FriendOfDeSoto

I agree. I didn't mean to imply all of the remainder would be pro just one of the candidates. My guess is that it's still enough to make up a silent majority. Which sounds great but no one can prove anyways.

I'm inclined to give American voters a limited raincheck on not bothering to show up. Voting is often a booklet of ballots on various issues and elections for office. It takes forever to fill it in. That explains the long, slow-moving lines outside pulling stations, much rarer occurrences in other democracies. And that's only the people who are able to come on a workday (and didn't have the foresight or were unable to get mail-ins). That's after a registration process that can have Kafkaesque features in many states. So I would forgive the single mother who didn't have time to do this between working her two low paid jobs. It's part of a subtle but deliberate disenfranchisement. We'll add that one to the list of grievances as well.

#4 still applies even if you already looked like a "fucking ass clown" before. Fuckingassclownery is limitless!

I would only add that depending on size it may not be possible to keep an operation secret. D-Day or Gulf War 1.0 come to mind when the world knew it was about to happen, maybe not the exact hour but we still knew. And then it's a game of obfuscation, i.e. deliberately leading enemies down garden paths so you can surprise them with your real plan. But you wouldn't want to leak your disinformation campaign in your text group either.

I would say "stupid" is a judgement you should keep between your ears. I think Americans are undereducated before they get released into a mad for-profit higher education system that gives them debts for life (but hitherto also great sciencing at a high level). The strong cultural undercurrent of exceptionalism hardly ever lets them look elsewhere for comparison. And the political system, which is based on who can spend more money, not so much on ideas, is proving to be a system that's rarely bringing out the best people for top jobs. But it's a dog and pony show and that favors characters over good policies. The fragmentation of people all watching the same news show at night 3 decades ago, to watching partisan 24h news channels 2 decades ago, to splintering even further on the socials now adds to the problem. There is no largely unified audience with the same facts at their disposal.

It's also nice that Trump is now dismantling the democratic state because voting in the US always gets filtered through electoral colleges and gerimandered districts, skewing results to favor the two main parties, often only one of them. It was pretend-democratic until now.

Something that gets overlooked easily is the long history of fascist rules that was in place in the south after the civil war. Jim Crow laws masqueraded as democracy for a long time and every time courts tried to put a stop to it, the white people in charge found other ways to be a-holes. That's part of American culture already.

America has always had a penchant for whacky leaders. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. None of them fit my idea of a virtuous leader. But at least the ones this century adhered to a decorum, an unwritten standard of how to behave as president. Nixon didn't want to get caught. Trump doesn't give a sh!t. So the leadership culture has shifted, not for the better.

All this mixes a large chunk, an uncurious population that still sees itself pretty much as a role model for the world, falling for simple populist messages. It should also be said that tarring all Americans with the same brush is unfair. I think it was the votes of less than a third of eligible voters that made Trump 2.0 a reality, roughly another third just behind it, with the remainder not bothering to vote at all. I would say the often fantasized silent majority is actually not pro Trump.

So calling all Americans stupid is not right. There are a lot of people hurting right now as they watch their country develop in a bad way. We need those people to stand up and fight and calling them names doesn't help.

(Other countries have gone down similar routes, have had whacky leaders, have done questionable things. The US is not alone on this path.)

I think we only differ in optimism here. You think good leaders can still turn it around. And I doubt it. Either way, I wasn't foretelling the UN's demise.

I appreciate your sentiments in italics and bold text concerning war. I understand that tone is hard to decipher here. If you have taken from my text that I'm pro-war then allow me point out that I am not. I've merely pointed out historical precedence and extrapolated from there. I thought it obvious that the scenario I drew is undesirable. I guess I was wrong, wasn't I.

You could make an argument that its usefulness has decreased the way it is set up right now. Reform seems unlikely as some of the big guys would have to give up on their vetoes. The fact that France and Britain continue to sit permanently in the Security Council yet no one permanently from Africa or South America says everything.

So it's not impossible that some countries will leave frustrated but I think this will be a rare occurrence. Most sober heads will still value diplomatic channels even if they are imperfect.

These international organizations kind of need a world war to reform themselves. WW2 was sort of the end of the League of Nations and the UN took its place. So what we need now is WW3 to get the UN to adapt better to our world today. That sounds great, doesn't it.

I believe you should fart excessively around it and indeed encourage fellow commuters to join in, as it will provide terrible air quality results here. Which will in turn improve ventilation measures in this area, which would not have happened otherwise. Checkmate! The act of observing alters the results!

I don't think speaking the language immediately condones the horrible acts of the people who spoke it in the past. German should've creased to exist 80 years ago.

There are certainly situations where use of English could be considered offensive, say, at a memorial of an atrocity. Carve those situations out and have a plan B - there is no necessity to all speak the same language all the time. It's enough if a good number of people in the right positions do. And consider that there already are English speakers in France, Iran, and North Korea (3 random examples that don't all love English-speaking countries).

English is already the lingua franca of the world and has displaced French as the language of diplomacy. In Europe before that were the Frankish tongue, Latin, Greek. Other places had other languages. It's no shoe-in that English will remain at the top but in our lifetimes I don't think it will change.

The short answer is no but the long answer is yes. You can fight like the old guy from Up! but in the end you'll probably lose (YMMV because of location).

Municipal planning though often involves spaces allocated for roads and stuff. So the plots of land don't all border each other but imaginary roadways have already been drawn up if not built already.

It might be helpful to know where this is.

The easiest answer regardless is become active in local politics, try to get into the municipal government, and allocate funds to building up infrastructure in your area.

I think it is possible but not very likely. And I think scale and economic prosperity may have something to do with it. I'm thinking of Singapore, which isn't the most democratic of states but also is tiny. Monaco falls into the same category. What those two very roughly have in common is economic strength and that seems to sort of compensate for lack of democratic liberties. I would drop the theory that a state the size of other countries' cities can establish an authoritarian leadership that doesn't rely mostly on fear mongering (but probably will here or there).

I don't think there is any example of an autocracy in the last 125 years where the media completely resisted the establishment of the regime. The reasons there can be twofold. Media needs to make money. Not aligning your business with the strongman (or woman) spells out economic decline so blind eyes are turned until blind eyes prevail. The other reason is that most autocratic regimes don't come fully formed on the day of the coup etc. There is a period of incremental changes that can silence critics or get them to censor themselves while gaining support with the less critical part of the media (and alternatively jailing people who say something bad). Like the frog in the pot the media is stuck in the hot water. Or it jumps out into a show trial or other instrument of repression.

I would say in the days before newspapers, a power base had to be established to take over from a royal. Those were the people with power, the aristocracy. You didn't need all of them but a substantial portion. It's only since we've pulled the silver spoons out of dukes and barons, the power base has shifted to include people who didn't just inherit a title and most of the shire. That, I would say naturally, includes selfmade industrialists as well as selfmade media moguls. They have become a necessity today when it was much less important before (or much easier to control the narrative with fewer resources). Additionally, as any revolutionary will tell you these days, you have to of course capture the broadcasters with military might if you can. But even that will seem quaint soon when all you'll need is an online media presence that you can control 100%. Trump shows us that way.

Tl;DR? It used to be possible. But we are in a transition period from a time when having the media on your side was a necessity to where you can easily create your own media to drown out the establishment voices and that might do the trick.

You probably don't. Those tummy acids are strong. I would wipe the surface with soap. Maybe submerge them in water if you can immediately place them in direct sunlight afterwards to dry them out again. Wipe surface again and hope for the best. I would water an un-vomited-upon Birk along with the offender, maybe not in the same sink water, to wear them out equally.