She is the status-quo. In international matters, we do not fear her, because we already know how the USA under the Clinton empire family works.
Trump is, potentially, a lot *worse*
And the obvious rebuttal is a) she is a really lousy status quo, and b) Trump has been kicking around for a while too. He's just as much a known quantity since he's been kicking around a while and has made a lot of noise for a long time.
much of the world is ready to declare it is the start of the apocalypse if he wins (which will pave the way for right-wing extremists everywhere).
Ever think about the dynamics of why that happens rather than just worry about it? If there weren't so many "right-wing extremists" and they weren't heavily marginalized by society, then all the "paving" in the world wouldn't create a problem.
Or maybe it's only a problem because you're not the one exploiting the discontented?
They'd save on gold and silver.
But seriously, the amount I care about the Olympics: 1.01-1.011%
Olympic games are all about politics, nothing is about sport (and I don't care watching people perform sports, but I realize many do).
If games have to happen they should be happening in Greece, there should be permanent stadiums there, they could be maintained by everybody who cares about the games.
But this way how could the governments steal billions from the populations and redistribute that money to their close friends? That's the real problem, apparently governments still need some pretext for stealing for some reason.
might work for fooling lazy magnetometer reader or one without "big data" processing capability
It'd fool me. But then I'm neither a major world power or trying.
Black is the new Red, this is political of-course, it doesn't have any other meaning. Colour coding means something because of the colour properties (red is the most visible colour due to its wavelength and our perception of it). I guess what Obama is saying is this: the white people are scared of the blacks so much, they must perceive black as more dangerous than any other colour...
John Chen said he was disturbed that Apple valued its customers' privacy and its own reputation above government demands for backdoors. I think I can safely say that BB's reputation is now 'disturbed'.
BlackBerry CEO John Chen said he is "disturbed" by Apple's tough approach to encryption and user privacy, warning that the firm's attitude is harmful to society. Earlier this year, Chen said in response to Apple resisting the government's demands to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters: "We are indeed in a dark place when companies put their reputations above the greater good." During BlackBerry's Security Summit in New York this week, Chen made several more comments about Apple's stance on encryption. "One of our competitors, we call it 'the other fruit company,' has an attitude that it doesn't matter how much it might hurt society, they're not going to help," he said. "I found that disturbing as a citizen. I think BlackBerry, like any company, should have a basic civil responsibility. If the world is in danger, we should be able to help out." He did say there was a lot of "nonsense" being reported about BlackBerry and its approach to how it handles user information. "Of course, there need to be clear guidelines. The guidelines we've adopted require legal assets. A subpoena for certain data. But if you have the data, you should give it to them," he said. "There's some complete nonsense about what we can and can't do. People are mad at us that we let the government have the data. It's absolute garbage. We can't do that." Chen also warned that mandatory back doors aren't a good idea either, hinting at the impending Investigatory Powers Bill. "There's proposed legislation in the U.S., and I'm sure it will come to the EU, that every vendor needs to provide some form of a back door. That is not going to fly at all. It just isn't," he said.
The Roman senate eventually gave up their autonomy willingly because they were tired of the civil wars.
I think it more accurate to say that the members of the Senate who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic in expressing their tiredness (or whatever propaganda excuses they really used at the time), ended up on the wrong side of Augustus Caesar.
And somehow I doubt the Chinese Communist Party will go gently into that good night for the sake of a calm succession (especially given their brutality while putting down the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989). The viewpoint you describe is only relevant while the Party is not threatened.
It also doesn't mean that you have to bring it up in every conversation.
I disagree. The viewpoint you discussed doesn't actually exist except as a propaganda fabrication by an oppressive government to remain in power.
Then you write the following:
So that is the problem the Chinese government needs to solve. Keep order and harmony, because for the vast majority of people, it's better than chaos. (Look at what happened in Egypt recently when they had their new government.....lots of violence, then nothing really changed. Replacing Mubarak was probably a mistake, but some people paid for it with their lives).
With a different form of government, unscrupulous men can start a campaign of lies, and build a following, and if he's convincing enough, even make it into power as president. But all this will happen without real violence (that is, violence does not lead to power and political enemies don't need to 'disappear'), and the system is designed with power balances to prevent things from getting too messed up, even with a lousy president.
The very narrative you repeated (of being concerned about order versus chaos) is an example of a "campaign of lies". Funny, how this viewpoint is so concerned about rival parties causing trouble by spreading lies (or perhaps rather inconvenient truths). That's such a refined and elegant hypocrisy.
and unseen by the west, via the new DEEP canal.
It's not deep enough for that. Sorry, one doesn't sneak a sub through a canal with satellite and human int coverage.
let's leave aside which is 'right' and 'wrong' for now, and concede them the right of self-determination
No, let's not. Let's note instead that exercising the right of self-determination would require the sort of communication and social unrest that is supposedly bad under their "chosen" form of government.
This is not accidental. An effective parasite is hard to eliminate from a host. And at the human level, we see plenty of examples of this, here, a variety of authoritarian governments that insert themselves into every aspect of life, creating both a dependent class of citizen who supports the government merely because that's where their benefits come from and a large cost to remove the government.
IBM Advanced Systems Group -- a bunch of mindless jerks, who'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes... -- with regrets to D. Adams