Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "Secular Talk"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
According to the polls YoungTurks precented, Hillary "won". I would assume it'd be the same on most mainstreams.
Personally I can't see things that way, but then again, I can't stand either candidate. The charade seemed pointles, empty and fake.
But Hillary stood the distance, and I was wrong in my assumption that she was too sick to even do that. She seemed reasonably clear and healthy - off putting and disingenuous as hell, but that's just her...
The whole affair seemed eerily flat and pointless to me, but no surprise. Trump could, if he was anything like Trey Gowdy, have wiped the floor with Hillary, but he can't - simply because he hasn't got the integrity. He's the same ilk as she, just without mental filters. If he was to attac Hillary for her serial lying for instance, he'd just expose himself that much more.
Oh, and by the way, Trump doesn't let loose "a stream of consciousness". It's a stream of unconsciousness!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Scott Siegal
I don't think so. Trump isn't so much a racist as he's prejudiced . And he's openly critical, even suspicious of muslims. But maybe this is simply a new and necessary stance to take? If the rampant racism in America could be exchanged by more pragmatic views on social and religious dynamics, where all - race notwithstanding - must play on a level field, much would have been achieved. And fuck relations to China! Small nations can have very polite and even beneficial relations to China so long as they keep mum about Tibet and pollution, but nations China considers threats or serious competition, Japan, Russia, Australia and America can't have good relations with China. They simply never abide by international conventions - unless it's convenient to them.
China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia really can't be trustet to act rationally - in westerners understanding of the concept...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Bauer
You have a two party system setup and of course you're right. It's a constitutional construction and thus amenable to any changes THAT CAN GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM. But a system cannot change itself. To change a system you need something more, something not subject to the rules of the system. That something is common awareness. When the common awarenes of systematic flaws becomes determined, the system may be changed.
Would America be better of with no electoral voting? Who knows? In Denmark we don't have that. Our system isn't by design bipartisan. Yet our "Folketing", which constitutes both senate and congress, and consistent of many smallest and bigger parties, nevertheless tends towards a split in two groups much like yours. Personally I don't believe it very important how the system is set up as long as it's a well functioning democracy, amenable to changes by the people. But that can never be preserved unless the people are well informed. The greater the complexity, the greater the need for transparency.
So the global trend where news media are bought by a few, insanely rich, who operate clandestinely and who also buy favors from and incur blackmail on the elect - who were meant to represent us, the people - isn't in any way healthy and can only pretend to transparency (thus degenerate towards censorship) and will always commit crimes and abuse against the people whenever we demand to know WHO we vote for, WHERE their visions are taking us and WHAT they're in reality doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A bit full of yourself much? Explaning the election, how?
You couldn't even predict the outcome!
Now you're ranting about who the people ACTUALLY elected?
Come on, now. It's all water under the bridge. The people and the setup of the election system chose the two saddest candidates I know of.
Both have huge issues, none is worthy.
Some, who are very naive on the left, believe Hillary qualified, but she's really terribly corrupt.
Some who are equally naive on the right believe Trump trustworthy, which he really isn't.
You made a choice between pest and cholera and cholera was chosen - the lesser evil.
Now the essential issue becomes this: Can the system be mended to heal the split running through the nation?
One answer is that it certainly can't if you and everyone else keep dragging the past into the present, arguing like crazy and calling your opponents names, accusing them of stupidity, blindness and malice - thereby only disclosing the exact same flaws in yourselves.
Common ground for future efforts must be found! Panic is never a good basis for problem solving. So calm down. Cool it.
Get an overview you really trust.
And for pity's sake: Find out what you want for the future as first priority.
Then combine the common goals with the realistic possibilities.
Get real! Together!
You're drowning yourselves in mental games, illusions and self deceptions...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyhoop, what're US and Russia even doing in The Middle East? What's it meant to achieve? Why is it supposed to be necessary? Please, could someone remind me, because over the many, many years I seem to have lost the thread...
I'm also asking because this business of keeping count of atrocities and weighing the severity of theirs against ours seems strangely contrived and almost unreal.
I mean if war and coercion by force is deemed necessary, why not just get the job done? War was never nice and pretty that's only media spin for infantile adults, but these alledgedly humanistic and lawful wars seem to drag on forever.
Haven't we perhaps long since passed a point where the sufferings and casualties have become worse in grand total, only spread out over a longer period?
And the reason for the endless, soul numbing tardiness can't be ineffective weaponry, that's for sure! Could it be, perish the thought, that these wars have motives so hidden, secret and muddled that the various governments and leaders have lost their purpose in the labyrinths of their curly minds, and the wars become a crazy sickness that only seems semi-normal because it became a habit?
What is it NATO and Russia fear would happen if they simply stopped this endless madness? Is it the loss of jobs in the weapons industry? The lack of a common enemy as a consolidator? The disclosure of how incompetent the various goverments have become in simply running their home business smoothly? Are the people of the word lost in the twilight zone of paranoid politics and soulless media hype? What is going on? Seriously?
1
-
1
-
1