European Union states reaffirm committment to united Europe

[Noradin]

I won't know if he was a bad leader or not for about 4-8 or 10 years from now.

Oh but your quote advises polticans to behave as he does: Bring minimal qualifications and effords and get in power with charisma instead. It's the definition of "efficient" after all: much gain for low efford.

[Theodarzna]

According to your quote it does not matter, because trying to find good politics--whatever they are--is inefficient anyway.
Better be charismatic and promis people whatever they want to hear so you can stay in power.
The past governments of Greece certainly lived by that credo. Look where it got the country.

Governments solve the problems in front of them, no system is perfect in this regard. Eventually problems overwhelm you. Even glorious revolutionary EUtopia with its flawless pearl like Commission whom is both infallible and perfect in their radiant wisdom have and will..... as much as Mehrunes and others argue to the contrary, make enough mistakes to doom them and their organization.

[Noradin]

Governments solve the problems in front of them, no system is perfect in this regard. Eventually problems overwhelm you. Even glorious revolutionary EUtopia with its flawless pearl like Commission whom is both infallible and perfect in their radiant wisdom have and will..... as much as Mehrunes and others argue to the contrary, make enough mistakes to doom them and their organization.

Where do you get all this straw?
You got a barn somewhere?
Or do you simply recycle it all the time?

[NED funded]

1. 'kay, not sure what that relates to my point.

2. I am merely arguing that there is no material difference between the technocrat and the charismatic populist. Both have effectively a predetermined policy prescription endorsed by whoever happens to back them and want to see that individual in power.

1. My bad. I'll make that more clear. You said:

Because stagnation is a term that privileges the concept of "Forward," as a normative state, which it is not. Growth is fleeting naturally, and sustaining growth comes at later costs and sacrifices. Nothing grows forever, except cancer. It is problematic because it still fits your original paradigm of "Moving one way! FORWARD!"

You are right, all types of growth requires resources and sacrifices from the future(unless we create some vr universe to spend our lives invested in) I'm arguing that future is too far off for us to worry about.

In the example of discovery by Columbus for example, he could have easily just died, found nothing, or one should look at that discovery from the perspective of those who already lived in North and South America. For them this was not a progressive march forward but their annihilation, dispossession, conquest and enslavement.

a) The chance of failure is not really an argument against taking risks, and now that I write it seems like an odd criticisim
b) This ties to my previous second point on whom do you want to benefit, natives of south america and north america greatly suffered, but their conquerors gathered wealth beyond imagination.

2) The dude with knowledge of the literature is more likely to achieve the promises it was elected on. The charismatic populist has higher chances if not almost guaranteed to fail. See Alan Garcia, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Dilma Roussef, Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner, etc.

[Theodarzna]

You are right, all types of growth requires resources and sacrifices from the future(unless we create some vr universe to spend our lives invested in) I'm arguing that future is too far off for us to worry about.

This is primarily why I do not go for terms like "Forward" or "Stagnation" or even Progress as a normative term because all those conditions end. And one should not expect it to be far away.

a) The chance of failure is not really an argument against taking risks, and now that I write it seems like an odd criticisim
b) This ties to my previous second point on whom do you want to benefit, natives of south america and north america greatly suffered, but their conquerors gathered wealth beyond imagination.

2) The dude with knowledge of the literature is more likely to achieve the promises it was elected on. The charismatic populist has higher chances if not almost guaranteed to fail. See Alan Garcia, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Dilma Roussef, Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner, etc.

The chance of failure is a factor in that people rarely explore the unknown or never do. Columbus did not sail into the west just to find shit, he was confident that China was much closer to Spain then it actually was an was incredibly fortunate that two continents existed between those two points for him to make landfall.

As for Charismatic populists, was not Muhammad a charismatic populist whose works founded a great Empire.

[JohnBrown1917]

Where do you get all this straw?
You got a barn somewhere?
Or do you simply recycle it all the time?

Maybe?

All I know is that i'll be sitting here never knowing how a technocracy and the EU are related.

[Kallisto]

How?

You're still subject to the same forces that can force you into bad thinking no matter how educated you are (or how educated you think you are).

Your contempt towards "the masses" couldn't be more edgy.

SImply put having more education means you have more knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge in a rational way compared to "the masses." who have shown through voting and other means they do not really know what goes on in the world.

Rust belt believing that jobs can come back, any rational thought would already shut that down and these people would have educated themselves into modern 21st century business needs. Not crying over an out of date, poisonous to the environment industrial factories and mines to which need to be closed down because economic inviability and environmental nightmares.

Education does put you above the animal urges that are within us and hopefully one day help us evolved mentally into something else. Not be held back by people clinging to things that are outdated and needed to be destroyed because they couldn't think for 5 minutes.

[Cybran]

Education does put you above the animal urges that are within us and hopefully one day help us evolved mentally into something else. Not be held back by people clinging to things that are outdated and needed to be destroyed because they couldn't think for 5 minutes.

https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/m...-dance-therapy


Feminist dance therapy degree is the future?

[Kalis]

Not crying over an out of date, poisonous to the environment industrial factories and mines to which need to be closed down because economic inviability and environmental nightmares.

Maggie Thatcher, is that you back from the dead?

[NED funded]

This is primarily why I do not go for terms like "Forward" or "Stagnation" or even Progress as a normative term because all those conditions end. And one should not expect it to be far away.



The chance of failure is a factor in that people rarely explore the unknown or never do. Columbus did not sail into the west just to find shit, he was confident that China was much closer to Spain then it actually was an was incredibly fortunate that two continents existed between those two points for him to make landfall.

As for Charismatic populists, was not Muhammad a charismatic populist whose works founded a great Empire.

1. We can overcome current risks. Worst estimate of unavoidable doom that I read aboutb was 400 years from now on. So yeah I consider that far off. Also really stagnation a bad term? I can see how progress and forward imply that the next thing is necessarily better, but stagnation?

2. This seems incredibly coming from you dude. You say people ought not to take risks, but populists themselves represent a risk. They could easily fail to achieve their promises as pointed in my previous examples. Anyhow taking risks is necessary to keep the globe spinning. Its what keeps us from getting to a stasis ( to avoid using stagnation) and the negative effects that come with it. Which is why I would not like to be led by the man that fear to venture deep in the ocean. ( This however doesn't mean thay I would like to be part of a cult like populists offer) which is why I see knowledge of the literature to be a hapoy medium

[Kallisto]

Maggie Thatcher, is that you back from the dead?

The miners was something I actually somewhat agree with Thatcher on, they did need to close. I just don't think she did enough by helping with putting in educational systems in place for the people that were willing to actually to adapt to incoming late 20th - early 21st century business needs.

Arthur Scargill imo was the bigger problem giving people false hope and causing unnecessary disruptions for his own ego.

[Kalis]

The miners was something I actually somewhat agree with Thatcher on, they did need to close. I just don't think she did enough by helping with putting in educational systems in place for the people that were willing to actually to adapt to incoming late 20th - early 21st century business needs.

Arthur Scargill imo was the bigger problem giving people false hope and causing unnecessary disruptions for his own ego.

They will lynch you Oop North.

[THE Bigzoman]

SImply put having more education means you have more knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge in a rational way

How?

If my dick is bigger than yours, does that mean I'm going to use it better? Or to use a less crass example, If I have more money to invest than you, does that mean i'll better invest that money for higher returns?

who have shown through voting and other means they do not really know what goes on in the world.

I’d also like to know where you’re getting this idea that someone is going to be the most informed about the correct policy action just because “they’re educated”. Experts aren’t a collective blob shouting in unison; they disagree more often than they agree. What makes you so sure that whatever expert you choose picks the correct answer?

Education does put you above the animal urges that are within us and hopefully one day help us evolved mentally into something else. Not be held back by people clinging to things that are outdated and needed to be destroyed because they couldn't think for 5 minutes.

I guess this answers my question from earlier: Are they demi-gods?

Well what can I say except, you're welcome!

[Kallisto]

They will lynch you Oop North.

I barely made it out of Manchester alive last time around. That was for different reasons though. Something about a red shirt with a danish beer name across the middle added with an image of some mythical bird in the upper left corner. Strange people.

[Noradin]

Maybe?

All I know is that i'll be sitting here never knowing how a technocracy and the EU are related.

Oh I can tell you that one: Both are words Theodarzna uses all the time.
That is all there is to it.

[Deleted]

That's nice and all but i still think an informative campaign european wide and debates of what the EU actually means and does for the common man would have a far greater impact on public opinion then this. People who believe that the EU is bad won't see any good in this.

This tells me they are still not really getting why people have a problem with the EU, it shows somewhat the disconnect between the man in the street and the EU politician.

I agree, I would love to hear what the EU thinks they are doing positively for Sweden.

[Vash The Stampede]

I think the benefits of the EU outweight any issues. THe amount of protection it does for our rights and freedoms is completely lost on people.

Europe needs to be united more than ever, but it needs to also weed out those who wish to gain without giving back. Plus, there needs to be more effort to bring jobs into EU countries. The core reason UK left the EU was cause immigrants were coming in taking their jobs, so there needs to be more control over borders better. Letting people enter and leave a country freely can be a problem for some countries.

[dribbles]

Europe needs to be united more than ever, but it needs to also weed out those who wish to gain without giving back. Plus, there needs to be more effort to bring jobs into EU countries. The core reason UK left the EU was cause immigrants were coming in taking their jobs, so there needs to be more control over borders better. Letting people enter and leave a country freely can be a problem for some countries.

Now that the EU have been given the £300bn US bill for past deficiencies in defence spending, with the UK still to present their bill, it might be a good time to set an example by paying up before it demands this of others

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ny-USA-defence

[caervek]

A bit pompous, but I guess the 60 years mark make it necessary.

The EU has only been around since 1993, the 60 year old one was the EEC (European Economic Community) an economic trading group, the EU are merely claiming to be 60 years old because they absorbed the EEC. This is incidentally why the UK is leaving the EU, because we never signed up for it, we joined the economic trading group not the political union that was later forced on us.

[Acidbaron]

Now that the EU have been given the £300bn US bill for past deficiencies in defence spending, with the UK still to present their bill, it might be a good time to set an example by paying up before it demands this of others

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ny-USA-defence

The only thing presenting that bill does is become the laughing stock of the world once more. Since neither you or the president of the states seems to be aware how the financing of the nato is set up. And just because independent states don't meet their laid out required spending nobody ever demanded the US to compensate or up their spending for it.

Or to put it simply so you might understand, you bought a house from me and i suddenly decided to build a new floor in the house without you knowing, being aware or agreeing with it. I just thought it would be a good idea and now i'm footing you with the bill for it. In your reasoning you would be forced to pay me.

Also pretty hypocritical of a brexiteer but you guys are know to not be the brightest bulb in the shed, you moaned about others demanding payment from the UK for things in the EU and cried about this long and hard but at the same time you find it okay for another to demand it of the EU, where there is simply no basis to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU has only been around since 1993, the 60 year old one was the EEC (European Economic Community) an economic trading group, the EU are merely claiming to be 60 years old because they absorbed the EEC. This is incidentally why the UK is leaving the EU, because we never signed up for it, we joined the economic trading group not the political union that was later forced on us.

No, your politicians that you did not elect but were chosen by elected official you did elect decided to move forward with it and agreed with it.

Maybe you want to read up on what Blair did and intended to even do within the EU with the UK as a main player of both expanding it since you guys were in favor of adding the eastern countries, including even Turkey at that point and you guys were at the helm wanting more power towards the EU over member states.

But yes i know, there's not a decent british politician with the backbone to actually admit that they were the ones screwing their own population over, cause you know accountability and statesmanship probably simply doesn't run through the genepool there.