Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Theme Catchup2018 - posted on 1st May 2018 at 1:50 PM
Replies: 208 (Who?), Viewed: 51137 times.
Page 1 of 9
Alchemist
Original Poster
#1 Old 2nd May 2016 at 12:52 AM
Default Dear 'Muricans...
..Who's the worst? Who would you never vote for, who would you vote for given the present circumstances? Who WOULD you vote for?* Why?
Hillary? http://lawnewz.com/video/bill-clint...rver-as-a-game/
Trump? http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/...nt-Be-President
Bernie? http://louderwithcrowder.com/busted...th-doesnt-work/

Please state your reasoning.

(Links provided by Google. I thought to Google search the biggest issues w/any given candidate, and from an outsider's POV, these are what may come up.)

*Outer opinions valued in this thread. AKA no, you don't have to be American to have an opinion or defend it. Please argue your points, ESP as cultures much older and wiser than ours. c:

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance."~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#2 Old 7th May 2016 at 3:08 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 8th May 2016 at 8:03 PM.
I'm not an American, but the person who wins the election has a lot of power, and what they do with it can influence the rest of the world in minor or major ways.

I'm not sure about the two others, but if I happened to be American I would never vote for Trump, not even if he was the only candidate to choose from. That guy is from everything I've seen in the news and otherwise the most likely to run the country to ruins, and I have yet to hear anything that resembles something intelligent come out of his mouth. Plus, the guy can't even run a company without it eventually going to the ruins. How could anyone trust him to run a country?

My guess is that the only reason he's still in the game is that he's a smooth talker (and not in a good way).

If possible, I'd go for Obama another 4 years, but I guess that option isn't available.
Theorist
#3 Old 8th May 2016 at 1:09 AM
Cruz may have seemed less offensive but would have been way worse than Trump. But if Trump gets in office he will have an all republican Congress to start off with. Cripes.
Scholar
#4 Old 9th May 2016 at 7:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoosh Malooka
Cruz may have seemed less offensive but would have been way worse than Trump. But if Trump gets in office he will have an all republican Congress to start off with. Cripes.


Except, the Republican establishment hate him and will work against him to "prove" how bad of a choice he was for "the people" to elect. It's a sad state to know the top 3 candidates are regarded as 1) A bigoted imbecile of a bully 2) A liar and 3) Not in touch with reality.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Alchemist
#5 Old 14th May 2016 at 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kattenijin
1) A bigoted imbecile of a bully 2) A liar and 3) Not in touch with reality.

That's the U.S. in a nutshell really.

Quote:
"Towards the end of any culture, you have the second or third generation that steps into the culture, which is so far from the origination, it's the impression of what's real, but it's not the full definition of what's real. It's just cheesy. [emphasis added]" (Lyle Owerko, 2010)
Test Subject
#6 Old 27th May 2016 at 6:57 PM
I love Donald Trump XD I also like Bernie Sanders, I would pick him over Cruz. I am pretty chill with politics so I never bash anyone though I get bashed all the time XD
Scholar
DELETED POST
2nd Jun 2016 at 4:49 PM
This message has been deleted by BloodyScholastic.
Theorist
#7 Old 4th Jun 2016 at 1:44 AM
I sometimes don't get it. What for strange combination of people is the Republican party? It has immigrants hating other immigrants, selfish pricks from the Forbes 500 and extremely conservative christians. In my country these are all different parties.

The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
Alchemist
Original Poster
#8 Old 16th Jun 2016 at 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTrouper
I love Donald Trump XD I also like Bernie Sanders, I would pick him over Cruz. I am pretty chill with politics so I never bash anyone though I get bashed all the time XD


Okay...




Why???

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance."~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Theorist
#9 Old 16th Jun 2016 at 7:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viktor86
I sometimes don't get it. What for strange combination of people is the Republican party? It has immigrants hating other immigrants, selfish pricks from the Forbes 500 and extremely conservative christians. In my country these are all different parties.


They're all reactionaries. Not conservatives, Democrats are conservatives. Republicans are basically the party of 1850 values: Exploitation without moral conceit, immigrants are only for labor, only the wealthy can vote, pro-white, anti-minority, pro-religion, anti-science...Reactionaries.
Forum Resident
#10 Old 17th Jun 2016 at 8:42 PM
Anyone else supporting a third party candidate? I like Gary Johnson because he's balanced the budget of his state and will be able to do so for the nation. Even more so, I like his FairTax and prebate plan. The prebate is like the annual tax refund, but divided up among 12 months to give money in advance to help families with the FairTax expenses. I think the prebate would help keep people like me and my family from blowing their income tax refunds on wants instead of needs and being broke the rest of the year.

~Someday my prince will come... And he better not bring all his hood's character files with him.~
@)->----- Place this ASCII flower in your sig as a thank you to all of our amazing moderators at MTS!
TS3 vs. Your CPU: The Solution
Shameless plug for my fledgeling Simblr here
Theorist
#11 Old 17th Jun 2016 at 9:03 PM
No one can "balance the budget of the nation" from the White House. No one. It's simply not possible, because the President doesn't have an ounce of control over the national budget. The President essentially gets an allowance like every other agency, along with a list of things he's allowed to spend money on. The only people with the power to manage spending in government are Congress, and even they're limited to a large degree by existing laws - the only way to get out from under that is to do like Ted Cruz did and try to get Congress to not pay the bills. That's stupid though, because "not paying the bills" when you're running a fiat currency economy means you're tanking the faith in currency, which means you're tanking the essence of the value of your currency.

Better yet, lets all stop talking about the "national debt." It's not debt. It's the amount of national investment. People have trillions of dollars invested in the well-being and success of our nation, enough that our bonds are some of the most cherished anywhere. People have faith in the US economy, therefore they all want a piece of that economy and they're willing to give us money based on that faith on the trust that we'll be able to repay them in the future. That's all it is. It's not the credit card companies and some vague international repo men lurking across the border in Canada waiting for the debt to get to high and take back the Washington Monument. That's how things work for individuals, but it's not at all how it works for national economies and currencies.
Test Subject
#12 Old 23rd Jun 2016 at 7:01 AM
American here, you can't stump the Trump. The Republicans are not the same party they were in 2004, Trump, at least, isn't beholden to the corporations. Hillary has taken money for speeches on Wall Street, is pretty much funded by Wall Street, and her foreign funding produces serious conflicts of interests.

I'm no hardline Republican, I didn't like Cruz, he wanted a theocracy and was a dirty bible-beating, bribe taking, caricature of what the Republican voters were clearly tired of the Republican party being controlled by.

For those who have said Trump has experienced businesses failures, true, but he learned from them and bounced back. Hillary wanted to invaded Iraq, and hasn't learned from that, and has been a jingoist on Libya, Egypt, and Syria. The sad thing is that Syria and Libya were US allies since 2003, that was the one thing would could've salvaged from that foolhardy war in Iraq, but we turned our back on them. Furthermore, Russia has been looking to get into Syria since Khrushchev, Hillary should've known that, but persecuted a policy that drove them into Moscow's lap.

She claims to be an LGBT ally, but has taken millions of dollars from countries where homosexuality is criminalized and a women's testimony doesn't count in court. Trump, on the other hand, wants to keep homophobic Islamists out of the United States, defending from the violence that the LGBT community is faced with in Europe. I'm not against helping people in their own countries, but letting them is impractical. Instead, we should start nation-building instead of fighting more wars in hawkish stupors.

Trump has promised to fight for American's who not only have their jobs shipped abroad, but have illegals trucked in to compete with them, driving down wages, and decimating the middle-class. He'll hold Wall Street accountable, and let American small business play on a level field.

Hillary has sold her soul in a Faustian pact with Wall Street and Arab oil money, but Mephistopheles cannot overtake the will of the American people.
Alchemist
DELETED POST
23rd Jun 2016 at 10:37 AM Last edited by HarVee : 23rd Jun 2016 at 11:31 AM.
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Test Subject
#13 Old 23rd Jun 2016 at 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
If I recall, In Plato's philosophy and commentaries on Democracy he talks about how there will come a time when a society becomes so politically correct, that it causes a divide among the citizens and ends up suffering to remain control as the government no longer knows which side to serve, and thus many citizens grow tired of their own governmental bodies as they feel the leaders are not addressing their concerns. Then along comes a sociopath megalomaniac character whom manipulates the masses by using current events to exploit the fears and uncertainties of these individuals whom have grown tired of their government. The character also mocks the leaders of the very establishment that many have grown tired of in hopes of building a loyal fan base by asserting himself as "I'm one of you!".

And then just as everyone whom isn't loyal yet starts to hate him, he switches his tone to appease those whom don't by changing his attitude in a way that appeals to their concerns, while also maintaining the loyalty of the other group. The character eventually uses his new-found massive influence to reconstruct the establishment in way that removes the core values of said democracy and replaces it with a system of pseudo-democracy that in reality actually limits the rights of his massive loyal fanbase and gives more control to him as leader.

Anyway, Trump is this character. Everything Plato said has and is proving true with this election.


The important mischaracterization here is that America is a 'democracy' when it is fact, a Republic. A Republic is designed to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. Platonic philosophy centers around Athenian Democracy, Rome was the first republican government.

The government knows what side to serve, as at has made a conscious decision, to disregard the opposite side. In this case to side with the banking class over the working class, and the coastal bourgeoisie over the flyover states.

Political correctness is a tool used to hammer out an agenda, a globalist agenda in this case.

The real person who wants to limit rights is Hillary, who could get 3 Supreme Court picks, disarming the American people and restricting their speech. Remember how she wanted to censor violent vidya games back in the 1990s?

To say that Trump is appealing to both groups while maintaining his initial support base, that's bipartisanship. I know, it's pretty rare these days, so it seems very bizarre. But to Europeans it really shouldn't be, popular fronts and coalition-building are stables in France and Germany, you sometimes do end up with strange combinations.
Alchemist
DELETED POST
24th Jun 2016 at 12:16 AM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Test Subject
#14 Old 24th Jun 2016 at 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Then why is Trump, a candidate of presidency for this 'Republic' labeling minority groups (Muslims, Mexicans, etc) as being filthy rapists or terrorists, etc. How does that protect the minority? How does, for example, his insistence of using phrase "Radicalized Islam" and exploitation of peoples fear towards Islam protect the minority in America whom belong to Islam?

Genuine question. Not being snide.


Can't say I do. Didn't live in America in 1990's.


Trump on Mexicans said "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."

So let's break it down 'not sending their best', Mexico is rapidly growing economy with a burgeoning middle class, so when they send us their lower, uneducated classes, that is not sending their best. When he says they're bringing problems, he could mean criminality, drug addiction, tuberculosis. When he says they're bringing crime, many migrants are unwittingly forced to carry contraband by drug cartels. The crime part goes hand in hand with the drugs. When he says 'bringing their rapists' that doesn't mean all of them are rapists, but Americans shouldn't be subject to sexual assault by people who aren't supposed to be here. When he assumes some of them are good people, that's a commonsense assumption, or simply granting the benefit of the doubt.

The insistence on talking about 'radical Islam' or 'radical Islamic terrorism' or 'fundamentalist jihadism' or some such combination, he makes a necessary distinction. This nomenclature serves to separate westernized and secularized Muslims from terrorists, and prevent them from being lumped up. People fear Islam because European policy is generally seen as a foreshadowing of American issues, like austerity after social democracy over-promised and overspent, or in this case, terrorist attacks on the European population. Tolerance is a two-way street, many mosques in the west endorse sharia and otherwise homophobic policies. So he has to protect the LGBT community and women who enjoy freedom from Islamic fundamentalists.

I remember reading an article in Deutsche Welle that said second and third generation Muslims in the West are more radical than their predecessors, this is clearly a problem, so letting lots of Muslims may actually have greater long-term consequences than what we are even seeing now in terms of terrorism.
Field Researcher
#15 Old 26th Jun 2016 at 5:25 AM
Honestly at this point, none of them are good candidates.
Trump has the support, and people love him. But he doesn't think before he talks and this could cause so many problems with our international relations. He's also stubborn as hell, which can cause problems when trying to negotiate. And yes, he is a business man, but America isn't a business to be run by a CEO. It's a country that needs its senators, congressmen, and President to work together. Also, the republican party is split on their opinion of Trump, some support him, some don't. I may not know much about politics, but I know it's not a good thing for a party to be split on the candidate.

As for Hilary, I honestly don't know much about her policies. I don't know what she's for and against, so I can't make any reasonable judgement on her. From what I gather, she isn't a good choice. She flip flops and isn't liked by many. Young adults think she tries too hard to be hip, which is kinda true. As I write this I realize how little of an opinion I have on Hilary so I'm just gonna move on.

Bernie, oh, Bernie. Old, liked by young adults, and he's not going to get the nomination. Out of everyone, I liked Bernie the best. I know, typical of the American teen. However, I can see why people were spectacle of him. He's old, and many people said they were worried if he would be able to last four years. Also, many call him a socialist and he calls himself a 'socialist democrat,' what ever that means. And now, let's talk about the 'free college.' Really, I think it would be worth it for taxes to be just a little bit higher to pay for most, if not all, of college for people. Although this is coming from someone who doesn't pay taxes. However, think of the higher taxes as an investment. You're investing in the education of America's youth, and by extension, America's future. We don't need college that's 100% free, but any discount that can come from taxes would be worth it.

As I've said over and over again, I don't know much about politics, it's not my area of expertise.

My life needs editing
My tumblr
Test Subject
#16 Old 26th Jun 2016 at 6:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by egm2000
Honestly at this point, none of them are good candidates.
Trump has the support, and people love him. But he doesn't think before he talks and this could cause so many problems with our international relations. He's also stubborn as hell, which can cause problems when trying to negotiate. And yes, he is a business man, but America isn't a business to be run by a CEO. It's a country that needs its senators, congressmen, and President to work together. Also, the republican party is split on their opinion of Trump, some support him, some don't. I may not know much about politics, but I know it's not a good thing for a party to be split on the candidate.

As for Hilary, I honestly don't know much about her policies. I don't know what she's for and against, so I can't make any reasonable judgement on her. From what I gather, she isn't a good choice. She flip flops and isn't liked by many. Young adults think she tries too hard to be hip, which is kinda true. As I write this I realize how little of an opinion I have on Hilary so I'm just gonna move on.

Bernie, oh, Bernie. Old, liked by young adults, and he's not going to get the nomination. Out of everyone, I liked Bernie the best. I know, typical of the American teen. However, I can see why people were spectacle of him. He's old, and many people said they were worried if he would be able to last four years. Also, many call him a socialist and he calls himself a 'socialist democrat,' what ever that means. And now, let's talk about the 'free college.' Really, I think it would be worth it for taxes to be just a little bit higher to pay for most, if not all, of college for people. Although this is coming from someone who doesn't pay taxes. However, think of the higher taxes as an investment. You're investing in the education of America's youth, and by extension, America's future. We don't need college that's 100% free, but any discount that can come from taxes would be worth it.

As I've said over and over again, I don't know much about politics, it's not my area of expertise.


The issue of foreign policy is certainly an important one, but consider that Trump's positions are more reasonable. As I've mentioned, Hillary wanted to invade Iraq...the Bush admin managed to salvage this by establishing relations with Syria and Libya. But during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State, she advocated toppling our friends. The same goes for Egypt, who has been our friend since the 1970s, when Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel and switched to the US side in the Cold War. However Hillary also advocated toppling our friends in Egypt so an Islamic fundamentalist party could seize power.

Egypt has secular leadership since Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s, so it shared this moderate with shade with Turkey until Hillary's foreign policy. Given the rise of fascist fundamentalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey at the same as the rise of Muslim Brotherhood toppling our allies in Egypt, Hillary advocated for bringing the same forces that came to power in Turkey, to power Egypt. For someone with foreign policy experience this seems pretty stupid, as she clearly lacks an understanding of the regional situation.

As for saying America should be led by politicians instead of a businessman, why? China's current leadership is mostly economists, and their next generation will be even more business-oriented. Considering they are poised to be the world's largest economy, it's important we remain dynamic so we can compete with them.

As for the Republicans being split, it's predictable. Consider this report from RAND which points out that the Democratic party is more monolithic ideologically and the Republican party is more diverse. It's more difficult to unify because 1) the Republican Party is more diverse 2) because elitists are butthurt at not getting the candidate that would be loyal to them, instead of the American people.

In terms of Hillary's policy, did you know that in the 1990s she wanted to ban violent video games and criminalize pornography? She's more of a moralist hypocrite than Cruz! BTW she supports fracking too.

If you voted Bernie because you wanted someone who wanted to invest in America's future, the future of our generation, Trump is your candidate. Hillary has taken patronage from elitists of this country and many others. They call it 'socialist for the rich, capitalism for the poor', they know Hillary won't derail the gravy train, and Trump will.
Alchemist
DELETED POST
26th Jun 2016 at 6:43 AM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Test Subject
#17 Old 26th Jun 2016 at 6:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Mention Egypt and now you have my attention.

Yes, shows where my priorities are.


If I might ask, what do you think of what I said about it?
Alchemist
DELETED POST
26th Jun 2016 at 7:15 AM Last edited by HarVee : 26th Jun 2016 at 7:34 AM.
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#18 Old 26th Jun 2016 at 7:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
If Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which led to Sisi's reign and caused the two revolutions few years back, that I had lost much respect for her. Not that I had much to begin with though.


Well the thing to remember about the US and Egypt is that we're going to try to stay involved in Egyptian politics no matter what, much like we're going to try to stay involved with Israeli politics even though Netanyahu's a racist twat. Long-term allies are hard to find in the region, and despite some atrocious mischaracterizations in this thread about our international relations I think you'll find that at least for Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia the US leans essentially conservative in that we're just not going to rock the boat for much less than an actual attack on the homeland. That's real, not political, conservatism.

Clinton's State Department was characterized more by a philosophy of tipping points and opportunism than anything else. It was very frugal in its actual overt actions versus handing peoples the materials and assurances to do something themselves. I think that's something of the essence of Clinton, for good or ill. Sometimes without hand holding you get not great resolutions, but I'll take it against the centralized top-down ego-driven fascism being pushed by Trump.
Test Subject
#19 Old 26th Jun 2016 at 9:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
Well the thing to remember about the US and Egypt is that we're going to try to stay involved in Egyptian politics no matter what, much like we're going to try to stay involved with Israeli politics even though Netanyahu's a racist twat. Long-term allies are hard to find in the region, and despite some atrocious mischaracterizations in this thread about our international relations I think you'll find that at least for Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia the US leans essentially conservative in that we're just not going to rock the boat for much less than an actual attack on the homeland. That's real, not political, conservatism.

Clinton's State Department was characterized more by a philosophy of tipping points and opportunism than anything else. It was very frugal in its actual overt actions versus handing peoples the materials and assurances to do something themselves. I think that's something of the essence of Clinton, for good or ill. Sometimes without hand holding you get not great resolutions, but I'll take it against the centralized top-down ego-driven fascism being pushed by Trump.


Do tell me how my explanations of US foreign policy are 'mischaracterizations'. Hillary's State Department wasn't 'opportunistic', it was delusional. The US is hell-bent on finding someone to label and enemy rather than build peace in our time. Hillary wants to fight an Axis of Evil, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Trump wants realpolitik and to negotiate in good faith.

Trump is not fascist, he is a patriot. Hillary Clinton is a corporate shill and will partake in their jingoistic adventurism to fill their coffers.
Alchemist
DELETED POST
27th Jun 2016 at 5:22 AM Last edited by HarVee : 27th Jun 2016 at 5:48 AM.
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#20 Old 28th Jun 2016 at 3:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Hoxha
The US is hell-bent on finding someone to label and enemy rather than build peace in our time.


I'm sorry, I'm just going to announce that I really just can't take you seriously if you're going to quote Chamberlain at us as something that anyone should implicitly emulate for their politics. Everyone over here's just been laughing their asses off about that all day..
Test Subject
#21 Old 28th Jun 2016 at 7:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
I'm sorry, I'm just going to announce that I really just can't take you seriously if you're going to quote Chamberlain at us as something that anyone should implicitly emulate for their politics. Everyone over here's just been laughing their asses off about that all day..


Calls for hawkishness are no joke. Why is peace not a priority? It doesn't matter who said it, it is something for the whole of humanity to strive for.

.If you think it's 'funny' people in the developing world sure as hell don't, it's bourgeoisie first-world arrogance. They are sick and tired of the 'America World Tour' coming to a nation near them, if America thinks it can keep this up while these countries start to strengthen themselves and their alliances, it's soon to run out of easy pickings. The lives of tens of thousands or millions of lives being ruined to enrich a defense company is not something to laugh at.

So If you don't want Chamberlain, why not Eisenhower?

"And now, as in no other age, we seek it [peace] because we have been warned, by the power of modern weapons, that peace may be the only climate possible for human life itself."

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Or perhaps when Hubert H. Humphrey said "People in places many of us never heard of, whose names we can't pronounce or even spell, are speaking up for themselves. They speak in languages we once classified as exotic but whose mastery is now essential for our diplomats and businessmen. But what they say is very much the same the world over. They want a decent standard of living. They want human dignity and a voice in their own futures. They want their children to grow up strong and healthy and free."

Yes I expect my politicians to want peace, I only want our nation act in self-defense, not in self-enrichment.
Theorist
#22 Old 28th Jun 2016 at 7:39 AM
I apologize for pointing out something that's clearly over your head. Bless your heart, you just go ahead and tell us how Mr. Trump's not a crook!
Alchemist
DELETED POST
28th Jun 2016 at 8:47 AM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#23 Old 28th Jun 2016 at 11:48 AM
If you can think to ask you already know the answer, right?
Alchemist
DELETED POST
28th Jun 2016 at 12:31 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Test Subject
#24 Old 28th Jun 2016 at 6:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
This is first time In my entire life where I've had opportunity to have say in government, and I find myself not even wanting to bother with the voting because honestly they are all crooks and which makes it difficult for me to choose candidate.


You make me curious. Why you put so much emphasis about us from the "developing world"? Do you really care about us, or are we just mouth piece that you can use to further your interest in Trump?


Yes I care. I use 'developing' because more polite to say than 'Third World' which implies that things aren't progressing/happening in that part of the world. It's developing, as in it's getting there, it's making progress. People in Africa now have smartphones which allow them to access to mobile banking, roads are being paved, buildings are going up. Because the East Asian Tigers started from little, and now they are developed. When I look at Kigali or Kampala or Luanda and Lagos, I see people building a better future for themselves.

Because when you think of China building roads and buildings in Africa, America is in the background. Trump is the only person really talking about China. If America competed with China, the prices of roads and buildings would go down and Africa would move forward even faster.

I read the news of the world and have many books. I wouldn't do it if I didn't give a shit. I care about these people because they are all people, they have hopes, dreams, families, and they should have futures. America can provide steady leadership, but we can no longer browbeat nations into doing what we want. All we can do now is cultivate good will and friendship rather than hold people in our sphere under the barrel of a gun. I don't believe globalism, because all nations are sovereign and no people should be asked to forfeit their interests to some distant organization.
Test Subject
#25 Old 29th Jun 2016 at 6:57 AM
Firstly, I do believe you care about us and I really appreciate that, but seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Hoxha
People in Africa now have smartphones which allow them to access to mobile banking, roads are being paved, buildings are going up
Alchemist
DELETED POST
29th Jun 2016 at 7:13 AM Last edited by HarVee : 29th Jun 2016 at 7:26 AM.
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Page 1 of 9
Back to top