China’s Oil Futures Contract Is Beginning to Show Its Teeth

On 8/8/2018 at 1:13 PM, jaycee said:

Democracy is not a perfect form of governance but if people vote for jam today they should take the consequences not complain its wasn’t their fault.

You are mistaking democracy with republic. Democracy is where people take decisions on every major issues, not some elected person. It is impossible to elect one person who is right in all issues and there are hundreds if not thousands of issues in day to day life that matters.

On 8/8/2018 at 11:47 PM, John Foote said:

What's the Churchill line, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, only there is none better."

If you are mistaking republic with democracy, do understand that you are seriously mistaken. There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am completely exhausted attempting to wade through this thread.

One thematic element is the contention that the USA never got into a "fight" (in the military sense) without having something to personally gain, in some monetary sense, out of it.  That is simply not true.  I would point to the US Marines landing in Lebanon in an effort to calm the fighting between various factions who were hard at work blowing up the entire city of  Beirut.  For their efforts, some suicide bomber drove a truck into the underground garage of the barracks, blew himself up, and killed 212 Marines.  The USA got nothing for their efforts, and never sought any.

The USA was also brought into the warlord wars of Somalia by the impassioned pleas of expatriate Somalis living in the USA.  The Army went in, and took losses  (remember "Black Hawk Down"?).  There is zero in Somalia that benefits anybody, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the Army went into Somalia for parochial purposes. 

I could go into a much longer post on Korea, but that gets muddied with Communism and other ideas, so I will stick with Somalia and Lebanon as good examples of US altruism.  Let's not paint the American Army with black paint, that is not fair. 

USA is running on petrodollars. If USA wants its petrodollar system to work, it has to ensure that all countries are using dollars. This in turn requires that any problems in the middle east or anywhere else which can result in wars and potentially disrupt oil trade must be tackled with. It also requires that USA does not allow any other country to get big and strong militarily.

All of USA's works have been along these lines only:

Lebanon threatened stability of middle east and Israel which if blown out, can result in disruption of oil trade and worse - clash of civilisation. USA relies on Muslims to get petrodollars but is not really friendly towards them. It is an opportunistic alliance and nothing more. So, if Middle east asks USA to supply big arms in return for oil to wipe out Christians and jews of lebanon and Israel, then USA will be in a serious dilemma. So, USA enters the field on its own like a good Samaritan.

Somalia was in a serious crisis causing extreme pirate menace as well as had a potential of a major catastrophe like mass death by riots and starvation which in turn can destabilise nearby regions and again disrupt the fragile situation

Korea war was also a war by USA to ensure its military dominance is unchallenged and to ensure that no rival is able to get strong militarily.

 

The only situation where US has helped anyone without returns is Israel in 1967/1973. There is no other example that can be given to show USA altruism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

Lebanon threatened stability of middle east and Israel which if blown out, can result in disruption of oil trade and worse - clash of civilisation. USA relies on Muslims to get petrodollars but is not really friendly towards them. It is an opportunistic alliance and nothing more. So, if Middle east asks USA to supply big arms in return for oil to wipe out Christians and jews of lebanon and Israel, then USA will be in a serious dilemma. So, USA enters the field on its own like a good Samaritan.

Somalia was in a serious crisis causing extreme pirate menace as well as had a potential of a major catastrophe like mass death by riots and starvation which in turn can destabilise nearby regions and again disrupt the fragile situation

Korea war was also a war by USA to ensure its military dominance is unchallenged and to ensure that no rival is able to get strong militarily.

 

The only situation where US has helped anyone without returns is Israel in 1967/1973. There is no other example that can be given to show USA altruism.

This is the most astonishing thing I have read in my entire life.  

I am stunned that anyone would take US missions in such a dark thought.   SImply amazing.

This demonstrates to me that there is a gigantic chasm of understanding, as to who Americans are, and America's sense of altruism.  My friend, you have a very long way to go in developing an understanding of Americans.  You see evil and self-aggrandizement in every corner.  Americans are not like that.  I have lived amongst Americans for several decades and I think I can say that I understand Americans well.  They are not the people you describe.  Americans are some of the finest, most generous people you could ever possibly hope to meet. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, Epic said:

Qanoil, I appreciate this link, but I was wondering if you could maybe walk me through a bit of it.  It contains a lot of data, and it makes me feel lost.  For instance, what does this mean (I honestly don't even know how to read it😞

[SPY OP]

[WH [Hussein][VJ][DM][JB][RE][[[JK]]][SP][KM]]←—-→[HRC/DNC]

...

And why am I following the pen?

Thanks

Neon Revolt does a pretty good job decoding.  Here's an infographic

FlowchartQ.png

And more details on the specifics are here.

firefox_2018-08-09_22-46-27.png.8a9a1b430c620ddc002a6f634da90eaa.png

YASSSSSS!!! I got so excited when I saw this.

So excited, in fact, that I made an infographic decoding it all.

But before I show you – just let me explain my logic.

Q was basically creating a flowchart here, showing the origins of the Russian Collusion story, and tracking them all throughout the deep state. He even used arrows to show the flow of information and causation. And he did it in reverse order.

With that in mind, I basically filled in all the initials and abbreviations, flipped it from top to bottom, and created an “expanded” flowchart, readable in plain text.

(Now, one note: I did miss one PS (who may be Peter Strzok – but the initials being listed under the DOJ threw me. We all know that Strzok is FBI. So I’m thinking PS is someone else, but I couldn’t find anyone. Still, one out of all these ain’t bad. And I left it as PS in the decode. If I find the right name at a later date, I’ll fill it in).

Edited by Qanoil
Formatting, added quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

54 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

You are mistaking democracy with republic. Democracy is where people take decisions on every major issues, not some elected person. It is impossible to elect one person who is right in all issues and there are hundreds if not thousands of issues in day to day life that matters.

No you don't know the definition of democracy I am afraid. 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/democracy 'The definition of a democracy is a form of government in which the people rule, either directly or through elected representatives.'

Edited by jaycee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

This is the most astonishing thing I have read in my entire life.  

I am stunned that anyone would take US missions in such a dark thought.   SImply amazing.

This demonstrates to me that there is a gigantic chasm of understanding, as to who Americans are, and America's sense of altruism.  My friend, you have a very long way to go in developing an understanding of Americans.  You see evil and self-aggrandizement in every corner.  Americans are not like that.  I have lived amongst Americans for several decades and I think I can say that I understand Americans well.  They are not the people you describe.  Americans are some of the finest, most generous people you could ever possibly hope to meet. 

What did you expect, after reading this:

There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

😲

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

46 minutes ago, jaycee said:

No you don't know the definition of democracy I am afraid. 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/democracy 'The definition of a democracy is a form of government in which the people rule, either directly or through elected representatives.'

The point here is that the elected ones must be representatives who actually represent the will of the people. That means every major decision they take must be in line with will of the people. Getting elected once and then doing whatever they want for 4 years is not called representing. Representation must be continual process, not once in 4 years and only on select issues while letting all other issues go down the drain

8 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

What did you expect, after reading this:

There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

😲

What exactly is the problem in what I wrote? Can you point out any problem?

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The point here is that the elected ones must be representatives who actually represent the will of the people. That means every major decision they take must be in line with will of the people. Getting elected once and then doing whatever they want for 4 years is not called representing. Representation must be continual process, not once in 4 years and only on select issues while letting all other issues go down the drain

What exactly is the problem in what I wrote? Can you point out any problem?

Do you have an understanding of how the U.S. government works down to the community level?  I ask because it would seem that you think we only have a President, Congressmen/women (made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives), Governors and Mayors.  Based on what makes it into the normal media feed that is in the news, nationally and internationally, one could be forgiven for not realizing there is so much more to our form(s) of government.  Forgive me if this assumption is wrong, I don't know you and I don't know what living experience you have in and of the U.S.  For a better understanding of how our government works, right down to the neighborhood level, there are tons of sites on the internet you can search and find.

Here is but one of many.  There is a lot to that website, but it is worth going through all of it to see to what level American citizen participation is not only available, but encouraged.  We don't get a lot of things right and there is a lot of disparity, but for the most part the citizenry (that chooses to participate) are happy enough with it and trying to improve it continuously.

My point is that we do have very active community and individual participation far, far beyond what is seen on TV or typical scanning of the internet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The point here is that the elected ones must be representatives who actually represent the will of the people. That means every major decision they take must be in line with will of the people. Getting elected once and then doing whatever they want for 4 years is not called representing. Representation must be continual process, not once in 4 years and only on select issues while letting all other issues go down the drain

I will stick to the internationally recognized version of the definition democracy you stick to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I'm linking to a WaPo article, but this is back in 2015, when WaPo was still relatively sane:

Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. ...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a pretty good article that describes one such experience with local participation in local government in the U.S.:

Attending a city council meeting?

It hits on many of the questions one might have about citizen participation, including but not limited to the goal of transparency, the laws that ensure a citizen can/must be heard, how that one meeting might lead one to other meetings going on in your community right down to departmental levels, and so much more.  It's a good enough read for this discussion, I think.  If anyone wants to go into this subject in greater detail, I suggest you start another thread or ask @Tom Kirkman or @CMOP for assistance.  I'm sure they would be happy to provide guidance, being the civic minded citizens that they are.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

What did you expect, after reading this:

There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

😲

Dan is right.  OP described Iran.   An international bastion of freedom, restraint and inclusion of that which is different, right?  No thanks, that is not a better way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

There is small problem because USA is no longer a classic  democracy nowadays. Its now oligarchy model de facto effectively ruled by  small and rich part of  population that represents a huge % of total population wealth. Look for example on GINI index or something similar.

Its becoming in last 30 years more similar system to russian authoritarism that most US citizens would like to admit. Big difference are very strong ownership rights and working institutions like judiciary but both countries are members of oligarchy model not classic democracy. The difference is who is main force in country- in USA big companies and military industry with a help from jewish minority in Russia secret services and oligarchy and also military complex.

The difference between Russia and Ukraine is Ukraine is ruled by oligarchs in Russia oligarchs are balanced under control of strong goverment.

 

I would also like to point out world in last 30 years would be better place to live if USA would not be so agressive in foreign policy and defending its hegemony. Because US foreign policy is very agressive and just in Iraq after 2003 died more than 1.500.000 people and about 500.000 because of sanctions on Iraq afer first Gulf War. Dont forget also about Yugoslavia Libya Kosovo Iraq Syria Afghanistan and NATo expanding to the east. It high time for  multipolar world and I bet on it. 

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tomasz said:

There is small problem because USA is no longer a  democracy nowadays. Its now oligarchy model ruled by very small part of population that represents a huge amount of total population wealth. Look for example on GINI index.

Its more similar system to russian authoritarism that most US citizens would like to admit. Big difference are very strong ownership rights and working institutions but both countries are members of oligarchy model not classic democracy.

Except that we are a Representative Republic, not a democracy.  Our founders did not trust democracy, which they considered rule by the mob.  We elect a new president every 4 years, 8 if somebody is able to double down in the Oval Office.   Forgot about our electoral college and how that plays into things?  Don’t, just ask Hillary.  

It’s simpler than that in Russia though, now isn’t it.  Simpler in a might makes right kinda way.

Now there is an argument to be made for your hypothesis in terms of what it takes to get elected here.  That is, where the real money and influence are and how that plays into your ability to become a candidate.  Even so, Trump spent way less than Hillary.

Also, don’t forget, we have 3 separate but equal branches of Goverment here, unlike Russia.  Were it not so there is no telling how much more of his agenda President Trump could have accomplished by now without Congress and the Courts blocking him at every turn.  Not the case in Russia, nobody stopping Mr. Putin from doing what he wants.

Ura Komrade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/6/2018 at 8:56 PM, jaycee said:

We send our troops to make the enemy die.  True enough, our reasons have not always been altruistic.  But I'm damn glad we sent them to Europe when we did, late or not, aren't you?  Otherwise there would be a whole lot more German being spoken, maybe even here in the U.S.  Hopefully, we will stand firm and we wont all be forced to speak Farsi.

Do  you know statistics of  Second  World War? Look at them and you will find out that more than  80 % of german soldiers and they allies died on Eastern Front. Im sorry but Soviet Union not Western Allies won this war with Third Reich in Europe from military point of view. 

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

Do  you know statistics of  Second  World War? Look at them and you will find out that more than  80 % of german soldiers and they allies died on Eastern Front. Im sorry but Soviet Union not Western Allies won this war wit Third Reich in Europe from military point of view. 

Yes that non-aggression pact Russia had with Germany didnt mean much in the end did it.   I won’t argue that Russia didn’t beat the Germans on the Eastern front.  Everybody should defend their own yard though, shouldn’t they.

But now, we’re facing the prospect of Russia’s neighbors  forcibly all having to speak Russian, aren’t we?  Interesting turn of events.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I found a pretty good article that describes one such experience with local participation in local government in the U.S.:

Attending a city council meeting?

It hits on many of the questions one might have about citizen participation, including but not limited to the goal of transparency, the laws that ensure a citizen can/must be heard, how that one meeting might lead one to other meetings going on in your community right down to departmental levels, and so much more.  It's a good enough read for this discussion, I think.  If anyone wants to go into this subject in greater detail, I suggest you start another thread or ask @Tom Kirkman or @CMOP for assistance.  I'm sure they would be happy to provide guidance, being the civic minded citizens that they are.  :)

This thread is branching out in all sorts of different directions, and I have no issue with that.

Anyone can feel free to start a Civics thread in the General Discussion or Geopolitics subforums.  About U.S. or Russia or Iran or wherever.  Personally, I find the anti-Russia threads amusing.

 

np7ql5.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/6/2018 at 11:49 AM, TXPower said:

 

We send our troops to make the enemy die.  True enough, our reasons have not always been altruistic.  But I'm damn glad we sent them to Europe when we did, late or not, aren't you?  Otherwise there would be a whole lot more German being spoken, maybe even here in the U.S.  Hopefully, we will stand firm and we wont all be forced to speak Farsi.

TXPower

 

Actually, that is not true.  Historically, the US Army has been perfectly happy to accept a peaceful surrender.  The "enemy die" idea was Russian;  their motto was, "Kill the German."  When the Red Army finally burst into Berlin, the soldiers proceeded to rape and kill the civilians trapped in the city.  The average German woman, pretty much any age, suffered 35 rapes, typically over three days.  Some were then killed off by the last group of raping soldiers.  Now, not to put too fine a a point on it, but let's remember that those Red Army soldiers had not washed in over a month, so they were not exactly bathed in the sexual organs area when the raping got started.  Altogether, a most unpleasant experience for the German civilian women.  

I specifically point out that American troops did not do that. Civilians were not touched.

Large contingents of German Wehrmacht troops arranged surrenders to the American Army, including the entire occupation army in Holland.  That went without firing a shot.  The Americans (and Canadians) were not in Europe to "kill the German." 

The tradition of accepting surrenders continues.  The American Marine commanders accepted over 65,000 peaceful surrenders of Saddam's troops in the opening day of the Kuwait Ouster war.   The US Marines rolled up to the front lines, the Iraqis came out of the trenches waving white scarves as flags of surrender, and they were quietly taken prisoner without firing a shot.  There were these tank fights with the Republican Guards,  who got hammered by the Americans, but those guys refused to surrender.  The regular army gave up in droves. 

The Americans do not go anywhere with the specific intent to kill the locals.  The Americans are not the Huns sweeping in off the Steppes. The Americans are perfectly happy to take your surrender. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, that is not true.  Historically, the US Army has been perfectly happy to accept a peaceful surrender.  The "enemy die" idea was Russian;  their motto was, "Kill the German."  When the Red Army finally burst into Berlin, the soldiers proceeded to rape and kill the civilians trapped in the city.  The average German woman, pretty much any age, suffered 35 rapes, typically over three days.  Some were then killed off by the last group of raping soldiers.  Now, not to put too fine a a point on it, but let's remember that those Red Army soldiers had not washed in over a month, so they were not exactly bathed in the sexual organs area when the raping got started.  Altogether, a most unpleasant experience for the German civilian women.  

I specifically point out that American troops did not do that. Civilians were not touched.

Large contingents of German Wehrmacht troops arranged surrenders to the American Army, including the entire occupation army in Holland.  That went without firing a shot.  The Americans (and Canadians) were not in Europe to "kill the German." 

The tradition of accepting surrenders continues.  The American Marine commanders accepted over 65,000 peaceful surrenders of Saddam's troops in the opening day of the Kuwait Ouster war.   The US Marines rolled up to the front lines, the Iraqis came out of the trenches waving white scarves as flags of surrender, and they were quietly taken prisoner without firing a shot.  There were these tank fights with the Republican Guards,  who got hammered by the Americans, but those guys refused to surrender.  The regular army gave up in droves. 

The Americans do not go anywhere with the specific intent to kill the locals.  The Americans are not the Huns sweeping in off the Steppes. The Americans are perfectly happy to take your surrender. 

Jan, everything you wrote is true.  I would add though, for those that wouldn’t surrender, our military sentiment for them, “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” General Patton 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, TXPower said:

Jan, everything you wrote is true.  I would add though, for those that wouldn’t surrender, our military sentiment for them, “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” General Patton 

Then again, that was uniquely Mr, Patton, and Mr. Patton was well known as a bit of a crazy man, pearl-handled pistol an'  all! 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Do you have an understanding of how the U.S. government works down to the community level?  I ask because it would seem that you think we only have a President, Congressmen/women (made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives), Governors and Mayors.  Based on what makes it into the normal media feed that is in the news, nationally and internationally, one could be forgiven for not realizing there is so much more to our form(s) of government.  Forgive me if this assumption is wrong, I don't know you and I don't know what living experience you have in and of the U.S.  For a better understanding of how our government works, right down to the neighborhood level, there are tons of sites on the internet you can search and find.

Here is but one of many.  There is a lot to that website, but it is worth going through all of it to see to what level American citizen participation is not only available, but encouraged.  We don't get a lot of things right and there is a lot of disparity, but for the most part the citizenry (that chooses to participate) are happy enough with it and trying to improve it continuously.

My point is that we do have very active community and individual participation far, far beyond what is seen on TV or typical scanning of the internet.

I am an Indian and hence don't fully understand USA politics. However, I know of senate, house of representatives, local corporations etc. The biggest problem with these is that the representation is just a formality and not compulsion. The encouragement etc are only a formality too.

16 hours ago, jaycee said:

I will stick to the internationally recognized version of the definition democracy you stick to yours.

The difference in language or vocabulary is not the issue here. Issue is about having the actual power in the hands of collective public without anyone having special ability to influence by propaganda, lies, nexus or unwarranted discretionary powers. Representative republic with party system is completely against that principle

15 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I found a pretty good article that describes one such experience with local participation in local government in the U.S.:

Attending a city council meeting?

It hits on many of the questions one might have about citizen participation, including but not limited to the goal of transparency, the laws that ensure a citizen can/must be heard, how that one meeting might lead one to other meetings going on in your community right down to departmental levels, and so much more.  It's a good enough read for this discussion, I think.  If anyone wants to go into this subject in greater detail, I suggest you start another thread or ask @Tom Kirkman or @CMOP for assistance.  I'm sure they would be happy to provide guidance, being the civic minded citizens that they are.  :)

I understand that USA does have some form of local meetings etc, but the problem are these:

  • The local meetings are not compulsory and only encourages local voters, not migrants. Whereas, weekly congregation system includes everyone and tries to unite people regardless of region
  • Local meetings are not regular but sporadic while in the meantime, the councilors can take any arbitrary decisions whereas weekly congregation is weekly and people can question regulalry
  • Local councilors have very little say about major issue which is dealt with at senate or house of representative level. There is no direct accountability across higher levels. In weekly congregation, there is a heirarchy and lower levels can question higher level ones and even pressurise
  • Party system of republic essentially creates oligarchy system without accountability whereas weekly congregation system has direct accountability to people instead of upper levels and even the upper levels are promoted from the lower levels by performance, not by connections
  • In republic, the local representatives are formal while in weekly congregation, the local representatives are also teachers of children and have deep connection with the locals which will be as thick as blood
  • Most importantly, the republic representatives don't command respect but just do it as a job for benefits which makes betrayal and corruption much more significant. Whereas in weekly congregation system, the local head acts as the leader, guide, father and commands respect due to which corruption and betrayal is minimal.
9 hours ago, TXPower said:

Dan is right.  OP described Iran.   An international bastion of freedom, restraint and inclusion of that which is different, right?  No thanks, that is not a better way.

I have emphasised that holy books must not be the guiding force. The problem with Iran is that the system is based on holy book cults, not truth or reason. The aim of Iran is to implement the holy book, not give good governance

7 hours ago, TXPower said:

Except that we are a Representative Republic, not a democracy.  Our founders did not trust democracy, which they considered rule by the mob.  We elect a new president every 4 years, 8 if somebody is able to double down in the Oval Office.   Forgot about our electoral college and how that plays into things?  Don’t, just ask Hillary.  

It’s simpler than that in Russia though, now isn’t it.  Simpler in a might makes right kinda way.

Now there is an argument to be made for your hypothesis in terms of what it takes to get elected here.  That is, where the real money and influence are and how that plays into your ability to become a candidate.  Even so, Trump spent way less than Hillary.

Also, don’t forget, we have 3 separate but equal branches of Goverment here, unlike Russia.  Were it not so there is no telling how much more of his agenda President Trump could have accomplished by now without Congress and the Courts blocking him at every turn.  Not the case in Russia, nobody stopping Mr. Putin from doing what he wants.

Ura Komrade

This is the point I am making. USA is not a democracy. It is a republic. That creates lot of problems as many important issues are being discussed only amongst small group of people who then decide to lie collectively to public and start propaganda. There is no real allegiance to the people of the area. The whole agenda is to be better than the opponent to win elections.

If you think republic system gives correct representatives, tell me in what way did Obama represent the people to become the president?

 

PS: Chinese system is more or less based on meritocratic local representative system. But it is not as thorough as weekly congregation. I seek a blend between weekly congregation and meritocracy. That is a system which is a hybrid between Iran and China using iran's weekly congregation and Chinese meritocracy but excluding the holy books and communist party system (since you mentioned Iran)

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Qanoil said:

Neon Revolt does a pretty good job decoding.  Here's an infographic

^Thanks for the links.  I had heard of Q before, but now I understand. 

I found this somewhere along the way and thought it was a good summary:

"FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra. Why? Because our defense against government wrongdoing -- the press -- is now defending such actions, not uncovering them. Liberal and progressive voices are excusing, not airing, the wrong-doing of the DOJ and FBI.

Apparently, weaponizing government agencies to manipulate voters is no longer considered a crime by the MSM."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epic said:

"FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra. Why? Because our defense against government wrongdoing -- the press -- is now defending such actions, not uncovering them. Liberal and progressive voices are excusing, not airing, the wrong-doing of the DOJ and FBI.

Apparently, weaponizing government agencies to manipulate voters is no longer considered a crime by the MSM."

 

11ef18560ff5c1d7f2ef4b7c933264f141cb0b08eb92c42a51e994d245e5a67d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

I am an Indian and hence don't fully understand USA politics. However, I know of senate, house of representatives, local corporations etc. The biggest problem with these is that the representation is just a formality and not compulsion. The encouragement etc are only a formality too.

Then you didn't go take the time to review the website or the link to the town meeting I provided.  Fine, I will tell the weekly congregation about you complaining about issues but not doing your compulsory homework assignment since last compulsory meeting.  Then they can mediate for us.  

2 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The local meetings are not compulsory and only encourages local voters, not migrants.

Compulsory meetings?  What is the population of India?  How effective is this in your country? 

78 million
 
India is estimated to be the home to 78 million homeless people, including 11 million street children (Business Standard, 2013; Slum Dogs). According to the 2011 census, there were 28% less homeless people from rural areas and 20% less homeless people living in the cities as compared to 2001 (Dr. Kumuda, 2014).

Are those millions of people getting results from their input?  When you get India's house in order, by all means come back and tell us so that we can implement your ideas.  In the U.S. you will have a revolt on your hands for no other reason than you try to impose compulsory anything.  We cherish our freedoms and we do not believe that just because you say something needs to be compulsory that I need to agree with you, and if I'm not doing anything wrong or breaking any laws, why should I be "compulsed" into attending to your needs?   That is why we elect community administrators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The difference in language or vocabulary is not the issue here. Issue is about having the actual power in the hands of collective public without anyone having special ability to influence by propaganda, lies, nexus or unwarranted discretionary powers. Representative republic with party system is completely against that principle

But it is about the difference in vocabulary I used the defined definition of democracy you want to say I and the rest of the world are wrong. You want democracy to mean something else fine but use another word don’t tell me I am using the wrong word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Compulsory meetings?  What is the population of India?  How effective is this in your country? 

78 million
 
India is estimated to be the home to 78 million homeless people, including 11 million street children (Business Standard, 2013; Slum Dogs). According to the 2011 census, there were 28% less homeless people from rural areas and 20% less homeless people living in the cities as compared to 2001 (Dr. Kumuda, 2014).

Are those millions of people getting results from their input?  When you get India's house in order, by all means come back and tell us so that we can implement your ideas.  In the U.S. you will have a revolt on your hands for no other reason than you try to impose compulsory anything.  We cherish our freedoms and we do not believe that just because you say something needs to be compulsory that I need to agree with you, and if I'm not doing anything wrong or breaking any laws, why should I be "compulsed" into attending to your needs?   That is why we elect community administrators.

(I did read the article you gave a link for. So, I have done my homework! )

There is no weekly congregation in India and hence the decrepit system. By the way, homeless people in India are not exactly homeless but live in slums and thatchments and have families. Generally, people become homeless only when migrating. Almost everyone has some form of family home in villages but when migrating for jobs, they find it hard to afford homes.

Compulsory meeting in India seem to work for muslims though despite having 200 million of them. I am sure it will work for others too

By the way, compulsory is not by use of force but by social obligations and sense of duty. Instead of rights, it must be "duties". Yes, in USA, it is already too late and society is nearing to chaos. The democrats have been hijacked by Arab agents but still people vote for them blindly. Do you think that mass shootings were genuine? They were the work of democrats and Arabs to disarm Americans by false flag attacks.

Absolute freedom is chaos. The only way to be free is to be reasonable and follow natural law and natural justice to best possible extent with right importance to teamwork, management of resources, division of labour and fighting evil and agents of lies & deceit.

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites