Thanks to everyone who've contributed to this discussion.

For me it's now run its course.

The future certainly looks interesting as far as the
American Presidential elections are concerned. But what
will be will be.

Enjoy your week-end.

Take care.

AC wrote: "And this is the type of democracy you defend?"

I support all forms of democracy. As a great man once said... "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…".

You carry on as though you alone recognise the problems with current western civilisation and culture or failings of the current kleptocracy running Washington. But I've written many times about those issues, about how the west is in danger and how the next US election is the last best hope for saving the western project.

The difference is that, unlike you, I don't look at these problems and start barracking for the alternative. Sure western civilisation is in trouble. Sure it doesn't have an exemplary record. But if you think that's bad, its nothing as compared to a world run by the CCP and/or the neo-Tsarists in the Kremlin.

I've opined before that you have little understanding of historic context and therefore can't place the current woes into a wider picture. Yes the US is a global hegemon but as compared to every other hegemon that ever existed it was a benign and uplifting hegemony.

Their are any number of examples I could give to demonstrate this. 1945. Europe was divided between the US and Russia. Russia moved in, enslaved the population, imposed brutal and oppressive regimes, carted off vast amounts of wealth. The US moved in, gave each nation its choice as to the form of government it wanted, freed peoples from oppression, and threw vast amounts of wealth at them to allow them to recover (read up on the Marshall Plan). When Trump demanded the Europeans contribute their fair share to the common defence, he had to cajole rather than force, because they were a free people. Brezhnev never had that problem.

Barracking for a CCP victory is just inanely naive. Its shows a complete lack of understanding as to how oppressive and depressing a world run out of Beijing would be. There's a lot of that going around these days.

Two weeks of bullsh-t from people who can't do a thing about Donald Trump: people who don't know how to control their own politicians, let alone foreign ones that have no say at all about.

"I support all forms of democracy."
- Even the fake ones like ours?

There must be a lot of different versions of democracy I think.
- Were all fooled into thinking 'democracy' itself is all that matters, and you just proved it.

Democracy-Classic
Democracy-Lite
Democracy-Pretend
Democracy-Vassal (The sheeple version)
Democracy-in-wolves-clothing...

Which democracy do we have?
Don't you think we should have a discussion on what the best version should be?

Is it democracy when we elect a leader, but then they undemocratically do a whole heap of BS that the majority would never ever in a million years support?

What's the 'ideal' version, and how far away is our version, or the United States version of democracy for that matter to the 'ideal' version?

I heard the corrupt RINO's are ditching the support for the border but the wars get their money.
Kickbacks for Senators (and everyone else MIC), donors happy, more Ukrainians will die for nothing and war extended by 6th or so.
Pretty sure I heard there's restrictions in the bills preventing Trump from stopping the war / funding if he gets in.

Heard this report about a speech Melania made:

Melania Trump FINALLY BREAKS SILENCE | Letitia James Humiliated
http://www.youtube.com/live/GRueDDwFe7Y?t=1072

"Melania Trump has announced that she loves her husband and wants him to win and protect the country, protect us the American people from an
invasion on the border and future wars that our children and grandchildren might have to fight in order to enrich the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Melania says she will be right by Donald's side on the campaign Trail and they are going to win and take back the country."

*emphasis 'Military Industrial Congressional Complex'
Trump's not enriching himself through endless wars like they all are.
Remember he wanted to do away with NATO?

I want to give you credit for your last comment though.
- It was a damn good comment, one of the best I've seen from you in ages.
Recognises the problems and addresses the right questions.
I feel like I have to put my 'serious pants' on to respond.

With Donald Trump - you can't tell whether he's for real
in what he says, or whether he's just saying things to
garner votes and saying what he thinks voters will support
to get himself elected. However because the US has always
been one of our strongest allies - and it's actions
would affect us, the topic of who the next US president will
is a topic of interest to many.

The following link explains why we should be concerned:

http://politico.com/news/2024/02/25/second-trump-term-00140488

We're told that Trump:

1) Will abandon NATO allies
2) Abortion ban
3) Mass deportations of immigrants
4) Use of Justice Department to punish political enemies
5) Embrace "Christian nationalism"
6) Neutering climate science
7) Expand trade fights against rivals and allies
8) Wage classroom culture wars - subjects like race,
sexuality, gender ID, will not be taught in schools. He
will roll back on protections for transgender students
9) No electric cars
10) Neutering the federal election hacking watch dog
11) Deploying US troops against Americans
12) Attacking drug cartels in Mexico

And the list goes on.

All somewhat unsettling - but is it real?

"But I've written many times about those issues, about how the west is in danger and how the next US election is the last best hope for saving the western project."

If we wish to understand the problem, then first we need to define it.

What's 'The Western Project'?

Rule by Blackmail, Sanctions, Overthrows and Military Interventions?
Might've been 'no risk' when America was knocking-off tinpot dictators in banana republics, but now the policy and attitude has lead us to conflict with nuclear-armed great powers...

The policy might need a rethink, and the systemic problems in the USA might mean they're simply unable to take a rational position and veer away from the course of conflict they're on.

"The difference is that, unlike you, I don't look at these problems and start barracking for the alternative. Sure western civilisation is in trouble. Sure it doesn't have an exemplary record. But if you think that's bad, its nothing as compared to a world run by the CCP and/or the neo-Tsarists in the Kremlin."

Who says they have to 'run the world'?

Are these the choices:
A world where a corrupt and belligerent west is now in an inferior position against the collective of other great powers and has to beat everyone else down like they we're the terrorists just to stay on top?
Death throes of a dying empire?

Or a better world where everyone gets a seat at the table and everybody respects everyone else's interests?

The West can't accept that and would rather have a cold war?

Who says others have to 'run things'
- They might end up doing so, if the West is dumb enough to commit suicide, which it seems intent on doing.
The apple might've been good once, but it's rotten now.