You got that part right: <You just can't make this stuff up.> The underlying problem is that a dominant proportion of people think that might makes right. The current fashion is that democracy is some kind of miracle working moralistic ethics creator and that courts ensure the loveliness in checks and balances.
Putin and his gang are like the others. In the same way that he will suppress any independence movements, such as in Siberia and he would not allow another vote on independence in Crimea, the USA would not allow New Hampshire Libertarians to vote for independence.
Russia is a democracy and people could if they wished have voted him out and in fact back in the beginning Gorby could have won. But Russians did not want him.
Due process doesn't make things right. Eminent domain is a due process way for the bosses to take anything thing they like if it's in "the public interest" which means their interest, or their property developing buddy's, as was allowed by a "checks and balances" court in the USA.
What do you think when you see the president of Ukraine overthrown by Victoria F-bomb Nuland, co-conspirators, 'riots', and with the evil witch Yulia threatening doom to Russia? < If I see a president or a high ranking official legally removed from office, then I think that there might be due process at work. >
Does it not occur to you that Russia might not want Victoria Nuland, John Kerry and Barry shoving nuclear weapons and military bases right up near Moscow and taking over Russia's Crimean military base? You perhaps don't remember the same sort of thing in Cuba following the Castro coup when Cuba became a launch site for the USSR.
Just as German mass murder was ipso facto legal [as long as they could maintain their military power] the slavery in the USA was legal while the slave owners maintained their military power. <Who believes that the crimes against humanity by Nazi Germany were ipso facto legal?> All sorts of crimes are carried out day by day by even the most splendid democracies and their victims have no defence other than, if they are lucky a spot of nominal legal aid here and there. Sometimes a court will act on behalf of the victims but that doesn't reduce the harm that was done.
When the Germans lost, the laws were changed and Victor's Justice was dispensed at Nuremberg.
Who do you think has legal dominion over China? <When the CCP takes farmland and then takes bribes from developers to sell apartments to captured buyers, I don’t accept this as legal.> Apparently you are the official ruler. Or maybe Barry Soetoro? Victoria Nuland?
Good luck with that thinking: <Sanctions will not lead to all-out war because it would involve the use of nuclear weapons. > Let's see where it leads. So far, nowhere good. It's richly ironic that commemorations of the war to end all wars are being held by the people promulgating another biggie.
You are presumably unaware of the megaton gas deal deal made with China because of the sanctions: <Since Genghis Khan didn’t have nukes, I’ll just consider this as another irrelevant aside.> Apparently my reference was not sufficient for you to get the point. When Genghis Khan, without nukes, had the power, he arrived in the eastern side of Europe. China [the descendants of Genghis] are on their way again. First there's a sanctions busting megaton trade deal. There will likely be megaton military deals too. Siberia is up for grabs from a diminished Russian empire.
USA bought Alaska from Russia. It's not beyond imagination that China's mega$ton deals with Russia will lead to a similar outcome.
Might does not make right, even with courts arrayed to declare it to be so and voted into power by a mob of people with average intelligence at only 100, with most of them below that. Good luck with that. You'll need it and not get it.
Tradable Citizenship is the answer, which while not perfect, at least provides the IQ 90 mob with improved incentives in their voting and a means of escape with their share of the value of the public assets created by their and their ancestors' efforts.
Mqurice
|
