It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
richlind33: ...I think a lot of people saw two stinkers, one where you knew exactly what you'd be getting, and another that was something of a wild-card -- and they also felt that they didn't have a great deal to lose. And I think it's rather foolish to assume that they're mistaken.
I don't assume they're mistaken, I just believe it. Stranger things have happened in history.

Your explanation why is happened sounds plausible, but I still don't understand it. I would never trust a wildcard that comes with a populistic dressing. I cannot think of a single case in history where that worked out.
I wish there was a button to lock my own thread... maybe everyone should just mass spam report it and see what happens.
trying to get a blue when they're online is like trying to find Wally in a 140p full-screen resolution picture on a 1080p monitor.
avatar
sanscript: ...Besides, a strong dictatorship is still better than the wild west, or the better wording - power vacuum that came after. Like what happened when Prussia fell. ...
avatar
Trilarion: Dictators are mostly never good, I would say, and Russia wasn't really wild west. What they did wrong was going from full communism to full capitalism too quickly. They shouldn't have done that but instead do the transformation much more gradually.
It's like we had a choice... Whole country was under foreign control: American "advisors", "economical killers" were all over here in 90s. Of course all this crap couldn't be possible without traitorous dogs on our side. These dogs are still around here. On the contrary to common opinion, Putin is not a tyrant, because if he was - all these traitors would've been jailed long time ago and our economy would've sky rocketed.
So, things go slower, in a democratic way, but they go for sure.
avatar
Enebias: HA! Italy is still on the world's political avant-guarde! We starterd Berlusconism way sooner than Trump! /s

Seriously, though: if I ever hear an Amaerican joking about Italians and how stupid they were to vote a sex-addicted, bankrupter homophobe and chauvinist demagogue I'm gonna kick their ass. Hard. Like, Duke Nukem hard.
I think I'm hearing it: "I like to kick fascist pigs and shit down their neck" :-D
avatar
Kardwill: ...Not sure the guys who died during Napoleon's conquests or during the Vendée civil war (also know as "the Hell Legions war") would agree with me, though.
If you compare with a purely monarchy or dictatorship during the whole time you would probably expect many bloody wars too (as it for example happened before the French started with the democracy thing).

It's really difficult to predict in which scenario more people would have died. Nobody knows.

One could expect though that once you are in a democracy it's harder to start a war because you need to convince much more people of any action. Dictatorships often start an internal war against opponents right after they start. One could maybe take actually present democracies and dictatorships and compare the number of casualties they inflict upon themselves or others (maybe withing the last 20 years). Should be interesting to see the results.
avatar
Enebias: HA! Italy is still on the world's political avant-guarde! We starterd Berlusconism way sooner than Trump! /s

Seriously, though: if I ever hear an Amaerican joking about Italians and how stupid they were to vote a sex-addicted, bankrupter homophobe and chauvinist demagogue I'm gonna kick their ass. Hard. Like, Duke Nukem hard.
avatar
sanscript: I think I'm hearing it: "I like to kick fascist pigs and shit down their neck" :-D
You have a good auditive system! :P
avatar
Kardwill: ...Not sure the guys who died during Napoleon's conquests or during the Vendée civil war (also know as "the Hell Legions war") would agree with me, though.
avatar
Trilarion: If you compare with a purely monarchy or dictatorship during the whole time you would probably expect many bloody wars too (as it for example happened before the French started with the democracy thing).

It's really difficult to predict in which scenario more people would have died. Nobody knows.

One could expect though that once you are in a democracy it's harder to start a war because you need to convince much more people of any action. Dictatorships often start an internal war against opponents right after they start. One could maybe take actually present democracies and dictatorships and compare the number of casualties they inflict upon themselves or others (maybe withing the last 20 years). Should be interesting to see the results.
http://www.amerika.org/politics/entering-the-age-of-permanent-holocaust/
avatar
Telika: What else is there to do ?
avatar
tinyE: Arts and crafts?
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/ga_the_infinite_wonders_of_creation_mark_viiii/page1

Maybe check what some of our GOGgers provided too us and vote upon it? :P
She lost because of Bruce Springsteen.. ^^
avatar
Kardwill: ...Not sure the guys who died during Napoleon's conquests or during the Vendée civil war (also know as "the Hell Legions war") would agree with me, though.
avatar
Trilarion: If you compare with a purely monarchy or dictatorship during the whole time you would probably expect many bloody wars too (as it for example happened before the French started with the democracy thing).
Well yeah. Despite the horror lists of the Revolution, the real asshole of French history is the Religion Wars era of the XVI th century, and those slaughters were fully endorsed by the kings of the time.
Doesn't change the fact that the French Revolution was a pretty bloody mess for the people that lived through it, though. But I still think it was worth it to get rid of our tyrants (and to kick the Church out of the political landscape). War was still present, but it became a serious affair, and not simply a sick game for the nobility.

But my point was mostly that a working democracy like the one you described does not appear in one day, especially if the old figures of power are lurking around. We take it for granted but it takes time, and those times can be real unpleasant.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by Kardwill
We're going to need it!
Is there a good website with official numbers about the popular vote? I only get percentages, not absolute numbers.
avatar
Trilarion: Is there a good website with official numbers about the popular vote? I only get percentages, not absolute numbers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential
avatar
HereForTheBeer: Trying to avoid any news about it.

I have to say: it was an honor to get to vote in the election with the first major-party woman candidate for President... and then not vote for her.
Passes a cold one to HFTB. Cheers bro
low rated
avatar
richlind33: ...I think a lot of people saw two stinkers, one where you knew exactly what you'd be getting, and another that was something of a wild-card -- and they also felt that they didn't have a great deal to lose. And I think it's rather foolish to assume that they're mistaken.
avatar
Trilarion: I don't assume they're mistaken, I just believe it. Stranger things have happened in history.

Your explanation why is happened sounds plausible, but I still don't understand it. I would never trust a wildcard that comes with a populistic dressing. I cannot think of a single case in history where that worked out.
It may well be that they did make a mistake, but IMO, it was for them to decide whether or not to take that risk.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by richlind33