Who's best for America?

There are dozens of wars going on right now. Not even the "good" countries don't war, the US has been at war since the start of the century, and was at war for most of the last century. Europe is mostly countries that have mass enslavement for war and are in or are associated with warmonger alliances (NATO). Africa has countries where half of the folk are starving and the country spends huge sums of wealth on destroying another country (Eritrea and Ethiopia). Pakistan is currently being bombed by itself and it's ally and thousands are being killed, Yemen is in civil war, Iraq and Afghanistan are now in perpetual conflict, there are terrorist groups, drug runners and native rebellions in Latin America and by some measurements only eleven countries aren't at war now.
 
Antiwarprofallout said:
There are dozens of wars going on right now. Not even the "good" countries don't war, the US has been at war since the start of the century, and was at war for most of the last century. Europe is mostly countries that have mass enslavement for war and are in or are associated with warmonger alliances (NATO). Africa has countries where half of the folk are starving and the country spends huge sums of wealth on destroying another country (Eritrea and Ethiopia). Pakistan is currently being bombed by itself and it's ally and thousands are being killed, Yemen is in civil war, Iraq and Afghanistan are now in perpetual conflict, there are terrorist groups, drug runners and native rebellions in Latin America and by some measurements only eleven countries aren't at war now.
Click to expand...
I was referring to Europe, as one of the only regions that has separate countries which are peaceful to each other.
 
West Europe, not Europe as a whole. Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Serbija, Kosova, and a few others have not been very peaceful to each other as of late.
 
JO'Geran said:
WHY IS EVERYTHING YOU SAY IN GREEN? I KEEP THINKING YOU ARE POSTING LINKS BUT YOU'RE NOT!
Anyway, I'd probably say Ulysses is right in his judgement. He thinks that both Legion and NCR are flawed, and so the reason he's so pissed about the Divide is that he thought it would rise in to its own power, capable of stopping expansion of Legion and NCR alike.

I'd say that no faction is perfect, so honestly the best solution would be to let nations form out of the Wasteland through there own accord, so rather than having one united US, there could be various nations, each with there own strengths and weaknesses. Yeah the NCR is one of the best hopes for the Wasteland, but they shouldn't brutalise towns, and unfortunately with Kimball, they are making controversial decisions towards Mutants and Tribals, so honestly, in there current state they shouldn't expand, but at the same time Legion are a horde of Slavers and Warlords, and honestly giving up your freedoms and rights for some security provided by a bunch of fundamentalists seems like a big no-no.
Click to expand...

Haha sorry, I just like the look of the green.
 
The current candidates are not good for America.

Most of the people that run for president aren't good for America.

Screw this. We need some form of Controlled Anarchy, what ever it's called. America may as well collapse on itself.
 
erich van loon said:
The current candidates are not good for America.

Most of the people that run for president aren't good for America.

Screw this. We need some form of Controlled Anarchy, what ever it's called. America may as well collapse on itself.
Click to expand...
Controlled Anarchy? More like stupidity on drugs.
 
Dr Fallout said:
Controlled Anarchy? More like stupidity on drugs.
Click to expand...

Well what ever it is, the way America is set up is like the anti free. You literally can't run for pres'. Why? Because you have these two big dumbass parties that only get one guy/girl to run for them and to represent them. I get that if Democrats and Republics are gone, then some other parties will fill the political niche, but seriously, and do you vote on laws? No, only Congress and etc. Do, doesn't matter if you vote people in congress, it's your vote that you don't get.
 
erich van loon said:
Well what ever it is, the way America is set up is like the anti free. You literally can't run for pres'. Why? Because you have these two big dumbass parties that only get one guy/girl to run for them and to represent them. I get that if Democrats and Republics are gone, then some other parties will fill the political niche, but seriously, and do you vote on laws? No, only Congress and etc. Do, doesn't matter if you vote people in congress, it's your vote that you don't get.
Click to expand...
America, best democracy.
 
erich van loon said:
Well what ever it is, the way America is set up is like the anti free. You literally can't run for pres'. Why? Because you have these two big dumbass parties that only get one guy/girl to run for them and to represent them. I get that if Democrats and Republics are gone, then some other parties will fill the political niche, but seriously, and do you vote on laws? No, only Congress and etc. Do, doesn't matter if you vote people in congress, it's your vote that you don't get.
Click to expand...

Plenty of problems with the American system, but the fact that they elect representatives isn't one of them. Not everybody has the time to read up and make an informed decision about every single piece of legislation that goes through, from trade deals to health care to gay marriage. That's why there are elected representatives whose entire job is to do just that.

Anarchy on a national scale would quickly devolve into survival of the fittest.
 
peadar87 said:
Plenty of problems with the American system, but the fact that they elect representatives isn't one of them. Not everybody has the time to read up and make an informed decision about every single piece of legislation that goes through, from trade deals to health care to gay marriage. That's why there are elected representatives whose entire job is to do just that.
Click to expand...
Of course most elected representatives fail to do that, generally democracy ends with the ignorant appealing to the ignorant, still better than anarchy though.
 
Izak said:
Of course most elected representatives fail to do that, generally democracy ends with the ignorant appealing to the ignorant, still better than anarchy though.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately yes. The only way to really stop that is to make the masses less ignorant, which a lot of people at the top have a vested interest in not doing. But at least there is some form of accountability, which is immeasurably better than nothing. Nobody ever seems able to point to a truly benevolent dictator, let alone a whole dynasty of them. Some kings perhaps?
 
peadar87 said:
Nobody ever seems able to point to a truly benevolent dictator, let alone a whole dynasty of them. Some kings perhaps?
Click to expand...
Napoleon Bonaparte? The five good emperors? It's generally difficult to pick out benevolent dictators because most absolute rulers prescribe unique titles for themselves (King, Prince, Lord Protector, Emperor, President for Life, etc.) which muddy the perception of their rule, but generally if there's an ancient or medieval ruler you like they were probably dictators.
 
Izak said:
Napoleon Bonaparte? The five good emperors? It's generally difficult to pick out benevolent dictators because most absolute rulers prescribe unique titles for themselves (King, Prince, Lord Protector, Emperor, President for Life, etc.) which muddy the perception of their rule, but generally if there's an ancient or medieval ruler you like they were probably dictators.
Click to expand...

What about The Holy Roman Emperors? For a long amount of time, they were elected. Sure the HRE was an aristocracy, but that's better than 75% of the despotates out in the medieval world.
 
Yeah but Holy Roman Emperors didn't really hold all that much power, they were just the leaders of a council of kings (if I've understood German history correctly), either way, an aristocracy is just a fancy oligarchy which itself is just a dictatorship with a couple more people at the head.
 
Last edited:
Izak said:
Yeah but Holy Roman Emperors didn't really hold all that much power, they were just the leaders of a council of kings (if I've understood German history correctly), either way, an autocracy is just a fancy oligarchy which itself is just a dictatorship with a couple more people at the head.
Click to expand...

Until the von Hapsburgs happened, married the electors, and stayed emperor for the rest of HRE history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top