybody in Starship Troopers regardless of birth or wealth.
Heinlein himself was a libertarian and favored neither Athenian nor modern democracy.
Because based on interviews and writings), Verhoeven is a typical left-leaning European intellectual and progressive, i.e., an authoritarian.
Like Verhoeven, you have been so indoctrinated into authoritarianism yourself that you actually believe that our system of government amounts to "consent of the governed".
Since you clearly missed both Verhoeven's point and what I think, you should probably look inward to understand yourself better before you judge others.
Yes, Captain Obvious, that's what we are doing. And what the Founding Fathers feared happened: we turned into a nation where the government is primarily a vehicle for wealth redistribution.
But that isn't how the US was founded. The US was founded so that only land owners chose representatives, and those representatives only decided a very limited set of issues (mainly pertaining to landowners). All other liberties were retained by the people.
How does our election system result in the "consent of the governed"? In every election, the majority of Americans, and the majority of voters, does not consent to be governed by the people who sit in Congress, or even their own representative or Senator.
Socialist East Germany was a "full democracy"; how is being a "full democracy" a good thing?
Actually, yes, it would be: it would be a flat (=fair) tax, and it would mean that only people who contribute to government financially get to decide what government does with that money. In what way do you think that's not "fair"?
Progressives and leftists find a way of corrupting every political system. They took perfectly reasonable democratic mechanisms like poll taxes and literacy requirements and made them a tool for racism and political manipulation by granting exemptions based on race. But they also managed to do the same with representative democracy, using propaganda, cronyism, and corruption. That's why we are having this discussion.
Progressives and leftists try to corrupt every system of democracy and turn it into socialism, and they usually succeed. That's not just my opinion, that is the declared objective of socialism and a historical inevitability according to socialists, including Marx.
Yes, Captain Obvious, that's what we are doing. And what the Founding Fathers feared happened: we turned into a nation where the government is primarily a vehicle for wealth redistribution.
But that isn't how the US was founded. The US was founded so that only land owners chose representatives, and those representatives only decided a very limited set of issues (mainly pertaining to landowners). All other liberties were retained by the people.
Don't worship the Founders. They were far ahead of their time and did great things, but they didn't implement their vision perfectly, nor was everything they envisioned correct. Limiting voting rights to landowners was a belief that only they would be educated and wise enough to make the decisions. It wasn't about who had a sufficient stake in government. Does that kind of elitism sound like anything conservatives or libertarians support now?
In every election, the majority of Americans, and the majority of voters, does not consent to be governed by the people who sit in Congress, or even their own representative or Senator.
What are you talking about? Do you mean election results where the winner was short of 50% because of minor party candidates? Do you mean the equal representation in the Senate regardless of population? Do you mean gerrymandering? Which party is benefiting from those things the most? I'd be all for reducing those flaws in our system. What do you want to see improve in this respect?
Socialist East Germany was a "full democracy"; how is being a "full democracy" a good thing?
You mean communist East Germany that only allowed candidates that supported the communist regime a chance to run for elections? That's not my idea of a full democracy either.
Actually, yes, it would be: it would be a flat (=fair) tax, and it would mean that only people who contribute to government financially get to decide what government does with that money. In what way do you think that's not "fair"?
Do the poor not pay sales taxes? Pay more for imported goods because of tariffs? Pay payroll taxes? Only those that are disabled and completely dependent on others could really be said to avoid contributing to government. And as for the argument that some of the poor might be still be net beneficiaries due to the "wealth redistribution" you hate so much, then how about we include benefits of government that are intangible? How much do business owners benefit from an educated workforce supported by publicly funded education? From government funded transportation and other infrastructure projects? From the military that secures the country from external threats and our interests in trade and resources from abroad? Court systems that will order the enforcement of contracts?
Limiting voting based on wealth is no different than limiting voting based on race, sex, or basically anything else other than legal adulthood. It is those with power trying to restrict voting to those that will support them being in power. If you worry so much about the working class and the poor voting themselves your money, then convince them that it isn't in their interest to do so with facts and logical reasoning. If you can't do that with a majority of voters, then it could be because it would be in their interest to have progressive taxation to pay for social welfare programs.
Progressives and leftists find a way of corrupting every political system. They took perfectly reasonable democratic mechanisms like poll taxes and literacy requirements and made them a tool for racism and political manipulation by granting exemptions based on race.
Holy shit. How was it "progressives and leftists" that instituted Jim Crow disenfranchisement? Because those Southerners over a century ago were Democrats? The Democratic party started to lose the support of those racists once the Democrats outside of the old South started fully supporting civil rights for Blacks. It wasn't party that separated those that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from those that voted against it. It was purely geography. The few Republican congressmen in southern states voted against it at the same rate as Democrats in those states. Republicans and Democrats outside of the once-Confederate states both voted overwhelmingly for it. Pinning Jim Crow on the left and the modern Democratic Party is bullshit revisionism.
Progressives and leftists try to corrupt every system of democracy and turn it into socialism, and they usually succeed. That's not just my opinion, that is the declared objective of socialism and a historical inevitability according to socialists, including Marx.
FYIGM is pretty much what this is all about for you then, it seems. Just fearmongering about the evils of "socialism" and no nuance or reasoned debate.
How? Because progressives believed it to be a scientific fact that blacks were intellectually inferior.
That is incorrect. Much of the South remained Democratic until the late 1990's. The rise of the Republican party in the South is clearly due to the decline of racism in the South.
With voter turnout of maybe 60% and a 50/50 split, only about 30% of voters vote for the winning candidate, if that.
It is in their short term economic interest to vote for redistribution, which is why people vote for it. It is also in their short term economic interest to vote for massive amounts of debt, which is why people are voting for that too.
But no nation can prosper, or even survive, that way in the long term, as history has shown again and again. It's a recipe for self-destruction.
In addition, it is also morally wrong (not that you care).
And there’s a tension between voting rights and election security.
A system that’s secure is more difficult to access, and a system that’s easy to access is less secure.
I could make my apartment far more secure at the cost of it being inconvenient to enter. Right now, I just have the deadbolt on my door, and that's it. I could use the alarm system, but then I'd have to take the time to turn it on and off when I come and go. I could even hire a security guard to watch the place while I'm gone. But do I need to do any of that? No, I don't. The deadbolt is plenty of deterrent for anyone that was looking for an easy place to burglarize, and more than that probably wouldn't stop someone really determined. Plus, I simply don't have anything worth that kind of trouble.
The same concept applies to election security. A handful of people voting in two states* or filling out an absentee ballot for a dead spouse is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome of an election, even for small local races. Which makes it a really stupid thing for anyone to do. Why would an rational individual risk a felony voter fraud conviction when it almost certainly won't make a difference? And what would that individual voter even gain, anyway? The best thing to do is to try make it virtually impossible to get away with fraud on a scale that could change the outcome of an election. And I think that they do that fairly well in the U.S.
What we see are not attempts at large scale fraud, but attempts at manipulations of the rules, methods, and number of polling locations and other resources to affect turnout of groups of voters likely to vote in a particular way. And none of that is criminal. It violates essential principles of democracy, though, which is why I said that all three things are necessary. Any tension between access to the polls and security needs to be resolved without bias. Any security measures that make it less likely for voters to show up at the polls and have their votes counted need to be fully justified by facts, not speculation about who might try and commit fraud.
*Three snowbirds in The Villages, a huge retirement development about an hour from Orlando, were charged this week with voting in other states in Nov 2020 as well as here in Florida. Care to wager on which party they support?
You sure about that?
Because I seem to remember a lot of things that don't leave me so confident about this supposed absence of any large scale manipulation.
You know how sometimes kids lye about something and you don't know what they actually did, but you know they are lying? like, "I don't know what actually happened, but that story is 100% BS"?
Yeah. That is 2020.
There are two tells.
1. It was a called shot. In the summer when Trump was down by at least 16 points and had absolutely no chance, they were warning that on election night, it would look like Trump won in a landslide. Now, why would they do that? It they really believed the polling they were reporting, why claim Trump was going to win easiky early on, but the recounts and legal challenges would ensure a Biden landslide.
2. They won't let you ask questions. Why so sensitive? If nothing happened, why they hyper-defensive reactions? In other situations, this is a tell. Usually, one would take this as a sign that something shady is happening.
That alone should be enough to give you pause.
But not if you have partisan blinders on. If you have partisan blinders, precincts with 118% turnout are not suspicious. Precincts with 100% for 1 candidate are not suspicious. Counties with record turnout that have historically high margins and are coincidentally late reporting any results are not suspicious. Election laws being completely ignored in battleground states is not suspicious. Refusal to follow recount audit laws is not suspicious.
Who knows what happened.
But just like everyone said Epstein would never live to stand trial and he "commits suicide" two weeks later makes you suspect something is up, election law experts telling me that "every case I have been involved with where they attempted to steal an election, they held back on counting their votes until the other side was done, then they knew how many votes they needed to manufacture.". He said that if you see a bunch of party strongholds delaying reporting results, that is when you should get suspicious.
That is a called shot. he said it before the election. He said it when the outcome was supposed to be a 15 point landslide.
And just like everyone saying Epstein was not going to live to stand trial does not mean that he was murdered... It also does not mean you are irrational for having suspicion.
1. It was a called shot. In the summer when Trump was down by at least 16 points and had absolutely no chance, they were warning that on election night, it would look like Trump won in a landslide. Now, why would they do that? It they really believed the polling they were reporting, why claim Trump was going to win easiky early on, but the recounts and legal challenges would ensure a Biden landslide.
You're overstating things by a lot. Trump wasn't down by 16% at any point in the race. A quick search shows that he was down by no more than about 10% in the major polling aggregates (that averaged the results of many of the more reliable polling groups). Biden was ahead by 7-8% in the summer, which held up to the election, even as the number of undecideds decreased. Maybe one or two polls had Biden ahead by 16%, but they would have been huge outliers. Given that the actual margin in the national vote was 4.4%, the polls were off, but not by much more than the margin of error. And it continued the effect of under-estimating Trump support seen in 2016.
Second, the whole reason that people were predicting that Trump would look like he was ahead on election night, but that the margin would shift as counting continued was due to Trump. Prior to 2020, there wasn't much of a partisan advantage in absentee/mail-in ballots. And any advantage seemed likely to favor Republicans, given that seniors were more likely to vote by mail.
But all of that changed once Trump started in on mail voting being more subject to fraud, something even he hadn't said before the pandemic. (~25% of votes in 2016 were absentee.) Most other Republican officeholders and strategists weren't going along with his claims, and I recall multiple strategists thinking that Trump was shooting himself in the foot with all of that. Both sides have been expanding mail voting over the last 30 years. It wasn't a partisan issue until Trump made it one.
That made it inevitable that absentee ballots would heavily favor Biden and that Biden would gain as votes continued to be counted after election day. It wasn't any sort of magic or special insight to predict that, nor a conspiratorial plan to make that happen.
2. They won't let you ask questions. Why so sensitive?
If there are people making unsupported, conspiratorial accusations, it isn't a "tell" or "sign that something shady is happening" when people are derisive of those claims. It is a reasonable response.
But not if you have partisan blinders on. If you have partisan blinders, precincts with 118% turnout are not suspicious. Precincts with 100% for 1 candidate are not suspicious.
And where did that actually happen? Or is it simply accusations thrown out there on Twitter and Facebook and email chains that you are repeating? This is the whole problem with all of the fraud claims. Election fraud and voter fraud are crimes. Serious accusations like that require serious evidence that will hold up to scrutiny in court. Things floating around the internet from pillow company CEOs and former internet retail company CEOs that admitted to sex with Russian spies aren't serious. Quite frankly, I'll believe fraud is a significant problem in our elections when there are significant prosecutions for it. There are plenty of GOP election officials and prosecutors that would love to do that. That prosecutions are as rare as they are actually gives me confidence in our elections. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but when you make serious efforts to look for unicorns and don't find any, the rational response is to believe that it is unlikely for unicorns to exist, not to think that unicorns are just really good at hiding.
But just like everyone said Epstein would never live to stand trial...
Again with the overstating your case. Who was "everyone" saying that? How many of those that did say it were actually serious and had reason to believe it compared to those that would joke about it? It does make me wonder a bit about his suicide that he wasn't watched better, given the nature of the allegations against him, but that is something I just don't care enough about to spend time reading up on the details of what is known and unknown about his death. I read plenty about supposed voter fraud though, and I just don't see evidence that holds up to scrutiny. I see lots of verifiable claims that are shown to be false, though.
...election law experts telling me that "every case I have been involved with where they attempted to steal an election, they held back on counting their votes until the other side was done, then they knew how many votes they needed to manufacture.
Given how rare voter fraud prosecutions are, and how much rarer it is to find actual election fraud conspiracies, just how many election law experts that have been involved in multiple such cases do you know? I am pretty skeptical of that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The rational thing is to be skeptical of extraordinary claims until sufficient evidence that can be verified is brought forth and subjected to scrutiny. You've only provided speculation, most of which can't even be tested.
Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots
https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
Assuming you trust the NY Post to verify the claims from their one anonymous source there, then you may have something. But as this source said, the smaller the race, the easier it is to do. And he said that he needed actual envelopes sent to actual voters, so how do you do that for 10,000+ ballots in a whole state without getting caught? How many people would be needed to actually do the work of steaming open that many voters' ballots to stuff in the fake one? Why take that kind of risk when it would be uncertain to matter? No one could be sure that a state would come down to ~10-20,000 votes the way Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia did.
Those are all interesting questions, but I think it’s reasonable to assume given news stories like this, that some people may, when trying to balance election security with accessibility, wish for everyone to vote, but to avoid methods of voting where criminals have identified security vulnerabilities that haven’t been addressed.
But gee, why believe this news article, when I can just take the questions posed by a complete stranger on the internet with an obvious bias and no citations as good enough for me?
Clearly, that’s the principles take.
My "obvious bias" is in favor of citizens of this country having their right to vote respected and not limited unnecessarily. Especially if it is to satisfy conspiratorial fears of fraud, and that are likely just cover to restrict the voting rights of those that would vote for the opposition of those leaders claiming that fraud is such a big deal.
I want there to be more than one party in this country. We need a wide spectrum of views represented by the political parties that are viable. That is how democracy is supposed to work to bring about the best government achievable. Reasoned debate based on facts and core principles of both cooperation and liberty. Let those with the facts on their side and the best arguments win. You are right that principles is my main argument, but principles of democracy have to be ahead of policy preferences in priority. A party that has the right policies, but would undercut democracy to get the power to implement those policies simply can't be trusted with that power.
And what citations do I need? You found one article in a clearly slanted publication about someone anonymously claiming to have perpetrated fraud for years in small races. If that is the best you have, then I don't think I need to take the time to try and find links to anything else.
And the people voting for politicians through democracy that weigh their concerns about election security with accessibility don’t need any cites from you, either.
Passing laws to secure democracy is part of democracy.
Passing laws to secure democracy is part of democracy.
Passing laws to restrict the voting rights of those that disagree with you is not. It would be more convincing that it was genuinely about election security if the things they want didn't happen to put more obstacles in the way of those that vote for the other side than for their own voters.
“It would be more convincing that it was genuinely about election security if the things they want didn't happen to put more obstacles in the way of those that vote for the other side than for their own voters.”
By the same logic, they could say it’s not democratic for the system to be insecure just so access can favor one side.
All decisions have trade offs, and all decisions affect the sides differently. The decision to leave election less secure helps one side with access but not the other. By your definition, that’s undemocratic.
“Serious accusations like that require serious evidence that will hold up to scrutiny in court.”
Speaking of which: do you know that no one’s been charged for sedition for the Jan 6 protest? You’d l think a serious accusation like that would involve someone being charged with something.
“ Quite frankly, I'll believe fraud is a significant problem in our elections when there are significant prosecutions for it.”
This is why I’m waiting for someone to get charged with sedition for Jan 6. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Charging someone with "sedition" is seriously fraught and likely to run afoul of the 1st Amendment, even for those that are clearly guilty of other crimes that day. There is a reason why it was good that the Sedition Act was allowed to expire in the Founding era. It was a dangerous thing that was abused. It is better to charge them with crimes that is clearly evidence for that doesn't get into their political preferences, even if charges of sedition could be supported. (Do we even have laws against sedition anymore? If so, how is it defined, exactly?)
You do have something of a point, in that many are throwing around words like "coup" even though people aren't getting charged with crimes along those lines. (I think that there is sufficient information known about what Trump, his team, and some of his supporters in Congress tried to do that justify the word "coup", though.) But, in any case, there is no doubt that Jan. 6th involved many crimes by at least hundreds of people, even if no one is getting charged with "sedition" or the like. So that is not analogous to the allegations of fraud on a scale that doesn't line up with the number of prosecutions. If only a handful of people are being prosecuted for any election crimes, then a grand conspiracy to illegally steal the election from Trump is implausible to me.
Trump is taking advantage of the distrust his voters have of the system in order to paint them all as victims and get their support for the future.
To a certain extent, the distrust his voters have of the system is understandable, even if they’re wrong in this case.
So some red states are boosting election integrity. Sure, that could be a conspiracy to deny one side the right to vote, but it could also be republicans trying to address their voters’ distrust of the system.
Democrat politicians have a vested interest in portraying republicans as assaulting democracy and denying their right to vote, whether or not they’re actually doing that, because it rules up their base and gets their support, gets them to the polls. And that’s where you come in.
"...(I think that there is sufficient information known about what Trump, his team, and some of his supporters in Congress tried to do that justify the word "coup", though.)..."
I think you're full of shit.
That is absolutely false. Trump complained that there was election fraud in 2016 as well.
The allegation isn't of a massive rise in "voter fraud", it is of fraud by election officials, abuse of process, suppression of the press, alteration of voting procedures, and manipulation. Many of those clearly occurred and have been documented.
Trump and Republicans actually won many of their lawsuits, and as a result, legislatures are strengthening voting procedures. Democrats falsely denounce this as "voter suppression".
In court, when it comes to convicting individuals and overturning elections, we require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
That is the wrong standard to decide whether voters should trust election outcomes.
For trusting election outcomes, voters should have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that there was no fraud and that procedures followed the law. Obviously, that hasn't been true in the US for decades.
People aren't alleging any more widespread voter fraud than the usual; they are alleging election fraud and election manpulation. Try to understand the difference.
It’s a really complicated question to determine the best set of policies to strike the right balance here. Therefore, I would be really careful about accusing people of threatening democracy based on their election policy preferences.
And I wasn't even primarily talking about what balance between access and security partisans want. Did you miss the third aspect of democracy that I mentioned? I notice that you didn't say anything about that. It is pretty clear what I was referring to, don't you think?
Gee, republicans are evil.
Reason --- "Green Energy" and many others of the U.N. globalization of Nazism. Just read Agenda 21 from the U.N. it's all in black and white.
AFA India provides Classroom Coaching for entrance exam of NIFT, NID, NATA, CEED, UCEED, PEARL, IIAD, JSAA, JKLU, TDV, CODE VGU, ARCH ACADEMY, CHITKARA, WUD, ISDI, LPU, UID, UPES, IMAGINE XP and other Top design institutes. We provide training for Studio Test, Situation Test, Design Aptitude Test, General ability test, portfolio, and interview Preparation.
17342-08-4
https://buildingblock.bocsci.com/product/pyroglutaminol-cas-17342-08-4-12114.html
(S)-5-(Hydroxymethyl)-2-pyrrolidinone; (S)-(+)-5-hydroxymethyl-2-pyrrolidinone; (S)-(+)-5-(Hydroxymethyl)-2-pyrrolidinone
Plant Dot Blot Hybridization Service
https://breeding.lifeasible.com/dot-blot-hybridization.html
Dot blot hybridization uses the principle of nucleic acid hybridization to detect whether there is nucleic acid hybridization and its hybridization strength.
I learned an awful lot about duct tape from old Red.
Saw him live on what was billed as his final tour a couple years ago. He was hilarious, and didn't say a single cuss word in 2 hours. A brilliant bastard, he is.
Jews attacking mooselimbs in the streets?
NOT.
The Viterbi Graduate Student Association's website is now "down for maintenance" but previously listed her as a "DEI Senator." DEI stands for "diversity, equity and inclusion."
No! That's German 'The Zionists, The'.
Like it or not, Iran, China and Russia are part of the globe.
They've always colluded. And you are still free to express yourself.
To me, the collusion of the secretaries of state in PA, Georgia, Arizona, and a few other swing states to illegally changed mail in voting laws mere weeks before the election with no legislative input, is the biggest tell.
What "illegal" changes were made "mere weeks" ahead of the election? All of the cases I have read about were in regards to things planned since at least the summer of 2020, and some that had been used in the primaries already. There was one case that sticks in my mind. Harris County (Houston, Texas) had announced in June that it was going to set up temporary drive through voting stations. The law specified that voting need to take place inside "structures", so the way they were putting those together could be argued to fit the definition of a "structure" even if it was temporary. But some Republican group didn't challenge that practice until after over a hundred thousand voters had used them, and they wanted those votes tossed out. There was no way a judge was going to agree to that. That principle of "laches" was at play in some cases just as much as standing was. And, of course, speaking of last minute changes, Texas Gov. Abbott ordered each county to be limited to a single absentee ballot drop off location on Oct. 1, after Harris and Travis Counties had already opened more than one. The Texas Supreme Court sided with Abbott in the lawsuits filed over that order.
And it isn't a "bullshit" excuse to say that those filing a lawsuit need to show that they are harmed by something in order to have the standing to challenge it. Standing doctrine can be pretty nebulous, but it is important to have in order to prevent the courts from being clogged up with nonsense.
Is this increase in soccer players dying of cardiac events tied to COVID vaccines? Is it even a real thing? Probably not.
It is good to look for potential harmful effects of vaccines, but it is even better to be sure that information you would use to make a judgement about whether vaccines are safe and effective is reliable.
You didn't answer Dizzle's question. Go answer Dizzle's question.
Do you believe they should get away with collusion? What's your solution to all this?
The answer: Yes! American exceptionalism is a Stalinist construct. You must abandon it.
People colluding with others is human nature. There is no solution except to think critically and try to keep yourself informed. Soviet intellectuals and dissidents managed this.