I get the point but honestly: Why does that matter?

If we only accept judgement or action by ‘perfect individuals’ aka. ‘heroes’ the world won’t ever get better as influential humans are still humans and often have, by design, flaws and mistakes build within them and their character. Does that mean we shouldn’t judge anyone for their actions? Obviously not.

But to claim that ones vision or ideas are outright wrong due to ad-hominem argumentation against their personal flaws is also bullshit. You’ll always find something to point out, especially with historical figures. Since, ironically due to their imperfect actionism, our social norms have improved and we often rightfully so critizise things deemed normal during their time.

Ironically high fossil prices speed up thr solar punk process. But yes, if these nut jobs could stop killing millions in the process would be really nice. I’m all for 1 vs. 1 fights if old men feel the need to solve things violently.

New living space for master race/ God’s people in the east…uh, north.

I’d argue that the system is designed or at least indifferent to a majority being uninterested in the politics that influences their daily life.

When you get to vote every 4 years on all topics at once while the choice you make is afterwards still influenced by corruption, coalition an lobbying that doesn’t further interest into politics at all.

Imho: Let’s abandon representatives with fixed legislation periods all together and either elect officials only if they can be removed by public vote at any time or skip the corrupt representatives completely and let the public vote on any matter individually. This way ones choice has an actual impact an people have motivation to actually get informed on specific matters.

I’d say everyone does stupid things from time to time. Powerful people can only shield themselves from the consequences of their foolish actions for so long—until they do something so incredibly stupid that the disaster becomes spectacular and inevitable… and that’s how they go down in history.

Repräsentative Regierungssysteme neigen immer dazu korrupt zu werden weil sie eine Minderheit von Egoisten und Opportunisten aus der Bevölkerung heraus in Führungspositionen destillieren. Das sind nun mal die Leute die bereit sind sich auf kosten anderer nach oben zu arbeiten.

Ich denke nachdem wir heute potentiell immer mit allen kommunizieren können sollten wir repräsentative Systeme mit festen Amtszeiten an sich in Frage stellen.

Alles klar, danke. Eigentlich peinlich, das nicht zu wissen… aber schätze ich bin da nicht der einzige.

Mal ne blöde Frage:

Kann ein AfD-Sachsen im Bundesrat einen auf Orban machen und den Rest der Republik erpressen?

This is the Chinese version of a colonial world order. Build infrastructure payed for by China using chinese workers and companies. In this way, a country generates contracts for its own industry and can channel foreign exchange reserves into its own economic growth, while simultaneously gaining geopolitical influence through the debt incurred by the recipient country. If the country in question cannot repay its debts (which is often the case, as is predictable), China takes ownership or leases the infrastructure that has been built and thus has a double leverage (logistical infrastructure and debt) against the recipient country—in itself a clever strategy.

Ultimately, it is a less violent form of colonialism than the military colonialism of the Europeans… yet it deliberately places developing countries in a dependency that is disadvantageous to them.

He most probably has his dirty hands on Venezuelas oil… high oil prices are a feature, not a bug.

My two cents:

Yes, that guy could probably habe reached more sustainable success by cooperating with other workers against the system.

However this fire might shake some workers up that without their consent and cooperation that current system wouldn’t be working. The owner class relies on acceptence of their wealth and belongings by the masses after all… or, differently said: It takes just one unsurveilled angry worker to turn estate into a huge pile of ash. And there are billions of them.

Of course they do… they also bombed Iran during the last two negotiations, didn’t they?

Im Endeffekt ist es ja genau das: Man darf noch alles sagen, ist von der Kunstfreiheit gedeckt, sich über Minderheiten lustig zu machen finden heute viele aber halt einfach nicht mehr witzig.
Bis jetzt gibts keine Pflicht über unlustige Witze zu lachen von daher sollten sich Leute die keine andere Komik auf Lager haben echt einfach nen anderen Job suchen…

That assumes that the current narcissist in power is even willing to accept that he has lost… given that they seem to be preparing to label everything to the left of MAGA as terrorism and the federal government is currently buying tear gas in bulk, I would put a big question mark on that.

“Those who fall asleep in a democracy may wake up in a dictatorship.”

In my everyday life the only ones bringing up woke positions are right nut jobs that complain about ‘everything being woke’.

So no, I personally don’t experience much annoyance by ‘woke policy’.

This is likely an ornamental cherry (pink blossoms) that has been grafted onto a wild cherry rootstock. Due to a lack of care, the wild cherry rootstock (white blossoms) is beginning to sprout and is blooming at the same time as the ornamental cherry.

It is quite likely that only the wild cherry will produce small fruits.

Both can be true:

The US tried to arm protesters via the Kurds to provoke a civil war paving the way for destabilization of Iran in the long run and possible intervention (with the Kurds not being willing to pass on the weapons as they got betrayed by Trump not that long ago).

And at the same time the peaceful protesters in Iran were murdered by the theocracy fearing for its power… possibly enhanced should the regime have gained knowledge of the planned US weapon deliveries.

He’s a clown that’s what makes it probable he said the quiet part out loud which no other POTUS was dumb enough to admit in the open.

You got a point though, with all that bullshit coming from him we can’t decide what might be true between all those lies and shouldn’t chose based on our world view.

This was / would have been the case during Trump I … since he scraped anyone with at least a bit of reason from his admin in favor of yes-man following his ideology… I’m disturbingly unsure if you’re right under for Trump II.

Thank you for the correction! I didn’t know that.