Nukes are always political.
Printable View
Nukes are always political.
I can see them nuking their own country when they attempt to test it.
Then we'll see how smart they really are.
Meh I doubt we will be seeing nukes in our lifetime. Simple fact is that the destruction is too massive. So many weapons are already considered inhumane due to the civilian casualties, nukes are the worst of the worst.
Besides what happens if a nuke does go off? Any country using nukes is basically suiciding.
Frankly I don't see a war as big as WW2 happening in our lifetime, while we will never have a perfect world, because of the way communication is in our generation, war is so much less likely to happen on such a major scale, people would riot, governments overthrown etc. Don't get me wrong, there will always be war, but at such a scale seems impossible in this day of information sharing.
And then when China falls we will probably become India's bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanSSJ
Many politicians aren't knowledgeable though, that's entirely the problem. They aren't voted in based on their knowledge but their social skills, which tend to be the complete polar opposites. Which tends to be why they rely upon companies to tell them what's good and bad, hence why wind power is so pushed in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanSSJ
A representative government should represent the opinions of their voters, correct? So if their voters want to leave the EU, the politician should vote to leave, regardless of their personal or party feelings. Otherwise they aren't representing the people by definition. Granted some times people can be dumb fucks, but that's why we have a house of lords and a Queen to bitch slap us.
I also have no idea why the fuck we are having a referendum on leaving the EU. I have no faith in the British voter ever since the last referendum on voting changes. But alas making it fair for the almost 23% people who voted for LibDem isn't in the best interest for the 65% who voted Conservative/Labour, so they keep 90% of the seats. (seriously wtf England?)
Which is why I'd prefer to get rid of all the current government and just let everyone vote on everything. You can't corrupt half of the entire population of a country. Plus only people who care about an issue will vote on it, on both sides.
I can see the NK PR headlines now. Instead of installing night time lighting, NK makes all its citizens glow in the dark saving billions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loppiant
Their social skills are directly related to fund raising really. Don't get me wrong, being a jackass gets you nowhere, but I know that here in the Netherlands they look far more at knowledge, even debate skills aren't as important (seeing as our politicians are pretty well mannered and everything is done properly, so facts are far more important then debate tricks).Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert
So in the end if the political system is not poisoned by money and your vote really goes to the one you vote for, then it works much better.
The problem about what the majority wants, is that the majority doesn't know what they want. We got a party called the PVV from Geert Wilders, the guy wants that if someone, who's origins are from a different country, commits a crime, that he and his family gets kicked out of the country. A fair amount of people ate this up and love him for that. Now think of what would happen if you were to do that. Because if we change our national laws, then we can do it, of course international laws would eat us up, of course you could ignore that, but what would happen then?
The problem is that the people don't understand how the system works. If I got a water leakage then my goal is simple, I want it fixed, but I let the professionals decide how that can be done best. The same with politics, I want this shit with the EU to end, but I let my representatives look for the best ways to deal with this all. I know for one that leaving it would not be the answer.
And that's another problem, the answer is never simple, how many views are there on the EU? Just imagine voting for each idea, none of them would probably get the majority, this is why politicians compromise.
As for the people voting, that's another major problem. On something big like staying in the EU will get a lot of voters, but for the majority of things, most people wouldn't show up. Who would show up? Right the people who actually understand what they are doing. So considering there will be so many things to vote on, you would end up with a small group of well educated people who decide for everyone. You could argue, how is that any different from now? The difference is that socialists for example will fight for the lower class people and with the support of those lower class people they can make a huge difference. What happens if that changes? Right only a small percentage of the people would vote in favour of the lower class.
We would essentially go back like 150-200 years where only the upper class could vote.
Studies have shown in the US, that if everyone were to vote, that the Republicans would be no more, at least 66% of the people support the Democratic party. However because poor people vote less on average, the Democrats loose massive amounts of votes.
This is going to be interesting :S
*NK begins nuclear test launch*
(in Korean) "10... 9... 8... 7... 6..."
Suddenly...
CAPTAIN PLANET OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE.
Grabs the rocket, dumps it in the ocean, waits 10 seconds, checks watch, nothing happens.
Shrugs. "The power is yours!" aaaaaand gone.
...
*Underwater nuclear bomb blast*
*NK trollface*
If you kicked foreign law breakers out of your country, it would probably quite well for your country. The issue is where would they go, I guess? But then that is entirely their own fault. Our law system probably is a little bit too lax these days, prison isn't really as bad as it used to be, with the exception of America killing people. Hell there are many examples of people getting put in prison because they are better off incarcerated. England clearly needs to start sending convicts to Australia again, it worked out well last time!Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanSSJ
If I got a water leak, I'd turn off the water and, depending on the type of leak, either stick some putty over it or replace the pipe. Water pipes are by far the easiest thing in a house to fix. Fair enough if you have a gas leak calling someone out. I'd probably have a go at fixing electricity too as I basically have a degree in it, even if I haven't registered with the body. Which is an entirely different annoyance I have, if I think I can fix stuff myself I should be within my right to do so. I'm competent and would do a better job than some of these cowboy builders, but I'd get into legal trouble from it. I understand some people are idiots and would fuck up their houses and kill themselves, but then there are shit professionals who do that too, not to mention if you are stupid enough to do it Darwin awards should apply.
The more people voting on stuff, the more important they feel the issue is, As long as before they vote they have to watch the argument from both sides, I'd say getting the votes of more people is entirely a good thing. If few people vote, it means they don't care and it's not really important. If the majority of the UK want to leave the EU, what right do politicians have to keep us in? Frankly the biggest issue is that the general population don't really know how the EU is good for us, and with the amount of bad press it gets it's no wonder. Our press is constantly damning corporations for (legally!) having one base in EU and only paying taxes to that country. And yet out politicians seem to be pissed off at them for doing something which is completely legal. Same goes for cheap labour from the poor EU countries. Poor EU countries in of themselves are pretty bad for the EU, they are getting supported by the others who shouldn't really need to.
Poor people still have access to the internet, and if they don't already some of the money that would have been doing to politicians can go to giving them access. The internet (and knowledge in general, ie library's) should be a basic human right anyway. What would happen is the Socialists would find something important to them, and make sure as many poor people know about it as possible. I'd say most people in England would vote for the lower class. It's the high class that would be fucked, lol. Do you want to increase taxes on billionaires? Like 99% of the country would vote yes on that because it doesn't affect them and would benefit them. But again our government represents the rich far more than the poor.
But we'd be making it easier for people to vote on issues they feel are important. Plus it would feel far more important to vote on an issue rather than on a person. I know my vote doesn't matter at all in an election because my local seat has been labour since forever. But on a specific vote, it could matter much more, and so would campaigning. People would be discussing issues far more, which imo would be a good thing.
Who's fault? No matter where we dump them, we will always be putting them in a different country. Or do you want us to put our criminals on a boat and send them to you? I'm sure we would be willing if you can convince your government.Quote:
If you kicked foreign law breakers out of your country, it would probably quite well for your country. The issue is where would they go, I guess? But then that is entirely their own fault.
Simple fact is that nobody wants criminals, so we got 3 options, get back the death penalty, disregard international treaties etc or just deal with it ourselves. Now I don't see the first 2 happening.
Dude... it's an example about hiring people that are knowledgeable about the subject. There are so many political subjects that we don't know shit about, economics that we don't have a clear picture of. These things require a full time job just to deal with. It's not about not wanting to do it ourselves, it's just not possible. This even happens within politics. Why do you think it requires so many people to deal with shit, because there is just too much to handle for just a few people. (though you have way more people in your parliament, we've got 225 with both houses combined)Quote:
If I got a water leak, I'd turn off the water and, depending on the type of leak, either stick some putty over it or replace the pipe. Water pipes are by far the easiest thing in a house to fix. Fair enough if you have a gas leak calling someone out. I'd probably have a go at fixing electricity too as I basically have a degree in it, even if I haven't registered with the body. Which is an entirely different annoyance I have, if I think I can fix stuff myself I should be within my right to do so. I'm competent and would do a better job than some of these cowboy builders, but I'd get into legal trouble from it. I understand some people are idiots and would fuck up their houses and kill themselves, but then there are shit professionals who do that too, not to mention if you are stupid enough to do it Darwin awards should apply.
The issue is that there is just much more to it. And that's with everything. How many people don't like the way animals are treated? How many people would be pissed off if the prices doubled? How many people don't like child labour? How many of them want to pay more for their products?Quote:
The more people voting on stuff, the more important they feel the issue is, As long as before they vote they have to watch the argument from both sides, I'd say getting the votes of more people is entirely a good thing. If few people vote, it means they don't care and it's not really important. If the majority of the UK want to leave the EU, what right do politicians have to keep us in? Frankly the biggest issue is that the general population don't really know how the EU is good for us, and with the amount of bad press it gets it's no wonder. Our press is constantly damning corporations for (legally!) having one base in EU and only paying taxes to that country. And yet out politicians seem to be pissed off at them for doing something which is completely legal. Same goes for cheap labour from the poor EU countries. Poor EU countries in of themselves are pretty bad for the EU, they are getting supported by the others who shouldn't really need to.
People are pissed off about everything bad about the EU, but they cannot see all the good. Again, I'm not saying leaving would be better or worse, but since people are not informed well enough and never will (the majority will always be guided by all the negative), and thus a vote from the people is basically pointless, because they don't know what will happen.
That's the problem with everything, take criminals, how many people have clear views on that? Right lock them up, never let them out again etc? But what would actually happen if you did those harsher punishments?
I'm not debating about what would be politically the best choice, I'm arguing that the majority has absolutely no idea what the best choice is and never will.
The problem is that your political system is fucked up, this creates corruption and it creates an atmosphere where people always feel fucked by their politicians to the point that everything sounds better. Trust me, referendums on every issue is not the way to go, you would get royally fucked all the time, whether it be by the upper class because they are the only one who votes or with big subjects by the ignorant and the idiots.
The problem is here again that people would just constantly want to raise their taxes to the point of 100%.Quote:
Do you want to increase taxes on billionaires? Like 99% of the country would vote yes on that because it doesn't affect them and would benefit them. But again our government represents the rich far more than the poor.
The issue would be that people would leave the country. If you were to get slapped with a 70% tax rate, then you would just find another country to live in.
This doesn't mean taxes shouldn't be raised, but my guess is that the average person won't think things through as to how much you can raise it before it's actually bad for the economy.
Frankly, IDK about NK or USA. Just aslong as the radio active wave shit doesn't come to canada.
Like I said, it would be good for your country, but not for anyone else! Except maybe China? Criminals would have a decent skill set, and China treats their workforce basically like inmates/slaves anyway. They might be happy to import them if it meant getting paid. Russia also has a lot of space. Or hell America, they already prison as many people as they can get away with, I wouldn't be shocked if they would accept prisoners from other countries too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanSSJ
Lack of knowledge is a problem with education and a lack of information in general. Plus if we went to a system of everyone voting, I would still have technical council for each department which would give as much information on why they want the law as possible. There would no doubt be someone who doesn't want the law also, who will be making arguments against. Presenting both to the vote just before they vote should mean they are informed enough to vote, just as much as most politicians are anyway. It takes so many people for governments to work purely because of lack of progress has meant massive inefficiencies. I know in England you have councils doing things on their own, when if every council did the same thing it would be vastly cheaper because of the buying power they would have.
Animals should be treat decently, and be given a quick clean death. Exactly the same as humans (which is why I support euthanasia if the person/family requests it). Anything other than that is simply transitional crap that needs to progress into our current culture, we know animals feel pain and emotion now which we didn't back then, there is no excuse for it now. Prices would never need to be doubled, and frankly I'd want to remove inflation if I had the power to stop them increasing at all. Companies have to increase their prices every year to avoid dying, which is just bloody stupid. If you don't get a pay rise every year, you are poorer. Madness. If you put money into savings account with 2% AER, the inflation is still ~3% so you've lost 1% of your money. Slightly better than just keeping it in your pocket, but still fucked up. Which is precisely why our economy if fucked imo.
Child labour doesn't need to exist, we have advanced enough robotics to entirely replace them. But frankly if the choice is between the child starving or letting them work, morally I have to say let them work. Sure it might mean they won't get an education, but if they are having to work what life would they have regardless of education? Frankly it's not my country so I have no real say in the matter. I just wish companies were forced to say where they manufacture stuff, so consumers would know what is likely to be made by kids. Plus I can see an argument in it being a good education in a manufacturing role anyway. Most Chinese are in factories, learning for a young age probably would give them a better chance of being employed. Experience is very important these days, and hell England had apprentices from really young ages in the past. Perhaps we should all be giving kids at least some work experience from a younger age? Working 1 day a month in a random job would give kids far more chance to work out what they want to do as a career.
What exactly is the good of the EU though for the richer countries? The UK already has it's own army, not to mention the commonwealth, and would still be within NATO, so defensive is off the table. It's costing far more to prop up the poor countries that we get in return so I can't see a financial reason. It does tend to make business a bit easier, but really if it's worth doing they'd do it regardless. Regulations might be considered good, but I don't think they should be forced on countries that don't want them anyway. I really don't see the need for all these mini groups. Either make a one world government or don't ffs! I have no idea why the US and EU haven't just merged already.
I've always said the punishment should fit the crime. A thief should either have whatever they stole given back to the person, or be taxed until they've paid that person back. A rapist should have there sperm/eggs sampled and frozen, then be medically castrated and control of their progeny given to the victim. If they ever want kids, they have to appeal to the victim. Also a term in prison with a therapist to sort out any issues they had that caused the incident. Murderers would get "average life expectancy - age of victim" as long as it's over 25. Ie it is a worse crime to kill a younger person. Possibly add in some variable with perpetrators age in? But that would be the general idea. But yeah if I could I'd get a bunch of judges and lawyers from both sides and just make a large framework like this. Make formulae for each crime and then it would be a case of sticking in the variables.
The general consensus would be based upon the knowledge they gained watching a debate/speech from each side of the vote giving their points. If they aren't interested in the law, they wouldn't vote either way. This is exactly what politicians should be doing right now anyway.
No one would vote to raise the taxes to 100%, nor would we ever need to. You'd still have a few politicians to propose the laws after all. Plus I wouldn't put the question as do you want to increase taxes. It would be, "Do you want to improve the train infrastructure (maglev! wooo!), it would increase your annual tax by 0.1% for 5 years?" or w/e. Then have the good old positives and negatives of both sides. If it all goes tits up, the country has its self to blame after all!
Your location says you're in Rhode Island.. such blasphemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyboy184
Robert, here's your steps to success (as suggested by Siles) from here on out:
1. Become a politician.
2. End world hunger and violence.
3. Put an end to unknowledgable politicians.
4. Win the Nobel Peace Prize.
5. ????????
6. PROFIT!!!
Don't forget about me when you put an end to North Korea and save the world, I'm being super serious.
It's disturbing what a fucked up political system has done to you, to actually think that referendums on every proposed law would work well.
Regardless of how much information is given, most people will not understand it. People don't understand shit. People don't even understand the basics of how an economy works.. Like I said, the only people who will end up voting are the upper class. Guess how much they care about public transportation, minimum wage etc?
You've got too much faith in the common man. A proper representative democracy will always win. In the UK you are used to politicians doing what they want, they got the majority and then don't care about what others think. Here political parties are constantly in communication with the people. If I send a e-mail to a member of parliament, I actually get a response back, even the leaders of parties send you personal emails back to you, I even got 1 from our current Prime Minister Rutte, back when he was still in the opposition (he was the leader of his party), and yes, it was actually written by him.
Why all of this? Because we got so many choices, we got 11 parties in our parliament, different majorities are constantly formed, pressured by public opinion, because of that it's not just about if they care about our opinions, but they have to care, because otherwise they are done for.
To give you another example, with my class we visited our parliament, we met with 1 of the members there, he gave us a tour, told us about his work etc, aside from that we talked about the things that we had issues with, he had to go all the sudden because there was a vote, so we couldn't finish the whole conversation, but he wanted to know more about it. The people with certain complaints never cared to contact him about it. Instead what happened is that he contacted us, he called our school, spend time on the phone finding out who we were and how to contact us. At the end of the year we had a open day about politics, the guy showed up, he asked the people with those problems if he could talk with them about it and he did, in fact he did a lot more, he actually did his job and located the problem, talked with the people why it went that way and eventually discussed this in our parliament.
On top of that, during that open day I told him about the work place where I worked, which is a place for people with mental health problems, even though we only had about 5 people working there, he was interested in learning more about it, we exchanged numbers and I would call him to set up a meeting, before I could set that up, he already called me interested if it was possible. 2 days before he came around he told me that he was bringing another member of parliament with him. Oh and he had 1 request, that there would be no journalists or whatever, they wanted to talk with everyone, not put up a show for the newspaper.
Halfway through their visit we were standing in the rain cleaning up a kids playground, again with no journalists in sight.
So yeah I actually got faith in our system, because no matter what, our politicians are still just regular people, they work to help people and not just from a distance, they will get up close and personal to talk to you, no matter how unimportant you may seem.
That's the difference between your politicians and mine, I don't feel like these are men and women far away that don't know about your life, if I have something serious to address, or even have a question about a school project or whatever, that I can ask them a question and get an answer.
Out of curiosity, what about your MEPs? I don't believe I've ever voted any of the UKs in, I think they are chosen within the parties, so I guess they aren't accountable to you. Which is probably another issue with the EU when those people tend to have more power than the MPs anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanSSJ
If I were to get into politics it would be for the EU.
(On a side note, ironically we've spoken with our local MEP for the concept I've been working on, but that's mostly a coincidence I guess!)