I am also not suggesting that someone like hilary clinton should have been in charge, she is just as bad as the rest of them, I did not vote for trump or hilary, they are both evil lunatics. The best candidates to run the country would probably never even get close to being on a ballot as they wouldn't be serving evil greedy monsters
Women deserve to rule the world.
Sort:
Apr 9, 2018
0
#23
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
and redgirlz from what i see you talk and act like a misogynistic man, or a highly oppressed woman who has been raised by sexists. It's actually hard to believe you are a woman at all, your profile looks like one a man would make if he were to be posing as a woman to spit out anti-feminist hate.
And you sound extremely ignorant. an easy pick pocket victim. man if i only could...
Cough no politics cough
the1stspartan wrote:
You’re honestly an idiot
you must have been president of your debate team (in preschool). 
https://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report (14,000+ nuclear weapons ON FILE, modest modern estimates assume 1000+ UNACCOUNTED-for nuclear weapons as well)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy (This is the nuclear weapon used on hiroshima, over 70 years ago) I have been to hiroshima a dozen+ times ( I was stationed in Iwakuni, Japan) , I have seen the museum, I have seen the city. The most powerful bombs nowadays are over ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE POWERFUL!!!!!! that means we have the power of over 14 MILLION Hiroshimas... Almost 150,000 people died in hiroshima... and we have over 14 MILLION TIMES that power (on the record) There are only 7+ billion people on the planet... We are violent impulsive emotionally-driven lunatics on a path for self-extinction. Refute this, or kindly... shut up.
I'm saying it's better to have no capital at all than to have women at the head of power. Women are not suited for stressful and complex jobs, like running the country. It would be better if nobody ran for power at all. If you're talking about a woman as president then I'm not too worried, but at the head of a GOVERNMENT? That's a recipe for disaster.
Cubronzo wrote:
I'm saying it's better to have no capital at all than to have women at the head of power. Women are not suited for stressful and complex jobs, like running the country. It would be better if nobody ran for power at all. If you're talking about a woman as president then I'm not too worried, but at the head of a GOVERNMENT? That's a recipe for disaster.
Thank you, at least now we are having a discussion. I am all for alternative ideas for governing. I think the more spread-out the power is, the more safe we will all be! I proposed an idea of women in charge just to get the conversation rolling, as it is provocative and probably offends some people.
Apr 9, 2018
0
#29
we could teach each other a thing or two. As long as we listen and not interrupt so much with our own agenda.
Listening is huge. Especially in the pick pocket world. If you can't hear or pick up certain words or sayings on the victim(s), it could easily back fire on yourself.
Apr 9, 2018
0
#30
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
Cubronzo wrote:
I'm saying it's better to have no capital at all than to have women at the head of power. Women are not suited for stressful and complex jobs, like running the country. It would be better if nobody ran for power at all. If you're talking about a woman as president then I'm not too worried, but at the head of a GOVERNMENT? That's a recipe for disaster.
Thank you, at least now we are having a discussion. I am all for alternative ideas for governing. I think the more spread-out the power is, the more safe we will all be! I proposed an idea of women in charge just to get the conversation rolling, as it is provocative and probably offends some people.
i'd start with changing your verbage. ...
For example I think there should be a world-wide agreement that ZERO nations can use high-powered weapons against ANYONE, without the green light from 75%+ of all nations (with tens of thousands of total representatives to reduce corruption/tampering) . If 75% of the world doesn't agree that a nuclear weapon should be used, then it probably shouldn't.
Of course there would need to be some exceptions in cases of immediate threats that require immediate action, but in such a case if the nuclear-weapon-using nation in question did not act with wisdom and selflessness to the best of their abilities, they would be held directly responsible.
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
Apposing nuclear weapons is not the point. There is a small handful of people who negotiate all the transactions that occur between corporations. They're the ones who decide what policies are good or bad. They have also accrued a very large percentage of the money, technology, and power, which they use to control the masses. You can't just get them to change their policy. They will always make excuses and exceptions.
For example I think there should be a world-wide agreement that ZERO nations can use high-powered weapons against ANYONE, without the green light from 75%+ of all nations (with tens of thousands of total representatives to reduce corruption/tampering) . If 75% of the world doesn't agree that a nuclear weapon should be used, then it probably shouldn't.
Cubronzo wrote:
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
For example I think there should be a world-wide agreement that ZERO nations can use high-powered weapons against ANYONE, without the green light from 75%+ of all nations (with tens of thousands of total representatives to reduce corruption/tampering) . If 75% of the world doesn't agree that a nuclear weapon should be used, then it probably shouldn't.
Apposing nuclear weapons is not the point. There is a small handful of people who negotiate all the transactions that occur between corporations. They're the ones who decide what policies are good or bad. They have also accrued a very large percentage of the money, technology, and power, which they use to control the masses. You can't just get them to change their policy. They will always make excuses and exceptions.
I agree, but how do we solve this problem? These few people will only grow in power as technology advances. They will always have the best defenses and the best offense, and thus the power gap will only increase. Time is running out!
Perhaps the problem is not clearly stated.
troy7915 wrote:
Perhaps the problem is not clearly stated.
Problem: The most powerful people in the world are not looking out for the best interests of future mankind, they are like children who are addicted to a competitive game, disconnected from the rest of reality.
Solution: ???
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
Truth™ by Jordan Peterson
troy7915 wrote:
Perhaps the problem is not clearly stated.
Problem: The most powerful people in the world are not looking out for the best interests of future mankind, they are like children who are addicted to a competitive game, disconnected from the rest of reality.
Solution: ???
More like "Truth™"
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Perhaps the problem is not clearly stated.
Problem: The most powerful people in the world are not looking out for the best interests of future mankind, they are like children who are addicted to a competitive game, disconnected from the rest of reality.
Solution: ???
And you are assuming that women are not ‘like children’ ?
I think the problem lies in the spiritually-empty, faithless, nihilistic objectivity of our modern era, where materialism pervades. People are giving up on the idea that there is an absolute pinnacle ot morality in the objective sense. So the solution to the problem is more philosophical or metaphysical than one might assume.
I mean, that's a better solution to what you're suggesting.
why are you so threatened? instead of being ridiculous why don't you explain why a world dominated by women would be so terrible for society?
To run the world you have to be very intelligent and very conscientious. You also have to be very stress-resistent. When you look at a comparative mapping of male and female IQ distributions across the Bell Curve, you notice that men's IQs seem to spread out more. What this means is that men tend to be smarter (and dumber) than women, whereas women tend to be more average. It's also the case with conscientiousness, even thought women score higher on average in this personality dimension. Women are also over a standard deviation (perhaps ever two) above men on average in trait neuroticism, and are thus far more prone to stress.
Negative Ghostrider... Most of the most-powerful people of all time have been TERRIBLE people. Nice try refuting historical facts though.