Ayayay Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 So recent media reports have come to light that the current South Korean president, Park Geun-hye, is a puppet of Shaminist Choi Tae-min (who is currently evading authorities somewhere in Denmark/Germany). Is this the future of democracies? Puppets to the rich, powerful, or even cultists? Relevant material: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/767405.html Lee also recalled that Choi “would toss us the materials at the meetings and have us reading them without any real explanation, giving us orders to ‘Do things this way’ or ‘Do things that way.’†“We would listen to her and draft project plans, and they would be passed back to us later as Blue House documents without so much as a comma changed,†he added. http://english.chosun.com/m/svc/article.html?contid=2016102801342The U.S. Embassy in Korea sent a confidential report to Washington in 2007 describing then-presidential candidate Park Geun-hye as being controlled by her mentor Choi Tae-min, while his children were rumored to have amassed huge fortunes. Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Honestly it only seems a big deal because its a cult leader and cults immediately spring up as evil, scary, and dangerous in people's minds. The rich and powerful do these sort of things in a lot of places but to most people that simply registers as something that simply will happen. Most places aren't reporting exactly what the cult is but I found some details and knew it was going to be a eastern take/fusion with Christianity, always seems to be in these things. Those sort of guys have been causing trouble in the east since Hong Xiuquan and his Heavenly Kingdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 No. Its not the future of democracies. Mysticism, hell even basic faith, is in the decline in all democracies. 1 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 No. Its not the future of democracies. Mysticism, hell even basic faith, is in the decline in all democracies. I meant in a general "puppet" sense, who the puppeteer is is irrelevant Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraine Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 You mean the descent of a democracy to an oligarchy? No. I t's a possible end for a democracy, which is why religious authorities and the ultra-rich or any cabal shouldn't be allowed complete control of a society, but it's not the inevitable end of a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 So recent media reports have come to light that the current South Korean president, Park Geun-hye, is a puppet of Shaminist Choi Tae-min (who is currently evading authorities somewhere in Denmark/Germany). Is this the future of democracies? Puppets to the rich, powerful, or even cultists? Relevant material: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/767405.html http://english.chosun.com/m/svc/article.html?contid=2016102801342 Oligarchy (more commonly coined as republicanism) and democracy are just two sides of an endless debate that has been going on since the birth of the US. On one hand, a humanistic element where "anyone" can become the leader of a country and a maker of their own fate. On the other hand, an element of pragmatism and experience mandates the tabula rosa idea of leadership: that you were made to be a leader, over years of service and commitment to the state. Nothing could be more true of this debate than embodied in the 2016 election. On one hand, you have a candidate who has no military or political experience (by the way, first of his kind in US history, if not the history of all republics in general). On the other hand, someone who is (by the standards of republicanism) the most experienced candidate in recent US political history. One presents himself as the common man, dedicated to attack the elites. The other presents herself as the knowledgeable elite who is the safe option compared to the madman. This is a narrative that has gone back generations over the lifetime of the US, and is likely a debate that will continue long after we are dead and gone. 1 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Oligarchy (more commonly coined as republicanism) and democracy are just two sides of an endless debate that has been going on since the birth of the US. On one hand, a humanistic element where "anyone" can become the leader of a country and a maker of their own fate. On the other hand, an element of pragmatism and experience mandates the tabula rosa idea of leadership: that you were made to be a leader, over years of service and commitment to the state. Nothing could be more true of this debate than embodied in the 2016 election. On one hand, you have a candidate who has no military or political experience (by the way, first of his kind in US history, if not the history of all republics in general). On the other hand, someone who is (by the standards of republicanism) the most experienced candidate in recent US political history. One presents himself as the common man, dedicated to attack the elites. The other presents herself as the knowledgeable elite who is the safe option compared to the madman. This is a narrative that has gone back generations over the lifetime of the US, and is likely a debate that will continue long after we are dead and gone. Aren't you happy that Trump broke that glass ceiling? He is both the oldest President and the first to not have any government experience as you say. Imagine that, a normal common person not involved in politics won the Presidency... truly that proves the notion that anyone can be President... well that became known when Obama became President but lets not take away from Mr Trump's grand achievements. Burned the Bush and Clinton dynasties to the ground while at it too lets not forget and you don't get more elite than that. Truly he is the American Dream made manifest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Aren't you happy that Trump broke that glass ceiling? He is both the oldest President and the first to not have any government experience as you say. Imagine that, a normal common person not involved in politics won the Presidency... truly that proves the notion that anyone can be President... well that became known when Obama became President but lets not take away from Mr Trump's grand achievements. Burned the Bush and Clinton dynasties to the ground while at it too lets not forget and you don't get more elite than that. Truly he is the American Dream made manifest. I am personally against "democratic" candidates. At least in rhetoric, Donald Trump has no conceptual understanding of geopolitics or modern warfare. Nonetheless, I have to admit the brilliance in his electoral victory, using a fraction of the ground force, campaign money, and resources to pull ahead of Clinton. He's not the only president to not have government experience. Andrew Jackson, perhaps the most famous of the so-called "democratic" presidents, had no government experience. So did MacArthur, Grant, and Eisenhower. What sets Donald Trump apart from these men is MacArthur, Jackson and Eisenhower commanded troops in combat, Donald Trump hasn't even seen military service, much less a command. The only time he will ever command troops is at the head of the largest and most powerful military in human history. Republicanism doesn't necessarily mean no common man could be president. What it does mean is that the common man should have certain qualification built over his lifetime before running for the office. In the Roman Republic, if you didn't service 10 straight years in the military, you wouldn't even be considered for the equivalent of city mayor, much less the presidency. But, the idea of qualifications before governance means that entering government is a high "fixed-cost" for people who are "outsiders," so political "dynasties" do pop up (less so in American politics than in Roman). Also, to be fair, Donald Trump is not the "common man." The average American is a white middle-class homeowner who worries about mortgages and job security, not a real estate billionaire, well-known TV personality, and global entrepreneur. It's a misnomer to characterize Donald Trump as a representation of the common man when his name is synonymous with opulant financial wealth and success 1 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I am personally against "democratic" candidates. At least in rhetoric, Donald Trump has no conceptual understanding of geopolitics or modern warfare. Nonetheless, I have to admit the brilliance in his electoral victory, using a fraction of the ground force, campaign money, and resources to pull ahead of Clinton. He's not the only president to not have government experience. Andrew Jackson, perhaps the most famous of the so-called "democratic" presidents, had no government experience. So did MacArthur, Grant, and Eisenhower. What sets Donald Trump apart from these men is MacArthur, Jackson and Eisenhower commanded troops in combat, Donald Trump hasn't even seen military service, much less a command. The only time he will ever command troops is at the head of the largest and most powerful military in human history. Republicanism doesn't necessarily mean no common man could be president. What it does mean is that the common man should have certain qualification built over his lifetime before running for the office. In the Roman Republic, if you didn't service 10 straight years in the military, you wouldn't even be considered for the equivalent of city mayor, much less the presidency. But, the idea of qualifications before governance means that entering government is a high "fixed-cost" for people who are "outsiders," so political "dynasties" do pop up (less so in American politics than in Roman). Also, to be fair, Donald Trump is not the "common man." The average American is a white middle-class homeowner who worries about mortgages and job security, not a real estate billionaire, well-known TV personality, and global entrepreneur. It's a misnomer to characterize Donald Trump as a representation of the common man when his name is synonymous with opulant financial wealth and success Under budget and ahead of schedule yes as I kept telling people laughing at it. His experience in business. However it should be said again that the specifications for President are met by Trump very handily. That was the joke. Though even his opponents have been saying this proves anyone can be president (though I would say Obama showed that considering how little experience he had and it was no issue). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Under budget and ahead of schedule yes as I kept telling people laughing at it. His experience in business. However it should be said again that the specifications for President are met by Trump very handily. That was the joke. Though even his opponents have been saying this proves anyone can be president (though I would say Obama showed that considering how little experience he had and it was no issue). I think he was also surprised by the victory too, it wasn't something he was expecting. It's a dangerous fallacy to assume business experience can translate to government and military command in its entirety. Obama had little experience compared to who? What's your metric? Surely you don't mean Trump. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I think he was also surprised by the victory too, it wasn't something he was expecting. It's a dangerous fallacy to assume business experience can translate to government and military command in its entirety. Obama had little experience compared to who? What's your metric? Surely you don't mean Trump. He had a couple of minor news sources (which he'll likely help greatly now as a reward) for him and a dedicated online base. In opposition was basically everyone else with their massive media machines and big money. I'd not be surprised if he didn't think his chances were 100% like Clinton believed. I didn't say anything on that, simply said his experience is business and regardless of all of the attacks on him he obviously is going to know how a lot of that stuff works. I in the past when I would actually have to oppose Conservatives would tell them that running a household does not equate to running a nation. I'm well aware of the differences, simply saying it isn't like he has zero relevant experience. Quite obviously I'm not comparing to Trump. Eight years as a state senator and then four years as a senator is his experience. I'll grant that the meme of "community organiser" is unfair but its true that compared to a lot of people out there that is tiny in comparison (I mean Clinton alone was claiming like double the experience). Even with the meme of him being a wet behind the ears boy he was still elected President. It really doesn't matter much to people these days, and if Obama didn't show that then Trump has without doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I think he was also surprised by the victory too, it wasn't something he was expecting. It's a dangerous fallacy to assume business experience can translate to government and military command in its entirety. Obama had little experience compared to who? What's your metric? Surely you don't mean Trump. President Obama had not even complete his entire first term as Senator before running for POTUS. His experience was virtually nonexistent. However, he did serve as President for eight years now. Trump will not be the first President who did not serve political office before becoming President. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Obama was a change candidate. So was Trump. Change candidates don't need experience to win. The lack of experience may be an asset, as they can claim to be "closer to the people", and "less corrupt". HRC was clearly a "status quo" candidate. 2 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Francois Hollande must be pleased he has someone else to join him in the 4% approval rating club. Who will win and go below 4%? Might they do the unthinkable by attaining 0%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Francois Hollande must be pleased he has someone else to join him in the 4% approval rating club. Who will win and go below 4%? Might they do the unthinkable by attaining 0%. Oh? I didn't know this. Is it because of his 3 mistresses? Or France's involvement back into Syria? Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Oh? I didn't know this. Is it because of his 3 mistresses? Or France's involvement back into Syria? All those things matter. Obviously what I think is chief among them should be obvious (all things relating to Islam), but it should be known he has done some really stupid stuff in addition such as referring to poor people as "the toothless ones". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.