Source on Cuba letting in elections inspectors? I can’t find anything that suggests this and only sources that say the opposite. If it helps I can read Spanish.

Source for them not letting in inspectors:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/27/cuba-hails-legislative-election-as-victory-despite-criticism

It’s more like you don’t know what the words you are using mean so you keep asserting points that are fundamentally incorrect like Cuba being free or democratic ir having fair elections.

This isn’t propaganda. Cuba is authoritarian like China is or Vietnam but unlike how DPRK is because that’s not even socialist it’s just a hereditary autocratic monarchy.

Cuba isn’t more free than the USA. You can’t choose your government, your top executive, nor can you suggest changing what kind of Marxist state you want to achieve. Cuba is not free.

Cuba’s constitution wasn’t created by direcy democracy. Direct democracy would mean ALL Cuban citizens would be part of creating the constitution.

You seriously need to stop using words like “free” or “democracy” because you keep misusing them. Cuba is neither free or democratic. Being able to vote doesn’t make a state democratic when they can fix the vote like Cuba can.

Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations because the kinds of people attracted to socialism aren’t interested in any opposing views or critiques as you are proving right now.

Try looking into the Unitarian, Episcopal or United Church if Christ as all three tend to be more progressive if you want a community that is likely to not be as conservative. The Episcopal church, of the three, is more likely to have a conservative element as it was the “elite” denomination for centuries.

You’re missing all the racism that’s come forth since mod tools were lost

What makes it authoritarian is the fact that you cannot change the structure of government from socialism to a different system if that is what the masses want. Authoritarian states are labeled such due to the structure of their systems.

No that would not make a government authoritarian as it does not impact the structure of the government.

No Im not talking about direct democracy because only the Kurds in Syria have anything approaching that.

When the state decides who can run and who can run in opposition to others that does not permit fair elections as you can easily choose weak opponents for the candidates you want in office. Cuba DOES NOT have free elections or fair elections because of this.

If you can’t replace the government it is authoritarian. If you can legally fix elections, as Cuba can, you are not democratic.

There are currently no socialist nations that are not authoritarian. That could change but right now every one is to some extent.

As an aside you are using a lot if words that you very clearly do not know the meaning of. You can fix that.

OMG they are amazing. You can find clips on youtube but they originated on VHS. Think bad 90s corporate rap

Sad that he can’t play chess given his father was a grandmaster

Im going to do this piecemeal because my phone sucks. Here’s your first bit:

“The socialist system that this Constitution supports is irrevocable”

Right there you have everything needed to prove the state is authoritarian as you cannot propose a new system. It is clear as day.

How many more overt examples do you need or can I suggest you just audit poli sci 101 on line? You likely do not need to watch more than two-three classes to learn how far off the mark you are.

Do you need me to cite a dictionary for you? Seriously your issues have been regarding definitions of commonly used words in political philosophy.

If you need sources they are the OED and the original Cuban constitution as well as the most recent constitution of 2019. In those places you will find the meanings of the terms “authoritarianism”, “free and fair elections”, and “democratic”. In the Cuban constitutions you will find the laws regarding eligibility.

This is not anticommunist shit. These are factual statements regarding Cuba that you would understand if you had any formal education in political philosophy. Im fairly positive you have none given what you have demonstrated here.

Yes most of your diet should be plants because you should have more teeth for eating plants than meat (your dental care is bad if this is not true).

You’ll note that I talk about eating a lot less meat if you choose to eat meat.

You aren’t designed to rape. Consent as a concept comes about millions of years after the design parts of homo sapiens manifests itself. Don’t be ignorantly hyperbolic.

Your source isn’t addressing my claim on any level at all which is biological/anthropological in nature not dietary. You have teeth designed for tearing flesh. You have enzymes to break down said flesh. You are designed to hunt some animals and NOTHING in your source addresses it nor could your source do so with any credibility.

So your appeal to authority is completely out of place here.

Seriously he’s the “if you have two shirts and you see a guy who needs a shirt give him yours” guy. He wouldn’t like the “but i need two shirts more than the guy needs one” guy.

These were kept outside except in rain or during the height of winter so that might be a factor.

Yes it happens but no one makes press releases about it.

The East India company predates capitalism

Wagner is still active in Africa

Stalin is a really mixed bag. Yes he was responsible for the murder of millions of people and especially towards the end of his life was not working to better the Soviet people, but he’s also one of the few leaders in Russian ir Soviet history that actually tried and succeeding in bringing up the quality of life for the average person in significant ways.

As a former boss put it “Yeah Stalin killed my uncle for no reason but he’s also why my village had electricity, plumbing, and telephones”

Those things wouldn’t be possible in Jesus’ time because the mechanisms fir them could not exist without more modern forms of communication and transport.

Capitalism wasn’t a thing back then but don’t let the subtleties and context of the events stop you from your conclusion that Jesus would not like capitalism because he clearly would not on any level think it is OK.