Fledgling is new, not weak.Pablo22510 wrote:
That was when it started to become more and more fledgling, as it's economy couldn't keep up with the American one.
Mock Presidential Race pt. 2
Hello! Back again with another mock presidential race!
This one will share a lot of things with the first version however, this one will be a race for the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom!
Due to the rather recent resigning of David Cameron, I thought it would be a good country. Many of you suggested we should do a race for a different country! So here we go!
Same rules apply as the last race, (reference thread "Mock Presidential Race" in "off topic")
However you will be running for Prime Minister of the United Kingdom!
The following political parties in the race are the following,
PartyPolitical PositionLeader
| Conservative and Unionist Party | Centre-right | David Cameron |
| Labour Party | Centre-left | Jeremy Corbyn |
| Scottish National Party | Centre-left | Nicola Sturgeon |
| Liberal Democrats | Centre | Tim Farron |
Have fun! Remember candidates can respectfully debate each other!
Poll for party representatives will end July 15th!
After that, the winners of each party will move on to the PM race!
Everybody can vote, and your vote can be changed at anytime! Just remember to use that feature responsibly!
I'm your host Vex03,
- Let's get RIOOOGHHTT into the debates!

#Trump2016
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
707 Replies
Shit, lol. Sorry. So, from the 60s onwards it became weaker.Quasi-duck wrote:
Fledgling is new, not weak.
Debatable, but I don't know too much about this time period. Definitely in 1984.Pablo22510 wrote:
Shit, lol. Sorry. So, from the 60s onwards it became weaker.
I doubt the 60's as well. The Soyuz started up at this time.
I do, trust me. It was from the 60s onwards where the Soviet economy began to fall back.Quasi-duck wrote:
Debatable, but I don't know too much about this time period. Definitely in 1984.I doubt the 60's as well. The Soyuz started up at this time.
Give me a reason. I have zero.Pablo22510 wrote:
I do, trust me.
I've read a lot of books about the Cold War. Just out of curiosity, do you know who James Jesus Angleton was?Quasi-duck wrote:
Give me a reason. I have zero.
James Jesus Angleton was chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterintelligence Staff from 1954 to 1975. His official position within the organization was "Associate Deputy Director of Operations for CounterintelligencePablo22510 wrote:
James Jesus Angleton
I cannot be assured of that. Nor of the books unbiased-ness.Pablo22510 wrote:
I've read a lot of books about the Cold War.
Know about Operation Kholstomer?Quasi-duck wrote:
James Jesus Angleton was chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterintelligence Staff from 1954 to 1975. His official position within the organization was "Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence
Yeah. I can't be assured of yours either.Quasi-duck wrote:
I cannot be assured of that. Nor of the books unbiased-ness.
I never said I read books, nor that I read about the time periods.Pablo22510 wrote:
Yeah. I can't be assured of yours either.
No.Pablo22510 wrote:
Operation Kholstomer?
It was ficticious, invented by a novelist, but apparently based on true stuff. Angleton's great obsession (apart from the mole inside the CIA) was that the USSR was mounting a massive economical attack on the USA.Quasi-duck wrote:
No.
Yeah, never said you did.Quasi-duck wrote:
never said I read books, nor that I read about the time periods.
T
They had a leftest government after WW2... You can thank them for the rationingQuasi-duck wrote:
Hardly. The USSR only rationed up until 1935, so not even during WWII, wiki says.Pablo22510 wrote:
Not better than the capitalist West,On the other hand, starting from 1940, the British had to ration until 1954.

If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
This seems to have run dry now. Bravo.
Giving up arguing with Fact?Quasi-duck wrote:
This seems to have run dry now. Bravo.


If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
You presented nothing other than an opinion, while Pablo started talking about books.oceanhawk wrote:
Giving up arguing with Fact?Quasi-duck wrote:
This seems to have run dry now. Bravo.
Yeah. So what?Quasi-duck wrote:
while Pablo started talking about books.
I never said it was bad. Simply that a book, from what I googled was written in the late 1800's, has very little bearing on this.Pablo22510 wrote:
Yeah. So what?Quasi-duck wrote:
while Pablo started talking about books.
Ehh no..Quasi-duck wrote:
You presented nothing other than an opinion, while Pablo started talking about booksoceanhawk wrote:
Giving up arguing with Fact?Quasi-duck wrote:
This seems to have run dry now. Bravo.
Socialism never has worked, nor will it
Capitalism has never failed, nor will it..
Fact...

If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
Supporting evidence?
1800s???? Hell of a lot more recent.Quasi-duck wrote:
I never said it was bad. Simply that a book, from what I googled was written in the late 1800's, has very little bearing on this.
Unless I am wrong.Pablo22510 wrote:
1800s???? Hell of a lot more recent.Quasi-duck wrote:
I never said it was bad. Simply that a book, from what I googled was written in the late 1800's, has very little bearing on this.
"Kholstomer", also translated as "Strider", is one of the most striking stories in Russian literature. It was started by Leo Tolstoy in 1863 and left unfinished until 1886, when it was reworked and published as "Kholstomer: The Story of a Horse"
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.