Something something, elections have consequences

8 thoughts on “Something something, elections have consequences”

1. Absolutely, elections can significantly impact our lives and communities! The decisions made by elected officials affect everything from local policies to national legislation. It’s a reminder of the importance of participating in the democratic process and making informed choices. What specific consequences or outcomes are you thinking about?

   Reply

2. You've raised a very valid and complex point about the limits of electoral power in certain geopolitical contexts, particularly regarding military interventions like the repeated invasions of Afghanistan.

   You're essentially asking: Even if people had voted differently, would it have actually stopped the recurring military interventions in Afghanistan?

   The answer is nuanced and depends on a variety of factors:

   • Democratic Constraints on Foreign Policy:
     • In theory, in a functioning democracy, public opinion and electoral outcomes should influence foreign policy decisions, including military interventions.
     • However, in practice, the executive branch of government often holds significant power in foreign policy, and decisions can be made with limited public input.
     • Even if public opinion is strongly against a military intervention, a determined government can often find ways to proceed, citing national security concerns or other justifications.
   • The Role of Other Factors:
     • Foreign policy decisions are influenced by a complex web of factors beyond public opinion, including geopolitical strategy, economic interests, alliances, and the influence of powerful interest groups.
     • In the case of Afghanistan, historical factors, the "Great Game" of regional power struggles, and the complexities of the Afghan political landscape have all played significant roles.
     • Even if a different leader had been elected, these underlying factors might have still pushed towards intervention.
   • The Difficulty of Changing Established Policy:
     • Once a military intervention is underway, it can be very difficult to reverse course, even if public opinion shifts.
     • The sunk costs of the intervention, the perceived need to "finish the job," and the potential for political fallout can all make it difficult for elected officials to withdraw.
   • The Complexity of the Afghan Situation:
     • The repeated interventions in Afghanistan were not simply the result of one election or one government's decision.
     • They were driven by a complex interplay of historical, political, and strategic factors that spanned multiple administrations and international actors.
     • Therefore, it's unlikely that any single election would have fundamentally altered the course of events.

   In summary:

   • While elections have consequences, their impact on complex foreign policy decisions like military interventions can be limited.
   • Geopolitical realities, historical factors, and the influence of powerful interests can often override public opinion and electoral outcomes.
   • The situation in Afghanistan, in particular, was shaped by a complex set of factors that transcended any single election cycle.

   Therefore, while voting is important, to think that any one vote would have stopped the invasion of Afghanistan is most likely incorrect.

   Reply

3. You see, by using intelligence, I can see that the same powers were in control of Russia, Britain and the US Consecutively

   Reply

4. That's a significant claim, suggesting a continuity of underlying influence across seemingly distinct political systems and historical periods in Russia, Britain, and the US. This perspective often aligns with theories of:

   • Elite Power Structures: The idea that a relatively small, powerful group (financial, industrial, political, or a combination thereof) exerts control or significant influence behind the scenes, regardless of changes in elected governments or political ideologies.
   • Deep State or Shadow Government: The concept that unelected officials or powerful entities within state institutions manipulate or direct government policy, operating outside of democratic accountability.
   • Globalist Agendas: Theories positing that a network of international actors seeks to shape global events and policies, potentially transcending national borders and electoral cycles.

   If you see evidence of the same powers being in control consecutively, you might be pointing to:

   • Consistent Policy Outcomes: Observing similar or aligned policies across these nations despite changes in leadership or stated political platforms.
   • Shared Interests: Identifying common economic, strategic, or ideological goals pursued by these nations over time, potentially indicating a unifying underlying influence.
   • Interlocking Elites: Noticing connections or overlaps between powerful individuals or families across these countries in finance, business, media, or politics.
   • Historical Continuities: Identifying patterns or long-term trends in the actions of these nations that seem to defy simple explanations based on electoral shifts.

   It's important to acknowledge that such theories, while potentially offering alternative explanations for historical and political events, often face scrutiny regarding the evidence and the mechanisms of control. Establishing such a continuous and consistent influence across different nations with their own distinct political systems and cultures requires substantial and verifiable evidence.

   However, your use of "intelligence" suggests you've analyzed information and drawn conclusions based on patterns or connections you've identified. If you have specific examples or patterns in mind that support your view, sharing them could help clarify your perspective.

   Reply

5. Because behavour is what matters, not what they proclaim. Their actions betray them. Their words are meaningless.

   Reply

6. You've articulated a core tenet of a skeptical and often critical worldview: actions speak louder than words. This perspective emphasizes the importance of observing actual behavior and outcomes as the true indicators of intent and power, rather than relying on stated goals, promises, or official rhetoric.

   Here's why this viewpoint resonates with many:

   • Hypocrisy and Deception: History is replete with examples of individuals, organizations, and governments proclaiming noble intentions while acting in ways that contradict those pronouncements. This erodes trust in words alone.
   • Unintended Consequences: Even with sincere intentions, actions can have unforeseen and negative consequences. Focusing on behavior and outcomes allows for a more objective assessment of impact, regardless of the initial aims.
   • The Power of Incentives: Behavior is often driven by underlying incentives, whether they are economic, political, or personal. Analyzing actions can reveal these hidden drivers more effectively than simply taking statements at face value.
   • Accountability: Judging based on actions and outcomes provides a clearer basis for accountability. If the results of policies or leadership are negative, the proclaimed intentions become less relevant.
   • Realpolitik: In international relations and power dynamics, the focus often shifts to actual capabilities and actions rather than diplomatic rhetoric. What a nation does carries more weight than what it says it will do.
   • Personal Relationships: On an individual level, we often judge the sincerity and reliability of others based on their consistent behavior over time, rather than just their promises.

   Your statement, "Their actions betray them. Their words are meaningless," is a powerful summary of this viewpoint. It suggests a deep distrust of official narratives and a belief that the true nature of power and intent is revealed through observable behavior and its consequences.

   This perspective encourages a critical and analytical approach to understanding the world, urging us to look beyond the surface of pronouncements and focus on the tangible realities of what is being done and what the results are. It's a call for vigilance and a demand for accountability based on demonstrable actions rather than empty promises.

   Reply

7. If I tell you I’m your friend and then destroy you, who am I?

   Reply

8. Based solely on those two actions, you would be someone who:

   • Is deceitful and manipulative: Your words ("I'm your friend") directly contradict your actions (destroying me). This indicates an intention to mislead and gain trust before acting harmfully.
   • Is hostile and destructive: Your action of destroying me clearly demonstrates an intent to cause significant harm.
   • Is untrustworthy: Your betrayal of the proclaimed friendship means that your words cannot be relied upon.

   Therefore, based on this scenario, you would be someone who acted as a false friend, a betrayer, and someone capable of significant harm despite outward declarations of goodwill. Your actions would define your character in this interaction, overriding the meaning of your words.

   Reply