Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Prestor Jon wrote: The electorate isn't voting for legislation they are simply electing people who represent their interest to help write and pass legislation.
I would argue that modern communication technologies have made including the people in the legislative process much more feasible than it used to be, and this can be done without directly counteracting the ability of representatives to represent. Lots of representative systems have referendums for example, including individual states. A referendum on Gay Marriage could have settled the debate 10 years ago when support for it became majority opinion, rather than waiting another ten years for those sitting in office to start reflecting public sentiment. While the Founders were rightfully wary of the mob, they also recognized that a citizens right's should not be dependent on the legislature to recognize them, hence the Bill of Rights, and Judicial Review.
Which isn't to say everything should be a matter of referendum, but there's potential now for the US to have a feasible system that allows the people to take a slightly for active role in shaping legislation (something we do indirectly do like when the FCC took comments on Net Neutrality, or how the White House issues responses to petitions with X number of signatures).
However I think security concerns renders these possibilities null for the time being.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 23:43:06
Hi, american people ! Something struck me today: since a ID card isn't needed to vote in your country anymore, how do the authorities check that people voting are US citizens ? What do you show to prove your are Mister X and not mister Y ?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 23:59:19
godardc wrote: Hi, american people !
Something struck me today: since a ID card isn't needed to vote in your country anymore, how do the authorities check that people voting are US citizens ?
You need to be on the voter rolls to get a ballot. If you're not on the voter rolls it have recently registered or think you should be on the rolls you can use a provisional ballot that will be counted once it's been confirmed that you should have gotten a ballot.
For example, in France, I'm registered in my town, but I have to show them my ID, to prove I'm the guy registered on the register, and then I have to sign on the register.
Prestor Jon wrote: The electorate isn't voting for legislation they are simply electing people who represent their interest to help write and pass legislation.
I would argue that modern communication technologies have made including the people in the legislative process much more feasible than it used to be, and this can be done without directly counteracting the ability of representatives to represent. Lots of representative systems have referendums for example, including individual states. A referendum on Gay Marriage could have settled the debate 10 years ago when support for it became majority opinion, rather than waiting another ten years for those sitting in office to start reflecting public sentiment. While the Founders were rightfully wary of the mob, they also recognized that a citizens right's should not be dependent on the legislature to recognize them, hence the Bill of Rights, and Judicial Review.
Which isn't to say everything should be a matter of referendum, but there's potential now for the US to have a feasible system that allows the people to take a slightly for active role in shaping legislation (something we do indirectly do like when the FCC took comments on Net Neutrality, or how the White House issues responses to petitions with X number of signatures).
However I think security concerns renders these possibilities null for the time being.
States and municipalities already hold referendums when needed. Even with advancing technological means I think national referendums are a bad idea as it undermines the purpose of the senate and a bicameral legislature. We don't want a minority of populous states dictating federal legislation. What we need is for members of Congress to actually stay in touch with their constituents and not ignore them except when they're back home campaigning. Congress needs to represent what the people want not want parties and lobbyists and special interests want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: For example, in France, I'm registered in my town, but I have to show them my ID, to prove I'm the guy registered on the register, and then I have to sign on the register.
We use the honor system you just give your name and address. It tends to work out because there aren't a lot of people with the time and desire to go around impersonating other people to vote. If multiple people try to cast ballots under the same name we have rules to del with contested ballots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 00:08:39
Ok I see.
It is basically the same, you just say orally what they read on the ID in France.
So, why was it such an issue, I heard Identity Cards were discriminatory ?
godardc wrote: Ok I see.
It is basically the same, you just say orally what they read on the ID in France.
So, why was it such an issue, I heard Identity Cards were discriminatory ?
The issue with voter ID laws is that we don't require that everyone obtain govt issues photo ID we usually just use our drivers licenses. Not everyone drives so not everyone has a drivers license. Not everyone has a passport either. So the issue that crops up is how do we provide IDs to the people that don't have a drivers license or passport. A lot of the people that have neither tend to belong to the same demographic group so the ID requirement is contested on the grounds of descrimination.
It varies a lot by state to. For example, PA requires proof of identity when you show up to vote, but it the state mailed me a Voter Registration Card. No photo or anything, but it has my name, address, and basically certifies that I am able to vote. This card counts as my proof of identity at the polling place.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In the United States, many people are afraid of violence at voting centers on election day.
Now let's just stop and think about that statement for a moment. How ridiculous would that have sounded just four years ago? Thanks for already making the country greater again Trump!
Seems mostly to be overly cautious and hyperbolic exaggerations. There's a big difference between actual credible threats and just a general fear that somebody might do something bad.
Legitimacy of the fear aside, it is a real feeling that people are having. The point I was making is that Trump is inspiring fear in a relatively large number of people; not fear of the political outcomes or of the country being run into the ground but fear for one's safety even before that candidate has even taken office. I consider it yet another obvious sign of just how terrible Trump is which feeds back into my ultimate amusement at such a candidate doing so well.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In the United States, many people are afraid of violence at voting centers on election day.
Now let's just stop and think about that statement for a moment. How ridiculous would that have sounded just four years ago? Thanks for already making the country greater again Trump!
Seems mostly to be overly cautious and hyperbolic exaggerations. There's a big difference between actual credible threats and just a general fear that somebody might do something bad.
Legitimacy of the fear aside, it is a real feeling that people are having. The point I was making is that Trump is inspiring fear in a relatively large number of people; not fear of the political outcomes or of the country being run into the ground but fear for one's safety even before that candidate has even taken office. I consider it yet another obvious sign of just how terrible Trump is which feeds back into my ultimate amusement at such a candidate doing so well.
Legitimate fear?
Well... a GOP office was firebombed and some of the leaked DNC emails showing them planned on paying folks to protest Trump's rally.
I mean, I think this fear is unwarranted... but, if anything it's misdirected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 01:40:23
If one group is willing to physically assault protesters, then it seems like the other group organizing protests is definitely the group to blame for that behavior.
But this is the year that "yeah, we are violent donkey-caves, but they made us angry enough to act like violent donkey-caves, so it's really their fault" was embraced as a valid reasoning by a lot of people, including on this board.
d-usa wrote: If one group is willing to physically assault protesters, then it seems like the other group organizing protests is definitely the group to blame for that behavior.
But this is the year that "yeah, we are violent donkey-caves, but they made us angry enough to act like violent donkey-caves, so it's really their fault" was embraced as a valid reasoning by a lot of people, including on this board.
I'm not defending nor blaming any particular group.
... I re-read what I wrote and it did imply, but it wasn't my attention.
Violence, for any reason in the political sphere is unacceptable.
But, I don't get the sense that this year it's that bad and that it's the media that's trying to a make it a story.
It's just another reason, imo, national elections should be a Federal Holiday.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I will submit that this year is really, really weird.
d-usa wrote: If one group is willing to physically assault protesters, then it seems like the other group organizing protests is definitely the group to blame for that behavior.
But this is the year that "yeah, we are violent donkey-caves, but they made us angry enough to act like violent donkey-caves, so it's really their fault" was embraced as a valid reasoning by a lot of people, including on this board.
I'm not defending nor blaming any particular group.
... I re-read what I wrote and it did imply, but it wasn't my attention.
Violence, for any reason in the political sphere is unacceptable.
But, I don't get the sense that this year it's that bad and that it's the media that's trying to a make it a story.
It's just another reason, imo, national elections should be a Federal Holiday.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I will submit that this year is really, really weird.
d-usa wrote: If one group is willing to physically assault protesters, then it seems like the other group organizing protests is definitely the group to blame for that behavior.
But this is the year that "yeah, we are violent donkey-caves, but they made us angry enough to act like violent donkey-caves, so it's really their fault" was embraced as a valid reasoning by a lot of people, including on this board.
I'm not defending nor blaming any particular group.
... I re-read what I wrote and it did imply, but it wasn't my attention.
Violence, for any reason in the political sphere is unacceptable.
But, I don't get the sense that this year it's that bad and that it's the media that's trying to a make it a story.
It's just another reason, imo, national elections should be a Federal Holiday.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I will submit that this year is really, really weird.
I heard about that, but why did trump have a star? I thought those were just for actors.
I think they are generally for people who have achievement in either film, radio, television, and theater. And they can be nominated by anyone to be included.
Say what you want about Trump, but he does have 10+ seasons of The Apprentice on the air, so there really isn't any reason to think that him having a star is unusual.
And while not nearly as well reported, a Democratic party office not far from that one was also vandalized. As of last time I checked, police thought it was two separate groups acting independently from each other, but stranger things have happened.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the Dem. party office being vandalized as being equivalent, it's natural (to me) that because it was the less damaged of the two facilities, that it received less of the press. My point here is that this is the ugliest campaign in my lifetime, and perhaps one could make an argument that this could be one of the worst since we formed the Constitution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Say what you want about Trump, but he does have 10+ seasons of The Apprentice on the air, so there really isn't any reason to think that him having a star is unusual.
IIRC, didn't he get his star long before he was ever on the Apprentice? I mean... I thought he got it closer to his USFL days than his Apprentice days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 02:28:49
d-usa wrote: Say what you want about Trump, but he does have 10+ seasons of The Apprentice on the air, so there really isn't any reason to think that him having a star is unusual.
IIRC, didn't he get his star long before he was ever on the Apprentice? I mean... I thought he got it closer to his USFL days than his Apprentice days.
I honestly don't know. From the picture I noticed it is in the television category, so I just assumed it was for that.
After a quick detour on Google, it looks like he did get it in 2007 for the Apprentice though:
Donald Trump received the 2,327th star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2007 for his work on America's The Apprentice.
Source: An article that also features the "right" way to vandalize Trump's Star :
d-usa wrote: so there really isn't any reason to think that him having a star is unusual.
And yet I still think it is unusual and unwarranted.
The Apprentice was a Top 10 show, helped NBC stay relevant and compete after loosing two very popular shows, and made the network a lot of money. It significantly increased the brand of Trump, "You're Fired" became an internationally recognized catch phrase, and he got two Emmy nominations for the show.
For what it's worth, I think Trump is a horrible human being, a sexist and racist megalomaniac, a liar, a cheat, and one of the worst people I could imagine sitting in the White House. But I can also acknowledge that he has been very successful with promoting himself and his persona as a brand, at least until he burned that brand value to the ground over the course of this election, and that his impact on the entertainment industry qualified him for the honor of getting an award that is really just a marketing gimmick by the local chamber of commerce which actually charges for the opportunity to honor someone on their sidewalk.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 02:57:10
"Donald Trump has been helped by a conservative-media environment in which there is no penalty for being wrong all the time..."
"Trump’s contribution to conservative messaging has not been the introduction of widespread lying. Rather, it has been his realisation that you don’t have to just lie about what the donors want lied about, and you don’t need a fake model, because nobody’s paying attention to the numbers anyway."
"Trump lies and lies and lies and lies and lies and he does not even respect his supporters enough to lie well. You would think he would get in trouble for this, but Republican elites have spent so many years intentionally discrediting the media and policy experts and others who would dare to tell the truth about the public policy that his lies are, in fact, convincing enough for the conservative base. As a result, the trouble with establishment conservatives’ complaints about new conservative media is that they’re not really committed to an honest politics, just to a differently dishonest politics."
"Trump’s lies are more fun for Republican voters than the usual set of lies. Another reason is that the old rules boxing in the lies never made much sense — if you can say a $4 trillion tax cut will pay for itself, why not a $10 trillion one?"
"Bush’s promise of 4% growth wasn’t more honest than Donald Trump’s promises, it was just more artful. If Republicans want to tell the truth and win elections, they’re going to have to advance different policy ideas — and that’s why they lie."
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sebster probably sends them daily email updates about the state of the US.
They're the perfect kind of out of touch - with it enough to have email, clueless enough that they don't know how to put my daily emails on spam
I can call it what it is. If you want to pretend it is something else, then by all means do so, but the reality remains.
but when it starts encircle Russia they are gonna get nervous and see it as an aggresion especially when NATO breaks the agreement they had with Russia regarding the eastward expansion of NATO. Just as the US would never have accepted that it´s neighbors joined the Warsaw pact or any other milliary alliance they weren´t part of.
Equating NATO and the Warsaw Pact is really quite ridiculous. The Warsaw Pact gave Moscow much greater control of units provided by the satellite countries with scope to begin offensive operations, even against member nations who weren't being socialist enough.
That doesn´t make the Russians the "good guys" of course, both the US and Russia have imperialist ambitions and are willing to act on them. But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
No one does. But you don't avoid war by failing to intervene when a nation undertakes aggressive operations against a neighboring country. Something something appeasement...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elemental wrote: With all of that said, it's still not a good idea to say things like "It's pretty much over now." until the actual results are confirmed. Better to play safe and not say things that may cause people to stay at home instead of getting those votes in.
Definitely agree. There's always a danger in elections being assumed to safer than they really are, leading to people not bothering to vote, or perhaps even worse adding some kind of voting strategy where they assume that because a candidate is certain of winning then they will cast a protest vote and... oh gak.
Obviously a partisan website, but interesting read.
That was great, thanks. The line about Obama's administration setting records for secrecy yet it's barely mentioned and he maintains strong popularity, meanwhile Clinton is hammered for being untrustworthy. It becomes very hard to ignore the double standard. I'm not sure it automatically boils down to her gender, though that is a clear factor, but there is some clear reason for the double standard in how she is seen compared to anyone else.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/27 03:54:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: helped NBC stay relevant and compete after loosing two very popular shows
That describes just about any popular NBC show really.
I understand why he has a star, after all there are over two-thousand of them, but that doesn't mean I think it was a good idea or that the show was good. I thought it was goofy before he ran for President and, yes, he has always been very good at self promotion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 03:57:39
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
whembly wrote: It was, in fact, the 'ghazi meeting that pointed out that Clinton had an unauthorized personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
It was, in fact, the Whitewater investigation that expanded to become an investigation of Vince Foster, that eventually stumbled on to Bill Clinton's sexcapades. Not too dissimilar was the investigation in to the Valerie Plame affair, that went fishing until Scooter Libby eventually perjured himself and let the investigation claim they'd achieved something.
This is not how good government works. This is how petty politicians make government stop working.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Trump wouldn't have had his success if he didn't have the clown car of 17 candidate, $2 billion of free media attention drowning out the oxygen of the room and an inconsistent primary system that allowed non-party members to vote.
Those are major (not only) factor to Trump's rise.
The GOP party does need an overhaul, but the main grievance against the establishment GOP party is the fact that the GOP voters weren't appreciated.
The issue is that when the core policies of the party are sold on lies, there's little to stop someone coming in and telling bigger, even nicer sounding lies. Jeb Bush had a tax plan in which he cut taxes for the rich, sold on the idea that it would produce 4% economic growth based on some very gakky modelling. Donald Trump had a tax plan that was cut taxes for the rich even more, and sold it on the idea of 5% economic growth, based on no modelling at all.
This left Bush and the rest of the establishment conservatives trying to complain that Trump was bad because his lies were a step bigger than their own. That is the problem with the Republican party right now - they have a suite of policy positions catered to the donor class, that can only be sold to the electorate with a whole lot of lies. Everything flows from that, and the only way to fix it is to rebuild the party around a national platform that the party can present honestly and still win votes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: that's true for the republicans, but for the democrats, they'll always rally around their candidate to keep the republicans out. the democrats might not like their girl, but she's still left and more progressive than anyone the right has and won't threaten or try to undue 100 years of social progress.
Clinton being unliked by Democrats is a thing that gets repeated lots and lots, but has little to no evidence in polling. Clinton has 80% approval among Democratic voters. 80% isn't great, but it also isn't that bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: well it does go to the point that america is not a democracy, and the electoral college is an outdated idea.
Whether a system holds an election and declares a winner based on the vote total, or by sub-dividing voting groups in to individual blocks like states or electorates and then totals the winner of those groups... both are still democracies. There is nothing in the concept of democracy that demands a popular vote only. You are using words wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: Evan McMullin could actually win the presidency because people like you can't see past the two party dictatorship. Sure it's a small shot, but voting for the best person for the job will get that person elected.
There are small shots, and then there are things which are mathematically possible, but stupidly impossible. For this to happen, you'd have to see Trump gain about six points in polling in a little over a week, or for the polls to have been 6 points off from the final election result, or some combination of the two. At the same, they gain/polling miss would have to be non-existant in Utah, and there's basically zero chance of that being the case. That is, McMullin might win Utah, but he'll probably only do it in a race where Clinton wins 350+ EV. Even if the above freakish thing happens, then it is likely the GOP will hold both the house and the senate. This would give the Republican party power to choose between Clinton, McMullin or Trump... but they don't have to pick anyone. If they don't pick anyone, then the senate's choice of VP will become President. The Republican senate will pick Pence, so by doing nothing in the house then Republicans will get Pence as president. For McMullin to triumph, then you'd be hoping that House Republicans don't actually bother to read the rules before picking McMullin as the next president... that seems unlikely.
Also, a "two party dictatorship" is a self-contradicting bit of nonsense.
Denying the big 2 their 270 electoral votes should remind them who they really work for and show how out of touch they really are.
Stop talking in vagueness. "show how out of touch they really are" means nothing.
Candidate have policy positions. Quote them. Discuss them, whether they are good or bad. Use actual meaningful detail, please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have a democracy we have a representative republic.
You have a representative democracy.
"Republic" just means you don't have a king.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: And let's not forget that time the Bull Moose Party gave the Republicans a serious challenge to their continued existence as a major party.
We shouldn't forget the Bull Moose run in 1912, because it's the classic example of why third party movements cannot last.
Roosevelt ran as a former Republican president, and managed to win 27% of the vote. Taft ran as the Republican incumbent, winning 23%. Add together Roosevelt and Taft and you get a general approximation of the overall Republican voting pool, and it's 50%. More than enough to comfortably beat Wilson's winning vote share of 42%. But because the Republican vote was split between two candidates Wilson sails in to the presidency.
This is exactly how and why the US system won't allow a third party to function.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: OK, has everyone accepted HRC will be the next president? OK good, let move on.
Because when someone wins the Presidency unopposed, it's a very dangerous thing, and I believe our energy is better spent on keeping Clinton'in check than in going back and forth over an inevitable loser like Trump.
Like, for realises, we expelled the immense danger...it's time to focus on the present danger.
Sure, I will vote for Hillary to keep Gropy McRapestein out of office, but what happens after that? We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
Given the hopeless deadlock in congress, Clinton acting without any kind of check is pretty much the opposite of the problem facing America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: Instant runoff (AKA preferential voting) is definitely a lot better than First Past the Post voting. It isn't a cure to all your ails, and even in Australia we've remained largely a 2 party system for 100 years with it, but it allows the for possibility of independents and 3rd parties to exist in a serious manner without simply acting as spoilers.
It also gives minor parties a bit of pull even if they're not getting many seats in parliament - a party getting 10% of the vote may get almost no seats, but the majors still have to take their positions seriously as they want to court that chunk of the electorate.
Sort of. It does allow people to show support for a minor party and still also give a statement of preference between the viable parties. This has allowed minor parties to grow very quickly and win seats in parliament, without ever having to overcome the stigma of a minor party being a thrown away vote.
However, this doesn't actually give minor parties any kind of power, or make major parties pay attention to them. Winning 10% of the primary vote is irrelevant to the major parties, because they know that 10% is not 50%, ultimately each voter still has to pick between Liberal or Labor.
What gives the minor parties in Australia real power is the senate, because it is proportionately allocated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: So there's no "whip" equivalent like the UK? Or potential for allowing free votes?
There are whip positions in US politics. They're even called whips
The whole issue of party line voting in the US is kind of funny to me, because in your and my Westminster system there is an absolute expectation that you vote allow party lines. Anytime someone crosses the floor it's big news and will be a big part of that politician's biogragphy for the rest of their career.
In a fairly broad sense the US every vote is a free vote, whips will try and control the vote and there is certainly a lot less voting differently to party lines than was once the case in the US, but you can cross the floor to against a bill put forward by our side, and that's just part of business as usual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Seriously, though, the parties really don't want increased feedback from the voters. Because if literally every citizen did vote, and were able to do so in a way that matches their political beliefs (say, voting through a survey like isidewith.com), the parties would lose their power.
There's more to it than that. There's actually more to running a country than just having an opinion, you actually have to understand how governance works and face complex choices. You want voters to decide spending priorities and control the budget? About 70% of people don't know how many zeroes there are in a trillion. They lack the basic financial understanding to have a meaningful opinion. But they have opinions anyway and will vote based on them.
The representative part of representative democracy is actually a very good thing.
Trumps 'The Apprentice' was the most successful show on NBC.
Actually, its for anyone who has 'done something iconic'. And nominated themselves to the appropriate committee, and paid a $30,000 nomination fee.
The committee on this is kind of bizarre, because they've rejected Kim Kardashian but accepted Donald Trump, despite both being reality TV stars.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2016/10/27 08:41:33
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I don't have a lot of information about all this, but, since the leaks show that the Democrats aren't honest (paying people to protest, Hillary Clinton deleting her emails, the democrat "primary" biaised in favour of Hillary Clinton...), do they have some "problems" with the Police, or at least, with people ?
The same is happening here with a party (which, ironically, recently called themselves "The Republicans"): a lot of shenanigans, their primary was rigged, their president is in trouble with the Justice (some even say he wants to run the Presidency to avoid Justice). But people, especially people from The Republicans, don't seem disturbed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 10:33:29
I can call it what it is. If you want to pretend it is something else, then by all means do so, but the reality remains.
but when it starts encircle Russia they are gonna get nervous and see it as an aggresion especially when NATO breaks the agreement they had with Russia regarding the eastward expansion of NATO. Just as the US would never have accepted that it´s neighbors joined the Warsaw pact or any other milliary alliance they weren´t part of.
Equating NATO and the Warsaw Pact is really quite ridiculous. The Warsaw Pact gave Moscow much greater control of units provided by the satellite countries with scope to begin offensive operations, even against member nations who weren't being socialist enough.
That doesn´t make the Russians the "good guys" of course, both the US and Russia have imperialist ambitions and are willing to act on them. But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
No one does. But you don't avoid war by failing to intervene when a nation undertakes aggressive operations against a neighboring country. Something something appeasement... .
You can stare yourself blind at NATO's own definition of themselves, but the geo-political reality remains. Regarding the Warsaw pact, the point is that no great power wants to allow an hostile military alliance at their border, for obvious reasons. Even if the Warsaw pact was named the Cute Puppy Alliance and totally voluntary to join, the US would never allow any of their neighbors to join it if Russia, China or Iran was the leading member. When the soviet union fell NATO promised not to expand NATO membership beyond East-Germany, which they broke at first at opportunity, which of course spooked the Russian elites. You dont also avoid war by brazen aggression and saber rattling.
I´m not sure what point you are trying to make with you last comment, are you refering to Ukraine?
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have a democracy we have a representative republic.
You have a representative democracy.
"Republic" just means you don't have a king.
Thanks you.
People saying "we aren't a democracy, we're a republic" is a serious pet peeve of mine. I feel like it's one of those things that came from a Patheos blog and people just repeat it ad nauseam to make themselves look smarter.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
