HWW Game

Donk2.0 wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

CMDR. Wolf wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Yeah I already knew Germany was plotting against me.

lmao did you have Krakow on the brain or something

Can't think why.

It's actually pronounced Krakov in polish. W makes the V noise for some reason. V doesn't exist (except for some very specific and rare cases apparently), and ł makes the W noise.

V used to not be a English letter.

Some of the English letters are mirrors of Russian lettersLike И and N, and Я and R

*Cyrillic(a writing system, such as the latin(this) alphabet, not a language itself). Also, from my research, that claim is false. "Я" pronounced "ya", developed independently from another Cyrillic letter, "ѧ", which is no longer in use. "И" also developed separately from the Latin writing system, it's derived from the Greek letter eta. It makes a noise similar to "I". Just because they look similar, it doesn't mean they are actually as related to each other as you may think. None of the letters you mentioned are derived from Cyrillic, in fact, it is probably the other way around. By the 18th century, trade had become much more common, and this could have led to the spread of different writing systems which might have influenced each other.

Donk2.0 wrote:

Amotah wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

Amotah wrote:

I still struggle to know English and these people consider learning languages that no sane human has spoke in the past 4000 years.

Jersey Dutch actually only really went extinct in the 40's, and Wymysorys is being revitalized.

As I said no sane human has spoke in the last 4000 years.

Jersey Dutch was spoken as French is in Québec nowadays.

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

CMDR. Wolf wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Yeah I already knew Germany was plotting against me.

lmao did you have Krakow on the brain or something

Can't think why.

It's actually pronounced Krakov in polish. W makes the V noise for some reason. V doesn't exist (except for some very specific and rare cases apparently), and ł makes the W noise.

V used to not be a English letter.

Some of the English letters are mirrors of Russian lettersLike И and N, and Я and R

*Cyrillic(a writing system, such as the latin(this) alphabet, not a language itself). Also, from my research, that claim is false. "Я" pronounced "ya", developed independently from another Cyrillic letter, "ѧ", which is no longer in use. "И" also developed separately from the Latin writing system, it's derived from the Greek letter eta. It makes a noise similar to "I". Just because they look similar, it doesn't mean they are actually as related to each other as you may think. None of the letters you mentioned are derived from Cyrillic, in fact, it is probably the other way around. By the 18th century, trade had become much more common, and this could have led to the spread of different writing systems which might have influenced each other.

Did you have @Vandermeer write that for you?

He should be president

Carking the 6th wrote:

He should be president

Carking the 6th wrote:

He should be president

Donk, of course. Read above

Cool

I think he's referring to the political opinions I posted on my wall. Check the post about highways and scroll down. So far, I've written about immigration where I supposedly "solved" the issue, according to car, and he is yet to see my response on climate change.

Question: What do you think about immigration, and how should it be solved?

My response:

Well, that's an interesting one. To understand how to progress with that in the future properly, you also can't forget that the entire United States is a country of immigrants. Generations of Americans came over in ships, dealing with famine, poverty, and religious prosecution, and hoping to build a better life for themselves here. Although the reasons for immigration to the US are rarely as dire now. A majority of legal immigration comes from other developed economies that the US aligns itself with, but there's also the glaring issue of illegal immigration. Let's look at this from the democratic perspective. Mexican immigrants come and create cheap jobs, oftentimes illegally. From an economic perspective, this is actually pretty good, but these people are very hard to administer, considering that the government technically doesn't have any records of them. As an added benefit to the Democrats, they are more likely to vote blue to support continued loose border patrol. From the republican perspective, they want to keep the US demographically as similar now as it was before, which itself is pretty unfair if you ask me, and they know that if they stop illegal immigration, that will result in more votes for them. It's a complex situation. Republicans also tend to live closer to the border(in rural areas), so they see more of the effect that this has. No side has a truly "Great" solution to this. Immigration is an integral part of American society, so banning it is wrong, and the way it's currently being done is wrong too. I tend to lean towards the democratic party, but what's happening just really has to change.

Here's my solution; Rework immigration. Immigration is easy for people from developed or rich countries. Think of people moving from the UK or Germany, it's really not hard if you are willing to put in the effort and money, but as for the impoverished population in Latin America, they may be willing to work twice as hard as an EU immigrant, but they don't have the resources to immigrate legally. This can't be the case, the American dream can't be fulfilled if everyone always starts from a position of wealth. From an economic perspective, lower-cost workers are needed to allow for the profitable manufacture of goods domestically, and with workers willing to put in the effort, that can be made possible. I think that a separate immigration system, one designed to be accessible to the poorer groups in the world, would be quite beneficial. Something like a green card, where someone who is willing to work in the US gets a worker's card, gets to live here and has an additional incentive to follow laws(or face possible deportation). If they conform to laws and regulations and prove that they are willing to put in extra effort to make their presence in the US worthwhile for everyone, there's no reason for them not to stay and help build our country. A lot more detail than I stated here would be needed, but that's the basic idea.

Whaat if your own population is unemployed?

TheZhukov wrote:

Whaat if your own population is unemployed?

My take on Climate Change:

Climate change is an urgent and certainly real issue. On this, I think that current incentives and action on behalf of the government are, for the most part, sufficient, at least for now. However, I do think several changes could be made to further improve the US stance on it. Introducing more financial incentives for plug-in hybrid and conventional hybrid vehicles would be great, there's too much of a focus on EVs. Energy-wise, NUCLEAR is the future. Breakthroughs in fusion power generation should also be researched more thoroughly by the US. When it comes to emissions, I have a little bit of a different take. In my opinion, "banning" something is a thing that should be avoided when possible. The US is a free country, so people should be able to make choices for themselves. Government regulation should then work to incentivize people to not do that bad thing anyway, so the only people doing it are the ones that want to and are willing to go through extra trouble to do it. I have a similar stance on abortion, gun control, and, in this case, motor vehicle emissions. I would remove the limit on carbon emissions from any motor vehicles, and instead introduce a fee system. The more greenhouse gases your car emits, the more you pay in emissions fees. Those fees are going to then be used to offset those carbon emissions. That means that trees can be planted, or some other methods can be used. The fee should be no less than what's required to offset that vehicle's emissions. This works well in several ways. For one, it gives people the freedom to do whatever they want, and if that's putting a 12-cylinder diesel in a Toyota Prius, go for it, but you are going to pay to offset those emissions anyway. This also works as an incentive. Vehicles that have bad MPGs are naturally going to cost more in fees, and therefore people will reconsider buying that in favor of a more efficient one. EVs will of course not have an emissions fee, however, it is the job of the government to make sure that the power going in to charge them is from clean sources, such as Nuclear or several other new options. What's the point of EVs if you're just substituting a combustion engine for a coal power plant somewhere else? That's why I also think that that fee should probably be above what's needed to offset emissions, it can help pay for new, clean energy sources and further incentivize EV and hybrid vehicles. The government should also continue investing and subsidizing other climate studies, but, in that regard, we've been doing well. We also need to push China to cut emissions more. They're the only large developed country that is still investing massive amounts in dirty energy sources.

By the way, please do try to debate me. I want to refine my beliefs, and I want to keep an open mind to how others think. In my opinion, constructive criticism isn't something a government should want, its something it NEEDS, and I have the same belief about my opinions. Thanks.

Donk2.0 wrote:

By the way, please do try to debate me. I want to refine my beliefs, and I want to keep an open mind to how others think. In my opinion, constructive criticism isn't something a government should want, its something it NEEDS, and I have the same belief about my opinions. Thanks.

I am going to hope/assume that the answers to these is yes because I rarely see people admit climate change as a problem and say we need to do more and then disagree with free healthcare.

Corporate lobbyists are a bigger problem to America than China ISTG

Carking the 6th wrote:

Corporate lobbyists are a bigger problem to America than China ISTG

Donk2.0 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Corporate lobbyists are a bigger problem to America than China ISTG

Depends really.

me waiting for skull emote to enter the chat

GeneralTanke wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Corporate lobbyists are a bigger problem to America than China ISTG

Depends really.

I mean both problems are going to fester if action is not taken but one problem would give us more benefits in the long term if fixed because we can fix our political system if lobbyists are banned.

Donk2.0 wrote:

NUCLEAR is the future.