A friend of mine who left Russia years ago told me earlier they do this with internal news as well, one day something is amazing the other day it is total crap, without being told about a meaningful event in between. Not just geopolitics, but for example a certain brand of bread or a member of a low government. They would for ages say some village somewhere is a really good place to travel because of pristine nature and the next day say they never seen a place so ugly (omitting that some factory spilled chemicals in the lake or something like that). I also believe the smaller news stations don't really know what happened at all but just hear what they are supposed to say and also that nobody with a pro-government audience even dares to investigate something. They are just echoing the message they received from the ministry of news or whatever it is called.
huppakee
I think the system in general works quite well, the only downside is that you only need like 0.5% of votes for a seat which means there is now 15 parties or so in the parlement which makes is very representative but from time to time also very slow. There has been cases where the decisive vote for a (2/3) was held by small parties where you could just see them in a kind of bidding war. But if I look at the international news I generally feel grateful for our system.
You are totally right, I read those words but didn't register their implications. If you ask me they should do something about importing dangerous goods as well. If something like a highly addictive drug that is produced in China gets popular here we are totally fucked as well, so better do something now when the only danger is baby and young children investing toxic chemicals.
We have a similar system in the Netherlands but a meaningful difference is that you don't only need a 2/3 majority but also a 'confirming' vote by the next coalition. This might not do much in a case like Hungary or Turkey where the next ruler is similar as the previous but there having to be a public vote in between can potentially greatly shift the powers and end the majority.
Totally, our leaders fucking suck. But also I would like to argue it is a really great thing our leaders are (at least most of them) just regular people like you and me. And I don't know about you, but I suck from time to time too. Also fuck up everyone once in a while, make mistakes and am sometimes misinformed as well. I think we should collectively work on improving the system but also give the part of the idiots that do mean well some lenience. I think calling all politicians idiots, snakes and blood drinking lizards can be a slippery slope that can have very serious consequences in the long run.
But I agree it's totally worthless barely anybody is speaking up against Netanyahu in a meaningful way, even after so many recorded war crimes.
Just like there was nothing wrong with Jews, they need a public enemy and they can't pick people from the majority so they've picked non-whites non-straights and non-females. Also lines up with the Christian believe system, which have been using LGBTQ people as scapegoat since they stopped burning witches.
I've always felt this discussion way to little mentions investigation. They call for investigation when it's about harmful chemicals in fertiliser, food, toys etc. They call for investigation when it's about fair business, corporate greed, abuse of power. Same with dangerous behaviour like drunk driving, when it's about violence from mentally unstable people. I can go on and on about times when legislators call for investigating the problem and also scientifically proving something they think is happening is actually happening but in this case it seems like all they can do is talk about examples like Cambridge analytica. Just go and prove these algorithms are doing bad things so we don't need opinion pieces in newspapers to get legislation passed. I've heard about it being 'potentially' dangerous for far too long, they could have easily gotten real answers by now.