ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Khoranth wrote:

I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.

I don't know which bothers me more about that statement: The fact that it may come true, or the fact that, in light of the alternative, it may be the best future Europe can hope for, at this point. ='[.]'=

"

1453R wrote:

Globalism in which Chinese ultramegahypersocialist mores are balanced by whatever we're calling the current Euro/U.S. mutant sorta-capitalist/sorta-individualist Weirdo Mores is better than either one alone. As for what's better for Chinese people: wouldn't it be nice if their government didn't tightly control their information feeds and stamp out any sort of dissent so that the Chinese people could choose if they wanted to stay in China and just literally flat-out belong to their government, or if maybe they wanted to move somewhere they're allowed to have personal rights and freedoms?

I think it would be a very interesting experiment indeed, if one unfeasible to run on any serious scale. Noting that most of my current information on China comes from a Chinese expat/dual-citizen (I'm not actually sure which, she's never told me), I'd be quite keen on seeing what the Average Chinese Citizen would pick, if offered the choice.

Why is China so obsessed to 'persuade, manage and control' its population? China believe it will faces serious social and economic problems if it doesn't. The Chinese government has to deal with Social and political consequences as a result of its policies. Busybodies don't. Now moving on...

"

Khoranth wrote:

Russia took Crimea because Europe is weak and couldn't stop it from happening. I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.

Hopefully my memory will still be good enough to remember all the times the Europeans complain about USA military spending on forums.

So absolutely clueless. Russia will fall into an inner power struggle once Putin is gone. There's a looot of ambitious and capable people in Kremlin, and without a strong figure like Putin controlling everything with an iron fist they're bound to start vying for power.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

Russia took Crimea because Europe is weak and couldn't stop it from happening. I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.

Hopefully my memory will still be good enough to remember all the times the Europeans complain about USA military spending on forums.

So absolutely clueless. Russia will fall into an inner power struggle once Putin is gone. There's a looot of ambitious and capable people in Kremlin, and without a strong figure like Putin controlling everything with an iron fist they're bound to start vying for power.

Wishful thinking. As Russia continues its conquest, dont expect Americans to vote to help you. I will be voting for the USA not to get involved.

You Europeans bash us so much for our superior military, it will be justice.

"

1453R wrote:

Globalism in which Chinese ultramegahypersocialist mores are balanced by whatever we're calling the current Euro/U.S. mutant sorta-capitalist/sorta-individualist Weirdo Mores is better than either one alone. As for what's better for Chinese people: wouldn't it be nice if their government didn't tightly control their information feeds and stamp out any sort of dissent so that the Chinese people could choose if they wanted to stay in China and just literally flat-out belong to their government, or if maybe they wanted to move somewhere they're allowed to have personal rights and freedoms?

You can't have balance without choice. Choice requires two or more distinct options. If there's only one government on Earth, there's no balance between anything. A compromise between two methods from the past isn't a balance in the present.

Creating choice means breaking up governments into smaller ones. As I've said before, there should be enough potential for difference in law that someone in the US could travel from one state to another and experience significant differences in governance. I'm not saying I have to agree with these differences, so long as I don't live there; indeed, the more I disagree the more I want you to go off, find some likeminded people and try your social experiment, far away from me. I say let SoCal go full communist and let Richard Spencer have his own little ethnocity (he doesn't have enough followers for a state). Let competition sort out the winners and losers. Live where people run things the way you believe they should be run. Self-segregate by political ideology and leave the people who don't like your ideology alone. Divide, divide, divide, divide.

Yes, North Korea too. As long as they don't attack us we should let them be their own messed up little dictatorship. The people of North Korea can rebel when they're ready to rebel. Or if you want to go there to help them, go right ahead - just don't drag me along with you by hiding behind an American flag.

By the way: no, I said government should be run like a business (and to some extent it already is). I'm against corporations even existing - a group of people getting together and filling out paperwork should not make a new legal "person" with rights different from normal people. I'm a free-market capitalist, not a corporatist.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

Russia took Crimea because Europe is weak and couldn't stop it from happening. I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.

Hopefully my memory will still be good enough to remember all the times the Europeans complain about USA military spending on forums.

So absolutely clueless. Russia will fall into an inner power struggle once Putin is gone. There's a looot of ambitious and capable people in Kremlin, and without a strong figure like Putin controlling everything with an iron fist they're bound to start vying for power.

You mean that they'll be competition for who replaces him, with many viable candidates.

I find it funny how you view this as a weakness.

You can have balance in a single government if there's multiple representatives that share the top level of decision making.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.

I don't know which bothers me more about that statement: The fact that it may come true, or the fact that, in light of the alternative, it may be the best future Europe can hope for, at this point. ='[.]'=

Papa Putin's gonna save our asses.

"

Khoranth wrote:

Wishful thinking. As Russia continues its conquest, dont expect Americans to vote to help you. I will be voting for the USA not to get involved.

You Europeans bash us so much for our superior military, it will be justice.

Why do you voice your opinion on politics when you clearly don't understand the subject at all?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

So absolutely clueless. Russia will fall into an inner power struggle once Putin is gone. There's a looot of ambitious and capable people in Kremlin, and without a strong figure like Putin controlling everything with an iron fist they're bound to start vying for power.

You mean that they'll be competition for who replaces him, with many viable candidates.

I find it funny how you view this as a weakness.

If we were talking about a western country this would be correct.

We're not. We're talking about Russia. We're talking about a country where "democracy" essentially means "what Putin says, goes".

Whoever becomes Putin's successor will have next to nothing to do with "democratic elections". The oligarchy behind the scenes will vie for the position, support a candidate or attempt to instill a puppet president. Either way it's practically impossible for all of them to fall in line behind a single candidate. The concentration of political power will be fragmented, and it'll take several years for the new head honcho (not necessarily the next president) to steady their position and unify the oligarchy under him.

On the other hand, if a candidate ends up being selected through a legit election, it'll indicate that the concentration of political power is in complete chaos.

I really wish people would stop pretending Russia is this big bad place where Putin is a dictator.

He has support from his people so he gets elected.

I know it's super hard to imagine.

Unlike in USA where Trump had to fight off his own party elites to get elected, and the DNC worked with Russians to spread a fake dossier about trump, and Hillary had her DNC people railroad out a lunatic candidate named Sanders.

Which country has the more corrupt politics?

USA.

BUT TRUMP WON... thanks to people like me and many others who read this thread.

The RNC elites and the DNC in general, corrupt machines, really had a bad day last November :)

"

1453R wrote:

I see no reason why the same model wouldn't work for any prospective global government.

I applaud you for stating your perspective honestly. If a US politician were to boldly state the same thing, I might oppose their perspective, but respect that they were saying what they meant. When our leaders say one thing in public, than another behind closed doors is when you wonder why they are embarrassed to voice their true opinion in public.




One world government sounds like a nice idea, but given the corruption and how poorly existing governments function, I envision a bigger government would only magnify these faults. At a certain point, the problems become so numerous that politicians only have time for the ones that will affect their election chances.

Yesterday, for example, Chicago's mayor dismissed the city's lead pipe water problems, despite the glaring example of Flint Michigan. Essentially, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said homeowner's could pay for the pipe replacement, but the city wasn't going to (It was a news broadcast, so I don't have a link for it).

The water problem has been ongoing in Chicago for at least a couple years. It is estimated that 70% or more of homes are fed by lead pipes. While the mayor doubled the water rates, very little or no effort went into replacing lead pipes.

If the mayor doesn't really care about fixing such a potentially huge problem in his own backyard, why would someone running the whole world from Geneva care about the lead pipe problem in Chicago?

It would be like having one game forum for all the games in the world and one set of programmers and developers for all the games in the world.

Closest relevant links I could find that convey what the TV broadcast was covering:
https://www.newsy.com/stories/lead-found-in-tap-water-in-some-chicago-homes/
https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018/04/16/new-report-reveals-presence-lead-many-chicago-homes

https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2017/05/05/could-milwaukee-be-model-replacing-chicago-s-lead-water-pipes