Discussion in 'Serious' started by rainbowbridge, 27 Sep 2016.
Its also the last throw of the dice for a dying empire....
It seems unlikely to me that China would go to war when it is well on its way to global economic domination. War is for failing nations.
Same thing was said about Germany, then she began to build a navy that over time would have challenged the Royal Navy. Of course, the argument here could be made that the English (together with the French) actually set themselves out to destroy Germany, after all, before the German people united (1871) they were living in small independent states, then one morning the English and the French all the sudden woke up to a massive force of +40 million Germans living in ONE country working together as ONE, starting an industrial machine the English (let alone the French) could never hope to rival. Not just that, but Germany earned more Nobel prizes than England, France, and the United States combined. Germany was THE power house. Militarily, scientifically, and culturally.
In any case.
The United States has been THE global economic power yet constantly waged wars. China has not been in a position to do that.
What actually prompted the Germans to unite was the Franko-Prussian war, a war the French had started because they were afraid of German unification. Unfortunately for the Germans this unification in many ways ultimately lead to their 'destruction'. Culturally, emotionally, spiritually, and morally. Took three wars though. Today they have been reduced to a nation of car makers, sure, nice automobiles. But that's pretty much it.
Divide et Impera. Hmm, the English ended up losing their Empire, and the United States took over.
Well then, in your scenario it isn't China that starts the war but the United States. History repeats itself, this time China is perceived as a threat. With one little difference in outcome, China is not destroyed but the United States are, she loses all her influence and China takes over.
It's always interesting to play around with various scenarios.
don't upset a French person more than twice.
apparently from what I am studying atm, this is called trend investment, which is different from outright trading or gambling.
this is my logical if it goes Austria, 2017 election.
+ev bet imo if you understand she is +25 or more projected over the others in the first round, well who is telling what about the second round? same people that run the mass media today... lol yeah right you are.
3.77 @ £400 with clean £1100, thank you very much.
Wow. I'm more tolerant than most, but congratulations, you are now the first and only person on my ignore list. You obviously have zero morals whatsoever.
Wo wo wo, let me get this straight. Trump is planning on ridding the Statue of Liberty to France and run for President there?! Or is it Hilliary running in France?
Also, you didn't bet £400.01
keep your toys in your play pen please, there are semi developed adults here.
blood bath and destruction that has been France of late, a delightful women steps up and names and shames, and its wrong to bet for her to take the position of trump but in France?
lets bank this win at +400 as wise trend followers.
Not really failing nations IMO but failing governments, or at least governments that feel their grip on power loosening.
Looks like Trumps state visit maybe moving to October in the hope that peoples sentiment towards him has died down a little.
He's the first (and only) one on mine. Saw no reason to continue reading his radicalised babble. Never appreciated a forum feature more.
Someone's failed at trend analysis and is going to be £400.01 poorer...
lol that's match betting - its a win win proposition as, another bet has been placed for her to lose!
Never having been someone who understands betting and odds roughly how much would've RB placed on her to lose then?
Apparently Trump managed to deliver a good speech to the congress and get ''back'' on track? This morning I read stuff like ''A man with a vision'' or ''the champion of Wallstreet'', so just like that he became President material overnight? Words mean jack **** if they're not backed by actions.
That's the problem with Trump: He says one thing today and the total opposite tomorrow. Only an idiot would still believe anything he says.
The problem being, what nation would trust to enter any deal with him?
People maybe hailing it as good speech but he lied his ass off, plus the way he's been conducting himself of late it's not much solace that what he said is being seen as an improvement.
Those who praise him today are the ones who find out tomorrow which bus they have been thrown under.
The way I see it, USA is like a beaten woman(man) who's been promised "Thing's will change" one more time.
Pretty similar dynamic, actually.
George Hw Bush "read my lips no new taxes"
Bill Clinton "putting people first"
George dubya bush " leave no child behind"
Barack Obama " yes we can"
Donny Diddy d**k " MAGA!"
(must have a Donald Trump spell checker on this thing keeps changing obama to. Osama )
seeing the overall reaction to the not-quite-State-of-the-Union I think I flashed back to the presidential debates... Where expectations were so low, the mere fact Dampnut managed to read a pre-preapred script without shitting himself on camera is hailed as some kind of miraculous success.
'Oh maybe he's changed...'
'He's getting the hang of it'
'He's looking more presidential'
**** off... He didn't change then, he hasn't changed now. Even his own staff are saying he's not changed one iota.
Plus he'll probably be so tired from presidenting so hard's he'll have to take an extra-long golf weekend to recover.
He's dragged expectations down so low that simply appearing on TV without offending an entire country is seen as an improvement. I never took most Americans all that seriously anyway but they voted the pillock in, so let em stew in his juices*. As I've said before, at least they can't laugh at us for Brexit any more.
* Before some pious ***** chimes in with a sermon: Yes, I am aware of the wider, global, ramifications of a fcukwit POTUS. It doesn't make his election any less of a hilarious embarrassment.
Separate names with a comma.