Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
i agree that the nationalist approach means less wiggle room for compromise, because if your going-in supposition is that you are on the side of all that is right and holy and your opponents are traitors, well, you don't compromise with tratiors.
on the other hand, i dunno about China being a good example of where power politics is conducted in the public arena, lol.
Recent border dispute, making their positions public on boundaries that to date remain undemarcated.
Painting themselves into a corner in public is what i mean so what then is the point of negotiations
That's good thing, a state should never be able to deny those rights. What next otherwise
Paraphrasing the great George Carlin, you have no rights. Only privileges which can be taken away by the government. Even a cursory look at history shows this to be true.
Paraphrasing the great George Carlin, you have no rights. Only privileges which can be taken away by the government. Even a cursory look at history shows this to be true.
Lots of things are true, but we try to improve the situation
I certainly don't tell the Americans how to deal with Trump. And I'm most certainly ain't telling you not to comment. What I'm telling you is you're just spouting hot air with zero proof of any Trump's wrong doing. That makes your credibility zero and make your post nonsensical and just repeatitious of the same horse puckey with zero proof.
You can comment on Trump being an asshole all you want but stop trying to tell us about the Rule of Law in the US of which you have zero knowledege and stop lecturing us about the superiority of British law. Edward VIII proves you don't know what you're talking about.
The problem is the America bashing business has been taken over by Americans these days. The international left has been overtaken in this regard on the subject
In that it is misleading to read too much into what they say. Makes it harder to get a bigger picture of whats going on. To keep up is to be led into endless rat holes
Well, at what point do they deny your citizenship ? make you a non-entity
They cannot, at least not here in the United States. If you were born in the US, the government can't revoke your citizenship unless you intend to lose it*
*"Intentional" includes things like treason or swearing allegiance to a foreign power.
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
They cannot, at least not here in the United States. If you were born in the US, the government can't revoke your citizenship unless you intend to lose it*
*"Intentional" includes things like treason or swearing allegiance to a foreign power.
You can't have your citizenship revoked, but one can certainly become/be made a relative non-entity.
"Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Native Born cannot have it revoked, naturalized can under certain circumstances. Has happened to more than 1 nazi who slipped in.
Yes, I know. I was replying to the "if you were born here" statement.
But with regards to Double Edge's question, most people who gain a criminal record become a non-entity. Most are basically cut off from employment for life, except for the most marginal of employment, even after they do their time.
"Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Yes, I know. I was replying to the "if you were born here" statement.
But with regards to Double Edge's question, most people who gain a criminal record become a non-entity. Most are basically cut off from employment for life, except for the most marginal of employment, even after they do their time.
Some crimes are worse than others though. Crimes or moral turpitude are the worst.
Well i agree with most you said here, the way of talking is less important than how that talk constrains actions.
Going nationalist means there is less wiggle room for compromise. And this is a trend being seen in numerous countries. China is a good example. What this then does is force the business of power politics into the public arena where it isn't pretty instead of being conducted behind closed doors where it is as candid if not more. If this keeps up war isn't war behind as its past compromise and into blame games and mutual animosity
China?
Nah, stick to what you know.
China doesn't conduct elite politics in public.
Native Born cannot have it revoked, naturalized can under certain circumstances. Has happened to more than 1 nazi who slipped in.
Naturalized citizens, like those Nazis, only lose their citizenship because they provided false info on their application for citizenship. Obtaining citizenship through false information is the only way they can lose it
McCain supporter, 2000
Norm Coleman voter, 2002
Bush voter, 2004
Independence Party, 2006
McCain convention delegate/alternate/voter, 2008
Norm Coleman voter, 2008
Bob McDonnell voter, 2009
Jay Murray (VA-8) voter, 2010
Haven't voted since then, nor do I have a partisan affiliation anymore, but I'm certainly not a Democrat either. The one time I broke with the Republicans was when I cast my vote for Independence Party candidates for senator and governor in 2006.
You made bad arguments and inapt comparisons. You got called on it. Obama hasn't used racist rhetoric, and Sanders hasn't incited his followers to violence and offered to pay their legal bills for engaging in it. Trump has. That's a big difference.
there's zero difference in the argument 'Trump hasn't disavowed racists and therefore encourages it and is one' and the Sanders clip.
or Obamas own history.
you guys keep picking and choosing the standards to fit.
Comment