Cameroni

But I already did, I said 8 years. Whilst it is not necessarily desirable that the most wealthy call the shots, it is even more undesirable that the Lumpenproletariat from various countries around the world call the shots, surely?

Why wouldn't you be? Because perhaps a Nicaraguan farmer is ill equipped to evaluate the issues that come up in an American presidential election? He has lived all his life outside of the US except for a few years, and now he gets to decide on who should govern, what taxes should be put in place? How does this not concern you? Democracy was not built for mass immigration, it was built for a small local population with a vested interest and land ownership. If mass immigration involves rights of citizenship and the power to vote, this would be a massive distortion of the political landscape in due course. Personally I think it is a mistake to allow immigration from social groups that are at the very bottom of the social stratas. I would make IQ testing mandatory to be able to get in, to be able to vote, and then also there should be language requirements and property requirements. Which I think should also apply to non-immigrants, or rather those who own property should have a more weighted vote at the very least. Perhaps 8 years of residence is a reasonable time period.

Of course, Ukraine was a part of the USSR, hence Russia had Russian naval bases and nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Even before the USSR Russia defeated the Ottomans in the 18th century to take the Crimean, which has an amazing history btw.

Actually, in fairly recent history Russia has been the victim of invasions by Poland, Germany, and before that was invaded by many other nations. So it is very understandable that Russia seeks a buffer between itself and other nations. I understand the antipathy towards Russia, before I went to Russia I was the same, and even then, more happened to make you anti-Russian than pro Russian, however, Russians are decent people, and they do not wish for war with the West as it turned out.

So you are perfectly comfortable with a Nicaraguan farmer, who speaks no English, has lived most of his adult life outside of the US, deciding who should govern you and decide how many taxes you pay, what wars you enter, and other issues that affect you?

That's true, both parties are trying to manipulate it. I understand many do not want either Trump or Harris to be running for office, but that is the choice provided. Now, Trump, judging by the debate is highly lucid, showing no signs of dementia at all. Of course politicians make factual errors, witness Kamala Harris claim that the US have a strong alliance with North Korea, or just now Walz's claim that he made friends with school shooters. We criticise them, but to be fair, if we were up there making speeches, we'd make the odd holwer or two for sure. Doesn't mean were suffering from dementia. Trump was also very gracious about mentioning his call from Kamala in his rally and defending her, or in donating his presidential salary to charity. Of course he is a showman and says some provocative things, but if you had to choose between him or Kamala Harris, to me he is the better choice. Though like you I have my doubts how much he can achieve with a dvided House and Senate.

Oh I see, apologies. I have no issues with that at all and I agree with you, Walz should not be taken to task for that. Developing ties with other nations is beneficial if it is done on the level Walz did.

Including or excluding Ukraine?

This is where RFK Jr's analysis is particularly strong, it also mentions Russia's concern that with the loss of Ukraine Russia could lose its naval bases in the Crimean. It really was a matter of life and death and national security for Russia.

Well, Jim Rogers was really an investor who followed the tide after it became clear that China would become an economic power player. That development was always going to happen once China sorted itself out. However, it is fair to call Walz on a blatant lie, ie saying he was in China when he was not.

On 4 April 2008 at the NATO Bucharest summit, invitee Putin told George W. Bush and other conference delegates: "We view the appearance of a powerful military bloc on our border as a direct threat to the security of our nation. The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice. National security is not based on promises." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin We've been through this Ray, it was only after 2008 that Putin started to target Georgia and Ukraine. AFTER NATO said they would include Ukraine and Georgia as members. The analysis is not flawed, it shows precisely how Russia was forced into the Ukraine war by the West. Even Angela Merkel understood that the 2008 NATO summit risked Russia ire. "Zelenskyy's accusations resulted in Merkel breaking the silence that she had maintained since leaving office in December 2021. She issued a statement saying that she stands by her "decisions relating to the NATO summit in 2008." A short time later, she expanded on that statement, saying that, at the time, Ukraine had been divided on the issue of joining NATO and that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have just quietly stood aside and allowed the country to be accepted into the alliance. "I didn't want to provoke that," she said." https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/ukraine-how-merkel-prevented-ukraine-s-nato-membership-a-der-spiegel-reconstruction-a-c7f03472-2a21-4e4e-b905-8e45f1fad542

100%, the war in Ukraine need never have happened. After 1989 there was a golden chance to integrate Russia into the new security framework. A chance that was missed and instead followed by encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance.

No again, RFK Jr made the crucial point, Russia came with an exceedingly small amount of troops, far too few to occupy a nation of 44 million. The intention was never to occupy all of Ukraine. If your wish came true and the West were to be involved in a hot war with Russia, we may all die, so your analysis is reckless and deplorably wrong.

Well, this underlines one of the key problems of democracy, who should have the right to vote. In Athenian democracy only adult males who had completed military service were allowed to vote. Most offices were restricted to property owners or those who paid the highest taxes. In Athens, 10/20, maybe 30 percent of the population was actually allowed to vote. If the Democrats push immigration because they know Latinos will overwhelmingly vote Democrat, if they push votes for 16 year olds, because they know the very young vote Democrat, if they want to change the Electoral College system, to favour their own candidate, then one has to conclude that indeed Musk is right, the Democrats are trying to change the system to favour themselves. All this would be a threat to democracy, because it would skew the system disproportionately in favour of the democrats.

Not all, just some minor details, Blair and the year the wall came down. However, the facts he does supply in regard to the main point, how the West promised not to expand NATO, how Russia was worried the US would grab Vladivostock and the West effectively caused the Crimean and Ukrainian war, how the US necons want perpetual war to benefit their corporate interests, this is all spot on.

What's funny is how the main stream media are now trying to spin this obvious defeat by Walz. Instead of "who won the debate" like with Trump vs Harris, the headlines are "takeaways from the debate". Lol. At least Politico is honest about who won, even if they're putting their own spin on it.

Details, details. You have to look at the bigger picture. He was right that Iraq was not a theocracy, it was a secular state and in that sense progressive for the region. The wall did come down in 1989, but it does not affect the point he was making, the negotiations went on long after regarding German unification. That was just setting the scene. Yes, Blair is involved later, but the whole analysis is brillliant and spot on.

When people have no arguments they pretend they do, it's sad, but will eventually fail. Much like Ukraine's effort to fight Russia.

More pointless waffle crawling by the feet.

Well, it was Vance who wiped the floor with Walz. Your boy Walz took one hell of a beating.

Absolutely, hilarious waffling for 2 minutes straihgt only to admit, when pressed "I misspoke". Embarassing. Clearly Trump made the better pick.

It's impossible, because your post had no "reasoning". You were talking about NORAD and accusing me of being paid by RT. Pretty stupid stuff. It didn't sail over my head, but rather crawled by my feet.

Well, Vance was fearless in the debate . He wiped the floor with Walz in fact. Talk about spineless, lol.

Much more fun was Walz wriggling out of his lie that he was in China during the democracy protests:

He looked weird and terrifyingly intense when he was speaking. Just unpleasant, you recoil when he see him speak. Poor choice by Kamala.