The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I haven't read much of the recent discussion here but what do you think about what I think would be the best democratic system?
Many small 'states' of around 100.000 people and a federal government. What does a federal government supply than those small states couldn't? Just military, some reserve for natural disasters and a few mega infrastructures. The rest (power and money) goes to the states governments to do as they please.
With such small states, moving from one to another would be so much easier and people would feel more represented. Also nobody would really cares if the federal president was Trump or a communist unless he wanted to declare war to other nations.

If you can't handle wild-*** guesses on the numbers rather than the ratios, well then pucker up buttercup, things gon git much worse before they get better.

The facts weren't flawed, the numbers were guesses, I obviously don't google literally every number, no politicians including Canada's literally google every number. 30 magazine clip in half a second, for example. I use that a lot, but dumb *** words come from a diversity of political affiliations.

maybe you should. I feel like that's a habit of mine. If you wanna strike a point based on that number and the true number results in the opposite point then noone ever checking numbers results in "alternative facts".

I know the text above was supposed to turn the newsflash screen picture into a joke but I'll respond to this here because I (once again) fail to grasp the subtleties of this illusive humor and I've got a politically-themed reply.

WW3 is no laughing matter.

I think I can give several different meanings to the above sentence. It's quite loaded. Contemporary war between U.S. and Russia alone is already humanity extinct and most other living forms.

3edgy5you?

That hypothetical and possible war would be, if the various hands were not aware enough of the consequence to follow it. Nobody would press a button that meant the end of the world, history has proven this a few times, when faced with a strike it was better to "take the strike" than to "immediately retaliate and end the world".

Ending the world, sort of inconveniences rich people, even more than poor people, in the sense that poor people won't be aware they've died in time for it to inconvenience them. Rich people simply will not tolerate living a disgusting life of survival while poor people have it better than them, so it'll likely never happen m8.

If that's too dark for you, then may I suggest you check the first chest you come across, with any luck it'll be a lantern. Don't worry if you miss it, the next one will either give you the missed torch or a red rupee, so there's security in redundancy.

again I personally highly doubt this.

history has also proven how much humanity is ready to sink to new lows as a result of and simply in the process of proving anyone who though "well humanity can't do anything stupider than that" wrong time and time again.

I can think of plenty of examples.

again you seem to be far from the mark in two regards : the poor and the rich are equal human beings they have just as a legitimate claim to being inconvenienced as one another even if society doesn't enforce that and even if some or a big part of the poor relinquish their claim to it. it's kinda silly that they just would "because it fits their social class".
(or if the argument is : they stand to loose less, that's also wrong:
psychology proves that value in the human mind is always in parts and never in numbers : where contrasts between values are in multiples of billions or trillions in the real world wheras the human mind can only wrap it's head arround a contrast in the 20-80 (or just 5) try to make dots visually in your head and count them all each time as you add one try to go as high as possible you'll see after awhile that your brain is cheating and representing bigger numbers with the same amount of dots or worse skipping straight to imagining a dot field with indistinguishable dots you can't count. To illustrate this with an example we could say, for example that a trillionaire values her trillion the same way a destitute values his rubbish-craft home and even that the ratio from a trillionaire's trillion to the chili-dog he bought of the corner stand of his own skyscraper is the same ratio that destitute person has between his very own favorite broken mirror to his home (the trillionaire enjoyed the hell out of that chili-dog!!))

AND

nuclear armageddon isn't apposite to 100+ year post-armageddon humanity survival.

it's really no use. you can do anything you can think of even build an underground lair that won't work because you can't replicate a full ecosystem nor boot earth's ecosystem back up thanks to it so tough luck getting fresh air or mulch past a generation. and even before then tough luck hand-fertilizing the thousands of plants needed for even one human to breathe.

all of it is outside the realm of feasibility.

yeah so reading up on this

it seems as though one of the most potent side effect of nuclear holocaust would be exposing our planet (as such it's living beings, yes even those under water) to the full wrath of the sun. this is, If you didn't know, the main reason why mars and other planets are devoid of life

?

I thought Trump was a russian agent. If he's Putin's bathtub buddy, what's to worry about?

Anything that devolves more power towards the individual and local representation is good. Bottom heavy is preferable to top heavy as to protect the individual from being enslaved by unwanted outside interests. I trust my family more than I do the local mayor, in turn more than a state representative, more than a federal representative and so on. The same reason you want competing nation states to prevent Hitler becoming supreme ruler of the world, you also want competing states to prevent Hitler becoming supreme ruler of a nation etc etc etc.

However I've come to the point where I think the biggest factor that determines whether a place will be nice or not is culture, not systems. Systems are merely the shadow cast by culture. Where you have authoritarian cultures, you'll get authoritarian systems and likewise for any other type of culture/system you can think of. Which is why the American system is different from the Commonwealth one, which is different from a European one.

Probably more interesting question to start with is what kind of culture would one want to live in. I think systems will organically develop to support said cultural values.

oh now you're playing dumb?

I guess it's just too many-layered of a joke for you then.

I'll run you thought it :
Level A :
Putin & Trump working together/seemingly on good terms
not a joke yet plus 8th graders make friends. long time enemy nations leaders? it can't be that simple. why don't we ask the question "but why?" and we may yet uncover that this is a facade.


Level B:
Ok so Putin is actually a smart man, Trump is, as it turns out blitheringly dumb. When relationships are so precariously tilted to one side on the balance of power then there's something one person, obviously the stronger, stands to gain that he isn't telling the weaker/dumber.

...ok

"but what?"


Level C:
well no certainties here but common sense points us in the general direction : furthering the russian agenda. worst of which maybe is placing america in a checkmate senario where russia successfully gets to take over the U.S. maybe the world without having to go through nuclear war or at least the least of it as possible.

see it's a three-tiered joke. you have to work all that out yourself to get it and you reward yourself with the drop.

it's a grey-laugh kinda joke when people say trump is putin's muppet.


but either way all of this involves risks. risks that komrad putin probably doesn't attribute the same weight to it that say I ...or you might.

So Putin is manipulating dumb Trump to attack Putin. So that after both countries have nuked each other out of existence, Putin will turn into the incredible hulk from all the radiation and take over the US.

Makes sense. Putin is craftier than I thought!

Breaking news from CNN
Russian hacker whistle blower defects with secret pictures of Putin's plan

I can play that game too you know?

So you're saying planes fly underground is that right? sounds like there's a lot that could be contested about that. lemme just let you justify that first.

You're putting literally anything at all in my mouth at this point. really kills the debate. I can see why you'd want that.

If you want me to respond/take your posts seriously then you'll have to extend the same to me. actually read. not divert meaning away from common global sense and meaning of the english language.

If you're going to make a mockery of this process entirely then expect to have no relevance in the discussion.

??

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-...-must-choose-between-assad-and-the-us/8435784

@elodea ? yeah and ? I still think you understood like 5% of what I said that article/these events on the other hand has 1% pertinence to your point.

Is it supposed to work in the direction of the idea that we're not at danger of war? or that Russia is not in opposition with the U.S. ? what is it?

pretty much aligns with what I said.

and further demonstrated you made your own opposite interpretation of what I said.

HEY GUESS WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID TODAY FOLKS.

That was pretty dumb. Zein Fuhrer of Erld Oar Une "sunk to the level of using chemical weapons", c'mon, everyone's watched "All's Quiet on the Western Front". Them's just facts.

Would "something to gain, like furthering the Russian agenda", include ending life on the planet? That's a big gain for them, right?

"But thousands of dots connecting and nobody can know for sure".

I know for sure, nobody has anything to gain from scorched earth on a global level. On the historic levels, it was done to hang on to something in exchange for a lot of what they had. There is no "exchange", it's trading everything for nothing obviously. Even on a psychedelic drug trip, I doubt anyone would actually initiate Armageddon.

you'd be ... well... surprise would be the only thing left to feel but yeah

Now who's humor is dark? Yeah, if it happens, it literally wouldn't matter at the point it happens. Should we avoid it? Yeah. Should we fear it'll happen? The very reality of it actually happening, scares everyone, nobody would feel "hey, I lived a long life, let's kill 7 trillion lives at once (humans, animals, bugs, and plants alike)"

I feel reassured by that answer I'm repeating myself but you'd be surprised. I've seen people online dumb enough to think nuclear armageddon is actually survivable and as such want it because they think they could get a better life with less contestants

It is survivable, but not as a species. We'll easily immediately put our species into what is classified as extreme endangered species to become extinct, with hundreds or less surviving.

The specifics depend on whether it's a 100, 200, 500, or 2k warhead scenario.

We have the resources to continuously produce necessities in a vacuum, possibly literally as the situation may warrant (manned trip to Mars potential level of involvement), but we couldn't do it for more than a dozen people. The only species we currently have less of, than a dozen, is rhinos and ****. That doesn't "reduce the contestants", that "creates the contest" altogether, with as much a chance to fail with massively uncontrollable luck-based variables, as a "hard" difficulty game of "FTL: Faster Than Light", and with no "redos".

Essentially, we wouldn't survive. But that wouldn't matter, because WE wouldn't survive. The person with the hand on the nuclear weapon launch buttons, THEY wouldn't survive. Someone else "might". The person with the hand on the button, probably has a reason to live, considering someone pays him enough money to keep their hand on the button, to make life worth living.

Why would they throw that all away? Answer: They very realistically, won't.