TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I think Russia's aim is to "Balkanize" Europe. Divide everybody up into their own isolated nation states - easier to conquer their former turf. And Brexit is a taste of that. It's already hurting them. And it's backwards, not progress. A united inter-cultural Europe with cross border mobility and trade is much healthier.

Fortunately I think Europe is fairly resolute to try not to let that happen after watching Britain (and the U.S., with Trump). Le Pen, and Wilders, wanted their own "Brexits" but were not elected.
 
@Jae - squirm, squirm...

@ Kimmio - The EU is getting nervous because the U.S. has made it part of the American empire. Russia wants to conquer Europe. The U.S. HAS conquered it. If the EU does break up, it will be because the U.S. has done much to destroy it.
What we are watching is the failure of our promises of 1945 to bring peace and, possibly, democracy to the world. Instead, we (most of us) went back to the old game of empire-building. And, to make it worse, it is an empire-building old style - to benefit the leading capitalists of the world. And they are doing very well out of the chaos they have built.

Canada should be as worried as the EU is. Only one country has ever been a military threat to Canada. (as it has been since the late 18th century. that is the U.S. In the not very distant future, it will almost certainly be looking to annex Canada to the U.S. - for its water, and for its better climate for agriculture.
The nation-state has long outlived its usefullness. It has become simply a useful device for the very, very wealthy. Those very wealthy have been plundering this earth for centuries. We should have moved to change that in 1945. We didn't.
 
I disagree about the EU. On the whole the EU is better for Europe. Younger generations know nothing other than. Intercultural, cross border travel, cross boarder work opportunities, and economic development. Who cares if the U.S. "Empire" started that, if they did? If that was their "fault" it wasn't much of a fault. It's a good thing. It has kept European nations at peace and they've prospered. Not everything about the U.S. is bad. The younger generations deserve a chance to improve upon it not have it ripped apart. It's cruel to take away something, or the opportunity for something better, because of wars that happened before they were born. To somehow remove the greed from capitalism by putting a cap on wealth with taxation - or I don't know what the answer is - but it's not communism. Communism is not a fail safe to prevent greed. The people are still at risk of exploitation and money hoarding at the top and in even less of a position to change their circumstances. Who was it who said something along the lines of, "Capitalism is not a perfect system but the alternatives are worse." ? So until a genius economist figures out something else totally different - which could happen but it will take generational change to make room for the will to do it - capitalism is the best for now. And "pure" ethno-states are a fallacy and an impossibility. We are all mixed and we've mapped the human genome and less than 1% of all genetic differences in humans are race related - they really are only skin deep. I don't see why we shouldn't be working towards embracing the best of all human cultures, together, side by side in peace - and nixing the whole nation-state heteromale dominated tribal ethnocentricity problem. The EU has the potential for that to happen. But some folks want to take it backwards.
 
Last edited:
How far do we go back to straighten out who did what to who? We have to go all the way back to the first humans who started the very first war, whatever, wherever, and whoever that was. So, I care about healing the past but not dwelling in it, and going forward.
 
The EU is a satellite of the U.S. It exists to serve the purposes of american big money. And it does not have a glorious future in that context. Europeans know that, which is why some are looking for a way out of US dominance.
As for communism, your quotation is cute - but not very profound. I don't think communism is doable. And it's not just because communists are born evil. It's because people will simply not be Christian enough to accept a system in which we support each other. That's why communism, in fact, never existed in Russia or China - or North Korea.
And, again, you should find out what communism means before you pronounce on it. It would be wonderful if it would work. But it won't. - and it's really never been tried.

I don't think we can afford nation-states. What we needed ini 1945 was the beginning of uniting states, and shaping a world government. But capitalism would not permit that because the state was its tool for plundering others.
Look at the record of capitalism before you clap hands. It has spread poverty over Africa and South America. It caused the slaughters and plunder we call the glorious British Empire - and Spanish and French and the rest. It has now turned the U.S. on 70 years of murder and plunder and poverty imposed on much of the world.

(Uncontrolled) capitalism is not the answer. communism is not the answer. The problem in both cases is that attempts to impose these have been used by a small elite to rob everyone else. Perhaps the best to work for would be a capitalism with strong government controls, and with a strong social component.
But we're going in the opposite direction.
Meanwhile, in the craze for plunder, we are quite possibly heading back to the financial crisis of the 1930s, and worse. And if you think the rich will pitch in to help out, I suggest you do some reading about what really happened in the 1930s.
 
It would be nice if they did. If the richest handful each donated 90% of their wealth effectively, it wouldn't even change their lifestyles...that's how rich they are.

Or, maybe the IMF could just re-calibrate the world financial system to level the playing field and start over. The numbers are elusive anyway.

I believe you that today has a 1930s feel to it.
 
Yes. We have come to a point at which greed rules. And if they had any brains, the greedy would realize that they, too, will suffer the consequences of their greed.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
Yes. We have come to a point at which greed rules. And if they had any brains, the greedy would realize that they, too, will suffer the consequences of their greed.
Click to expand...

Is that like altered environment all about us as falls nous ... a relative to sol, and sowel in some traditions regarding warped thinking processes ... or progressive theology that is stalled into conservative states ...
 
I wondered months ago if he might pivot to do more to get the Dems (and Bernie supporters) support. He might have some chance to redeem himself (at least in public opinion) if he did. He'd lose his base (although many are die hards no matter what) but he might happily drop them if turning left would garner him more popularity - because that's what drives him, is his ratings, more than anything else. That's just the way it is, and who they have to work with. His personality isn't going to change, but maybe he can be persuaded into changing course - just to get through the next 3 1/2 yrs. His little deal with Pelosi and Schumer got him some good attention. If he feels rewarded he might continue on that path. Again, I think that's just the way he is.

He gets 2 stars on the chart on the fridge for that. :D
 
Last edited:
His presence helping out at a shelter after Harvey also got good press. If he keeps doing things that get him good press from the people that never give him good press - well, he might actually do some good things, for real. And there won't be any need for creating far right outlets that make up things to appease him. Then, buh-bye alt-right, he'll ignore them - and they'll fade away, they'll lose the appearance of legitimacy they're currently enjoying. One can hope.
 
Last edited:
I bet he'd be one happy camper if he got good press, for real behaviours and actions - from the mainstream press like New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN...much happier than having to rely on praise from Breitbart, the Daily Caller, etc.

He'd stop calling the others 'fake news' and ditch the far right.
 
Kimmio said:
I bet he'd be one happy camper if he got good press, for real behaviours and actions - from the mainstream press like New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN...much happier than having to rely on praise from Breitbart, the Daily Caller, etc.

He'd stop calling the others 'fake news' and ditch the far right.
Click to expand...

Stop saying False News ... it is faus pas as to indicate he has a Nous ... tis vacant at the moment ... until he discovers he is part of the matrice called democracy that is under attack ... the Maw Trix of nature ... XXX ... 3 CHI's ...
 
The last article I posted doesn't contain solutions, but it does contain some well thought out critical observations.

In the above article, I see the repackaging of an old idea, yeah. Air-dropping iPhones vs. pamphlets. I suppose they could, for the sake of some variety and competition, drop some Samgung smart phones, maybe a few hundred thousand Blackberries, too. :confused:

I do think that somehow what needs to happen is regime change, or to change the mind, and the course, of the regime. Maybe Dennis Rodman can persuade Kim on the benefits of a freer (ish) society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top