Polls: Society & Politics

Europe has experienced the longest period of peace in its history, but will this last forever? With the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Russian drones being spotted in the Baltics, are you worried about the possibility of the war spilling over to you?

Macron once said that NATO was experiencing 'brain death.' America allows neither the creation of a European army nor strong national armies. In the East, there is Türkiye—a NATO ally—yet it purchases S-400s from Russia, aligns with them when convenient, and issues threats toward Greece and Israel. Do you really think Turks will fight and die for Europe? The UK and France have nuclear weapons, but will that go beyond mere deterrence?

Considering that your military's remote control is in the hands of the US, does it create anxiety that you are trapped between Russian and American exploitation?

We need to learn from the past mistakes and successes to make the correct decisions today, and plan for the future.

What is your opinion?

I notice some people feel this way. :o

most democrats vote for 'their party' regardless of changes. blindly. just the name.

obama expelled invaders so democrats support that because he was democrat. now hochul -d and more -say opposite of obama! abolish ICE don't cooperate- but -democrats still support just because same name. seems insane.

as midterms come we can learn from french errors. but that depends if facts matter? i know most democrats dont care -facts dont matter. they were democrats for a long time so changes dont matter but maybe you care?

poland terrorism index vs 'abolish ICE'?

Pic. poland refused the global government, named e. u. that obligated poland to welcome refugees. and i am not saying refugees are terrorists. but just facts less immigrants less terrorism. less than 2024. in contrast to france major terror attack in November long ago when they welcomed refugees in 2015.

contrast: democrats= abolish ice keep invaders like france where terrror attacks increased to double poland. we see in france: most immigrants are not violent but letting in more- increased physical violence and more terrorist attacks a fact.

pic. this is a fact not a theory or a claim. so do facts matter?

germany is even worse than france

do you want safer? oppose democrats?

or you blindly follow AOC the one who scorned the seriousness- joking around during 9/11 ceremony? those are the ones you blindly follow?

The Islamic armies built an empire stretching from Andalusia to Khorasan in a short period. The administration was Muslim, but what about the people? According to Western historians, jizya and kharaj taxes were collected from the non-Muslim subjects. These taxes were lighter than those under the rule of their co-religionist Roman Empire. On the other hand, jizya was not collected from those who converted to Islam. Although economic conditions made Islam attractive, Muslims consisted only of the army and the ruling elite in the first century. In the following centuries, even though the Islamic world declined politically and militarily and ended its conquests, commercial and cultural development continued. Four centuries later, by the time of the Crusades, Muslims had only reached half of the population.

So, what was the event that struck a blow to the Christian population? The Crusades. Although successes were achieved in the first crusade, the subsequent crusades dealt a blow to minor states like the Principality of Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, weakening them through plundering. SPolitical tension between religions forced many Christians to convert to Islam. The Christian ratio had dwindled to around 15–20% by the time of the Ottoman conquest, but it remained stable under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans truly brought prosperity to non-Muslims as well. The dramatic blow to Middle Eastern Christians was dealt by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Napoleon's era of nationalism arose, and minorities were generally adversely affected by this situation.

I am skeptical about this. It was Western societies that dismantled communal structures and built a common citizenship—often through the use of force. The main instrument for this was national education. It instills a common mindset and set of values in all citizens of a country.

This can be compared to the color green. Within green, you can have different shades: some lighter, some darker. But the colors that are genuinely distinct are purple, blue, yellow, and red. The Middle East, in this respect, is truly a region where people with fundamentally different identities and values coexist, and where these differences can sometimes lead to conflict. You could even describe Lebanon alone as a “Noah’s Ark,” because it contains people of all kinds and backgrounds. These are genuinely different colors, and democracy and dialogue often fail to provide a solution.

We can see how much a certain amount of irregular immigration and cultural difference in Europe has contributed to the rise of the far right

I completely disagree with the reckless rhetoric coming out of the United Nations General Assembly. Using the UN stage—a body designed to foster global diplomacy and peace—to openly muse about whether to "annihilate" a country and drive its people "into hell" is completely unhinged. We are seeing a leader actively messing up global stability, fracturing international alliances, and destroying the economy. This continuous pattern of threatening total destruction and escalating conflicts doesn't protect America; it creates endless wars, fuels global instability, and behaves exactly like a form of state-sponsored domestic terrorism that holds the entire world hostage to constant chaos.

The economic fallout of this warmongering is already devastating, keeping the global market on edge, driving up resource volatility, and draining taxpayer money into endless military aggression. A real leader uses diplomatic leverage to build strategic stability, not mafia-style ultimatums that threaten the existence of generations of civilians. This winner-take-all mentality is running the country's historic reputation directly into the ground and pushing us closer to a catastrophic global disaster.

What do y'all think about this? Does threatening complete annihilation make America look strong, or do you agree that this dangerous rhetoric is actively ruining our economy, our stability, and our standing in the world?

US Mid-Term voting is only 6 weeks away, in early November, and early voting starts soon.

Depending on where you are, that involves US Senate, US House, State and Local elections.

When you vote for a candidate, do you usually vote for the one you like the best; or do you vote for the candidate you dislike the least? Or maybe you just vote for your party's candidate, whether you like them or not? Or maybe you have some other rationale of who you vote for?

Please vote in the poll.

The Turks... They were warriors riding horses across the endless steppes. Despite their small population, they subdued agricultural China, a great civilization, so much so that the Great Wall was built to protect against their attacks. Yet Turkish philosophy was fundamentally based on warfare and raiding. When they began searching for a new spirit and organized religion, Islam emerged.

The caliphs, seeking to use the Turks' military power, formed armies from them and even built them a city: Samarra. Over time, Islamized Turks became deeply involved with Persian civilization and adopted its bureaucracy as a model. They rescued the caliph from Shiite domination.

Soon, Anatolia had become a Turkish homeland, and days of fear began for Europeans. Byzantium therefore sought help from the Crusaders, contributing to the beginning of the Crusades.

Then, in Bithynia, a principality was rising: the Ottomans. They crushed the Bulgarians and Serbs, then brought the Eastern Roman Empire to an end. When conquered, the city had around 40,000 people; a century later, it had reached 400,000.

The Ottomans could not stay still. Within two years, they conquered Aleppo, Damascus, the Hejaz and all of Egypt. Then came Belgrade, Rhodes, and Mohács, where the Hungarian army was shattered in just two hours.

The backbone of our army, the Janissaries, were the children of the infidels. Yet they became an elite force serving the very state that had conquered their lands. Voltaire called this an idea the Devil himself could not have conceived.

We saved the French king from the Germans, the Swedish king from the Russians, and kept France outside the anti-Ottoman crusading coalitions. At Preveza, we became masters of the Mediterranean.

But then the sun over the Mediterranean began to shift toward the Atlantic, and history finally began to smile upon you.

I never dated anyone in my life and one of the main reasons why is because I have trust issues. I been through a lot of hell when I was a kid that my trauma now prevents me from trusting strangers.

since obviously every date will be a stranger to you at first I always had paranoia that what if that person you're dating lives a double life and has ulterior motive? is God forbid this was the case then how will I be able to defend myself?

lets not forget that the bimbo who almost won the title as my first girlfriend also makes up part of the trauma I been forced to endure. this bitch played me at the last moment and we ended up burning the bridge after we departed. it got so ugly between the two of us that she even tried to send some gangsters after me.

What we are taught is that international law exists. But the justification Netanyahu has given for the occupation and genocide is the Torah—and, according to what he said most recently, the Bible itself.

Now imagine someone came up to you, wrote on a piece of paper, “Your mother was promised to me,” and then said that this was his religious belief. What would you do?

IRL I don't know anyone who thinks Lindsey Clancy is innocent. Also, recently on a poll someone asked about what they thought about the Lindsey Clancy situation and nearly everyone thought as much too. Like, man haters I know irl thought she was guilty. 🤔

But if most people favor a guilty verdict then why was the jury so obviously lopsided and bias in her favor?

I can think of only a few options: