Trump doesn't care about peace. Trump cares about Trump. And his mindset is reality television. He wants to be in the headlines. Hero or heel, he does not care.
Obama got the Nobel. That stings. He wants one so he can "equal" if not best the accomplishments of Obama, who openly mocked him during that White House "comedy" press gala. That personal vendetta drives him.
I think if he were honest with himself he would see that what he got wasn't what he had envisioned in any of the countries that claimed to be communist/socialist. But they were his team so he would publicly support them. You can sell his stance as an evolvement of the theory rather than admitting mistakes. Not too dissimilar from the way the PRC sells its version of communism to its people: communism "with Chinese characteristics."
Chances are though that he would have perished in one of the purges happening in whichever communist country he would have chosen to reside in. He would have enough clout to niggle at leadership openly about stuff going wrong and eventually be would deliver the straw that broke his camel's back. He would be mind-holed and his legacy rectified so he wouldn't be the lighthouse of the movement that he could only become because he died early. And he didn't starve millions. And communism would become the thing created by the people through an arduous march and not a system dreamed up by some German philosophers.
It's a funny coincidence of history that gated communities for the well off folks in capitalism and mass housing for the not well off in communism follow the same design principle: few access points that can be controlled by a single tank each.
Is it possible? Yes. You can see examples in mainland China where foreign channels, including the more liberal channels from Hong Kong, routinely get blacked out when China news come on (unless they are gloriously positive).
Is it likely where you are? No. Especially it happening on broadcast channels you would hear a lot more about it. The socials would be full of it. There would have to be an office full of people censoring broadcast channels as they go out. We know the Chinese are operating such a facility because we heard about it. And we haven't heard anything like that for the US. Ockham's razor points at a buffering issue somewhere along the distribution chain from the news studio to your local antenna. A streaming video, like on YouTube, is just freeze framed when it's buffering also. And I don't think you as an individual consumer are important enough for somebody just doing it for your receiver.
Captcha, but for bots, I imagine. Fits in with the general conspiratorial theme.
There are certain crimes you will never be able to fully eradicate. You can only try to get them down to the bare flawed human minimum. For pretty much as long as there are laws and courts, killing in cold blood has been illegal. But to this day humans kill humans in cold blood. All we can do is make good laws, prosecute perpetrators, and increase awareness. If the latter is what you mean by grassroot change, then sure. If we stay within the hypothetical, I don't think a mass accident (like an accidental gas leak) or mass murder (a gas leak made to look like an accident) of the whole bunch on Epstein island would bring about a cultural change. My personal fear is that this whole exposé of this particular case only served to make the rich fuckers even more careful when they do it, not do it less.
At the root of the Epstein case is money. Billionaires should not exist. The quality of legal representation should not depend on one's bank account. If you want a grassroot cause, tackle that one.
I'm afraid that pedophilia is prevalent everywhere. We only hear about the rich people more because journalists take an interest and rich people think - not unjustifiably - that money is a good protective shield and therefore take more risks.
In this hypothetical scenario, if all these people were pedophiles or turned a blind eye to it, were assembled at the same time, and all punched their ticket to a delightfully shitty afterlife, I don't think the problem would be gone. There will be willing successors standing by to fill all of these positions. And it would be a stroke of luck if the waiting successors were suddenly more moral beings.
Not to worry! And thank you for this civilized exchange that managed to stay clear of Godwin's Law:)
Does a nation cease to exist after it is conquered? All the efforts to that effect by the English notwithstanding, it's still there.
[Angry Welsh noise, probably involving a lot of consonants and a few double L's]
We should not start accepting manipulated images as a replacement for real images
My point was that it is already too late for that. I understand how your feel. I also think that you'll be part of a minority.
There is no such thing as a real image.
You're citing my text but cutting off just before the point I was trying to make. I think be would still side with the people who claim to follow his ideology (yes, piss poor efforts objectively speaking but that's irrelevant to him because he would prefer them over the folks entrenched in capitalism on the other side).
Ideologs are a dangerous breed because they are surprisingly flexible under realpolitik conditions when the alternative is having to admit defeat. Or in Marx's case admitting that his ideas didn't work or the fact that they didn't work as intended cost the lives of millions. Surely he wouldn't like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China and well apoortioned crticism thereof (or of the GDR or wherever) would have eventually spent his good will capital (pun intended) with the local leadership and he would end up in a gulag or erased from history. Karl-Marx-Stadt would have been renamed sooner.