|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
posted September 10, 2020 01:30 PM |
|
|
@all
You probably have quite a few opinions about what's going on in the news cycle right now, but it's important to remember one thing: You're wrong. Here's why:
To start, you're completely missing the point and everything you think is actually at odds with reality when you look at the data. In fact, you're nowhere close to being accurate. It's simple to understand when you stop for a second and actually look at the issues. Once you open your eyes, you'll see that you're wrong about each and every one of them. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 'But what about this other thing I heard?' No. If the past is any indication of the future, not only is there no chance that you'll ever be right, all science suggests that you'll never even be close once in your lifetime. The only way you'll ever be right, is to repeat everything I say, word for word, to every single person you know.
Until then, you're wrong.
The Count
____________
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 01:31 PM |
|
|
Minion said:
Kipshasz said:
polls showed killary was also ahead, we all know how that turned out.
Yes we do, that despite winning the election by 3 million votes, she still lost the election lol. Republicans have won the presidency twice in this century while losing the popular vote. That's democracy for you.
The right wing coalition got the majority of votes in the Italian elections. The right was first a minority in government because 5stars wouldn't go with the whole coalition and now the right is the opposition. They won the popular vote.
What's the argument of the left here? "It's a parliamentarian republic, it's not the people who choose the government".
So again, if the election of Trump isn't democratic, be my guest, but then please forcefully remove the current government here, they got the minority of votes (yes, despite it being a 6 man race and the right wing uniting to a 37%), they should leave that place to the right-wing as dictated by the popular vote.
If that system would have prevented Trump from taking office despite winning the popular vote, we'd all hear praises for the electoral college doing its intended job, no doubt.
@JJ
If democracy is that important people should just enter politics, the americans, being as dumb as the rest of the western world, don't understand that flooding the system with third parties would allow to break the current dichotomies, forcing politicians to be politicians and vote on issues, instead of touting party lines.
After all, the big parties always make sure that the smaller third parties couldn't ever enter office, because they know that would make it harder to impose their party's agenda.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 01:33 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 13:34, 10 Sep 2020.
|
@JJ
At the difference trade wars and the likes does not involve massive deaths of civilians. War against terror you say... ISIS got stronger because of all the destabilization the US, along NATO you are right to underline that, have done. Think for a moment and wonder why there is so many anti-occidental countries in the world right now.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 02:51 PM |
|
|
Voting Trump won't make ISIS go away magically, though. So what is your point here? That Trump didn't start a real war and probably won't do it in his second term, whereas Biden did as part of the Obama admin and will probably do so again?
What wars did Obama start? They authorized kill missions flown by drones and bombing attacks to eliminate terrorist leaders, killing a lot of civilians in the process, true.
And that's why you'd vote Trump?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 02:53 PM |
|
|
@Neraus. Parliamentary elections are not exactly the same as Presidential elections. If the winning Party can't form a government, the job goes to the next biggest one. Otherwise the system crumbles. It is not the same when you vote for a President. The winner becomes the President, period. When you are voting for a single person, it is pretty hard to justify why the person getting fewer votes should win.
The Electoral College is basically a relic from the before the Civil War. But it is what it is, that's how elections are held. What are you gonna do. But when people still seem to think that the polls in 2016 were dead wrong (or even rigged), but they really weren't that much off. The polls showed +3% more votes for Killary, and she got +2%. Not enough.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 15:03, 10 Sep 2020.
|
Minion said:
It is not the same when you vote for a President. The winner becomes the President, period. When you are voting for a single person, it is pretty hard to justify why the person getting fewer votes should win.
Well, tell this to our PL President who literally is only there to sign off everything his party (the ruling party) puts under his nose. The guy literally has no will of his own, only displaying occasional "disobedience" like an angry kid would or it's simply a part of some bs setup (and he ultimately does what his party orders him to do either way). We tried to change that, but it was a couple of % off.
And there we have countries like USA, where the president has too much singular power I believe (even if in truth there are multiple people behind him)...
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 03:04 PM |
|
|
During Barack Obama’s presidency, the United States bombed seven countries while supporting other destabilizing military actions across the Middle East. Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In all, the United States has bombed 14 predominantly Muslim countries since 1980. The toll of all modern wars in the Middle East could rise to 4 million dead among Muslims and Arabs.
This makes me more scared of Biden than I am of Trump regarding world peace.
About blank votes, I would certainly if it had an actual impact.
____________
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 03:07 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
The toll of all modern wars in the Middle East could rise to 4 million dead among Muslims and Arabs.
And don't forget how they rick-rolled the Kurds by withdrawing their support.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 03:20 PM |
|
|
Trump's no saint, he'll probably use the chance to start a proxy war somewhere or even a war with limited US participation just to consolidate the population around an external threat and kick some of the (steadily increasing) international rivals in the balls. One of his administration's major supporters is the weapons industry and he's popular among the military as well - and both of these need enemies. He hasn't done something like that so far because his focus was almost entirely on defending against the s*itstorm thrown at him by his rivals and on internal matters. He's unlikely to start a big war however as the US cannot afford and the people who made Trump what he is in politics are what you may call "nationalistic isolationists".
The Democrats on the other hand... given who's funding them, I have serious doubts that they have any real problem with starting a big war.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 04:46 PM |
|
|
Because the Dems are known for starting big wars... Sure. Because there have been so many big wars since the last one 80 years ago.
"Big Wars" don't make a profit.
Small wars do, though. Proxy wars do, too. After all ou need to sell all those weapons you don't need anymore.
A Big War will come only due to a serious error in judgement, a spiral of escalation with no one yielding. I'd think that one unlikely, even with Trump - although, I suppose he might do something rash if feeling personally insulted (the same way that Saddam did). But that might even be an advantage (being on the same page as Kim in that regard, in international view).
Biden? Please. Nothing to gain with a big war.
No. At this point, whether we like this or not, our fate is linked. The world has become very small indeed, and America First won't work, as China First, Brazil First and Russia First won't work. The world just can't afford too much egoism from their superpowers, and the current outlook, when looking at the unholy triad of China, USA and Russia, is pretty bleak in that regard.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 04:56 PM |
|
|
|
you're never going to sell globalism to anyone with a brain, jj.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 06:32 PM |
|
|
Globalism is not an ideology, it is an infrastructure and at this point, the question is how it is going to exist, not whether it is going to exist or not. It’s easy to yell “America first” when at the same time you intervene in many countries internal affairs, economy, when the whole world economy depends on the dollar and you print dollar as you see fit, no matter what your gold reserve is since the ‘70’s. Give up on these things first, then go shout “no globalism.” It will be a different world though, you wont be able to smash your Play Station just out of anger, it will be something too expensive to smash.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 08:40 PM |
|
|
|
stopped reading at "america first". you don't get it at all.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 10:09 PM |
|
|
|
Fred, YOU don't get it. Globalism is FACT, economically. Global, multinational corps produce where they have best conditions for a very long time now. The only thing corps note about nations and countries are tax laws, social security charges, security at the workplace regulations and worker unions. A sizable part of the world's products is produced in Asia, specifically in China. People in China, Mexico, Brazil and India want to live like the people in the US and the EU. The United States of America are screwed, if they don't get anything anymore from abroad. As are the EU.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 10, 2020 11:45 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 23:46, 10 Sep 2020.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 12:06 AM |
|
|
jj telling me i don't get it. that's cute. sure thing, sugarplum. 
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 02:40 AM |
|
|
Because you dont, as an American, you reap the benefits of globalism every single day, whether you are aware of it or not. It directly affects your life quality. You only react to it when it comes to the disadventages though and suddenly things become about “patriotism.”
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 04:13 AM |
|
|
|
i think what you mean to say is, i reap the benefits of commerce between different countries. you guys apparently have no understanding at all of what globalism is, or what it actually stands for. as per usual.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 07:59 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Because the Dems are known for starting big wars... Sure. Because there have been so many big wars since the last one 80 years ago.
"Big Wars" don't make a profit.
Small wars do, though. Proxy wars do, too. After all ou need to sell all those weapons you don't need anymore.
A Big War will come only due to a serious error in judgement, a spiral of escalation with no one yielding. I'd think that one unlikely, even with Trump - although, I suppose he might do something rash if feeling personally insulted (the same way that Saddam did). But that might even be an advantage (being on the same page as Kim in that regard, in international view).
Biden? Please. Nothing to gain with a big war.
No. At this point, whether we like this or not, our fate is linked. The world has become very small indeed, and America First won't work, as China First, Brazil First and Russia First won't work. The world just can't afford too much egoism from their superpowers, and the current outlook, when looking at the unholy triad of China, USA and Russia, is pretty bleak in that regard.
You sound like you are oblivious to the reactionary trend against the globalist tendencies in all major political players - the US, China, Russia and even the EU to an extent. Trump, Brexit, Russia adopting "local law is superior to international law", China being headed by a de facto nationalistic leadership which steadily dismounts Ding Xiaoping's legacy are probably all random bugs in the system, eh? If you really think like that, you're in for a really rude awakening in the relatively near future. Globalism as a economical and political ideology hasn't won, in fact the real fight against the reaction is just starting and we'll probably see more and more Trumps soon.
Besides, there's one huge problem with the globalist concept itself at this stage - it has no official structure. What you have is transnational capital which is at odds with the remnants of the nation states (which are also largely obsoleted conceptually) and more precisely - with the national capital. You have a bunch of "natural" processes but you don't have agenda or any sort of mutual agreement what to do and what to build - unless you believe in world government plans which would be quite ironic. History so far clearly shows that such organized efforts start only after major transition checkpoints which are always violent. So yeah, I seriously doubt you'll have globalism without a big war.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 08:40 AM |
|
|
I sound oblivious? Quote:
The world just can't afford too much egoism from their superpowers, and the current outlook, when looking at the unholy triad of China, USA and Russia, is pretty bleak in that regard.
Does that sound oblivious to you?
Let me repeat that globalism is a fact. We are linked. If a nuclear power plant melts down, the effect is felt not only in that country. And so on and so forth. Even some proxy war in some backwater isn't without consequences because of the number of refugees. If the climate change continues and large parts of Africa become uninhabitable - where do you think the people will go to?
Globalism means, there just is no America anymore where people can flee to from whatever and start anew. If we don't find a reasonable way to deal with the global problems, we won't need a big war anymore to screw things up completely. And if we need a big war to get reasonable, there will be no one left to be reasonable.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
