Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "Jake Broe"
channel.
-
155
-
43
-
32
-
20
-
20
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I know it is an aside, but it is crazy that a single man can stop legislation from being passed in a democracy.
Mitch McConnell has killed numerous laws that had majority support by simply not scheduling them for a vote.
The USA is, as a democracy, sick. It MUST be possible for a simple majority (or better still, much less) of the Senate to force the speaker to schedule a specific vote, in order to be called a democracy. In my country (NL) a single member of the Senate can call for a debate on an issue, and during that debate a motion can be put to the vote with the support of 4 other senators. Such a motion can force the speaker to schedule a vote on proposed legislation. Also, the speaker is replaced when he/she has lost the confidence of a simple majority of the senate.
Also other mechanisms to subvert democracy, like the fillibuster, are not allowed in NL. The speaker assigns limited speaking time to each speaker, and will cancel someone's opportunity when he/she goes off-topic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly, Johnson is a dictator in Congress. He has a LOT of power. This is a major flaw in the US political system, the power these speakers have to determine the agenda.
Where I live, the agenda for Parliament is determined by Parliament itself. Parliament can decide to put motions or debates on the agenda. The threshold for a motion is very low, only two signatories are required to put it on the agenda and have a vote on it. That is democratic: it is always the safe option to discuss something and vote on it, even if may be a waste of time. And if the issue is very clear, it can be dealt with very quickly by a count of hands.
In the USA, the agenda is determined by the Speaker and ONLY by the speaker. If he wants to ignore an item, he can do so. Which is NOT democratic. As we see here, a bill that would likely have the support of the majority of Congress is blocked by a single man. That is minority rule, an abomination in a "democratic" country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
Speaker Johnson claims to be a Christian. But that is also a lie. The Bible has already told us where he will go. Because the Bible doesn't make exceptions. Those who think it is OK to lie in some deluded attempt to "build the kingdom" deceive themselves and will find out the hard way.
According to the Jesus, the Devil is a liar and the father of lies, and those who try to achieve their goals through lies do the Devil's work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you are not American, none of this will make any sense to you"
Maybe, just maybe, that is because it doesn't make sense. Americans may be jaded about political dysfunction, but this is not normal for a democracy. In fact, if a minority can stop the operation of the government, it isn't a democracy.
Americans have been gaslit about their country being "the best democracy in the world", but in objective truth, it isn't. There are many countries that are much more democratic than the USA. But sure, some dumbass will shout "that is socialism" and think that is all that needs to be said. But he confuses "socialism", whatever he may mean with that, with a functioning democracy. The USA is a dysfunctional democracy that is sliding towards a fascist dictatorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This wonderful country once called Ukraine"
That country was also the original Russia, until the Moskovites appropriated that name in the 18th and 19th centuries. We shouldn't call Moskovy "Russia" anymore, Russia was western Ukraine, the region around Lviv, in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and there are map calling it as such made in the 18th and 19th centuries. Which, coincidentally, includes that map on which Putin failed to find the name Ukraine although it most definitely was there. That was a 19th century map. If he had looked carefully, he would have seen his country marked as Muskovy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Only having one chamber"
Many European countries have a 2-chamber system. (12 out of 27 EU nations), including France, Germany, Italy, UK, etc. However, those two chambers usually do not have the same rights. The upper house is usually used to check the quality of legislation, not so much its political direction. Either the country has a method to overrule the upper house, or it has recurring discussions to remove it if it gets too political. It is accepted that the lower house has the biggest mandate.
But the US situation where the Senate is involved in many executive functions like appointing officials is crazy. Our fail-safe against government misconduct is that Parliament can remove the government or a specific minister with a simple majority. The US situation where the President is both the Head of State and the Head of Government is not common in Europe. The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, not the President.
Which is why in Europe you will NEVER see a minister say to a Parliamentary Committee "I have no time for this", like Bill Barr infamously said. If he'd have done that in Europe, he'd be without a job as soon as Parliament could be convened to debate a motion of No Confidence. And because these committees have real power, their witness interviews are not performative drama pieces. They ask real questions and listen to the answers. If someone doesn't show up or refuses to answer questions, they get sent to prison until they do. Even if he is the head of government. I have seen Prime Ministers sweat like a pig in front of such a committee, singing like a budgie.
A Parliament is a much better reflection of the Will of the Voter than that single President. That is why Parliament should have (much) more power than the President. Trump has proven that the "three co-equal branches" thing doesn't work. Parliament, specifically the lower house, should be primus inter pares.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stripping Hungary of its voting rights is difficult, because there is no legal framework to do so. The EU is a federation like the USA, except that the member states are absolutely sovereign. The EU has no authority over any member state, and work only gets done with the agreement of each member state.
Several EU members have been pushing towards more authority for the EU, for instance to allow decisions to be taken by a majority of states instead of unanimously, which members than would be required to follow. Other member states have been strongly against that. Stripping Hungary of its voting rights would mean a radical step towards more authority for the EU. Such a step would, ironically, require the agreement of Hungary.
This is why the EU is politically weak, while it is economically very strong. For this reason, some believe that the feet of mixed iron and clay that Daniel saw in his vision in the Bible, belonging to the statue of the empires of the future, represent the EU.
But this shouldn't matter too much. The reason aid through the EU is better than individual member states is because of the ECB, which could manage large sums of money given to Ukraine better than member states. Also it allows member states to hide anonymously behind "The EU" and not risk being targeted directly by Putin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pavel9652 You need to start watching commentators that actually know what they are talking about.
Just the difference in morale, by itself, means that when the Ukrainians apply serious pressure the Russian defense will collapse. These terrorized Russians are more than likely to shoot their own officers if they try to stop a retreat.
There have been far too many "experts" predicting that the war would last a week, that they wouldn't be able to keep Odessa, or that there would be a stalemate a year ago, or that they couldn't possible take Kherson, etc, etc, etc. They were wrong all the time. And they are wrong now as well.
This war will have two possible outcomes: a total defeat of the Russians, or a total defeat of the Ukrainians. Those who argue for negotiations and cease-fire at the current lines are crazy idiots at best, or traitors working for Putin at worst. Because that has been done before, in 2014, in the Minsk accords. Putin wiped his bottom with that accord, and he will wipe his bottom again with any new accord. The definition of madness is repeating the same action and expect a different result.
Seeing how things are going, my bet is on a total defeat for Russia. Time is working in favour of the Ukrainians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent video!
From a strategic sense, Putin lost the war as soon as he broke the Minsk accords. I don't think the West is going to agree to another such accords, Putin having proven that he only uses them to buy time to regroup & rebuild his army. Even if he had succeeded in overthrowing Zelensky & taking Kiev, the Ukrainians would not have accepted a Russian puppet, having run-off the previous one a decade ago. And Russia does not have the manpower to occupy Ukraine.
What Putin did achieve:
1). The west, his greatest financier, is now strongly motivated to move to a green economy, cutting their dependency on Russia.
2). The nefarious influence of Russian black money in western democracies has been laid bare and will be eradicated.
3). Western business has pulled out of Russia and will not return as long as his regime lasts.
4). This also means that Putin is no longer able to maintain his oil & gas infrastructure, witness e.g. the recent explosion of a gas field.
5). NATO is more powerful than ever, and all its members are renewing their militaries.
6). The myth of the power of the Russian army has been exposed once and for all.
7). Putin has lost his position among the G7 & G20.
8). Putin's imperial ambitions have been exposed.
To project the results of this ill-judged war:
1). Ukraine will recover the lands it lost in the Minsk accords.
2). Ukraine will become a member of the EU and NATO.
3). Russia will suffer greatly, leading to unrest & perhaps civil war in Russia. There may well be parts of it that go independent.
4). Belarus will probably depose its dictator and turn away from Russia.
5). The Russian economy will suffer for decades because of the men killed in the war, combined with a stark decline in population.
Putin has destroyed Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1