In 1821, Sequoyah completed his Cherokee syllabary, enabling reading and writing in the Cherokee language. One of the first North American Indigenous groups to gain a written language, the Cherokee Nation officially adopted the syllabary in 1825,[2] helping to unify a forcibly divided nation with new ways of communication and a sense of independence.[3] Within a quarter-century, the Cherokee Nation had reached a literacy rate of almost 100%, surpassing that of surrounding European-American settlers.[4]
I'll have to check out the housing and health, but other countries might also have improved such without things such as the so-called "Cultural revolution."
Do you know under Mao China ended the century of humiliation and liquidated all landlords who were exploiting peasants?
I wonder where China would be without Sun Yat-sen or even Chiang.
(Where would Lenin be without Kerensky? Where would Stalin be without either of them?)
Perhaps Mao could have done it without the millions of deaths.
Yeah taiwan got better
By supporting israel
The USSR was the first country to recognize Israel.
The Nationalist government of the ROC had been historically sympathetic to the Zionist cause, while ROC founder Sun Yat-sen affirmed his support for the creation of a Jewish state.[17][18]
...
according to the lede:
In 1950, Israel became the first country in the Middle East to recognize the PRC as the sole government in mainland China,[3] but the CCP did not reciprocate by establishing diplomatic ties due to Israel's alignment with the Western Bloc during the Cold War.
It seems that things are a bit nuanced here.
By supporting apartheid africa
IIUC, a pariah state and one with little diplomatic relations, helped each other, including working on nuclear weapons.
While I'm sure many in the far left would be indifferent to the PRC taking Taiwan, perhaps supportive of it, Taiwan itself would rather maintain independence, if only a de facto independence.
Meanwhile, many of us seem to be okay with gender apartheid in many Muslim-majority countries.
From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Chinese government sponsored a mass migration of Han Chinese to Xinjiang and introduced policies designed to suppress cultural identity and religion in the region.[52] During this period, Uyghur independence organizations emerged with some support from the Soviet Union, with the East Turkestan People's Party being the largest in 1968.[53] During the 1970s, the Soviets supported the United Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan (URFET) against the Han Chinese.[54]
Hmmmm, interesting.
Also, it seems some Muslimphobes in right-wing circles in the West support what China is doing with its Muslims.
By hosting american military and being american imperial tool to control south china sea
The US somewhat abandoned Taiwan in the early 1970s to exploit the Sino-Soviet split.
It seems some of the PRCs neighbours—India, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan—are heavily armed.
btw:
one of my favorite scenes in the 1976 movie Network:
But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort's votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?
Shouldn't it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?
and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?
Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;
while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.
Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former's number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter's number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:
name
PR
FPP
%
Complete Scumbag Party
39
51
45
Discreet Scumbag Party
35
38
36.5
[Gort Butterson Party]
6
3
4.5
Nice Party
20
8
14
We could have 3 possible coalitions:
Complete Scumbag Party & Discreet Scumbag Party
most powerful but least probable
Complete Scumbag Party & Nice Party
most probable
Discreet Scumbag Party & Gort Butterson Party & Nice Party
What instead if he's impeached soon after November, lives to be 100, while either running in the 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040, and 2044 GOP primaries and/or having a proxy/proxies such as Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr, Eric, Rudy, Whisky Pete, and/or even Vance run in such?
If a 6 year-old murdered 10 people, would you wish wt:thon a very slow and painful death? What if a dog killed 10 people? No in either case? Then what if it was proven that Trump, either now, or in the future, is/was [future tense] alive but had the mentality of a 6 year-old or a dog?
How many blacks (and others) were unjustly, or mostly unjustly, incarcerated in federal prisons early January 2017 that Obama could have pardoned, but didn't?
IIUC, at least 40 000 Palestinians were killed by the IDF these past 3 years—essentially murdered. Would it be too much for you (i.e. presumably too time-consuming) to grieve their deaths?
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
I didn't find "the answers" just some info about it.
as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
I'm not so sure of that. Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you'd favor.
I suppose I rather half a parliament (or similar) be decided by proportional representation, and in the others, perhaps it's a run-off if the winner of a plurality doesn't get a majority.
Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters' rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked vote system depends only on voters' order of preference of the candidates.
Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted. This gives them different properties with respect to satisfying various voting groups and adherence to mathematical rules.
...
Some ranked vote systems do not use ranking to transfer votes but instead use ranks as weights. These systems are called positional voting. In the Borda method, the least-favored candidates on each ballot receive fewer points; the most-favored receive more points. The points on each ballot for each candidate are added together, and the candidate with the most points is elected.
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn't run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn't run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we'd know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference?
—i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
Like other related acts described by Ctesias, the use of this method is historically doubted.[2]
What if the bees just lick the honey off his face, he possibly dies due to being extra sensitive to be stings, and/or he dies of dehydration in 10 days?—less as he's an old man.
Are you talking about wp:OECD member states whose combined population might be 50% more numerous than was Maoist China?
I understand many, however I suppose we can both agree that the emperors were evil, as was Chiang and Japan in the 1930s and first half of the 1940s.
Yes: "every mouth has 2 hands." IIUC, Mao was a pro-natalist.
China seems to have done better/less bad under Deng and the 2 child policy.
wp:Sequoyah
(my bold)
I'll have to check out the housing and health, but other countries might also have improved such without things such as the so-called "Cultural revolution."
I wonder where China would be without Sun Yat-sen or even Chiang.
(Where would Lenin be without Kerensky? Where would Stalin be without either of them?)
Perhaps Mao could have done it without the millions of deaths.
The USSR was the first country to recognize Israel.
wp:China–Israel relations
...
according to the lede:
It seems that things are a bit nuanced here.
IIUC, a pariah state and one with little diplomatic relations, helped each other, including working on nuclear weapons.
While I'm sure many in the far left would be indifferent to the PRC taking Taiwan, perhaps supportive of it, Taiwan itself would rather maintain independence, if only a de facto independence.
Meanwhile, many of us seem to be okay with gender apartheid in many Muslim-majority countries.
I think the PRC was/is far worse at genocide.
wp:Persecution of Uyghurs in China
Hmmmm, interesting.
Also, it seems some Muslimphobes in right-wing circles in the West support what China is doing with its Muslims.
The US somewhat abandoned Taiwan in the early 1970s to exploit the Sino-Soviet split.
It seems some of the PRCs neighbours—India, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan—are heavily armed.
btw:
one of my favorite scenes in the 1976 movie Network:
Network - The Mao Tse Tung Hour Negotiations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuqvlMxfGA4
1:55
IIUC, a depicted 3-way between a pro-Moscow Communist, Maoists, or quasi-Maoists, and the network.
😁 🙂
So you want formerly-evil-now-senile-people to suffer?
and if he suffers in his senility, this hate will be cured?
Then why do you respond?
Thank you. 🙂
1st count
Bamboot got 39.
Floundra got 35.
Aggy-Waggy got 20.
Gort got 6.
But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort's votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?
Shouldn't it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?
and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?
Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;
while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.
Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former's number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter's number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:
We could have 3 possible coalitions:
IIUC, 10s of millions of Chinese starved under his rule, meanwhile Taiwan got better.
What instead if he's impeached soon after November, lives to be 100, while either running in the 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040, and 2044 GOP primaries and/or having a proxy/proxies such as Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr, Eric, Rudy, Whisky Pete, and/or even Vance run in such?
Just what the US needs: a military coup, perhaps lead by people who oversaw atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Vietnam. :-/
If a 6 year-old murdered 10 people, would you wish wt:thon a very slow and painful death? What if a dog killed 10 people? No in either case? Then what if it was proven that Trump, either now, or in the future, is/was [future tense] alive but had the mentality of a 6 year-old or a dog?
How many blacks (and others) were unjustly, or mostly unjustly, incarcerated in federal prisons early January 2017 that Obama could have pardoned, but didn't?
IIUC, at least 40 000 Palestinians were killed by the IDF these past 3 years—essentially murdered. Would it be too much for you (i.e. presumably too time-consuming) to grieve their deaths?
Is it working now?
I didn't find "the answers" just some info about it.
I'm not so sure of that. Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you'd favor.
I suppose I rather half a parliament (or similar) be decided by proportional representation, and in the others, perhaps it's a run-off if the winner of a plurality doesn't get a majority.
The one you suggested I suppose is okay too. 😁 🙂
Biden in early 2023, I think.
a video I just found:
Biden tells migrants not to 'show up at the border' in new policy announcement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhen5GvBQmQ
1:16
Jan 5, 2023
Rammstein - Amerika
https://archive.org/details/youtube-DB0EQpzc1nI
04:16
😁 🙂
wp:Ranked voting
(my bold)
...
You do?
Agreed, it does;
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn't run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn't run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we'd know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference? —i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
So your basic respect for them doesn't necessitate your grieving their deaths?
Isn't Trump less than 3⅔ years younger than Biden?
wp:Scaphism
What if the bees just lick the honey off his face, he possibly dies due to being extra sensitive to be stings, and/or he dies of dehydration in 10 days?—less as he's an old man.
Biden being more relatively more charitable would make Trump—and his supporters—look worse.