this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
154 points (99.4% liked)

World News

39067 readers
3206 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] einkorn@feddit.org 58 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Vetoes need to be abolished. But since the veto powers will veto any such motion, the UN is going to stay a toothless tiger.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the UN is performing as intended. that is, to maintain power for the old super powers and prevent anyone else from complaining too much.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

A less pesemistic spin is, it is allowing the nuclear armed states of the world to discuss what they agree on (or can at least acquiesce to) without direct confrontation risking nuclear armegeddon.

[–] rammer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Not working so great lately. With the whole red lines thing with Russia and their change of nuclear doctrine.

[–] chaosCruiser 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I propose we switch to preferential voting, rolling dice or thunderdome for deciding these matters.

Personally, I would really like to see Trump wielding a chainsaw, but PV is my second choice.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'd love to see a bare knuckle fight to the death between Trump and Zelenskyy or pretty much any world leader who's in reasonably good shape.

Not necessarily to decide anything, just for shits and giggles 🤷

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

I'd love to see Justin Trudeau take on Trump since he has boxing experience

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

That's how president Camacho succeeds trump.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Camacho was a good president. He listened to Not Sure (eventually).

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah, that film was way too optimistic...

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Would be a significant improvement tbh.. Can we just sentence Trump to rehabilitation now?

[–] chaosCruiser 3 points 2 days ago

That guy is ripped! If he also has the skills to handle weapons, he would win just about any thundervote.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No, after WW3 we will have the Commonwealth of Concord, just like we had the League of Nations, the Concert of Europe, the Peace of Westphalia... :/