Uh, unlikely really, and that is because one can not trust the numbers given by the Chinese government.
No straw. You were saying that this was a likely outcome. Remember, history rhymes? And you seem to think that this democratically elected guy with a 90% approval rating that is doing something that you don’t like, somehow rhymes with a military coup. Your bad at rhyming.
Can you rhyme that with coup and junta?
Yes the elections in South Korea were about as contested as the ones in North Korea. Plenty of people voted in them and I suppose a lot of people even voted for the military dictator. They were never declared fraudulent either (elections that picked people that were friendly to the US government were rarely called fraudulent), that didn’t make them free and fair elections.
Is ignorant your word of the day or something? Can you debate without insulting because it makes debate pretty tough when you keep calling me ignorant any time you think you have a rebuttal.
I mean seriously, what percentage of SDMB do you think DON’T share my deep and telling ignorance of El Salvador’s political history?
You did as you are wrong on what I reported; read it again, the election came after the Junta and unless you have evidence the candidate did get the most votes with no need of fraud back then, the point was that decades later the military guys did resort to fraud as their strong arm rule began to not be accepted by most people.
Of curse, but that does not take away that still most people did vote for the winner.
:rolleyes:
Pointing at your ignorance on an issue is not an insult, you are not only wrong on this, but also wrong on even this side point. The problem happens when nothing is learned once the ignorance goes away. Instead of looking at the evidence you always reach for alrternative explanation, an explanation that was not mentioned by me, hence me pointng at your repeated straw men.
Anyhow, there is a lot of items were you are wrong, even on your attempts to counter what was reported.
Among the items that you were clearly wrong was that affirmation of yours about just being “ONE” country were drug decriminalization was attempted. It clearly shows that you should rethink a lot of your say-sos.
So when the plan has completely and fully “worked” (whatever that means), we can expect a peaceful transition of power to the next lawfully-elected administration, right?
Huh? Right?
You are being sarcastic, but that rethorical question has to be commented about.
If it was a different nation I would point at how the past history of the nation would tell us how possible is to see a transition to the next lawfully-elected administration.
Unfortunately this is the Philippines and much to the chagrin of the OP, there is another, more relevant example of a democratically elected guy that became a dictator. While many also suspected that Ferdinand Marcos later victories were obtained by fraud, a referendum in the 80’s showed that voters supported the dictator by 88.02%. Sure, the Dictator did put a fake candidate against him, but the reality is that most people did vote for the then dictator.
Back to the “good old times” for many? And the roll eyes :rolleyes: goes to the voters of then, although many did boycott the elections the turnout was very heavy, and even taking the fraudulent efforts by Marcos into account the bastard showed that he had a lot of support back then.
Until Aquino showed with his own life how bloodthirsty Marcos had become. The hope for the Philippines is that at least, historically speaking, they are capable of big changes in a few years; although it took a revolt to make sure that Corazon Aquino (the widow of the opposition leader) was allowed to become president as many observers did report that Marcos only did win in 1986 by committing fraud.
Still, IIRC the results were close, even in the numbers reported by observers and the opposition that showed Aquino as the winner. Meaning that while most did choose democracy, a good number of Philippinos back then showed that they still did love to live under a recognized dictator.
However, your persistent use of the words “ignorant” and “ignorance” in this thread has gotten to the point where it is less a comment on a specific understanding by a poster regarding a specific phenomenon and much more a dismissive label that treads the line of personal attack.
Knock it off. Just post what you believe to be the facts and omit your commentary on what you believe your opponent to know or not know.
[ /Moderating ]
Yes it came back but they don’t kill drug users anymore. They just put them in jail like we do.
So wait. A junta takes over by military coup and then has an election that you think is rigged and so NATURALLY when someone first comes into power by winning the most votes and has a 90%+ approval rating, you think “well geez, I’ve seen THIS movie before”
:dubious:
Depends on who you believe. The military junta claims that they got over 90% of the vote while there were violent riots in the streets by college students and the military was massacring dissidents in Kwang Ju. YOu would start crying every time you got off at Kimpo airport because there was so much ear gas in the air that you would be affected if you hadn’t developed a tolerance by living in Korea.
The way you do it? Of course its meant as an insult. Who in their right mind would call someone ignorant because they didn’t know what happened in a fucking banana republic 50 fucking years ago? Seriously, what percentage of the SDMB do you think knows El Salvador’s political history from 50 years ago? Because you are either saying they are all ignorant or you were really just trying to insult me.
What explanation. Why do you speak so opaquely? Do you think someone will think you are smart or something?
Like what?
Your method of argument is so fucking ridiculous its making me fart.
here let me try your method of argument: Anyhow you’re wrong about so much stuff and even when you try to rebutt things that I say, you still manage to prove that the ignorant can never really stop being ignorant because they revel in their ignorance.
Why wouldn’t there be? The president is currently limited to a single 6 year term in office.
What “say so”?
What difference does your little factoid make?
You were wrong, it may not make much of a difference to you, but many others will take that into account as it is clear that you are not reconsidering even that say so.
For it then would follow that since other nations are doing a more humane solution that is actually a working one; you, for that matter, should condemn Dutarte and the ones that support him as his efforts are more likely to lead to failure, not only in the drug war front, but also in the democratic side of things.
What difference does it make that I was wrong about the number of countries that dealt with their drug problem by giving all their addicts drugs?
How does that impact my argument that President Dutarte’s policies might also work to reduce crimes associated with drugs?
Sure, there are problems with extrajudicial killings but as a previous poster pointed out, this can be the lesser of two evils. If you could reduce the murder rate in El Salvador by 95% (El Savador’s murder rate in 2012 was 20 times that of the USA and 7 times that of the Philippines) by killing the drug traffickers that terrorize the country, why wouldn’t you immediately assume that anyone suggesting such a thing actually wants to become a dictator?
It is clear that you are missing the history of the Philiphines. So, yes I have seen that movie before. Dutarte can also say that he is limited to 6 years, that did not stop Marcos from taking over after being elected democratically.
I’ll take a wild guess and speculate that extrajudicial killing that starts out targeting criminals will move on to people who are accused of sympathizing with criminals by being opposed to the extrajudicial killing of people who may or may not be criminals, and some political opponents of the current administration could be so accused.
You insistence of being only one nation would lead to the idea that just because only one did try and it is looking to be successful that that would not be of much use since only one country did it.
As it turns out there are more than just one that are doing more humane solutions than the ones Duterte are using. And with better outcomes really.
Because, as the evidence in the video showed the war on drugs being done mostly as a punitive action (that is, mostly the stick and not the carrot) leads nations to the corruption of their institutions.
Because on the way to fight the monsters that way, the history I checked tells me that the ones fighting the monsters will become one.
NO.
Given that Gigo was already Mod Noted for his behavior, your attempt to use his “method of argument” means that you are violating a Mod’s instructions.
So, if you do not want to incur a Warning, you will knock off this bullshit now.
[ /Moerating ]
You can go believe self-reporting, it’s notoriously unreliable. There’s at least some segment of murders not being investigated because of how the victim would be framed. What the hell do you think extra-judicial killing even means? Do you think it comes with an extra side order of justice?
The street isn’t the only place we’re talking about, are we? We’re talking about the entirety of a country.
No, I just know which way is backward to disorder.
I assume you mean Marcos (you do mean Marcos don’t you? You are incredibly opaque in spelling out exactly what you mean).
So tell me. What did Marcos do BEFORE declaring martial law and becoming dictator that would be analogous to what Dutarte is doing now. You say that these extrajudicial killings are a sign that Dutarte is going to become a dictator and all you do is point to the fact that dictators have existed in other countries so this popularly elected President with ridiculously high popularity is also likely to become a dictator (mostly because you don’t like what he is doing).
That is a wild guess indeed. Why would someone with a 90% popularity rating have to kill political opponents? Because they hurt his feewings?