Nilats

4 hours ago, car720 said:

Agreed.  This is shameful.  The Canadians are acting as enforcers for the US.  Considering that murderers can get an ankle tag then why can't she?  This is all about someone's money being interfered with and absolutely nothing to do with the man in the street.

I don't really think so... Being enforcers of China is even worse... I'm just saying it like it is. BTW many Mainland China Rich people in Canada have Interests which are deeply inter-connected in Money Laundering, illegal Drug trade - Heroin, Meth etc... sick stuff... The are just outright trashing the place. Questions should have been raised long time ago why the Canadian government doesn't act - with China's Multi-billion dollar operations with lots of Real Estate market manipulation and abuse of the system... with consequences spilling into the streets in the West Coast. As for the human rights abuse in their own country - any of their complaints are totally anecdotal. Let's not pretend like China means well to anybody - it's huge problem with lots of abuse of power, money, human rights - and it will definitely get worse if people don't start paying serious attention.

I don't know if it's related, but as for the Rich Mainland China pips in Canada - it would only do good for Canada if all of them were arrested, investigated and deported imo.

Canada should just stick to its own laws to the dot, nothing more... check, re-check everything very carefully and carry out a decision. I don't think it's wise to change the rule of law just for some foreign interests regardless if it's China or America.

America is as bad as North Korea now when it comes to justice, common sense, human rights or political freedom. A bunch of Russians were rounded up and sent to prison, who I'm sure were not any kind of a "security threat" or committed any offenses which deserved even a rudimentary arrest or a personal warning. Complete nonsense and a sham... America should be ashamed of itself... everybody in the World knows and understands what the gig is - it was only because they were Russians.

Are they afraid of 1789 all over again?... Protests over food shortages was how it all started back then.

Well I guess this shows that at least Israel is an actual Democracy - it's the only country I know where high ranking government officials are sent to prison on regular basis if they do something wrong... For some reason we practically never see that in any of Western Democracies ????

It doesn't really matter that much... most politics of Israel are defined by the continuous tense security situation - but replacing government officials like this is actually usual business. When it comes to Bibi, I kind of definitely more like him than hate him... but if it's time for him to go, then maybe it is, I guess we'll just have to wait and see ????

I think it's time for everybody to forget about the Yanks and start acting like adults... message goes to Europeans, Russians, Ukrainians... The truth is like this:

Russia and Europe need each other... another truth - Russia and Ukraine need each other... If politicians in these countries understand this and act upon this obvious truth - I think things will immediately start moving in the right direction... thinking or talking about "war" is childish and complete nonsense imo ???? Guys in Washington will be the only winners as usual if Europeans/Russians/Ukrainians keep help to escalate this instead of acting like adults and take serious steps to de-escalate and start trading with each other instead of trying to hurt each other... simple logic really.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not always. Quite recently it was part of Ukraine. Russia did not have the legal right to steal it even with the historical background. A vote within Crimea was an obvious sham. The only legal way for it to become Russia again was through full consent of the entirety of Ukraine. Of course that wasn't going to happen, so Putin just stole it. I get that some people think that kind of behavior is OK but most of the civilized world certainly does not. 

I had a pretty good acquaintance from Ukraine - named Bogdan( the name is as Ukrainian as it gets)... He was Ukrainian on both sides of the family... ancestry from Kiev, Zaporozhian Cossacks, etc etc... Nationalist... It was a long time ago... but we were good friends, common interests... some people are just good to hang out with, have a conversation... watch a movie talk about a book so on and so forth. He had a Masters Degree from Ukrainian University, also worked as part time rector at a University - basically a Nationalist, proud ethnic Ukrainian but definitely not an Idiot.

Anyway the funny part is I think in 2001 I had a historic argument with him - but it was all the other way around - I tried to prove that Crimea was part of Ukraine - I tried to link history of Crimean Khanate with that of Ukraine - which my Nationalist Ukrainian buddy vehemently denied - he emphatically exclaimed on number of occasions - that Crimea is definitely not Ukraine... He said it's definitely Russia... in fact proper Ukrainians like himself never even wanted it... It's kind of hard to get which way it really is... In any case I don't understand why people like Jingthing even comment on these issues - with his zero clue and knowledge on the subject ????

I met some immigrants - more like economic refugees from Ukraine in Israel in 2008-2009, some were from Kiev, others from Crimea, etc... I couldn't care less how Russians and Ukrainians divide land between each other. I don't really want to have a dog in this whole fight... as much as I don't want to deal with any country in Eastern Europe - they are all corrupt and messed up... I still have to report Crimeans wanted to split from Ukraine for quite some time... Russia didn't force anybody in Crimea itself to abandon Ukraine... Crimeans have been waiting passionately for that moment, the whole island didn't belong to Ukraine - it's a fact nobody tried to deny... say in 2008 I noticed those from Crimea were not on friendly footing with those from Kiev - they communicated with everybody else but necessarily ignored each other... It was a split always bound to happen imo. The divide definitely didn't start in 2013-14, much earlier than that.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Some big stakes games both sides are playing but the facts remain --

Russia stole Crimea

Russia supports the separatist movement in East Ukraine

Russia has sent both military advisors and Russian soldiers (without uniform) into the region before

It's interesting that in the recent ship incident the Russian soldiers were actually uniformed. 

Ukraine has a right to protect their sovereign lands. They already lost Crimea.

It's reasonable though to question the wisdom or be skeptical about the current ban on movement though. 

Russia's non-response seems to be designed to make Ukraine appear paranoid.

But again, Russia already stole Crimea. Why shouldn't Ukraine be paranoid?

Typical Trotskite or Goebbels style propaganda... complete nonsense as usual from a person who knows absolutely nothing about history, pre-history and has never met or known anybody from either Russia or Ukraine... ????

This is some surreal tragi-comedy... a country with the worst demographic trend and the highest net population flight and emigration now also makes laws that prevents people from actually going *into* the country ????

The real headline news would be if Russia stopped Ukrainian male citizens from going to Russia - 2-3 million Ukrainians are working/living in Russia as far as I heard. That would be some caravan to deport.

A few things to note here about Ukraine. It was gifted independence by Russia's Yeltsin - they didn't fight for it, they never even specifically asked for it - they were just gifted independence in the chaos of USSR collapse.

Another thing - Ukraine is a failed state since around 2010 - 100% due to internal mismanagement and corruption. At the moment and in reality since the 2008-9 financial crisis - Ukraine is doing as bad as Afghanistan and worse than Nepal economically. Ukraine has the worst demographics trend in the world - Negative 23 Percent growth since independence in 1992... the World has not seen such demographic trends since medieval times usually caused by famine or plagues like the one called the Black Death in medieval times. It doesn't generate any value has tons of internally generated ethnic political etc problems so I don't understand why would anybody want this "country" for free ???? Anybody who claims so should at least write a paragraph explaining why they believe anybody would want this troubled, corrupt, broke, hopeless region to begin with.

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You do realize most of the rest of the West have parliamentary democracies with plenty of parties, right?

In a democracy you are supposed to have a great variety of media that support different parties, movements etc... in America it appears almost all media supports the Democratic party... In China they also have one Party, one Media, one Congress and lots of conflicts of interests in that congress - America is not that far away from that system, given that almost all media is working for one party, if the President from the opposing party or members of congress of opposing party can bullied by the same media - then in effect it's almost the same as a one party system. And recently it appears the pro-democrat media have lost any objectivity they ever had. How is this not a concern to anybody?

13 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Based on your totally delusional (and fact-free) posts, you are clearly beyond hope.  But for the record, there is no left or leftist media conspiracy or deep state, or whatever.  It is in fact Trump damaging US democracy and in the most perverse way.  But our American institutions will persevere!   

You are entitled to your opinion - I don't care if your America becomes a one-party "Democracy" - knock yourselves out, have a go at it... I'm sure everybody can still be a friend like everybody is friends with China,  I'm concerned with the PR fallout against the West in general... and if your one party "democracy" actually spreads to other countries - this is what concerns me.

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Was that post meant to be coherent?

Do you have something important to say or are you just a troll? ????

It's not Trump that's damaging US democracy... the Left and Leftist media is... this is a topic of great concern for those who care about liberty, democracy, freedom of speech etc... If you don't care about these things - then that's your problem.

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Sorry to be the one to break it to you... I know it has been pounded into your consciousness, but the the US media is NOT leftist. They are firmly corporate-establishment-centerist.

What difference does it make what actual designation is used here... they are all known as "leftist" pro-"democrat" etc etc... and in the classical definition - since they are causing this PR fallout - they are working against the home front... that's as Leftist as it gets. I don't understand how something so simple takes such a long time to explain ???? They don't make only Trump look bad - they make all of the West look bad... this is the reality of things which I'm sure they are smart enough to understand. They wouldn't be acting this way if they weren't some kind of convinced anti-West or anti-America camp... if that was the case the coverage would be somewhat more objective because for the most part everything that Trump does is usual business for a president in any other country.

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you've got much of a leg to stand on when it comes to comments on others being "superficial". That 90% bit was probably pulled out of thin air. Same for the generalized assertion.

 

But regardless, Trump supporters rarely accept that media coverage regarding Trump is often based on what the President does and says. Nevermind how he acts. Somehow that doesn't register.

 

And so, it's the nefarious "left" controlling the media which makes Trump look bad, nothing to do with the President himself, or his "policies" and agenda.

 

Seems that in your democratically-challenged mind, the role of the media and the opposition is to adulate the incumbent President, and to role over according to his whims. Otherwise, well...they are basically two steps away from being traitors, aren't they?

You are twisting my words and putting words in my mouth. You don't need to be a Trump supporter to understand that what the Leftist media is doing very much resembles a one party system government and it's hugely unethical - and like I said the fallout is immense... and strangely the Left doesn't even care when this fallout is hurting themselves and others.

One point I want to make is that this world is incredibly superficial - outside of US 90% of people believe whatever CNN tells them about Trump - in Asia in particular everything is about looks and perception. All this PR damage to America and the West in general was caused by the West's Left and the associated media - in US, Europe, Canada etc... I don't see the practical purpose of it. Because it's not going to get Trump unelected, in fact he will probably win the next election, but the PR damage to the West in general is immense at this point... and it affects people on the Right, Left, Center etc equally. The image of mean evil Trump they created is hugely exaggerated imo... and in a way they are turning him into a "monster" that he never signed up to be... and it's really this false image of Trump that's causing the rightwing stirrup and reaction all over the world at the moment.

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Utterly false, Ayn Rand was against government redistribution of wealth. She considered that theft. Programs like Social Security and Medicare, amongst other programs, are based on that concept. Have you actually ever read Ayn Rand?

She considered that theft because of corruption of the state - i.e. it's rarely used for the actual "redistribution" -its only purpose is to enrich people at the top - that was her exact argument. Did she specifically argue against basic Medicare or fire fire department for example? Since you made the claim you must present the evidence - everybody is still waiting for it. Never read her, seems like people who claim to have read her still have zero understanding just what she was trying to say.

11 hours ago, candide said:

I know why she argued against statism and it does not weaken my point. She was for ultra-liberal capitalism, a minimal role for the state, and against altruism. And was happy to benefit from it when she needed it.

Your whole point is very weak because you are obfuscating what she argued in the first place... Her definition of "Altruism", is apparently not at all how most people interpret when they hear it - and it's sad that apparently if you know that and you are exploiting it. She never argued against helping people... she never argued against something like fire department or medicare specifically... Her argument against *Altruism* is mostly to prevent wars and corruption when people are being brainwashed and sacrificed  for means that never benefit them or their community - in fact they usually hurt them - she argued against Nazism, Communism and corruption of crony capitalism... Seems you missed the point entirely.

7 hours ago, candide said:

I'm not particularly a fan of Rand, but it seems to me that the golden boys and digital entrepreneurs  that Trumpists despise are very near to her ideal of heroic man.

And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit.

"And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit." This one line what cheap propaganda.

Not a fan but she argued against Statism for 3 main reasons - because it's responsible for Nazism, Communism and Crony Capitalism - all which hurt free society, individual rights, wealth and so on... I don't see exactly how you increase the quality of this debate when you and your comrades continuously fabricate and twist facts around in this way. "Quite Trumpist in this way"... lol you don't even know what she ever argued in the first place... educate yourself... Hillarist ???? 

3 hours ago, candide said:

I'm not particularly a fan of Rand, but it seems to me that the golden boys and digital entrepreneurs  that Trumpists despise are very near to her ideal of heroic man.

And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit.

I wouldn't put any emphasis on Rand, she never wrote anything original imo... she based all her works on earlier thinkers who explored all these ideas much more thoroughly and better. You are veering off topic... I simply pointed out that you need to understand Trump's background better to rate his *integrity* relative to many other politicians, he doesn't really deviate that much from any of his personal convictions.

1 hour ago, candide said:

A Nietzschean perspective on Trumpism. Lol! Trump the Ubermensch! Ah! Ah!

Trumpism is more like men of resentment pretending to be masters!

Anyway, any simple interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy (including the one I just made) is irrelevant due to its complexity and its aestetic stance. 

 

 

I've discovered a lot of connect points with that camp of Philosophy during Trump's campaign... also many connect points in his ancestry, his family, the way he runs the country, foreign policy, his behaviour, his domestic policies etc... Btw Trump's favourite book is the main novel written by Ayn Rand.

16 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Clearly he is not stupid and never implied that, but a philosopher hes not nor does he have a consistent philosophical basis for his policy preferences.  In this regard, there is a difference between educated street smarts/autodictats and a high falutin education in the classics, and developing a consistent political philosophy based thereon. One is not better than the other in terms of good and bad, Ron Reagan was great but not the smartest intellectual in the refridgerator, Barack Obama was an "intellectual" and ineffective. The most dangerous ones are the ones who have a consistent philosophical weltanshaaung derived from either or both education and autodictatism, together with the street smarts to carry out the philosophy, the voracious reader Iosef Vissarionovich comes to mind.....

I give you this point, I think you are right, it does concern me a little bit because his approach does seem maybe a bit too literal - but then who's there to say at the moment - this movement allows a lot of flexibility and a theory is just a theory until it's put into practice - he's the first who's ever taken the whole camp this far - after he's done with his term or maybe halfway through the second one - we can perhaps start to draw some conclusions. It's not really any kind of a fundamentalist ideology - so hopefully we'll be alright ???? As for the Iosef Vissarionovich factor - I think you are a bit correct but then I think Angela Merkel fits this comparison much better than Trump does at the moment imo ????