The All Things Political Topic

[BruceVC]

I thought some humour would be appreciated in this thread, you guys must find the sentiment hilarious 

 

[HoonDing]

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

I thought some humour would be appreciated in this thread, you guys must find the sentiment hilarious 

 

 

Considering that as democracy demands that majority of people support the decision, then less than half of 66% that does not include over 3,2 million citizen of country isn't a democratic way to elect leader. But in this case democracy has never existed.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Considering that as democracy demands that majority of people support the decision, then less than half of 66% that does not include over 3,2 million citizen of country isn't a democratic way to elect leader. But in this case democracy has never existed.

https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

" More than 155 million Americans voted in 2024: 156,302,318 to be exact. That’s the second largest total voter turnout in U.S. history in absolute terms. It is also just the second time that more than 140 million people voted in a presidential election.

In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900. "

Trump won the popular vote and 7  swing states  and this applies to registered voters but if you not a registered voter you cant vote and that applied to 89 million Americans who are known as voter-eligible 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election

" And while votes are still being counted, preliminary election data shows about 155 million ballots were cast. This would mean an estimated 89 million Americans, or about 36% of the country’s voting-eligible population, did not vote in the 2024 general election." 

But out  of the registered voters Trump won, I fail to understand how anyone can say he didnt win through the Democratic process of voting?

If someone doesnt want to register to vote then they obviously wont be included in this data but that doesn't change how he won the election in a Democratic way?

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by BruceVC

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

There is endless criticism about US imperialism and its " insidious " control of UN and other institutions 

Its exaggerated and selective but its consistent from those detractors of the US 

So this is a good opportunity for other countries to take up the slack when the US pulls back its funding

Why cant BRICS countries  supplement the WHO? They want to create a new world order and help the global south 

Its not like China or India cant afford it? Trumps policies could be the perfect time to see real  global change around this type of support for the likes of WHO

We shouldnt rely just on the US for this type of funding ?

Sort of an irrelevant retort, why shouldn't the US support the WHO? Because now you buy into Russian talking points?

Why is BRICS your immediate go to when the rest of the West contributes less, I think Gates contributed more than France and others.

 

[Elerond]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

" More than 155 million Americans voted in 2024: 156,302,318 to be exact. That’s the second largest total voter turnout in U.S. history in absolute terms. It is also just the second time that more than 140 million people voted in a presidential election.

In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900. "

Trump won the popular vote and 7  swing states  and this applies to registered voters but if you not a registered voter you cant vote and that applied to 89 million Americans who are known as voter-eligible 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election

" And while votes are still being counted, preliminary election data shows about 155 million ballots were cast. This would mean an estimated 89 million Americans, or about 36% of the country’s voting-eligible population, did not vote in the 2024 general election." 

But out  of the registered voters Trump won, I fail to understand how anyone can say he didnt win through the Democratic process of voting?

If someone doesnt want to register to vote then they obviously wont be included in this data but that doesn't change how he won the election in a Democratic way?

US presidential election is not democratic by design. It was designed to protect state rights.

Every state has their own rules for voting (like who are eligible to vote, how to register to vote, where you can vote, how you can vote, when you can vote, when your vote is eligible) and how state electors are elected. US citizens living in US territories like Puerto Rico don't get to choose any electors, because only states have electors.

Some states have more electors per capita than other states.

Most states give all their electors to person that got most votes, which has lead to situation where many states can be said to belong to republicans or democrats before they even have picked their candidates.

There is no federal system that gives people right to vote for their president, there is no federal laws that says that states can't override result of the state vote. 

We can call it democratic system, but we can also call Russian elections democratic, but that don't change reality how those systems are designed to give people in power to go around will of the general population

[BruceVC]

30 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Sort of an irrelevant retort, why shouldn't the US support the WHO? Because now you buy into Russian talking points?

Why is BRICS your immediate go to when the rest of the West contributes less, I think Gates contributed more than France and others.

 

The point is if the US pulls funding from the likes of the WHO there is no reason many other wealthy countries cant full the gap 

And BRICS  is the obvious choice because it has second wealthiest country in the world and it claims to stand for the Global South and a new world order that is not as influenced by the West\USA 

And that objective can only be realized by action and  not the standard rhetoric and platitudes 

This is a perfect opportunity for BRICS to demonstrate its commitment to it own objectives 

 

Edited 15 hours ago by BruceVC

[Elerond]

41 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Sort of an irrelevant retort, why shouldn't the US support the WHO? Because now you buy into Russian talking points?

Why is BRICS your immediate go to when the rest of the West contributes less, I think Gates contributed more than France and others.

 

https://open.who.int/2024-25/contributors/contributor

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributes about same amount as USA and is second largest contributor.

Interesting tidbit is that based on voluntary contribute percentages, Somalia (0.38%) contributes more than China (0.32%), South Africa (0%), Russia (0.17%) and Brazil (0%)  combined.

WHO's budget is bit over 6.5 billion dollars, so quite big sunk of the countries would be able to handle it alone without massive problems.

Edited 15 hours ago by Elerond

[Malcador]

7 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The point is if the US pulls funding from the likes of the WHO there is no reason many other wealthy countries cant full the gap 

And BRICS  is the obvious choice because it has second wealthiest country in the world and it claims to stand for the Global South and a new world order that is not as influenced by the West\USA 

And that objective can only be realized by action and  not the standard rhetoric and platitudes 

This is a perfect opportunity for BRICS to demonstrate its commitment to it own objectives 

 

You think the US shouldn't fund the WHO?

Americans really don't grasp the idea of soft power sometimes.

Edited 15 hours ago by Malcador

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Sort of an irrelevant retort, why shouldn't the US support the WHO? Because now you buy into Russian talking points?

Why is BRICS your immediate go to when the rest of the West contributes less, I think Gates contributed more than France and others.

 

The point is if the US pulls funding from the likes of the WHO there is no reason many other wealthy countries cant full the gap 

And BRICS  is the obvious choice because it has second wealthiest country in the world and it claims to stand for the Global South and a new world order that is not as influenced by the West\USA 

And that objective can only be realized by action and the not the standard rhetoric and platitudes 

This is a perfect opportunity for BRICS to demonstrate its commitment to it own objectives 

 

[BruceVC]

Just now, Malcador said:

You think the US shouldn't fund the WHO?

I dont think the US decision  should become the  "issue "  it has become and it has become an issue because this specific executive order has been mentioned several times in our media 

 

The WHO can get this funding from other countries and as @Elerond mentioned  BRICS are hardly providing any funding and they can definitely full the gap if the WHO matters. I didnt realize BRICS members contributed so little 

You say you believe in a true multi-polar world, this is how you do it 

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The point is if the US pulls funding from the likes of the WHO there is no reason many other wealthy countries cant full the gap 

And BRICS  is the obvious choice because it has second wealthiest country in the world and it claims to stand for the Global South and a new world order that is not as influenced by the West\USA 

And that objective can only be realized by action and the not the standard rhetoric and platitudes 

This is a perfect opportunity for BRICS to demonstrate its commitment to it own objectives 

 

China is the obvious choice, not BRICS. But Europe is there as well.  Isn't a huge ask though.

The arguments for the US leaving seem like tedious politics, well that and people thinking the WHO supercedes the CDC. 

But I forget your slant in this.

Edited 15 hours ago by Malcador

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I dont think the US decision  should become the  "issue "  it has become and it has become an issue because this specific executive order has been mentioned several times in our media 

What's hard about understanding why it's an issue, the US retreating from an international organization is a statement and will have an impact.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

China is the obvious choice, not BRICS. But Europe is there as well.  Isn't a huge ask though.

The arguments for the US leaving seem like tedious politics, well that and people thinking the WHO supercedes the CDC.

But I forget your slant in this.

But why cant BRICS do it? Why cant they make a decision together to fund the US shortfall 

Again if BRICS believes in a  multi-polar world this is one way of demonstrating that belief 

I dont understand why think BRICS cant do this, China will be the main contributor but other BRICS  members can contribute 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

What's hard about understanding why it's an issue, the US retreating from an international organization is a statement and will have an impact.

Okay we going around in circles now, it wont be a problem if other countries full the funding shortfall 

It wont be an issue at all 

[Malcador]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

But why cant BRICS do it? Why cant they make a decision together to fund the US shortfall 

Again if BRICS believes in a  multi-polar world this is one way of demonstrating that belief 

I dont understand why think BRICS cant do this, China will be the main contributor but other BRICS  members can contribute 

And again, are you supporting the withdrawal?  It being a good idea is wholly independent of whether or not BRICS that you're hyper fixated on steps up or not

[Malcador]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Okay we going around in circles now, it wont be a problem if other countries full the funding shortfall 

It wont be an issue at all 

It killing the WHO or not isn't the only consequence. The US was funding them for so long for a reason.

[BruceVC]

Just now, Malcador said:

It killing the WHO or not isn't the only consequence. The US was funding them for so long for a reason.

5 minutes ago, Malcador said:

And again, are you supporting the withdrawal?  It being a good idea is wholly independent of whether or not BRICS that you're hyper fixated on steps up or not

No I dont support the withdraw because I believe in the WHO as an important UN institution that provides healthcare services  to third world and impoverished countries

So if you look at @Elerond link the US provides 14.5% of funding so if you remove that it  will impact the overall services the WHO provides which I dont want 

But that can easily be mitigated by other wealthy countries in the world 

This shouldnt become a problem when the likes of China are basically contributing nothing

And thats where BRICS comes in because its a bloc that can easily full the US shortfall 

 

[Sarex]

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-01-20/biden-issues-pardons-to-protect-milley-fauci-others-from-trump-retaliation-statement-says

He forgot to pardon the dog...

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, Sarex said:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-01-20/biden-issues-pardons-to-protect-milley-fauci-others-from-trump-retaliation-statement-says

He forgot to pardon the dog...

Considering Trump and his pardons now and before, this shouldn't be an issue for anyone.

Biden should have pardoned Luigi  

[Sarex]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Considering Trump and his pardons now and before, this shouldn't be an issue for anyone.

Biden should have pardoned Luigi  

It wasn't my intention to compare them, I just find it funny that he pardoned his whole family. The joke was he forgot to pardon the family dog. They are both just as ridiculous and the fact is telling how much corruption there is on both sides.

I also have to share this gem

[Malcador]

No comparing them is fine. Just shows how shot through the US system is getting

[uuuhhii]

the disingenuous assertion are worthless

it is obvious why usa are now hostile to who

they want to allow megacorp to poison people if it means more profit

it is not complicated

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, uuuhhii said:

the disingenuous assertion are worthless

it is obvious why usa are now hostile to who

they want to allow megacorp to poison people if it means more profit

it is not complicated

You making very serious allegations, have you taken this to  your local media?

Dont sit on this information, you have a civic responsibility as a global citizen to let people know why the US  has stopped funding the WHO !!!!

Trump needs to educate himself on which countries are part of BRICS 

 

[Pidesco]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I thought some humour would be appreciated in this thread, you guys must find the sentiment hilarious 

 

Fortunately democracies have never ever fallen after electing a putative strongman, so it's fine.