Me like, BUT his chainsaw act is a little bit dangerous and too extreme for kids.May I recommend President Milei of Argentina?
Bojo is a bozo, but more sad and pathetic than fun and enthusiastic.
OTOH, Milei is insane, but actually funny:
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Hard no! You don’t want someone that slimy anywhere near your food or beverages!
Let's be frank, he isn't.
It's opposition which criticizes him for colluding with China right now（while criticizing him for being to soft on US, because it was treated as national insult. Yeah, no contradictions). And it would be the opposite, shall they be in power.
Like it, hate it, but it goes back to 1960.
As we found in recent European history, selfish states are infinitely wiser than moral ones.
It's "morals"(shame of 1960) that prevents India from better interaction with China, not self interest. And now there's another slim chance to break this cycle. Slim, because as much as US bullied India (it did in the past) - there was no war between two. But this chance must be taken nonetheless.
1.European states were and are never "moral states" in any capacity.
2.Indian imperial ambitions made them clash with China. How is that based on any morals??
3.That's not the point. I am all for countries pursuing their interests. What I am saying is that India is short-sighted and unstable. They do not do what is best for them. And that is the problem.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
What does India have to offer? Economically, there is no synergy between China and India. India is a toxic environment for foreign companies: not just Chinese companies but Western ones at well. Apart from perhaps a small volume of agricultural products, there is not much China could import from India. In terms of security, India is useless as well. At best, all India can offer is a very small amount of diplomatic weight.
Its INSTC. the word 'I" stands for International. Every thing is written about it but not the most important thing like putting Royals at the top or encourage the countries in helping Afghanistan.
1. One observation I've made about how a lot of countries and peoples and news organizations is that they view conflicts and tensions in a very peculiar way. If there are two sides to a conflict, it's common to see one side labelled as the "good guys" and the other side as "bad guys". After that point, everything the good guys do is good and positive and everything the bad guys do is bad and negative.
European morality operates pretty much along this principle, and because it ignores nuance, it can't espouse true morality.
3. One distinction I'd like to make about India is that its behavior is best described as self-serving rather than self-interested. A self-interested country will try to consistently make deals that will benefit itself, and usually the other party as well as mutually beneficial deals are the longest lasting. Such a country behaves in a predictable manner and can be worked with.
India does not do this. Instead, the overlying goal of any deals is for the government to look good domestically, and this usually involves making it as unfair as possible in India's favor. It also often doesn't care how its deals and other actions affect the other party because that's not how you score political points.
If India was seen as a reliable partner, I think that China would bend over backwards to accomodate it as much as reasonable. India is a growing power, and despite how much it's held back by its government systems, it will get stronger over time. In the long run, being friends with such a power can be quite beneficial, and such a relationship describes China's dealings with many countries all over the world.
The problem isn't that India doesn't have much to offer; it's that India is not reliable. Any deal made today can be nullified tomorrow, and India never sees the value of making small sacrifices for greater gains. If India could put that aside, and try to work a win-win arrangement with China, China would jump all over that. But that's just not India's style.
Sorry, but I don't think India is a rising power in the new era of automation and robotics.
I'm thinking of it in the long term, more in the vein of 2100 or 2150, that kind of thing. There's always going to be some value in human capital, and as long as India can properly modernize, it should be able to get there. India may not ever become a superpower, but it almost certainly will become a great power, and being on good terms with great powers is highly beneficial.