You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I recommend listening to Satanovsky, he explains a lot about the Middle East. In particular, how realistic, and if realistic, what methods can be used to build a secular state there.
People like him are being asked.
I absolutely agree with you!
In 1933 the majority of German citizens voted and chose their leader, but the vile and despicable opposition also had the nerve to claim that Adolf Hitler came to power through intimidation and blackmail....
Bastards!
A list of what has been done (mileage, time zones, etc.), almost all items from which have been dropped (except the transfer of disputed territories to Norway without any justification) - and the question, for the most part, is removed.
However, other questions arise...
You don't have to go far to find an example. Such a state in the Middle East already exists and is successfully developing - Israel.
It is not funny.
Conclusion: the majority can be wrong too, I agree, but that is the rules of the game. Democracy has its shortcomings, but no better one has been invented yet.
Why didn't they come up with it? There are many countries where one ruling person has no significant power, everything is decided by a group - parliament, or whatever you want to call it.
A list of what has been done (mileage, time zones etc.), almost all items from which have been rolled back (apart from the transfer of disputed territories to Norway for no good reason) - and the issue is mostly dismissed.
Really, other questions arise...
Something doesn't make sense.
Conclusion: the majority can be wrong too, I agree, but those are the rules of the game. Democracy has its shortcomings, but they haven't come up with a better one yet.
They have. The Chinese are aware of it. They still dislike Khrushchev, to put it mildly.
I don't get it.
It's about the presidents, whether they are on the same team.
Why didn't they come up with it? There are many countries where one ruling person has no significant power, everything is decided by a group - parliament, or whatever you want to call it.
In Russia collegiality exists too. The president discusses all important issues with faction leaders and at the Security Council.
))