Jump to content
Male HQ

All USA Political Discussions (Compiled)


oralb
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/us/politics/10assess.html

What a surprising win...even the man himself seemed to be stunned by this, afterall it is only his 10th months in the presidency and his health and financial reforms had been under attacks recently.

I heard over the radio, a DJ commented that Obama won the peace award is because after 10 months in the top seat, he has not started any war...yet! :P

:thumb: When I Think It, I Do It, I Win It! :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest hstnasia

Got a push notification news from the CNN apps, my first reaction was "WTF". Sound more like a joke to me. I personally find that Obama made a good president but nobel peace prize? For the past 9 months, I didn't see him much in a peace making process and with the latest 40,000 more troops in Afgan. and yet he still won the prize is pretty much a joke to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a push notification news from the CNN apps, my first reaction was "WTF". Sound more like a joke to me. I personally find that Obama made a good president but nobel peace prize? For the past 9 months, I didn't see him much in a peace making process and with the latest 40,000 more troops in Afgan. and yet he still won the prize is pretty much a joke to me.

He can blow his load in my mouth anytime and I'll give him a peace price! wat a hunk president! :thumb:

Serve my fellow bottom men well !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

US has killed Osama bin Laden: Obama

WASHINGTON - THE United States has killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden nearly 10 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Barack Obama said in a dramatic televised address on Sunday. 'Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children,' Mr Obama said in a surprise late night White House address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh my...how time flies..

Never realise that its been 10 yrs since Sep 11.

鍾意就好,理佢男定女

 

never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want.

 

结缘不结

不解缘

 

After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say.

 

看穿不说穿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest surelyugessian

what a pity, osama and his mujahiddins were running a gay factory...., churning them out by the thousands everyday.

Kandahar's Pashtuns have been notorious for their homosexuality for centuries, particularly their fondness for naive young boys. In the developing peace, the streets were filling up again with teenagers and their sugar daddies, flaunting their relationship. It is called the homosexual capital of South Asia. Such is the Pashtun obsession with sodomy, the rape of young boys by warlords was one of the key incentives in Mullah Omar being able to mobilize the Taliban.

Men who take on a halekon [young male lover] often attempt to integrate the boy into their families by marrying him to a daughter when the boy is no longer young enough to play the 'beardless' role.

This maintains the love relationship between the father and son-in-law which inevitably makes difficult the establishment of a normal relationship with the wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest surelyugessian

In Afghanistan "women are for children, boys are for pleasure".

afghanboy-red.jpg

One military report described an incident where an Army medic had to explain the basics of reproduction to and ethnic Pashtun who want to produce children.

The Army medic explained how the Pashtun would have to engage in sex with his wife to get her pregnant.

"When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean?

Surely this must be wrong."

Men in Afghanistan aren't gay, they just prefer to sodomize men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

instead of capturing him, they went and created a martyr and ended endangering millions. now the world is on high alert anticipating terrorist retailiations.

yeah. u are so right. Talking abt retailiations.... I am flying tmr... so scared now

If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I beg to differ. Our government has a tendency to cherry-pick arguments. The argument you raised - "US doesn't do it, so we shouldn't too" - is one our government has mostly used to justify its economic policies.

When it comes to sociocultural policies and norms, the Singapore government has in many cases denounced the US for its relative liberalism, which Singapore argues is a cause of social and moray decay. Instead, with regards to sociocultural policies and norms, our government has often emphasised what it terms "Asian" values.

I could yak at length about this but it's going to be really tedious to read. If you're interested, you could read 'Hard Truths' or look up these following articles on Google Scholar:

  • Zakaria, Fareed. 1994. "Culture is Destiny. A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew". Foreign Affairs 73(2): 109-126
  • Wolfe, Charles Jr. 2002. "Are 'Asian Values' Really That Unique?". In Straddling Economics and Politics: Cross-Cutting Issues in Asia, the United States, and the Global Economy, 85-88.

Oh, but yes I'm glad Obama won :thumb:

Edited by MomentoMori

Everyone has opinions but whether they are justifiable is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder myself what are considered "Asian" values that differentiates it from "Western" values? The only closest thing I can think of that seems to be more prevalent in Asian culture, at least to me, is altruism. We will sacrifice our personal needs/well-being for the benefit of everyone else- family, community etc. It is postulated to be virtue that we should all extol if need to be. There is a time and place when we should put aside our individual needs for the good of the community but there are also times when we should take a more individualistic and selfish approach.

The challenge the Republicans faced in this election is they are so out of touch with the U.S. population in general. While I do believe and support some of their fiscal policies, I do find it hard to support their social policies. If you look at the map of the US election, the states that Obama won are typically on the coasts, which traditionally tend to be more progressive, while middle US, with mostly farms and ranches etc. tend to be more conservative. They tend to be farmers etc. who are strongly believe in self-reliance etc. and hence they are more anti-Obama and his perceived socialist approach to government.

Singapore, I think, tends to take a pragmatic approach to social issues. With LGBT issues, the government has acknowledged the community and while more can be done to protect the community from harassment or stigmatisation, I find that making it a non-issue actually may help the community in the long run more because frankly, your sexual orientation should be the least interesting thing about you. We should not define who we are on sexual orientation alone. Yes, we should work towards removing Section 377A from the laws of Singapore and having more rights but it may still take a generation or 2 before it will happen. Marriage equality in the US did not happen overnight. It took decades.

Love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the map of the US election, the states that Obama won are typically on the coasts, which traditionally tend to be more progressive, while middle US, with mostly farms and ranches etc. tend to be more conservative.

The ranches and farms area are the lesser educated ones or frogs in the well. They are clueless what when wrong in the progressive areas and don't see the sickness the republican has created. They think that as long as their chickens and cows are still in their ranches, they have nothing to worry about. Nnot in the coastal and vibrant city areas where number of jobless rate has shot up and cost of livings became an issues that force many people into poverty. I also suspect those suburban areas dwellers tend to belong in the conservative class of people and still live in era that black is lower class than the white and most likely to discriminate anyone who is black thus they will not vote for obama aggressively. City dwellers are more cosmopolitan in their thinking .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you actually think about the republican's "trickle down" tax approach....

Farmers work more, and gain less. Lololol

Their idea is to remove tax from the rich so they can utilize such a freedom to create more jobs.

Since The USA has so much unemployment the idea is to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs.

But this leads to UBER high tax rates for the poor ince the rich don't contribute for taxes anymore.

This would lead to one actually having a job but being taxed the fxxk out of!

IE the only real ppl profitting are the rich... Plus any economic growth would then favour the rich solely..

this will lead to a wider income gap which leads to inequality... The very thing democracy is opposed to...

Irony isnt it?

Plus the side effects of a widening income gap.. U can wiki it. Lol albeit much of them being "patterns"

Thus,the rich get richer and work less.. The poor get poorer and work more.

It's nuts I tell you!

Plus they're so anti everything! Anti-gay, anti-women yada yada yada.

As for Altruism... That really cant be proven statistically. It will end up in lies. Hence the phrase "statistics are lies" and if you cant... We can only assume things.. Which makes us equally unreliable lol

Edited by WightTonguehlk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes Mr. President may have won it again.. but I believed it basing on a few points:

  • He cleared up whatever messes the bushes had left for him
  • He didn't mess around in the office like what clinton did
  • He took down Osama Bin Laden
  • After hurricane Sandy.. he stayed on with the victims.. he slept in tents, ate what the ordinary folks eat & drink at the site that was the worst hit area & promised to rebuilt their homeland
  • He supported LGBT movement, acknowledged same sex marriage & approved of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes Mr. President may have won it again.. but I believed it basing on a few points:

  • He cleared up whatever messes the bushes had left for him
  • He didn't mess around in the office like what clinton did
  • He took down Osama Bin Laden
  • After hurricane Sandy.. he stayed on with the victims.. he slept in tents, ate what the ordinary folks eat & drink at the site that was the worst hit area & promised to rebuilt their homeland
  • He supported LGBT movement, acknowledged same sex marriage & approved of it

Off the points you raised, I would agree to a certain extent with the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Here are some of the points I'd like to address:

#1 - He cleared up the mess left behind by the Bush administration (singular since it was just George W. Bush Jr)

When Obama took over, the US economy was declining at an alarming rate. Even now, growth remains sluggish and unemployment remains relatively high - Obama has made history as the incumbent with the highest unemployment rate to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. In that sense, Obama did not clear up the mess left behind by Bush but he was, to his enormous credit, extremely decisive in mitigating the downturn and preventing it from worsening to Depression proportions.

Another mess caused by the Bush administration was rising US resentment due to their aggressive and unilateral approach towards global affairs, particularly with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama is an excellent diplomat and communicator - attributes that have served him well in articulating US rationale when needed and acknowledging the faults of his predecessor. Under Obama, US has sought to reinforce relations with its allies as well as taking a more measured approach before rushing into any war.

#2 - He didn't mess around in the office like Clinton.

This isn't an Obama-exclusive reason. Yes, Obama's image as a wholesome family man (aren't they all?) means that if he fooled around, he would have been chucked out of office. However, this applies to every President. It's a fallacious argument.

#3 - He supported LGBT movement, acknowledged same sex marriage & approved of it.

Much as I wish this was a crucial factor, I have to say it isn't because of two broad points: (1) despite popular belief, the US remains relatively divided when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality (Gallup poll) and (2) while the pink dollar is strong, the pink vote is pretty marginal, i.e. it is not a factor that would cause more people to vote in his favour.

What has been undoubtedly advantageous to Obama is that he had the vote of the women and the minorities. Traditionally, more women than men turn up to cast their votes; as such, Obama's pro-choice stance (and other similar policies) resonates well within this community. As for the minorities, the Hispanics are the fastest growing minority in the US and it is expected that they will become the majority ethnic group in the US within the next few decades. As for the African-Americans, in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, record-breaking numbers of African-Americans cast their votes and their vote was almost unanimously (98% to 99% depending on your sources) for Obama.

Hence it would be far more reasonable to say that the women and minority vote have been more significant than the pink vote in securing re-election for Obama.

Everyone has opinions but whether they are justifiable is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe that Obama's successful re-election was pretty much a done deal due to a couple of broad reasons:

  • Traditionally, incumbents seeking re-election have an extremely strong record of succeeding especially if they have not done any major damage to their credibility - recall the adage 'better the devil you know'. Furthermore, incumbents have a structural advantage, i.e. in their term, they would have had a system in place whereas a newcomer would have to start from almost scratch.
  • Romney's gaffes:
    • One does not simply criticise 47% of the population as being overly dependent on the government - implying that they are lazy. Bitch pelase, that's almost half the electorate.
    • Foreign policy. If you have been following the debates, Romney's grasp of foreign policy is pretty shaky though nowhere near Palin's standard. This came to the fore during the 3rd debate when Romney was reduced to reiterating most of Obama's stance on foreign policy. At the risk of sound overly general, Romney's idea of international relations is simply "If you're not helping us, you are against us. If you're against us, we don't like you. We don't like you, we will be hostile to you".
    • Not conservative enough for the conservatives, too conservative for the neutrals. To be fair, this is a party problem more than Romney's.

Edited by MomentoMori

Everyone has opinions but whether they are justifiable is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe that Obama's successful re-election was pretty much a done deal due to a couple of broad reasons:

  • Traditionally, incumbents seeking re-election have an extremely strong record of succeeding especially if they have not done any major damage to their credibility - recall the adage 'better the devil you know'. Furthermore, incumbents have a structural advantage, i.e. in their term, they would have had a system in place whereas a newcomer would have to start from almost scratch.
  • Romney's gaffes:
    • One does not simply criticise 47% of the population as being overly dependent on the government - implying that they are lazy. Bitch pelase, that's almost half the electorate.
    • Foreign policy. If you have been following the debates, Romney's grasp of foreign policy is pretty shaky though nowhere near Palin's standard. This came to the fore during the 3rd debate when Romney was reduced to reiterating most of Obama's stance on foreign policy. At the risk of sound overly general, Romney's idea of international relations is simply "If you're not helping us, you are against us. If you're against us, we don't like you. We don't like you, we will be hostile to you".
    • Not conservative enough for the conservatives, too conservative for the neutrals. To be fair, this is a party problem more than Romney's.

Agreed.

Obama didn't really have tear down Romney's arguments when the Republican is doing so well at digging their own graves.

Women, the non-white minorities and youths are super turned off by Republicans's thinking, especially with the "Legitimate Rape", 47% and anti-LGBT gaffes and that in turn, pushed the majority of the voters towards Obama. The Republican's policies benefits the WASP old men and sadly for them, those kind of people are quickly getting extinct hurhur. But even if Obama is president, I fear their partisan politics are bound to fxxk up some important LGBT and women rights issues cuz the House consists mostly of Republicans so it's likely they'll kena stonewalled.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i believe that Mitt Romney would have won if not for his social issues stance.

Doubtful but yes, that's plausible.

He would be a much better president when it comes to handling the economy

Yeap, I'm inclined to agree.

he lacked empathy for the ordinary americans and he aliented most of the minorities.

Which is political suicide in a democracy. Along with the myriad of social issues you mentioned, Romney also has a shaky grasp of foreign policy. In addition, with regards to environmental issues and energy, he has either remained noncommittal or disinclined to pursue it further.

Oh hey, that was your first post! Welcome to BlowingWind! (:

Edited by MomentoMori

Everyone has opinions but whether they are justifiable is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ongwsjackson

I've always had my reservations in making my political views known. Admittedly, I don't always update myself on the different issues either.

However, if I could, I would have voted for Romney in this election. He would actually do more good for the economy.

But back to everyone's interest.

Both Obama and Romney DID NOT endorse same sex marriage prior to the election period. Obama only changed his stance after Biden publicly expressed support for same sex marriage. The O administration initially tamped down his comments, which caused frustration among the gay rights organisations. Obama had to say something.

Romney did express support for certain rights for the gay community (e.g. domestic partnership benefits, anti discrimination, hate crime). He also stated he would not overturn the current legislation on DADT and gay adoption.

I remember being on a US based gay forum few years back. There was a thread on the big O, and everyone there was very unhappy with what Obama had done for the LGBT community. Basically, during the first two(?) years of his initial term, he did almost nothing for the cause. Remember the case in which some gay rights activists chained themselves to the White House?

Anyway, everyone lies. And I think we should have been more concerned with their economic policies, especially at such times (fiscal cliff).

Personally, experience over hope.

P.S. I think Romney has the worst PR team. Pretty much everyone coined him as the devil.

Edited by jacksonongws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Bernie Sanders. 

Election is not a reality show whose winner is base on who have the most pompous attitude or who have the most corporates backing her up with campaign funds or who is shouting the loudest in life. 

 

After the election there is a real life to go back to at the end of the day. 

 

The real life of a real living American citizen. 

 

Ever play metal gear solid before?

The country is rule by the La Li Lu Lei Lo not the president. 

 

Democracy is just a show and an illusion of choice given to the palatable mass. 

 

Choose the most human puppet for yourselves Americans.

 

Enough with the warfare economy and lies already. 

 

The cycle of perpuatality must be break and the people should return to reality by now. 

 

Made it end.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think Sanders is good, he is too old and lacks the experience Clinton has. In terms of political savviness, you cannot beat Clinton having been a First lady, Secretary of State and now 2nd-time Presidential candidate. Also Clinton has established relationships with world leaders making her more effective in negotiating etc. compared to Sanders who is relatively unknown. 

 

Both candidates from the democratic party have long-established history as LGBT allies, and Clinton has even even marched in the NYC Pride parade a couple years ago. 

Love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree Bernie sanders would have been a great choice but really lack the drive and energy to push through with any the policies he has proposed.... Connections definitely play a huge part in getting any kind of policies through and Clinton would have the backing and know-how to do so.... If corporatism and that email scandal are the only faults she has after all these years, she has definitely done a great job.... Whether hiding them or not....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a country can elect a former president like Ronald Reagan ( former Hollywood actor ) and a FBI informant on Hollywood ( according to this website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan )  as President for two terms , can elect George Bush for two terms, and then elect Obama for president , Hmmmm .............. makes you wonder what Americans uses as measures for good presidency..

 

Perhaps ,, entertaintment value, color of skin, flavor of the month....

 

Hmmmm... I wonder..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole election huha just makes one sick.    Ill behaved, lies and mud throwing just to get to the top to represent the rich and powerful.   A shameful monkey show of demoncracy I must say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Guest said:

The whole election huha just makes one sick.    Ill behaved, lies and mud throwing just to get to the top to represent the rich and powerful.   A shameful monkey show of demoncracy I must say. 

 

2 hours ago, Guest said:

Whoever become American president, the power is still set by the white (privilege) to cause much of today's troubled world.

 

 

I think the lesson we can all take away from this and other presidential elections and the way Americans vote for their presidents,

is this ..

 

We can fukn tell the Americans they have no moral authority to dicatate to other smaller and poorer countries  how to behave , how to set their human rights record, how the world should be viewed, definitely not through american lenses, of course if they use their military might and threaten to use force on you , that is another matter. LOL.

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margaret Cho mentioned in her perormance in Singapore that one of the presidential candidate nominee was some one that had been arrested for some gay related offence, how true we don't know, she mentioned something about being a (Opposite of TOP) and something regal but a female royal.. could be mudslingign by political rivals, who knows.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-report-marco-rubios-gay-scandal-surfaces/

 

Bombshell Report: Marco Rubio’s Gay Arrest Scandal Could END HIS CAMPAIGN!

By Kosar

1marco

Just before Marco Rubio’s 19th birthday, police reports show that a cop was sent to Alice C. Wainwright Park in Miami, Florida.

 
rr?ts=1fHJpZD01NmRlN2VkYy1mNjQ4LTRlMGUtY
ri?ts=1fHJpZD01NmRlN2VkYy1mNjQ4LTRlMGUtY

Apparently at age 18, he violated the municipal code rules about drinking in a park. However, the police incident report never mentions alcohol!

Instead, Marco was arrested for being in a car after the park’s closing time with his male friend Angel Barrios. To locals, the park was well-known as a place for homosexuals for cruising.

The Washington Post implies what really happened (noting the park’s problem with people having sex in the park and the frequency of gay prostitution) and it’s clear this arrest is something that Marco Rubio would rather not talk about.

A local homeowners association’s newsletter documented the complaints of neighbors: “Gang warfare, gunfire, prostitution (straight and gay), drug dealing and muggings.” Police were attuned to the complaints because of a pattern of problems at the park, said Delrish Moss, a Miami police public information officer and a 32-year veteran of the department.

“It was very dark and had lots of trees,” he said. “People went out there to smoke illegal substances, have sex, drink.”

A full account of what led to Rubio’s arrest and the dismissal of the charge are not included in available public records. The court file has been destroyed, according to Miami-Dade County court clerk’s records.

According to the Miami police incident report, a police officer arrived at the park at 9:47 p.m., 10 minutes after being dispatched. The report notes that Rubio and two other teenagers were inside the park after hours. In a recent interview, Angel Barrios — one of the men arrested with Rubio — said they were sitting in a car when they were approached by an officer.

“We were there just hanging out,” said Barrios, who owns several coin-operated laundries in the Miami area.

Barrios said he could not recall why they went to the park that night.

“We never even used to go to that area,” he said. “That might have been the first time I went there.”

Barrios was one year behind Rubio at South Miami High School. When they were in school together, Barrios said, Rubio and his other friends “were just messing around and partying.[…]

 

via Washington Post

According to Angel’s LinkedIn profile, it notes that not only does he own those coin-operated laundry, but also the Barrios Investment Group, which was sued for running a gay pornography studio in a property his company owned.

Decades after his legal run-in with Rubio, Barrios was associated with perhaps the most notorious gay porn ring in Miami history, an Edgewater house full of models with names like “Khali Kreme” and “Sincere Luv” who had sex all day in front of dozens of webcams.

via Miami News Times

Here is Marco Rubio dancing (pictured in the center) in HIgh School during a production of “King Cobra” at South Miami Senior High School:

marco

And reportedly, the man below the arrow is Marco Rubio at a gay foam party in Miami:

foam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest locked, locked and locked this topic
  • 4 months later...

Not much will happen.. don't believe the BS you hear from the left.

Google how many times Obama tried to go about setting a number of his own initiatives and was blown out of the water from carrying them out. EVEN if Trump want to launch an atomic cruise missile at anyone, he still has to get the approval of the senate and a number of other parties..

** Comments are my opinion shared. Just like you share yours. It's not the 'Be-All and End-All' view. My intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate or yes, even correct. An opinion to consider. Agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's not personal, nor tribalistic and with no malice, adding my commentaries to the mix - Updated: June 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jianyu
17 minutes ago, Guest Disclosure said:

If you have visited the country, you will agree.

 

How to visit if our country is banning us in getting there? In mainland, they are saying that the country is hostile and grabbing our lands and seas. Down the south are even worst where terrorists live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From TODAY newspaper :

 

Quote

What happens when the CIA gives Trump a briefing

 

 

PUBLISHED: 4:00 AM, AUGUST 8, 2016
UPDATED: 8:48 AM, AUGUST 8, 2016
 

The United States government is arranging classified intelligence briefings for Mrs Hillary Clinton and Mr Donald Trump to prepare them for the White House. This longstanding practice of briefing nominees of the presidential election is controversial this year: Nevada Senator Harry Reid has urged the Central Intelligence Agency to give Mr Trump a “fake” briefing, while House Speaker Paul Ryan has said Mrs Clinton cannot handle classified material. But what would a Mr Trump briefing look like, anyway?

“Mr Trump, I’m Gene Smith from the CIA.”

 

“Smith, huh? Is that your code name? You know, I know a huge amount about the CIA, more than most CIA directors. A terrific, beautiful, very good organisation.”

“Actually, Smith is my real name. Anyway, let’s get started with China and our assessment that Xi is much more aggressive than Hu.”

“She is more aggressive than who?”

“Exactly.”

“Well, I’d like to meet her. I like aggressive women. She sounds like a 10.”

“Who?”

“I don’t know. That aggressive woman.”

“I’m not sure I understand. Anyway, in China we assess with high confidence that Xi will continue this aggressive nationalistic —”

“She sounds hot. No, I’m just joking. But, seriously, women love me.”

“Mr Trump, Xi is a man, President of China.”

“She is a man? China’s president is trans? Boy, they’re more modern than I realised — I mean, I knew that. I know so much about China. You should see me use chopsticks! Did I ever tell you about this hot Chinese girl I once dated? She was so modern, and built like —”

“Mr Trump! We expect China will maintain its nationalistic claims in the South China Sea —”

“Oh, don’t worry. I have lots of Chinese friends. I love Chinese food. Best pad Thai in the world at Trump Tower. So what’s your take, what do the Chinese think of me?”

“We assess with high confidence that the Chinese leadership wants you to win the election.”

“I’m not surprised. There are very, very bad reporters at completely and totally failing newspapers that nobody reads who say I might start a trade war. But China wants me to win the election! Amazing! So why does she want me to win, that transsexual president of theirs?”

“Xi is not trans! Xi would like you to win because alliance management is not your priority, and your presidency could lead to an unprecedented decline in US influence.”

“Unprecedented! Amazing! So the Chinese think that I’d be unprecedented? Who else likes me?”

“Well, North Korea has already officially endorsed you, Mr Trump. It called you ‘prescient’ and ‘wise’.”

“‘Present and wise’! They love me! And Russia loves me, too. Putin and I go way back. We’re like this” — Trump knits his fingers together — “and after I’m elected, I hope to finally meet him.”

“Yes, we believe that President Putin is backing you.”

“Putin the Pro. Not like Little Ukraine. Sad!”

“Well, Putin believes that NATO might collapse in your presidency and that he would have a freer hand in Ukraine and the Baltics.”

“The Baltics, I know them better than anybody! Melania is from Slovenia. Some people say I leaked those amazing pictures of her to The New York Post. Why would I do that? Did you see them? Here —”

“Mr Trump! And you mean the Balkans, even though Slovenia isn’t —”

“Balkans, Baltics — I don’t get bogged down in details. I’m a strategy guy. Now what about ISIS? I know more about ISIS than the generals do. But I’d like to hear your take. Are they supporters?”

“We assess that they are supporting you in the belief that you help recruitment. Indeed, we fear that they may conduct a terror strike in hopes of helping you get elected.”

“Everybody’s supporting me! What about the Middle East? I’ll probably do a peace deal — I’m a terrific deal maker, you know that? I’ll probably get a Nobel Peace Prize to go with my new Purple Heart.”

“Well, sir, the Middle East is complicated —”

“The Middle East is a complete and total disaster. They don’t respect us. What about nuclear weapons? If we have nukes, why not use ’em?”

“Sir, we only offer intel, not policy advice. But —”

“Shouldn’t we just drop a few nukes on those Kurds?”

“The Kurds? In Syria, they’re our only effective ally.”

“They’re doing bad things. Very bad things. I saw it on a Sunday show.”

“Oh, you mean … the Quds Force?”

“Kurds, Quds, what’s the difference? If I give the order to bomb ’em, you guys can sweat the details. Call Mike Pence.”

“But you’re running to be —”

“Anyway, tell me about Internet security. I’m a little bored. How about we hack into the phone of Miss Sweden and check out her selfies? When I’m elected, I’m going to have a whole team on that.” THE NEW YORK TIMES

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Nicholas Kristof is a New York Times columnist and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Guest Disclosure said:

If you have visited the country, you will agree.

Mu first visit there decades ago... to get into a 'disco; you have to surrender your arms.. and that was a shock to me to see two tables filled with semi-automatic guns and smith-wesson revolvers among others and buck knives. There was a time when every floor of a reputable hotel has a security guarding every floor for security. And yes.. outside of middle east they are the Asian islamic extremist that has resorted to mix business with religion to date by asking for ransom or beheading those they caught.. foreign and locals. And there has bee quite a few thus far. And the best part why they are not caught? In cases where they do get paid for their victim, they share out some of the money with the villages.. Thus no one would reveal who they are so they blend in as a local native. This is not old news.. this is current situation. 

** Comments are my opinion shared. Just like you share yours. It's not the 'Be-All and End-All' view. My intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate or yes, even correct. An opinion to consider. Agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's not personal, nor tribalistic and with no malice, adding my commentaries to the mix - Updated: June 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • G_M changed the title to All USA Political Discussions (Compiled)
  • Steve5380 changed the title to It is official: The US now HAS AGAIN a decent president! (updated 3/2021)
  • Guest locked and locked this topic
Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
counter