The All Things Political Topic - SNAFU edition

[Zoraptor]

Sigh.

26 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I have already explained why Im asking and why political legitimacy matters 

Its not about Maduro or the US

hmm.

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Do you consider Maduro a legitimate leader for Venezuela?

And whats your definition of a legitimate leader in any country that calls itself a Democracy that has elections 

heh.

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Im interested if you consider free and fair elections as relevant for  domestic legitimacy in any country outside the US?

r00fles!

In the spirit of asking disingenuous questions: why do you personally support machinegunning civilians? You approved of Marikana- possibly the only positive thing you've ever said about part owner Ramaphosa- and don't seem to find it disqualifying for Morsi's legitimacy after all.

[uuuhhii]

it is hard to penetrate willful ignorance

just like how statement of most eu leader are so pathetic

even their national tv are more critical and less evasive

yet these hand puppet will keep getting elected until the hand pull out

[Malcador]

Yep, trolling. Ah well.

[Zoraptor]

34 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

it is hard to penetrate willful ignorance

just like how statement of most eu leader are so pathetic

I mean yes, but... that isn't really the root of the problem. Or at least it isn't really ignorance, per se.

As with so much the root is that people love to convince themselves by telling stories. Especially ones that have positive outcomes (bonus if they make you a hero). That's basic evolution and a great asset if you're sitting in a cave in winter with no food and your alternatives are starving or going out to hunt, since convincing yourself that you and your buddies are great and will single handedly butcher a mammoth is better than definitely freezing to death due to having a more realistic take. Similarly, going and nicking stuff from the Thog tribe is fine, because they worship the local stream and obviously we're the favoured ones because we're us (and sensibly worship the sun).

Europe has capital C Convinced themselves both that they are the heroes- cue Borrell's beautiful garden that must be protected from barbarians analogy- and that the US is their Friend. Everything they are geopolitically is based upon those two premises. So, Europe is desperately hoping that this really is a one off, like Noriega, despite everything Trump says. They'd kowtow if it was 'just' Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Cuba too, because end of the day it doesn't really effect them. Denmark or Canada though- that would break their entire system of belief.  

It's like asking the Pope to repudiate Christianity. Even if Jesus himself appeared and said that Mohammed was right, and the world should be converted at the end of a sword you wouldn't expect the Pope to Believe it and order the world's catholics to convert.

Appeasement is a fundamental misjudgement of Trump's character as so well illustrated by the surrender over tariffs earning no actual goodwill (indeed, being seen as the abject surrender it was and proving that Europe has no spine), but one that is understandable when the alternative calls your entire world view into question. That is may well end up with Little Green Men taking over Greenland like it's Crimea... just believe it won't happen, and hopefully it won't.

The 'funniest' thing is the dichotomy of it all. Americans clearly elected Trump and knew what they were getting, but aren't really responsible for his actions. OTOH, Russians didn't elect Putin, but are responsible for his actions. Appeasing Putin is a new Munich Agreement, appeasing Trump is a sensible geopolitical play. China loaning money to countries in return for resources: terrible! US saying they'll just seize them instead... crickets. The last one in particular stems from not condemning Trump's Pillage of Syrian oil, a literal war crime, in his first term. 

[uuuhhii]

4 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I mean yes, but... that isn't really the root of the problem. Or at least it isn't really ignorance, per se.

As with so much the root is that people love to convince themselves by telling stories. Especially ones that have positive outcomes (bonus if they make you a hero). That's basic evolution and a great asset if you're sitting in a cave in winter with no food and your alternatives are starving or going out to hunt, since convincing yourself that you and your buddies are great and will single handedly butcher a mammoth is better than definitely freezing to death due to having a more realistic take. Similarly, going and nicking stuff from the Thog tribe is fine, because they worship the local stream and obviously we're the favoured ones because we're us (and sensibly worship the sun).

Europe has capital C Convinced themselves both that they are the heroes- cue Borrell's beautiful garden that must be protected from barbarians analogy- and that the US is their Friend. Everything they are geopolitically is based upon those two premises. So, Europe is desperately hoping that this really is a one off, like Noriega, despite everything Trump says. They'd kowtow if it was 'just' Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Cuba too, because end of the day it doesn't really effect them. Denmark or Canada though- that would break their entire system of belief.  

It's like asking the Pope to repudiate Christianity. Even if Jesus himself appeared and said that Mohammed was right, and the world should be converted at the end of a sword you wouldn't expect the Pope to Believe it and order the world's catholics to convert.

Appeasement is a fundamental misjudgement of Trump's character as so well illustrated by the surrender over tariffs earning no actual goodwill (indeed, being seen as the abject surrender it was and proving that Europe has no spine), but one that is understandable when the alternative calls your entire world view into question. That is may well end up with Little Green Men taking over Greenland like it's Crimea... just believe it won't happen, and hopefully it won't.

The 'funniest' thing is the dichotomy of it all. Americans clearly elected Trump and knew what they were getting, but aren't really responsible for his actions. OTOH, Russians didn't elect Putin, but are responsible for his actions. Appeasing Putin is a new Munich Agreement, appeasing Trump is a sensible geopolitical play. China loaning money to countries in return for resources: terrible! US saying they'll just seize them instead... crickets. The last one in particular stems from not condemning Trump's Pillage of Syrian oil, a literal war crime, in his first term. 

 

yes tribalism

that is the easy to understand part

the reason for appeasement are different this time

before ww2 there is no way to sell to uk and france voter that die for danzig as popular idea

all the premature anti fascist have gone to die in spain civil war already

now support usa are more unpopular than ever

but that doesn't matter anymore for uk and france leadership

despite france always like to pretend they are the strong independent big boy of europe that still have a sort of colonial empire at west africa

[Bartimaeus]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

In the spirit of asking disingenuous questions: why do you personally support machinegunning civilians?

Once upon a time, I reported one of Volourn's posts by saying that I and a few other people would start re-framing everything Volourn said as supporting dog-****ing if staff didn't tell him off for constantly re-framing everyone and everything he disagreed with as being or supporting Nazis, and while I never heard back from staff, he coincidentally decided to take his ball and leave the forums forever literally immediately after that.

Food for thought, people.

Edited Tuesday at 10:56 PM by Bartimaeus

[Hurlshort]

2 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Once upon a time, I reported one of Volourn's posts by saying that I and a few other people would start re-framing everything Volourn said as supporting dog-****ing if staff didn't tell him off for constantly re-framing everyone he disagreed with as being or supporting nazis, and while I never heard back from staff, he coincidentally decided to take his ball and leave the forums forever literally immediately after that.

Food for thought, people.

Poor Volo, they were so mean to him on the codex and he would still defend them. I miss his hockey talk.

[Bartimaeus]

The sad thing is, Volourn at his worst was never as bad as BruceVC at his best: at least Volourn was always exactly how he presented himself. I can appreciate that sort of sincerity, even if his behavior was generally kind of awful and usually not worth engaging with: he had real thoughts and beliefs, even some ones that didn't seem to follow what maybe anyone else in the world thinks, and he wasn't afraid to share them...and that's much better than all the "oh won't you please poop directly into my mouth" takes that BruceVC has always had.

Edited Tuesday at 11:08 PM by Bartimaeus

[Malcador]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo

Wonder where the money for this will come from.

[uuuhhii]

23 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo

Wonder where the money for this will come from.

 

bbc are not as pathetic as starmer

still trying to rationalize this nonsense for people living in the rulebase world order illusion

[rjshae]

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Nothing to do with the US operation, Im asking outside of Canada do you believe legitimacy for a leader should  only be determined by free and fair elections

Some people dont care

In Africa we have seen 7-8 free and fair elections recently with  a  peaceful transfer of power and it gets celebrated

I support that because political legitimacy in any Democracy matters to me 

A non-democratic government can clearly be legitimate, in the sense of being legal in the context of that nation's judicial system. The validity of their claims to be a democracy is another matter; no I don't believe Venezuela is a democracy any longer. They're what I dub a "mockracy" -- pretending to be a democracy for propaganda purposes.

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Sigh.

hmm.

heh.

r00fles!

In the spirit of asking disingenuous questions: why do you personally support machinegunning civilians? You approved of Marikana- possibly the only positive thing you've ever said about part owner Ramaphosa- and don't seem to find it disqualifying for Morsi's legitimacy after all.

Firstly I support Ramaphosa on several decisions  and  he is the legitimate leader of South Africa because we have free and fair elections 

I dont support  parts of our foreign policy because its inconsistent and selective with what we say we stand for. But thats not the same thing as saying I dont support what the government and now the GNU believes in around all foreign  policy decisions. So it depends on  what part of foreign policy we talking about. Two things can be true at the same time and political support is not a binary reality. You can criticize and support the same  politicians  and parties for different reasons 

Ramaphosa has been very good around domestic policies, he is more or less consistent with what the Constitution says and he respects the judiciary. He is a Constitutionalist and thats important to me

Overall I have a  more  positive view of him than a negative view , next time dont jump to conclusions. Ask me and I will respond 

And then you very confused about my opinion of Marikana and we have discussed this through the years. I have always had the same opinion, it was a terrible tragedy and Ramaphosa is not responsible because he didnt order the police to open fire.  Thats a false narrative peddled by unions and the EFF to malign him.

A series of factors contributed towards the massacre  and all sides have to take responsibility for that mass shooting, you cant just blame the police 

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

A non-democratic government can clearly be legitimate, in the sense of being legal in the context of that nation's judicial system. The validity of their claims to be a democracy is another matter; no I don't believe Venezuela is a democracy any longer. They're what I dub a "mockracy" -- pretending to be a democracy for propaganda purposes.

Thank you for responding, this is the type of comment I am interested in

My original question seems to have been  misunderstood with people thinking Im trolling and I have to take some responsibility  for that for not clarifying what I meant which I thought I did 

I used Maduro as an example because we discussing Venezuela but that doesn't mean if you say  " Maduro isnt a legitimate leader " you now support how the US removed him around regime change 

These are 2 separate points. My question was about the broader reality of what defines legitimacy\Democracy  and for me that requires a free and fair election in any country that calls itself a Democracy 

But a legitimate Democracy or leader can fail to deliver on policies and running the country properly but then you vote him out in the next election

Thats how it should work in any real  Democracy  

But I understand what you saying around "in the sense of being legal in the context of that nation's judicial system " so the word legitimacy becomes difficult to define 

So yes, its probably better to say " can you claim to be a Democracy " 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[uuuhhii]

eu are bowing down to ai oligarch too

how do they expect eu can power the insane demand of ai

doing anything other than tax the rich again

usa seize 2 more oil tanker

venezuela may run out of ship soon

Edited 7 hours ago by uuuhhii

[uuuhhii]

ice shot usa citizen on the street on film

this is going to be another long year