But even Harper displayed less "braggadocio" than Trump or Putin. He tried to be subtle about being authoritarian - but we weren't buying it anymore. I guess a large number Canadians have a nose for that - is that racist to say? (I don't think so)
TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?
- Thread starter crazyheart
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Bermuda
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Well, Kimmio, Trudeau is -following much the same policies as Harper. That is particularly true of the arms industry. Harper ignored our pledge not to arm Saudi Arabia due to its human rights record. Harper ignored that - and Trudeau has ignored it. Worse, we are selling billions of dollars in armoured cars to the Saudis. They will be used in Yemen, where Saudi policy has been to concentrate on killing civilians, especially children. Trudeau has underlined his support by agreeing that the Canadian army (at your cost) will help the car maker by testing the vehicles and suggesting imiprovement so they can kill children more effectively.
I knew Pierre and like him. He was a very decent guy. But he was once a thoroughly spoiled, obnoxious, racist rich kid. He was involved in anti-Jewish trouble-making near Montreal when he was younger. But he outgrew it, and developed some principles.
Justin has not and will not reach that stage. This is a thoroughly spoiled rich kid of no depth. His only real life experience has been being a bouncer in a bar. You will find (but will probably refuse to recognize) that he is as authoritarian as Harper.
There is no doubt about what the SAudis are doing in Yemen. The open policy has been to starve them to death, to cut off medical aid (all with U.S. help) and to bomb hospitals and schools.
And Canadian armoured cars will be there. They will also come in useful for domestic control problems Saudi Arabia is facing. It is even now killing its own citizens at an alarming rate.
But you'll have an excuse for that, i know.
I don't think we begin the understand the depths of the crisis that the U.S. has created in the middle east. There is far more ruin to come - more killing, more starvation, more refugees. And it will never get better. Iraq has not, and will not, recover. its is splintering into factions. You're going to see great turmoil with the Kurds, Turkey, every possibility of a war with Iran....
And the U.S. has far led the way in the murder of civilians. And it's all to please oil billionaires.
And Trudeau has played American lackey all the way. I've never been so ashamed to be a Canadian.
I knew Pierre and like him. He was a very decent guy. But he was once a thoroughly spoiled, obnoxious, racist rich kid. He was involved in anti-Jewish trouble-making near Montreal when he was younger. But he outgrew it, and developed some principles.
Justin has not and will not reach that stage. This is a thoroughly spoiled rich kid of no depth. His only real life experience has been being a bouncer in a bar. You will find (but will probably refuse to recognize) that he is as authoritarian as Harper.
There is no doubt about what the SAudis are doing in Yemen. The open policy has been to starve them to death, to cut off medical aid (all with U.S. help) and to bomb hospitals and schools.
And Canadian armoured cars will be there. They will also come in useful for domestic control problems Saudi Arabia is facing. It is even now killing its own citizens at an alarming rate.
But you'll have an excuse for that, i know.
I don't think we begin the understand the depths of the crisis that the U.S. has created in the middle east. There is far more ruin to come - more killing, more starvation, more refugees. And it will never get better. Iraq has not, and will not, recover. its is splintering into factions. You're going to see great turmoil with the Kurds, Turkey, every possibility of a war with Iran....
And the U.S. has far led the way in the murder of civilians. And it's all to please oil billionaires.
And Trudeau has played American lackey all the way. I've never been so ashamed to be a Canadian.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
re authoritarian leader, each of your comes up with one, small state. Of course. Authoritarianism is the number one disease of politicians. You'll find such leaders in every country.
As for Putin, he has played this situation with coolness and patience. The U.S. has not. But the warning is down. After years of aggression and threats by the U.S., Russia and China have made it clear they will not back off any more.
That means that one way or another, the American empire can count its days.
As for Putin, he has played this situation with coolness and patience. The U.S. has not. But the warning is down. After years of aggression and threats by the U.S., Russia and China have made it clear they will not back off any more.
That means that one way or another, the American empire can count its days.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Yes. Would you place Bermuda as an equal of China?
Anyway, the point is that it is close to impossible to find states that have not had authoritarian rulers.
Anyway, the point is that it is close to impossible to find states that have not had authoritarian rulers.
Bermuda's as much a state as China is.
Graeme said:
Wherefore are you changing your tune? You originally writ, "Can you name me a society that has never elected an authoritarian leader?" You owe @Kimmio and I each a hearty congratulations.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Actually it isn't. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom - not fully independent. China, on the other hand, is a sovereign state.
You nailed this one. I've also noticed that Graeme is a bit of a moving target. When he says something and is challenged on it and shown to be wrong he does have a tendency to then change the issue rather than admitting his mistake.Jae said:
Thank you revsdd, I stand corrected. Would it be fair to say that each has its own society as much as the other does?
revsdd said:
Thanks.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
As usual, you are all nit-picking. I didn't waste time arguing about whether your choices of non-authoritarian states made sense because none of you is familiar enough with any state to know whether that is true. You simply named places that sounded harmless.
My mistake was to respond to your absurd claims. in fact, I doubt whether anybody could define 'authoritarian leader'. Almost all leaders have authoritarian qualities. The pope is authoritarian. The moderators of the United Church have been authoritarian. The Canadian government was highly authoritarian in World War 2. Bush was highly authoritarian in defying international law with his wars. All U.S. presidents are now authoritarian in their intense spying on the population, and their use of drones to kill all over the world.
You all use words sloppily with a weak sense of what they mean.
Russians rebelled in 1917 because they lived under an authoritarian state. That hardly indicates they prefer authoritarian leaders. Canada, the U.S. and Britain sent troops to support the regime of the Tsar. That hardly indicates that we are anti-authoritarian.
The U.S. routinely imposed brutal dictators on Iran, Cuba, Haiti. The Phillipines. That does not suggest to me a love of democracy.
God, incidentally, seems to be pretty authoritarian. The Ten Commandments are authoritarian.
Like most people, you use words with a sort of emotional sense rather than one that conveys any meaning.
Incidentally, jae, you refer to Clinton as the "death candidate". I presme that refers to voluntary death. Have you not noticed that almost every president in American history has eagerly killed large numbers of people - British, native peoples, South Americans, filipinos, Germans, Japanese, Africans, Muslims. I have heard no reason to believe that Trump will not kill. Exactly what is your definition of Thou shalt not kill....?
The point of debate is to arrive at the truth, if possible. It is not to score brownie points to tot up a 'win'.
Even if there are states that have never, never ever been authoritarian (and I have never heard of such a thing and you have not shown it), that does not prove that Russians are more authoritarian than other peoples.
Britain didn't even have anything that could be called a democracy until the very late 19th century - and even then it was full of holes. Churchill owed his political career to the fact that he was born the second son of an aristocratic family. In World War 1, and even into World War Two, leading military figures commonly owed their rank and authority to their noble birth.
My mistake was to respond to your absurd claims. in fact, I doubt whether anybody could define 'authoritarian leader'. Almost all leaders have authoritarian qualities. The pope is authoritarian. The moderators of the United Church have been authoritarian. The Canadian government was highly authoritarian in World War 2. Bush was highly authoritarian in defying international law with his wars. All U.S. presidents are now authoritarian in their intense spying on the population, and their use of drones to kill all over the world.
You all use words sloppily with a weak sense of what they mean.
Russians rebelled in 1917 because they lived under an authoritarian state. That hardly indicates they prefer authoritarian leaders. Canada, the U.S. and Britain sent troops to support the regime of the Tsar. That hardly indicates that we are anti-authoritarian.
The U.S. routinely imposed brutal dictators on Iran, Cuba, Haiti. The Phillipines. That does not suggest to me a love of democracy.
God, incidentally, seems to be pretty authoritarian. The Ten Commandments are authoritarian.
Like most people, you use words with a sort of emotional sense rather than one that conveys any meaning.
Incidentally, jae, you refer to Clinton as the "death candidate". I presme that refers to voluntary death. Have you not noticed that almost every president in American history has eagerly killed large numbers of people - British, native peoples, South Americans, filipinos, Germans, Japanese, Africans, Muslims. I have heard no reason to believe that Trump will not kill. Exactly what is your definition of Thou shalt not kill....?
The point of debate is to arrive at the truth, if possible. It is not to score brownie points to tot up a 'win'.
Even if there are states that have never, never ever been authoritarian (and I have never heard of such a thing and you have not shown it), that does not prove that Russians are more authoritarian than other peoples.
Britain didn't even have anything that could be called a democracy until the very late 19th century - and even then it was full of holes. Churchill owed his political career to the fact that he was born the second son of an aristocratic family. In World War 1, and even into World War Two, leading military figures commonly owed their rank and authority to their noble birth.
Could this be what Donald Trump's presidential bid has really all been about.
http://www.economist.com/news/busin...g-trump?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/channellingtrump
http://www.economist.com/news/busin...g-trump?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/channellingtrump
We've known for awhile that, win or lose, he was going to be the reality TV "president" (if he won it would just be more dangerous to press freedom). There was talk of a network months ago, and longer ago than that - contestants from the Apprentice telling of being asked if they'd support Trump for president in the future. Those who said no were disqualified.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
What free press? Anyone in the field of journalism knows that a free press (except among very small papers) has never existed.
That's true even of CBC. I was many years on air for it - and we were always under pressure for government to conform to the official line. Private news media have always been full of propaganda - and it has become quite scandalous.
Of the major, private news media, not one has ever criticized the American government for its wars. Not one. Not once.
That's true even of CBC. I was many years on air for it - and we were always under pressure for government to conform to the official line. Private news media have always been full of propaganda - and it has become quite scandalous.
Of the major, private news media, not one has ever criticized the American government for its wars. Not one. Not once.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
jae refers tp Fox news. It is notorious for lying and propaganda, notorious even in a business that is awash in lying and propaganda.
Ever notice that the press often refers to 'moderate rebels'? What on earth is a moderate rebel? I had never even heard that term until recently. In fact, the people it calls moderate rebels are often those jihadists who are in the pay of the U.S. government. When the Russians bomb, we get exact figures of the dead, including the number of children. we never get such figures when Americans bomb. We get propaganda from The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights as if this were a professional and impartial body. In fact, it is an anti-Assad organization run by a haberdasher in Britain - and it gets its information solely from the anti-Assad faction.
We hear all about those terrible Russians who are bombing those nice rebels in Aleppo. In fact, it is bombing jihadists who are being supplied by Saudi Arabia and the U.S.. That's why the U.S. is angry.
And when it comes to deliberate bombing of civilians, nobody comes close to the U.S. record in bombing Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya.... It should be no secret. General Curtis Lemay who commanded the bombing of civilians in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam publicly said it was his ambition to bomb the whole population back into the stone age. He dropped more bombs on the largely defenceless people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia than all countries had dropped in all of world war two.
For the U.S. and the British, civilians are the major targets for bombing. That began in World War Two. In Britain, it was a quiet scandal - and it's why the head of bomber command was not honoured by the king at the end of the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for nuclear bombing BECAUSE they were largely non-military.
But you'll certainly never learn this by reading the news.
Ever notice that the press often refers to 'moderate rebels'? What on earth is a moderate rebel? I had never even heard that term until recently. In fact, the people it calls moderate rebels are often those jihadists who are in the pay of the U.S. government. When the Russians bomb, we get exact figures of the dead, including the number of children. we never get such figures when Americans bomb. We get propaganda from The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights as if this were a professional and impartial body. In fact, it is an anti-Assad organization run by a haberdasher in Britain - and it gets its information solely from the anti-Assad faction.
We hear all about those terrible Russians who are bombing those nice rebels in Aleppo. In fact, it is bombing jihadists who are being supplied by Saudi Arabia and the U.S.. That's why the U.S. is angry.
And when it comes to deliberate bombing of civilians, nobody comes close to the U.S. record in bombing Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya.... It should be no secret. General Curtis Lemay who commanded the bombing of civilians in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam publicly said it was his ambition to bomb the whole population back into the stone age. He dropped more bombs on the largely defenceless people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia than all countries had dropped in all of world war two.
For the U.S. and the British, civilians are the major targets for bombing. That began in World War Two. In Britain, it was a quiet scandal - and it's why the head of bomber command was not honoured by the king at the end of the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for nuclear bombing BECAUSE they were largely non-military.
But you'll certainly never learn this by reading the news.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Am I the only one who's getting just absolutely sick and tired of Trump and Clinton and everything and everyone surrounding them? I can't wait for November 8 to be come and gone. Although even then we're probably going to have to listen to weeks of Trump whining about losing. Can't somebody please stop this roller coaster. Please.
If you're getting sick and tired of the American political conversation revsdd, why come on one of the Trump threads?
I disagree with your analysis of things of course. I feel Donald J. Trump will be the next #POTUS.
Pinga
Room for All
I just came back from a stay in wisconsin. My friends are definitely ready for the election and sick of the news, ads, etc.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Why would I debate the issue with you revsdd who by your own account are growing sick and tired of the conversation?