Trump-Biden Debate

I like Dilandu. He's expressing frustration more than anything else. Also, like all of us, he comments on the basis of his own experience of life which means that his commentary on American politics can seem a bit off the mark to an American. On the other hand some of his comments as an outsider can provide fresh perspective worth thinking about.

Don

-

Donnachaidh wrote:......my little troll.

"Every opinion that I don't like and everyone that doesn't conform to my views is a troll" - you

orelsi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:......my little troll.

"Every opinion that I don't like and everyone that doesn't conform to my views is a troll" - you

orelse wrote:Biden looked like a dementia ridden scared old man that should be staying at home basking in the sun and enjoying his grandchildren. Had nothing, but a bunch of lies and distortion of reality, but I don't expect his base to notice since feelings are stronger than facts for them. Truth and objectivity are bad words.

Perhaps you should understand that a lot of people frequenting this forum don't live in the USA and as such doesn't belong to any presidential candidates "base". But I guess it's easier to lump people together in an effort to demonize them when you suffer from mental myopia.

In light of what you wrote above we can easily conclude that you have nothing of worth to add to any debate. Your infantile and trollish behavior have been noted, and you will be treated as such.

I didn't say the US system was fine. I in fact think that the best thing for the US system is to move away from all or nothing elections and change to some sort of ranked choice since that will get the US away from a 2 party system which I believe will help reduce a lot of the issues we do have.

I referenced Russia's system because I've seen you attack the US and defend Russia so many times and I've never seen* you criticize Russia or defend the US.


*Note: I said seen not that you hadn't; I don't know for certain that you haven't but I'm also not going to search your entire post history.

Dilandu wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:Is Russia's one man system better?

Of course no. Please stop trying to insist that since there are worse system, than your own is therefore fine. Between "not the worst" and "fine" there are a Very Big space.

I called you a troll because you act like one. The first thing you did on this forum was to create a thread to attack what you perceived as the majority of active posters with a term ("TDS") exclusively used by a group as a derogatory term for people who criticize someone that group is built around supporting.

That said, I firmly believe that the kind of people who use the term you did worship "Dear Leader" in a very cult like fashion that reminds me of Mao regime in China or any of the Kim regimes in North Korea.

orelsi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:......my little troll.

"Every opinion that I don't like and everyone that doesn't conform to my views is a troll" - you

orelsi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:......my little troll.

"Every opinion that I don't like and everyone that doesn't conform to my views is a troll" - you

Yep, still a pretty unremarkable troll with no real dedication to the craft.

Donnachaidh wrote:
I referenced Russia's system because I've seen you attack the US and defend Russia so many times and I've never seen* you criticize Russia or defend the US.

Oka, one thing that Westerners almost always did not understood about Russia, is that our government, while rarely (if ever) democratic, is usually collegial. The situation when the leader have absolute power - like Pyotr I or Stalin - are rare. Mostly, the leader (Tsar, General Secretary, or president) is viewed as the uppermost mediator, to whom different power blocks, cliques and VIP's appeal to solve their conflicts and negotiate a solution.

I.e. it is usually wrong to view leader of Russia as some kind of all-powerful despot (the exceptions are mentioned above). The leader of Russia is mainly a chief mediator, who is capable of bringing different powers ("siloviki", oligarchs, organized crime, ect.) to efficient compromize. And his personal power stemmed from the ability to make more powers agree to his judjement.

The current power structure in Russia could be best described as quasi-feudal, with military and civil "aristocracy"clans which held control over different areas in exchange for personal loyality to Kremlin. Some control major economic (like oil & gas industry). Some control military and police. Some are regional vice-rulers: for example, Kadyrov is essentially a viceroy of Chechnya. Thing is, that all those groups understood, that thry must avoid open power struggle with each other - or all their power would evaporate because population would not tolerate this. And that's why they needed a chief mediator, to solve their conflicts & forging agreements.

I suspect being a former KGB person with a history of poisoning people really helps in mediation efforts


Seriously, I don't think I ever tried to understand how the Russian government actually works. But that kinda makes sense.

orelsi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:......my little troll.

"Every opinion that I don't like and everyone that doesn't conform to my views is a troll" - you

oooops sorry - 'my sweet little troll'
is that better?

as E said, you are as nothing to the real trolls on this site... a a mere breath in the wind, a bagetelle. we rate you at 1 out of 10

Now consider TFLYSNBN as an example that you should go away learn from - he could [on non political topics] make some very good points indeed.

Or take SMR - he had a sheer inspired insanity that was a wonder to behold - a joy to encounter.

go and spend a few years studying the masters and then try again sonny.

Thank you for sharing this insight into Russian government. Your analogy and explanation was helpful for me to better understand.

Dilandu wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:
I referenced Russia's system because I've seen you attack the US and defend Russia so many times and I've never seen* you criticize Russia or defend the US.

Oka, one thing that Westerners almost always did not understood about Russia, is that our government, while rarely (if ever) democratic, is usually collegial. The situation when the leader have absolute power - like Pyotr I or Stalin - are rare. Mostly, the leader (Tsar, General Secretary, or president) is viewed as the uppermost mediator, to whom different power blocks, cliques and VIP's appeal to solve their conflicts and negotiate a solution.

I.e. it is usually wrong to view leader of Russia as some kind of all-powerful despot (the exceptions are mentioned above). The leader of Russia is mainly a chief mediator, who is capable of bringing different powers ("siloviki", oligarchs, organized crime, ect.) to efficient compromize. And his personal power stemmed from the ability to make more powers agree to his judjement.

The current power structure in Russia could be best described as quasi-feudal, with military and civil "aristocracy"clans which held control over different areas in exchange for personal loyality to Kremlin. Some control major economic (like oil & gas industry). Some control military and police. Some are regional vice-rulers: for example, Kadyrov is essentially a viceroy of Chechnya. Thing is, that all those groups understood, that thry must avoid open power struggle with each other - or all their power would evaporate because population would not tolerate this. And that's why they needed a chief mediator, to solve their conflicts & forging agreements.