Foreign / Overseas LGBT News - Gay News Outside Singapore (Compiled)

December 27, 2018

4 hours ago, Guest Priscilla Queen de desert said:

You are speaking as if all ang moh are wealthy and they are willing to off load their dying wealth on a young thai gay.

THERE are plenty of ang moh free loaders in PATTAYA, BANGKOK, PHUKET, KRABI and SEA.

The amount of Singaporean free loaders in Pattaya, Bangkok, Phuket, Krabi, Chiang Mai, and other parts of South East Asia should be much larger I assume than the wealthy and not so wealthy Ang Mohs. Of you don't want to unload your wealth to young Thai gays can always exclude them from the succession....

January 9, 2019

8 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Dreading Expectations,

Transgender Safiey declines mufti’s invite to ‘tea’

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/dreading-expectations-transgender-safiey-declines-043029460.html

maybe the muftis boobs are getting too and he needs advice on how to cover them in a bra...

January 9, 2019

8 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Dreading Expectations,

Transgender Safiey declines mufti’s invite to ‘tea’

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/dreading-expectations-transgender-safiey-declines-043029460.html

maybe the muftis boobs are getting too big and he needs advice on how to cover them in a bra ...

Steve5380 · February 3, 2019

Pete Buttigieg is the Mayor of the city of South Bend, Indiana, US. He is 36 y.o. and gay, and has announced his candidacy for president of the United States.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pete_buttigieg-36-year-old-mayor-south-bend-indiana-2020-713662/

Not only this, but he is MARRIED. Here is a video of his marriage to his partner in an Episcopalian church: (a rather lengthy video, but worth to jump around to see the marriage of two gays... in a Church!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CR30N-dieg

Will the US accept a president that is GAY, married to another GAY, only 36 y.o. and with quite a progressive agenda?

If so, the world will never be the same for us!

We will see! After all, the US elected a black president already.

.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Steve5380

Garyl · February 3, 2019

i read that except citizenship... there is no other criteria...

illusional optismism with his current voter support base?

Edited February 3, 2019 by Garyl

lonelyglobe · February 3, 2019

Omg....so easy to become president there, no wonder the standard drop so much but how come they never reserved the president for a particular race only? Ok, i think that is what a real democratic society is about....

February 4, 2019

1 hour ago, lonelyglobe said:

but how come they never reserved the president for a particular race only

Because they don't have the mandate of 70% population to think they can do anything they want under the guise of democracy.

Steve5380 · February 4, 2019

4 hours ago, Garyl said:

i read that except citizenship... there is no other criteria...

illusional optismism with his current voter support base?

Oh yes, there are requirements.

To become president a person has to be a natural born citizen and be 35 years or older.

When I married nearly 40 years ago, no one would have ever thought that two gays could marry, and... do it in a church!

Similarly, never the good Americans would elect a Black man as president.

These two "impossibles" changed from illusion to realities.

riverrobles · February 4, 2019

If Trump could win in the US then anything is now possible @Steve5380, sarcasm thrown in.

In the Philippines, we now have our first transgender congresswoman in Congress. Times are changing, this May she will run as Senator under our current predident’s very progressive lineup. We don’t have an electoral College that you have in the US. Its always the popular vote or the Majority who wins.

Steve5380 · February 4, 2019

50 minutes ago, riverrobles said:

If Trump could win in the US then anything is now possible @Steve5380, sarcasm thrown in.

In the Philippines, we now have our first transgender congresswoman in Congress. Times are changing, this May she will run as Senator under our current predident’s very progressive lineup. We don’t have an electoral College that you have in the US. Its always the popular vote or the Majority who wins.

LOL! I agree with you. Especially after a disaster like Trump, an immoral coward who scammed himself out of military service, egotistic, incompetent, uneducated, this "Mayor Pete" is a war veteran from Afghanistan, a "Rhodes scholar" (postgraduate at Oxford), and... a married man! Any conservative should like these credentials, except for the "gay" thing. His political ideology is progressive, not too socialistic, and this could appeal to much of the young electorate. Obama was also little known, except that he was already a Senator when he run for president. And this gay Mayor does not even need to be the nominated candidate to have a big impact.

.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Steve5380

fab · February 4, 2019

SG has a female minority ethnic president.

I don't see much change in the political scene.

Garyl · February 4, 2019

3 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

Oh yes, there are requirements.

To become president a person has to be a natural born citizen and be 35 years or older.

When I married nearly 40 years ago, no one would have ever thought that two gays could marry, and... do it in a church!

Similarly, never the good Americans would elect a Black man as president.

These two "impossibles" changed from illusion to realities.

Hi Steve,

Obama was at least a senator. For a mayor, i think it is a bit too early in terms of support and resources he has now.

Unless the Russians..are helping?

Steve5380 · February 4, 2019

10 minutes ago, fab said:

SG has a female minority ethnic president.

The power of the SG president is not comparable to that of the US president.

Is her position like that of the Queen of England?

It seems that your president has to belong to a "community" that didn't have a president recently.

Could the gay community be recognized as such a "community"?

Steve5380 · February 4, 2019

4 minutes ago, Garyl said:

Hi Steve,

Obama was at least a senator. For a mayor, i think it is a bit too early in terms of support and resources he has now.

Unless the Russians..are helping?

Why would the Russians help elect a US president who is COMPETENT? Didn't they help Trump?

Garyl · February 4, 2019

15 minutes ago, fab said:

SG has a female minority ethnic president.

I don't see much change in the political scene.

Hmm.. you know what people are shouting..

Its not my prexxxt. :frustrated:

February 5, 2019

Peter Buttigieg has no chance of actually becoming US President, and neither does Andrew Yang, the Chinese-American sociologist who the PRC media keep trying to treat as a serious candidate.

Bravo to them for running, but they probably won't even be in the race anymore by the time the state-by-state primary elections begin, which is a year from now. Neither will fake liberal Tulsi Gabbard.

California senator Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee, and she will destroy Donny Dotard in the debates and crush him in the electoral college, unless he is impeached and removed first.

Zackling · February 5, 2019

yes, he's married, he's gay.. so..?? does he run the system in sg? NO.. so why are we taling about this person.. boring..

Steve5380 · February 5, 2019

8 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

Peter Buttigieg has no chance of actually becoming US President, and neither does Andrew Yang, the Chinese-American sociologist who the PRC media keep trying to treat as a serious candidate.

Bravo to them for running, but they probably won't even be in the race anymore by the time the state-by-state primary elections begin, which is a year from now. Neither will fake liberal Tulsi Gabbard.

California senator Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee, and she will destroy Donny Dotard in the debates and crush him in the electoral college, unless he is impeached and removed first.

I agree that "Mayor Pete" has little chance to win and his move is very audacious, but even if he only gets to be a candidate in the primaries this will be a leap forward for the gay cause. My hope for the nominee is not so much the demagogues like Harris but the older candidates with more spine like Sanders or Warren. There is a good chance that any of these will destroy Donny Dotard if the power of the law does not destroy him first.

February 5, 2019

8 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

I agree that "Mayor Pete" has little chance to win and his move is very audacious, but even if he only gets to be a candidate in the primaries this will be a leap forward for the gay cause. My hope for the nominee is not so much the demagogues like Harris but the older candidates with more spine like Sanders or Warren. There is a good chance that any of these will destroy Donny Dotard if the power of the law does not destroy him first.

One clown president to be replaced by another clownish chatacter,

supported 250 million clowns who hates to pay taxes, but wants universal coverage, Japanese bullet train efficiency,

Singapore style public administration ,

but Utopian libertine freedoms with no accountabilty and responsibility.

well that sums it up.

Steve5380 · February 6, 2019

4 hours ago, Guest guest said:

One clown president to be replaced by another clownish chatacter,

supported 250 million clowns who hates to pay taxes, but wants universal coverage, Japanese bullet train efficiency,

Singapore style public administration ,

but Utopian libertine freedoms with no accountabilty and responsibility.

well that sums it up.

You must know about clowns... because you are one.

But since you are a "guest" you can write what you want with impunity, no matter how ignorant and spiteful you write.

February 8, 2019

On February 5, 2019 at 10:47 AM, Steve5380 said:

I agree that "Mayor Pete" has little chance to win and his move is very audacious, but even if he only gets to be a candidate in the primaries this will be a leap forward for the gay cause. My hope for the nominee is not so much the demagogues like Harris but the older candidates with more spine like Sanders or Warren. There is a good chance that any of these will destroy Donny Dotard if the power of the law does not destroy him first.

That word does not mean what you seem to think it means. A demagogue is somebody with little or no actual government experience who gets into politics riding a wave of hatred against certain races or other marginalized groups and makes unrealistic promises to his or her followers that are impossible to actually implement without causing great pain to their country and/or committing atrocities ranging from human rights abuses all the way up to genocide. Trump fits that description along with Farage, Le Pen, and the rest of their ilk.

Kamala Harris, the senator for California, former Attorney General for California, and former District Attorney for San Francisco does not fit this definition at all, and in fact, she is campaigning against that. On a personal note, when I lived and worked in San Francisco, my friend was the victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime. DA Harris, at the time, and her staff went above and beyond to make sure he got justice once the bigoted perpetrators were caught, so I know how upstanding she is, and will not stand for fake disparagement.

The last thing the USA needs after Trump, by the way, is another President in their 70s. That means no Sanders, Biden, or Warren. Baby Boomers have done enough to ruin America and the world. It is time to step aside for Gen X and the Millennials so that we can dig out of the horrific mess those shortsighted elders left behind that now threatens the future of us, our children if we have any, and the entire human race. Warren's campaign is dead in the water anyway, as she is being "Hillaryed" by the "Pocahontas" tag, which won't go away.

Democrats also need candidates below 60 and usually below 55 to win a first term as President. This has been true since the early 20th Century (Wilson, FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama), with the older Truman moving into the Oval Office after FDR died, while LBJ did the same following JFK's murder but was in his 50s at the time. Older than 60 Democrats like Kerry and Hillary could not get over the finish line -- nor did "nerds" like Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore -- although Hillary and Gore got cheated.

Steve5380 · February 8, 2019

8 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

That word does not mean what you seem to think it means. A demagogue is somebody with little or no actual government experience who gets into politics riding a wave of hatred against certain races or other marginalized groups and makes unrealistic promises to his or her followers that are impossible to actually implement without causing great pain to their country and/or committing atrocities ranging from human rights abuses all the way up to genocide. Trump fits that description along with Farage, Le Pen, and the rest of their ilk.

The last thing the USA needs after Trump, by the way, is another President in their 70s. That means no Sanders, Biden, or Warren.

My understanding of the meaning of demagogue is simpler than yours, and it also is closer to what the dictionary tells: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational arguments". This is the impression I get with Harris listening to what she says, many promises some contradicting previous positions, and some exploitation of her appeal as Black and woman. But you must know her better than I, so I recognize that my assessment may not be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with presidents in their 70s. I know first hand that people in their 70s we can be very competent and full of valuable experience.

I find that Sanders has the best qualifications of the pack, honest, progressive, effective. He might have won the democratic primary in 2016 had he not been cheated by the democratic establishment including Hillary and by some Black leaders who were too loyal to the Clinton. AND he would not have been defeated by Trump!

February 26, 2019

Those comments about "Black leaders who were too loyal to the Clinton" have shed all the necessary light on the false view of Senator Kamala Harris supposedly being a demagogue. You probably think Senator Cory Booker is also a demagogue, and 12 years ago at this point in time, you probably thought Senator Barack Obama was a demagogue as well. In other worlds, demagogue is being used as a synonym for Black (or Half-Black) since unlike Donald Trump, most septugenarians realize they can't use certain other racist words.

Let's get something straight. Hillary Clinton had been standing with the Black community, and advocating for equal rights since her time as a lawyer in Arkansas in the 1970s, so why shouldn't some Black leaders have been "loyal" to her? She stood with them at a time of need, and 40 years later, they stood with her. That is how the world works. Meanwhile, the great old male white hope Bernie Sanders had been almost invisible to Black leaders for most of his decades-long career in Washington, so why would they support him?

The tone of those comments makes it seem like Black leaders shouldn't have a say in who represents the Democratic Party. You expect them to do all the hard work to campaign, vote, and get others to vote -- but don't want to respect their choice of candidates -- and feel they should get in line behind the latest great old male white hope. The Black community has been the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency since the 1960s, when the Republicans welcomed all of the Southern Racists, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

As to this longstanding lie about the Democratic nomination being "stolen" from Sanders, let's look at facts, not fallacious statements designed to prevent Clinton from uniting everyone. Clinton won 34 primaries or caucuses while Sanders won 23. Clinton won 55.2% of the popular vote in the primaries while Sanders won 43.1% with 1.7% going to others. Clinton won 2,271 delegates based on primary and caucus voting alone while Sanders won 1,820. The so-called "super-delegates" then made it 2,842 for Clinton and 1,820 for Sanders.

How is that "stolen" in any form? Clinton crushed Sanders in the popular vote by a margin of 12.1%, and had 451 more delegates than him at the end of the primaries and caucuses, so she would have won the nomination even without the so-called "super-delegates" supporting her afterwards by a margin of 571 to 45. The so-called "super-delegates" were simply reinforcing the will of the voters as shown by the popular vote across the 57 primaries and caucuses (50 States + Washington DC + 5 Territories + Democrats Abroad).

An even deeper dive into the primaries and caucuses shows that, as of March 15, Clinton had won 19 primaries or caucuses while Sanders had only won 10. With other challengers like Governor Martin O'Malley dropping out by then, Sanders consolidated the "Anybody But Clinton" support and won 9 contests to her 6 between March 22 and May 3. This artificially extended the process, and made it look closer than it really was, until Clinton won 9 in the final weeks while Sanders only won 4. Clinton was clearly the people's choice.

Now did many members of the Democratic "establishment" openly support Clinton early in the campaign? Sure! And why shouldn't they? She had been a high-profile Democrat since the 1980s, served very effectively as First Lady of both Arkansas and the USA, followed by impressive tenures as a US Senator and Secretary of State. In addition, she spent much of her career helping other Democrats win their own elections by raising money, making speeches, and urging her supporters to vote for those "establishment" members.

Sanders could have done that as well, and maybe more people would have voted for him, but he chose not to do that. Instead he labeled himself as a "Socialist" who usually votes with the Democrats in Congress but otherwise keeps his distance from them. But then he suddenly decides to temporarily become a Democrat in a longshot bid to push Clinton so far to the left that she would have been unelectable. And when he had more "success" than he ever imagined, it went to his head, he made the terrible choice to sabotage Clinton.

What the Socialist as he calls himself was really trying to do is launch a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. He wanted to push aside the candidate who was a longtime member and public servant, after spending decades in Washington publicly proclaiming himself as an Independent who belonged to no party at all, basically what Trump did to the Republicans, but in that case, as a "businessman" (con artist) rather than politician. The Democratic Party's voters rejected this hostile takeover and so did the "establishment" members.

The right thing for Sanders to do after Clinton secured the nomination was to throw his full support behind her and remind his supporters that the worst thing would be Trump getting into the White House. Clinton did that when she lost the nomination to Obama in 2008. Sanders decided to sulk instead, while his supporters continued to claim on the internet that he was robbed, a falsehood which is still being perpetuated today. This embittered many of his supporters and led to them refusing to support Clinton against Trump.

Saying that Sanders would have beaten Trump is also not true, but since it's impossible to change history, his supporters keep repeating it. Wall Street and the Big Money in America absolutely hate Sanders, however, and would have fought even harder to defeat him than they did against Clinton. The airwaves would have been blanketed 24/7 for 6 consecutive months with commercials calling Sanders a "Socialist Jew scheming to steal your tax money and give it to lazy millennials that want free everything" to scare independents.

Let's not forget that Clinton stomped Trump in the popular vote 48.2% to 46.1%, a margin of 2.1%, which was in line with the polls. But of course the Republicans conspired with Russia, and it's already been proven they hacked into the voter rolls in several states, although authorities claim no votes were changed. But use common sense! Why would they hack into the voter rolls just to read them? The truth will eventually come out that they changed votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as North Carolina and Florida.

Nobody can say that in public right now because it would be a legitimate basis to cause World War III -- Russia hacked into American voter rolls, changed votes to tip the Electoral College to their preferred candidate, and made him President of the USA -- after which time he started changing American foreign policy to benefit Russia ... lifting sanctions against oligarchs, supporting Brexit, trying to break up NATO and the G7, pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, Paris Climate Accords, and Reagan-Gorbachev Agreement ... it's 100% clear!

And now Sanders is back again because he is an egomaniac whose head swelled to gigantic proportions after his unexpected "success" in 2016, but just remember, Ron Paul was the top early fundraiser on the Republican side in both 2008 and 2012, yet his "revolution" has yet to happen, and the same will hold true for the soon-to-be 78-years-old Sanders. The idea of a US President who would turn 80 while in the White House is horrifying. Trump can't do the job properly at 72 and of course he spends about a fifth of his time playing golf.

February 26, 2019

No more honest presidents since Jimmy Carter and his administration, I guess.

February 26, 2019

One small typo by Stop The Madness was that Bernie Sanders had 1,865 delegates after the superdelegates were added to his total from the primaries but still much less than the 2,842 won by Hillary Clinton. But that and "in other worlds" as opposed to 'in other words" are understandable in such a long post filled with so much information.

As for Guest Guest above, Jimmy Carter was an honest man, but not necessarily an effective President because, as an outsider from Georgia, he underestimated the corruption in Washington. He has, however, been America's greatest ex-President. I would also say Barack Obama was honest but hamstrung by corrupt and racist opponents.

Andrew ang525 · February 26, 2019

On 2/4/2019 at 12:17 PM, fab said:

SG has a female minority ethnic president.

I don't see much change in the political scene.

SG had a (you fill in the blank) prime minister............

Steve5380 · February 26, 2019

10 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

Those comments about "Black leaders who were too loyal to the Clinton" have shed all the necessary light on the false view of Senator Kamala Harris supposedly being a demagogue. You probably think Senator Cory Booker is also a demagogue, and 12 years ago at this point in time, you probably thought Senator Barack Obama was a demagogue as well. In other worlds, demagogue is being used as a synonym for Black (or Half-Black) since unlike Donald Trump, most septugenarians realize they can't use certain other racist words.

Let's get something straight. Hillary Clinton had been standing with the Black community, and advocating for equal rights since her time as a lawyer in Arkansas in the 1970s, so why shouldn't some Black leaders have been "loyal" to her? She stood with them at a time of need, and 40 years later, they stood with her. That is how the world works. Meanwhile, the great old male white hope Bernie Sanders had been almost invisible to Black leaders for most of his decades-long career in Washington, so why would they support him?

The tone of those comments makes it seem like Black leaders shouldn't have a say in who represents the Democratic Party. You expect them to do all the hard work to campaign, vote, and get others to vote -- but don't want to respect their choice of candidates -- and feel they should get in line behind the latest great old male white hope. The Black community has been the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency since the 1960s, when the Republicans welcomed all of the Southern Racists, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

Your first paragraph already shows how prone you are to misjudgment. You misjudged the meaning of "demagogue" in a previous post. You misjudge my estimation of Obama, without knowing anything about me. Now you say that "demagogue" is synonymous of Black. I have known demagogues most of my long life, and most of them were/are not Black.

I never paid too much attention to Hillary until she run for president. She was quite ugly to Obama before and after he won. And Obama was extraordinarily kind offering her the position of Secretary of State. Hillary could not be more "black" than Obama, but she could be so with Sanders. My estimation that Blacks unfairly sided with Hillary against Sanders came from observations made at the time by senator John Robert Lewis about Sanders not having cared for the civil rights movement. This is false! Sanders participated with Martin Luther King on the March on Washington in 1963. And Sanders' ideology and policies have always been against discrimination and for minorities.

But I didn't find how abominable Hillary is until recently she came out blaming Sanders for her defeat and crying out that he didn't support her sufficiently. This is a heinous LIE and defines her as a lying low-life. Here is a video that describes this:

She claims: "Bernie is not a democrat". And so she tries to divide the party for her benefit. She is a bitch! and confirms it by stating that Sanders attacked her in very bad ways during the campaign. I did follow the 2016 campaign, and I don't remember Bernie saying anything inappropriate or false about Hillary, but he rightfully brought up the support she had from Wall Street and other big money. It is also a fact that Hillary gave a lot of money to the party, and the party favored her and was against Sanders. The unanimous vote of the "superdelegates" was part of it. This bitch had such an advantage in her party, such an advantage with the voters, yet she LOST so miserably to one of the most miserable people in politics. Could this have been Karma?

.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Steve5380

Steve5380 · February 26, 2019

12 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

And now Sanders is back again because he is an egomaniac whose head swelled to gigantic proportions after his unexpected "success" in 2016, but just remember, Ron Paul was the top early fundraiser on the Republican side in both 2008 and 2012, yet his "revolution" has yet to happen, and the same will hold true for the soon-to-be 78-years-old Sanders. The idea of a US President who would turn 80 while in the White House is horrifying. Trump can't do the job properly at 72 and of course he spends about a fifth of his time playing golf.

One more misjudgment on your part. I had followed Sanders before the 2016 election and before he became a candidate. Saw him in many interviews. He is not an egomaniac whose head has swelled gigantically, he is the same guy he was then. 100% decent, smart, principled. His ideology has not changed. He was always liberal, today his ideology is called "progressive", and he fits perfectly well in the democratic party no matter what the Clinton says. We should judge a person his age for what he has accomplished, and he has done a lot of good. He appears practically incorruptible, and this accounts for much of the attraction of voters to him. His base of voters did not so much dislike the Clinton as it liked him. If his followers were disruptive and rejected her it was their frustration over the way Sanders was cut short to favor her.

Now one word over you being horrified by a president his age. I am in my 70s also, not much younger than Sanders. And I know from personal experience and from having an open mind that seniority does not necessarily equate disability. Yes, Sanders could look a little better. I would advise him to get a good trainer who can make him gain strength and especially work on his posture. But mentally the man is in top shape, and above all, his principles, his ideology is excellent. A president does not need to have special powers (look at the one we have now!) but should have a decent ideology and education. Sanders fits in perfectly. And compare with this idol of the conservatives, Ronald Reagan. Reagan in his second term already had Alzheimer and mental problems. Sanders does not.

Not only is my mind in my 70s unchanged from what it was in my 20s, but I have an aunt of 93 and a brother in law of 98 who both think clearly as always. In contrast, you as "Guest Stop The Madness" are probably half my age and... you have already (or still) this insane idea of stopping the madness! Hey guy, you cannot stop madness, it is intrinsic of the human being. So, step down of your high horse and make an introspective analysis of your ideas to remove your own madness in them.

.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Steve5380

March 5, 2019

So many perfect examples of the problems with Bernie Sanders and his supporters. First of all, are you really arrogant enough to think that your pedestrian and unremarkable life of commenting on Blowing Wind for most of the day and spending the rest of your time running errands like re-filling medication prescriptions can even remotely compare to the immense responsibilities of being President of the United States of America, which is inarguably the most important and stressful job in the world? You are either completely delusional or totally out of your mind if you are serious about propagating this line of thinking!

The job of US President, when done properly, ages the office holder like no other, and the changes that we see from the outside pale in comparison to those that take place on the inside, which is the true indicator of one's physical and mental health. Barack Obama's hair went from jet black to almost all grey during his time in office. GWB and Bill Clinton similarly had their hair go from brown to grey at an accelerated pace. GHWB already had grey hair when he took over and the only reason Ronald Reagan's hair never changed was because he wore a Hollywood toupee like the wrinkled second-tier movie actor he always was.

As noted before, Donald Trump spends a ridiculous amount of time playing golf at his luxury resorts instead of doing the job correctly, but the stress of trying to hide his past and ongoing criminal activity is still taking a toll as evidenced by his frothing freakout of a two-hour demagogic rant over the weekend at the annual cult fest known as the Conservative Political Action Conference. Human minds reach their intellectual peak when we are in our 40s as detailed by Science Alert. This doesn't mean people can't do good things for the rest of our lives, but youth and vigour make for better Presidents, regardless of country.

Sanders and his supporters need to immediately move past 2016. I gave irrefutable numbers on how Hillary Clinton clearly won the nomination by gaining 55.2% of the popular vote in the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses -- while Sanders claimed just 43.1% -- which led to her earning 2,271 delegates to his 1,820 after she won 34 states and territories to his 23. The so-called super-delegates (elected party leaders) then augmented those totals to 2,842 to 1,865 ahead of the convention as they reinforced the will of the voters. You ignored all of that factual evidence to focus on Clinton's post-election comments.

The simple truth of the matter is Bernie Sanders is not a real Democrat, and in fact many of his positions are too far to the left of the Democratic Party to ever be elected President of the US, no matter how often the "Independent Socialist" votes with other Democrats in Congress. At the end of the day, he has his own agenda and cares about his own ambitions much more than he cares about the Democratic Party or (most importantly) its voters, and this is harmful to the Democrats. Whoever wins the election will have to settle for doing what is doable in Washington. Saying it's "Bernie's Way Or The Highway" is just not realistic.

Once again, get over 2016, because Hillary is not running in 2020. Yet look at your long post denigrating her, and long video link trying to make her look bad, and calling her a "loser" even though she crushed "Dorito Mussolini" in the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes. Investigations will eventually prove that Russian computer hacking swung Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, as well as North Carolina and Florida to Trump, by changing totals in targeted precincts as well as helping the Republicans illegally knock African Americans and Hispanics off the voter rolls late enough to effectively disenfranchise them.

Be that as it may, however, Trump and the Republicans with the help of Russia (as well as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) hacked the election of 2016 to steal power and are fully prepared to do so again in 2020 unless Democrats and Independents (including the Sanders crowd) wake up to the real threat. Trump and the Republicans are plotting a power grab unseen in American history and are working overtime to put in place every machination they can to snuff out American Democracy forever. You and your ilk need to put 2016 in the rearview mirror now and concentrate on the true battle for your country.

My time studying, living, and working in the Bay Area and San Francisco tuned me in to the struggle faced by regular Americans of all races, while the rich and powerful act like everything is rosy (which it is for them), and constantly divide the 99% against each other along economic, gender, orientation, and racial lines. I especially saw the ramifications of this in the AAPI and LGBTQ communities during my years there, but also among other marginalized groups like African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and religious minorities such as Muslims and Jews. The USA really needed to open its eyes years ago.

March 5, 2019

What the US needs is a united Democratic party and not a party with many fractions and split ups.

I don't understand Bernie Sanders, not from the age point, but he seems to me like that fighter that just doesn't want to give up on this leftist path. His whole intention for still running the next election is to get his leftist voice heard. but sometimes in the favour of the party you would be smarter and advised to let it go.

I would be surprised if in the US a very leftist politician can win. I doubt.

Despite all critic, I would have been sure that Hillary Clinton would have been a good president, for sure better than what the US has at the moment. She is an experienced politician, knows to play the strings at back and front, knows the world order and politics, is diplomatic, can be sharp if she needed to be.

I felt sad, that she didn't make it.

Yes, she might look like a greedy person as to the financial side, but besides Carter (maybe Obama), which last President in the US wasn't?

But after all, I think she would have been the right person for the job during the last election, even if I look at the other candidates from the Republican party if Trump had not made it in the primaries.

The election researchers actually came out to say that Clinton lost, because she neglected her voters in most contested states, there had been some of the swing states which she failed to visit at all. I know that the candidates have to visit a lot and hold many speeches but the did not intensively visit 6 - 7 (usually more democratic) Swing states, but Trump did.

For sure she was the vastly fitter candidate for the Presidency that what we have now.

I totally object to the point made that a politician in his 70s can't be a good President. Reagan was just 70 when he started. And look at those quite strong Indian Prime Ministers in their mid 70s. The age should not be the consideration.

It is the knowledge, humbleness, and some sort of charisma, for sure a vision and certain values that make a good President.

The problem is that the parties themselves are moving apart and nobody aims to unite them. Republicans same as Democrats.

This will lead to confusion with the voters, but nowadays the politicians have lost the spirit to group behind some prominent political figures but chatter at every corner and in the end the voter doesn't really know what any party is telling them.

the parties would be advised to change the whole system and to keep their mouths shut much more often and just gather behind the guys who will be running the primaries. And in my eyes the primaries should be reduced to 3 persons to unite the political parties instead of creating that behind the scenes bickering.

I think, Trump will be smart to not run again a second term, the longer his terms goes on. If think he will realise soon that nobody will support him and just read that the Republicans intend to challenge him from inside the party.

On a last note: I don't think it serves the discussion, if Stop the Madness gets so personal against Steve.

You could have left out the second sentence at your first paragraph at your last post before mine. It did not serve anything.

March 5, 2019

On 2/4/2019 at 4:30 AM, Steve5380 said:

Pete Buttigieg is the Mayor of the city of South Bend, Indiana, US. He is 36 y.o. and gay, and has announced his candidacy for president of the United States.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pete_buttigieg-36-year-old-mayor-south-bend-indiana-2020-713662/

Not only this, but he is MARRIED. Here is a video of his marriage to his partner in an Episcopalian church: (a rather lengthy video, but worth to jump around to see the marriage of two gays... in a Church!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CR30N-dieg

Will the US accept a president that is GAY, married to another GAY, only 36 y.o. and with quite a progressive agenda?

If so, the world will never be the same for us!

We will see! After all, the US elected a black president already.

.

Will 1000% support him because he is gay! Gays are all kind and compassionate. Gays hate violence and wars, gays love to provide and we rather make love not war.

March 5, 2019

7 hours ago, Guest wake up said:

Despite all critic, I would have been sure that Hillary Clinton would have been a good president, for sure better than what the US has at the moment. She is an experienced politician, knows to play the strings at back and front, knows the world order and politics, is diplomatic, can be sharp if she needed to be. I felt sad, that she didn't make it. Yes, she might look like a greedy person as to the financial side, but besides Carter (maybe Obama), which last President in the US wasn't? But after all, I think she would have been the right person for the job during the last election, even if I look at the other candidates from the Republican party if Trump had not made it in the primaries. The election researchers actually came out to say that Clinton lost, because she neglected her voters in most contested states, there had been some of the swing states which she failed to visit at all. I know that the candidates have to visit a lot and hold many speeches but the did not intensively visit 6 - 7 (usually more democratic) Swing states, but Trump did. For sure she was the vastly fitter candidate for the Presidency that what we have now.

Hillary obviously had decades more experience in politics than Trump, but she would have run into the same problems as Obama, since the Republicans would have been in control of Congress. They would have blocked almost her entire agenda, just as they did for Obama, who only passed the Economic Stimulus and Affordable Care Act because the Democrats controlled Congress for his first two years. His party was then voted out of controlling Congress after saving the country (and world) from a second Great Depression, and passing a law that slowed down the rate of health care cost acceleration, after the Republicans repeatedly lied to the public about the new law being some scary kind of Socialism.

As for Hillary's travel schedule, I understand that she visited nearly every state while winning the primaries against Sanders, but didn't go to Wisconsin after the convention because her pollsters said it was a safe state. She had no reason not to believe them since it had mostly been a Democratic state since her husband's era. I think she went to Michigan, Ohio, and Florida many times, and spent the last day of the election in Pennsylvania. Her biggest problem is that the Republicans had been lying about her and tearing down her image since 1992, when she said she didn't want to stay home and bake cookies, but instead chose a career in public life. They made it an obsession to destroy her from then until now.

7 hours ago, Guest wake up said:

I totally object to the point made that a politician in his 70s can't be a good President. Reagan was just 70 when he started. And look at those quite strong Indian Prime Ministers in their mid 70s. The age should not be the consideration. It is the knowledge, humbleness, and some sort of charisma, for sure a vision and certain values that make a good President.

Reagan was one of the worst presidents in American history, and he suffered from Alzheimer's and Dementia by the time he left office, so he is not a good example of what you wrote. Republicans falsely claim he was a great president because he started their current path of destroying the New Deal programs that led to the creation of a solid middle class, which was a big component of the US becoming the greatest nation in world history, and transferring society's wealth upwards to the greedy millionaires and billionaires who are intent on creating a New Gilded Age and reducing normal people to a status no better than peasants from the Middle Ages that will be lucky to scrape out any type of meager living.

Many defenders say Reagan 'won the Cold War' but that era would have eventually ended anyway because the USSR was clearly spending itself into oblivion, and the only way out would have been to change their governmental and economic models, or to launch World War III and assure themselves of a violent and fiery destruction. Letting the USSR limp along a bit longer might have also ensured that a leftover despot with fantasies of past glory like Putin would have never risen to power. Furthermore, you can now argue that the USSR belatedly 'won the Cold War' since Putin helped his obvious stooge and former money launderer Trump become president of the US, and controls Reagan's Republicans as well.

As a gay man, you should also be aware that Reagan let HIV/AIDS rage into an uncontrollable pandemic throughout his first six years in office, and (in deference to his fake 'Christian' financiers) never even mentioned the crisis by name until after his former movie star friend Rock Hudson died from the disease, which he contracted from a money boy, and led to the exposure of his secret double life. Think about how many gay men and other victims would have been saved from HIV/AIDS if Reagan had instead used his office to inspire the full force of the US medical establishment to find a cure. Remarkable progress was made in spite of his inaction but history would've gone much better with a Democratic president.

7 hours ago, Guest wake up said:

I think, Trump will be smart to not run again a second term, the longer his terms goes on. If think he will realise soon that nobody will support him and just read that the Republicans intend to challenge him from inside the party.

Trump is a sociopathic narcissist with delusions of grandeur who lied his way through a decades long career as a glorified real estate salesman filled with bribery, fraud, graft, and in the end money laundering for Putin's oligarchs (after American banks refused to lend him any more money because he kept declaring bankruptcy in order to avoid repaying his previous loans). His image on 'The Apprentice' as a 'billionaire businessman' was nothing more than a television character, and in reality he is a criminal, basically a real life version of Tony Soprano who will do everything to stay in office, both because of his ego, and because he will no longer be immune from prison once his time as president is finally over.

7 hours ago, Guest wake up said:

On a last note: I don't think it serves the discussion, if Stop the Madness gets so personal against Steve. You could have left out the second sentence at your first paragraph at your last post before mine. It did not serve anything.

I can't speak for Stop The Madness but I do agree that Steve's image of what he can supposedly do in his 70s does not mean that Sanders, Biden, or any other politician born in the 1940s should be president of the US, or any other nation, in 2020. President of a country, especially a world superpower like America, is not a regular job. Steve's tone towards Stop The Madness in this thread has not exactly been innocent either and his own posts all over this site help engender a lot of the animosity towards him on this site. But be that as it may, the real problem is many old politicians are too power hungry, refuse to train younger successors, and don't want to leave the stage even when they know their time is up.

Steve5380 · March 5, 2019

14 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

So many perfect examples of the problems with Bernie Sanders and his supporters. First of all, are you really arrogant enough to think that your pedestrian and unremarkable life of commenting on Blowing Wind for most of the day and spending the rest of your time running errands like re-filling medication prescriptions can even remotely compare to the immense responsibilities of being President of the United States of America, which is inarguably the most important and stressful job in the world? You are either completely delusional or totally out of your mind if you are serious about propagating this line of thinking!

The job of US President, when done properly, ages the office holder like no other, and the changes that we see from the outside pale in comparison to those that take place on the inside, which is the true indicator of one's physical and mental health. Barack Obama's hair went from jet black to almost all grey during his time in office. GWB and Bill Clinton similarly had their hair go from brown to grey at an accelerated pace. GHWB already had grey hair when he took over and the only reason Ronald Reagan's hair never changed was because he wore a Hollywood toupee like the wrinkled second-tier movie actor he always was.

Your "problems" with Bernie Sanders are the work of your imagination, your wishful thinking. I thought I had explained the reality of being an old president but here you go at it again.

The stress of being president is a matter of speculation, and it surely varies with the individual. There are jobs more stressful than that. I don't remember a president in office who fell so ill that he had to be hospitalized, who had to take leave of absence. Most of them age quite well and reach a long life. If they are smart, like they should be, they have plenty of staff to take care of minor and medium details of government. For the crucial decisions, they have plenty of experts to consult. I think that what may be stressful is to be ready to speak in public, address the nation when there is some crisis. I don't have personal experience, but I suspect that it is far more stressful to campaign and do and say all the rightful things, sometimes against any moral fiber they have, than to govern once they are elected. Once they win the elections, it must be a relief for them and an occasion to relax.

13 hours ago, Guest wake up said:

Despite all critic, I would have been sure that Hillary Clinton would have been a good president, for sure better than what the US has at the moment. She is an experienced politician, knows to play the strings at back and front, knows the world order and politics, is diplomatic, can be sharp if she needed to be.

I felt sad, that she didn't make it.

Yes, she might look like a greedy person as to the financial side, but besides Carter (maybe Obama), which last President in the US wasn't?

But after all, I think she would have been the right person for the job during the last election, even if I look at the other candidates from the Republican party if Trump had not made it in the primaries.

The election researchers actually came out to say that Clinton lost, because she neglected her voters in most contested states, there had been some of the swing states which she failed to visit at all. I know that the candidates have to visit a lot and hold many speeches but the did not intensively visit 6 - 7 (usually more democratic) Swing states, but Trump did.

For sure she was the vastly fitter candidate for the Presidency that what we have now.

Of course Clinton would have been a better president than Trump. ANYBODY would have been! She is experienced, decisive and smart. So is Bernie Sanders. He would not have been able to be such a challenge to Clinton, who had everything going for her, if he wouldn't be equally capable. Plus he is ten times more honest than her. (no, I'm not a cynical who thinks that an honest person cannot be a good president)

There have been and are illustrious heads of state and heads of organizations that successfully governed, govern. Look at a list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_state_leaders_by_age

The current leader of Malaysia, Mahathir Bin Mohamad, is nearly 94 years old.

The current Pope, Francis, is 82 years old

The notable Golda Meir served as Israel's prime minister in her 70s.

Hillary Clinton lost for every reasons (of her doing) except for the actions of Bernie, who worked hard to have her elected. And here is where my neutral opinion of her changed. By the way she ignored her total responsibility and blamed his opponent in the primaries.

She was threatening to run in 2020 but fortunately she has decided to stay out of it, but "not be gone". This means that she will hang around campaigning for her own interests, probably against Bernie. But she is damaged goods, and she may not be a big threat to anybody.

Steve5380 · March 5, 2019

5 hours ago, Guest Caught Telling Lies said:

I can't speak for Stop The Madness but I do agree that Steve's image of what he can supposedly do in his 70s does not mean that Sanders, Biden, or any other politician born in the 1940s should be president of the US, or any other nation, in 2020. President of a country, especially a world superpower like America, is not a regular job. Steve's tone towards Stop The Madness in this thread has not exactly been innocent either and his own posts all over this site help engender a lot of the animosity towards him on this site. But be that as it may, the real problem is many old politicians are too power hungry, refuse to train younger successors, and don't want to leave the stage even when they know their time is up.

I can't speak for Guest Caught Telling Lies, who may be half my age, but I have the personal experience to know what happens with our mind in the 70s. And I don't get Caught Telling Lies.

No job of head of state is a regular job. And the presidents of the US are not much different from the presidents of other nations. At least you have to recognize that our electoral process is not optimized for selecting the most capable person among our population of 300+ million people. (see the example of Trump and that of other GOP candidates who run against him).

Why would OLD politicians be more power hungry than the YOUNG ones? In America there is no problem in making them leave the stage after a maximum of 8 years.

Many old politicians are those who got elected young but are so power hungry that they remain in power into old age

.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Steve5380

March 6, 2019

Its time they have a Jewish president or an Asian of Chinese descent president.

Why not ?

Steve5380 · March 6, 2019

12 hours ago, Guest guest said:

Its time they have a Jewish president or an Asian of Chinese descent president.

Why not ?

Bernie Sanders is Jewish, and like all good Jews, he is not a Zionist.

March 7, 2019

News

ITB Berlin tourism partner Malaysia claims it has 'no gays'

Speaking ahead of the world's largest tourism fair, ITB Berlin, Malaysia's tourism minister made the claim after being asked whether Malaysia welcomed gays and Jews. Malaysia hopes to see 30 million visitors in 2019.

News

ITB Berlin tourism partner Malaysia claims it has 'no gays'

Speaking ahead of the world's largest tourism fair, ITB Berlin, Malaysia's tourism minister made the claim after being asked whether Malaysia welcomed gays and Jews. Malaysia hopes to see 30 million visitors in 2019.

Malaysian tourism minister Datuk Mohamaddin bin Ketapi (picture-alliance/dpa/B. von Jutrczenka)

Malaysia faces a potential backlash from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights groups after claiming that the Muslim-majority country doesn't have gays.

On Tuesday, Tourism Minister Datuk Mohammaddin bin Ketapi was asked by reporters ahead of the opening of the ITB Berlin tourism fair whether the country was safe for gay and Jewish visitors.

After initially sidestepping the question, the minister was asked again whether gays were welcome and he replied: "I don't think we have anything like that in our country."

Denial could hurt bookings

Despite efforts by Malaysian officials to downplay the incident, Ketapi's comments could derail attempts to entice more tourists to visit Malaysia. The remarks came after he spoke for several minutes about the country's natural beauty and welcoming culture.

The country has set itself a target of receiving 30 million visitors in 2019.

Malaysia has faced widespread censure over its attitudes to certain groups of people, including from German politician Volker Beck, who said the government had a policy against homosexuals and Jews.

Ministers of the southeast Asian country have made other derogatory statements about LGTBI people, including one who told gays they should keep their identities secret.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said homosexuality was part of "Western values." He added: "Don't force it on us."

In January, the Malaysian government said it wouldn't allow Israeli delegates to attend sporting or any other events in the Southeast Asian country, in response to the "continuous Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN March 7, 2019

There are no gay people in Malaysia says tourism minister

Malaysia's Minister for Tourism, Art and Culture Mohamaddin Ketapi attends a welcome ceremony at a booth promoting his country during the International Tourism Trade Fair (ITB) in Berlin.

(CNN)Malaysia's tourism minister has denied the existence of gay people in the country, according to reports in German media.

Ahead of attending the ITB Berlin travel fair, Tourism Minister Mohamaddin Ketapi told German reporters that he wasn't aware of gay people in the Muslim-majority Southeast Asian country.

"I don't think we have anything like that in our country," he said, responding to a question as to whether Malaysia would welcome gay travelers, according to German national broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

He also sidestepped a question concerning the safety of LGBT and Jewish travelers in the country, according to the broadcaster.

Mohamaddin later posted a statement on Twitter stating that his response to the reporter's question referred to the non-existence of specific LGBT-focused tourist campaigns in the country.

He added that the country adopts an open policy in welcoming foreign tourists and would "never (place) any unnecessary obstacles to our guests based on their sexual orientation, religion and cultural practices."

The statement added that the country has, as a sovereign nation, its own views on both the LGBT community and Israel, and expected other nations to respect the country's sovereignty.

An aide told Malaysian online news portal Malaysiakini that the comments were made in a personal capacity, but were in line with official Malaysian government policy, which does not recognize the LGBT community.

The aide, who was not named in the report, added: "Tourists coming to Malaysia like any other country are welcome regardless of their creed, sexuality, religion or color."

Condemnation

Gay rights campaigner Thilaga Sulathireh told CNN that the remarks were "outlandish (and) completely disconnected from reality" but not entirely surprising to hear.

"With the exception of a few politicians, the rest hold varying degrees of discriminatory and exclusionary position on LGBTIQ people and issues, willfully or otherwise."

She added that it was "also an embarrassingly ignorant comment which carries high socioeconomic costs," should it impact LGBT tourism to Malaysia.

The country's stance on homosexuality, as well as its alleged antisemitism -- in January this year it tried to ban Israeli athletes from an international swim meet -- had been criticized ahead of its participation at ITB Berlin.

German Green party politician Volker Beck had sought to exclude Malaysia from exhibiting at the Berlin event, one of the world's largest tourism expos, saying that its government has specific policies which are discriminatory to gay people and Jews.

"(A country embracing) homophobia and antisemitism cannot be a partner country," he said, according to Malaysiakini.

Local news outlet Star Online reported that the deputy president of the opposition Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), Mah Hang Soon, condemned Mohamaddin's comments, saying that they made Malaysia a laughing stock.

He expressed disbelief at the minister's controversial response to what he said should have been a straightforward question to answer.

"He was asked by a reporter if Malaysia is safe for homosexuals. All he needed to say was that Malaysia is a safe country and every tourist is safe here," he said.

Ingrained homophobia

Homophobia is ingrained in Malaysian politics and culture, and homosexual sex is illegal throughout Malaysia under colonial era criminal law.

Veteran politician Anwar Ibrahim, widely viewed as the successor to current Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, has been jailed twice on sodomy charges -- once by Mahathir's government, and gay people are routinely punished by public lashing in Terengganu, a Sharia-practicing state to the east of the capital, Kuala Lumpur.

An August 2018 raid on one of Kuala Lumpur's only gay clubs saw around 20 men charged for "illicit behavior," and came shortly after a brutal attack on a trans woman in a city close to the capital.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He mate kai e rokohanga, he mate anu ekore e rokohanga.

March 7, 2019

but it is true there are no gay people in Malaysia, homo no exist in Malaysia.

malaysia onl y got normal ppl.

March 7, 2019

On March 5, 2019 at 5:08 PM, Steve5380 said:

The stress of being president is a matter of speculation, and it surely varies with the individual. There are jobs more stressful than that. I don't remember a president in office who fell so ill that he had to be hospitalized, who had to take leave of absence. Most of them age quite well and reach a long life. If they are smart, like they should be, they have plenty of staff to take care of minor and medium details of government. For the crucial decisions, they have plenty of experts to consult. I think that what may be stressful is to be ready to speak in public, address the nation when there is some crisis. I don't have personal experience, but I suspect that it is far more stressful to campaign and do and say all the rightful things, sometimes against any moral fiber they have, than to govern once they are elected. Once they win the elections, it must be a relief for them and an occasion to relax.

The stress of being US President took such a toll on FDR that he died in office. Eisenhower suffered heart attacks and had to undergo surgery, leaving many Americans extremely frightened by the thought that Nixon in his early 40s would take over if Ike died or became incapacitated, and that was a decade before the 25th Amendment was added to the US Constitution. LBJ suffered multiple health problems late in his term, laboured under major stress caused by the Vietnam War, and died five years after leaving office (it would have been a lot sooner if he had run and somehow been elected again in 1968).

Nixon started becoming paranoid after losing to JFK in 1960, and winning in 1968 made his condition worse, which contributed to his participation in the completely unnecessary Watergate burglary of his opponent's office when he was favoured to win in a landslide in 1972. Reagan underwent surgery while in office and was suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia by the time he gave way to GWB after 1988. Of course he was a horrible President before that, but knew how to deliver folksy Hollywood one liners and catch phrases that kept the media eating out of his hands, despite all the damage he caused.

On March 5, 2019 at 5:08 PM, Steve5380 said:

The current leader of Malaysia, Mahathir Bin Mohamad, is nearly 94 years old.

The current Pope, Francis, is 82 years old

The notable Golda Meir served as Israel's prime minister in her 70s.

None of those jobs are in the same ballpark as President of the United States, the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and looked up to by people who love freedom and peace all over the planet to be the beacon of hope and light against darkness and evil for the last seven decades. The stress placed on American Presidents is immense when they do the job correctly, which does not mean spending nearly half their week tweeting, watching television, and playing golf like Trump does. Luckily his negligence has not led to a major disaster yet, but it will, providing the opening he craves to become a dictator.

On March 5, 2019 at 5:08 PM, Steve5380 said:

Hillary Clinton lost for every reasons (of her doing) except for the actions of Bernie, who worked hard to have her elected. And here is where my neutral opinion of her changed. By the way she ignored her total responsibility and blamed his opponent in the primaries.

She was threatening to run in 2020 but fortunately she has decided to stay out of it, but "not be gone". This means that she will hang around campaigning for her own interests, probably against Bernie. But she is damaged goods, and she may not be a big threat to anybody.

Get over your Hillary obsession. She is an important figure in American history, even though she was cheated out of the Presidency by Russian computer hacking that titled the Electoral College to Trump in five states, as well as the US media and their endless false stories about her e-mails and family foundation (which is one of the world's most respected charities according to all major ratings agencies while Trump's "foundation" was forced to close due to fraud) convincing lazy voters that she did something "bad" which nobody could actually explain. As for Sanders, he won't win the nomination, so brace yourself now.

On March 5, 2019 at 5:23 PM, Steve5380 said:

No job of head of state is a regular job. And the presidents of the US are not much different from the presidents of other nations. At least you have to recognize that our electoral process is not optimized for selecting the most capable person among our population of 300+ million people. (see the example of Trump and that of other GOP candidates who run against him).

Why would OLD politicians be more power hungry than the YOUNG ones? In America there is no problem in making them leave the stage after a maximum of 8 years.

Many old politicians are those who got elected young but are so power hungry that they remain in power into old age

The responsibilities placed upon a US President to do the job properly are greater than those of 99% of the nations on Earth. Due to their nuclear arsenals, populations, and influence, China, Russia, India, and Pakistan can be thrown into the conversation, but in the end, America is held to a higher standard because it was founded on ideals that the others are not even remotely capable of adhering to or living up to. And while US Presidents are now forced to step aside after 8 years due to the experience of FDR withering away in office, Senators, Representatives, and plenty of others stay in power until they die or the voters wise up.

You need to stop taking things personally just because you are old. The expectations a country should have for Presidents and other elected leaders have nothing to do with your personal feelings about what you think you can do at your age in whatever things you occupy your life with. None of that compares to being President. The majority of old entrenched politicians only care about getting rich and winning their next election. What the US and the world need now, however, is a visionary who can plan decades into the future as the planet prepares for the species threatening horrors that climate change will unleash upon all of us.

Steve5380 · March 8, 2019

12 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

The stress of being US President took such a toll on FDR that he died in office. Eisenhower suffered heart attacks and had to undergo surgery, leaving many Americans extremely frightened by the thought that Nixon in his early 40s would take over if Ike died or became incapacitated, and that was a decade before the 25th Amendment was added to the US Constitution. LBJ suffered multiple health problems late in his term, laboured under major stress caused by the Vietnam War, and died five years after leaving office (it would have been a lot sooner if he had run and somehow been elected again in 1968).

Nixon started becoming paranoid after losing to JFK in 1960, and winning in 1968 made his condition worse, which contributed to his participation in the completely unnecessary Watergate burglary of his opponent's office when he was favoured to win in a landslide in 1972. Reagan underwent surgery while in office and was suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia by the time he gave way to GWB after 1988. Of course he was a horrible President before that, but knew how to deliver folksy Hollywood one liners and catch phrases that kept the media eating out of his hands, despite all the damage he caused.

You don't seem to have liked much Ronald Reagan, and we agree with that. He was responsible for coming up with the trickle-down voodoo economics, and the bad karma from this may have been the reason of his health and mental problems. Overworked? I think that the fall of the Berlin wall was incidental, and not result of a tremendous effort by Reagan to make it fall.

Your other examples with FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ don't work in your favor. They all reached their expected lifetime at the time, and Eisenhower at 79 died more than a decade later. People in these days, like today, used to die, and it is hard to pin it on their work in the White House.

12 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

None of those jobs are in the same ballpark as President of the United States, the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and looked up to by people who love freedom and peace all over the planet to be the beacon of hope and light against darkness and evil for the last seven decades. The stress placed on American Presidents is immense when they do the job correctly, which does not mean spending nearly half their week tweeting, watching television, and playing golf like Trump does. Luckily his negligence has not led to a major disaster yet, but it will, providing the opening he craves to become a dictator.

What do you know about the stress placed on a Pope? If a US president has in his hands to use of the nuclear arsenal, the Pope has an infinitely higher power in his hands: he is the representative of God on earth, and "what he binds on earth will be bound on heaven". Imagine the destructive power of his buddy God (!!!). And now seriously, if the US president has to make some difficult political decisions here and there, the Pope is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion people and has to weight 2000 years of tradition vs. the desire of millions of souls for a more progressive church. And remember the sex abuse scandal, that must weight on Pope Francis more than N Korea on an American president. Same for the presidents of other countries who are in danger of being attacked, invaded, destroyed by powerful enemies. We in America are in little risk of all this.

12 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

Get over your Hillary obsession. She is an important figure in American history, even though she was cheated out of the Presidency by Russian computer hacking that titled the Electoral College to Trump in five states, as well as the US media and their endless false stories about her e-mails and family foundation (which is one of the world's most respected charities according to all major ratings agencies while Trump's "foundation" was forced to close due to fraud) convincing lazy voters that she did something "bad" which nobody could actually explain. As for Sanders, he won't win the nomination, so brace yourself now.

I have zero obsession with Hillary but I have always been indifferent about her until her latest political moves starting in 2008. As I quoted before, her claim that after losing to Obama she supported him full hearted is a lie. Here is an article about what happened in 2008:

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-2008-campaign-095035

She is an important figure in American history? Perhaps important, but not desired. And she is welcomed to be nothing but HISTORY. Al Capone was also an important figure in American history. There is no guarantee that Sanders will win, but if he does not, it will not be for the reasons you argue.

12 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

You need to stop taking things personally just because you are old. The expectations a country should have for Presidents and other elected leaders have nothing to do with your personal feelings about what you think you can do at your age in whatever things you occupy your life with. None of that compares to being President. The majority of old entrenched politicians only care about getting rich and winning their next election. What the US and the world need now, however, is a visionary who can plan decades into the future as the planet prepares for the species threatening horrors that climate change will unleash upon all of us.

You need to stop taking things personally just because some old people may outsmart you. I have much to do with the expectations for presidents because it is MY country. Your desire of "a visionary who can plan decades into the future" is naive. We need a person who can fix today's problems. And a good example I bring up is the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. So many pseudo experts claimed that she was too old for the work, that instead should be held by a younger person. It turns out that she is doing a fantastic work. Her handling of Trump's shutdown was a model of character, capacity and experience, and Trump got his ass kicked. She and senator Schumer put their experience to work in an impeccable way. And the current oversight inquires by the House are further example that there is a strong hand leading it.

.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Steve5380

March 8, 2019

18 hours ago, Guest Stop The Madness said:

The stress of being US President took such a toll on FDR that he died in office. Eisenhower suffered heart attacks and had to undergo surgery, leaving many Americans extremely frightened by the thought that Nixon in his early 40s would take over if Ike died or became incapacitated, and that was a decade before the 25th Amendment was added to the US Constitution. LBJ suffered multiple health problems late in his term, laboured under major stress caused by the Vietnam War, and died five years after leaving office (it would have been a lot sooner if he had run and somehow been elected again in 1968).

Nixon started becoming paranoid after losing to JFK in 1960, and winning in 1968 made his condition worse, which contributed to his participation in the completely unnecessary Watergate burglary of his opponent's office when he was favoured to win in a landslide in 1972. Reagan underwent surgery while in office and was suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia by the time he gave way to GWB after 1988. Of course he was a horrible President before that, but knew how to deliver folksy Hollywood one liners and catch phrases that kept the media eating out of his hands, despite all the damage he caused.

None of those jobs are in the same ballpark as President of the United States, the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and looked up to by people who love freedom and peace all over the planet to be the beacon of hope and light against darkness and evil for the last seven decades. The stress placed on American Presidents is immense when they do the job correctly, which does not mean spending nearly half their week tweeting, watching television, and playing golf like Trump does. Luckily his negligence has not led to a major disaster yet, but it will, providing the opening he craves to become a dictator.

Get over your Hillary obsession. She is an important figure in American history, even though she was cheated out of the Presidency by Russian computer hacking that titled the Electoral College to Trump in five states, as well as the US media and their endless false stories about her e-mails and family foundation (which is one of the world's most respected charities according to all major ratings agencies while Trump's "foundation" was forced to close due to fraud) convincing lazy voters that she did something "bad" which nobody could actually explain. As for Sanders, he won't win the nomination, so brace yourself now.

The responsibilities placed upon a US President to do the job properly are greater than those of 99% of the nations on Earth. Due to their nuclear arsenals, populations, and influence, China, Russia, India, and Pakistan can be thrown into the conversation, but in the end, America is held to a higher standard because it was founded on ideals that the others are not even remotely capable of adhering to or living up to. And while US Presidents are now forced to step aside after 8 years due to the experience of FDR withering away in office, Senators, Representatives, and plenty of others stay in power until they die or the voters wise up.

You need to stop taking things personally just because you are old. The expectations a country should have for Presidents and other elected leaders have nothing to do with your personal feelings about what you think you can do at your age in whatever things you occupy your life with. None of that compares to being President. The majority of old entrenched politicians only care about getting rich and winning their next election. What the US and the world need now, however, is a visionary who can plan decades into the future as the planet prepares for the species threatening horrors that climate change will unleash upon all of us.

I don't think you can't say in general terms that a younger president would do a better job or is fitter for the job. You might even say that a younger president might take a riskier approach to certain matters compared due to an older President in lack of foresight or being more impulsive. There is a bit of truth in this. There is no guarantee that the young President would not push the atomic button or the old one.

For the past century younger and even younger politicians have taken up jobs as Prime Ministers or Presidents, but did it seriously lead to any better politics? Or not even worse, haven't politics gone worse?

Your point of visionary is copying what I said earlier.

Yes, we don't need day to day managers as Presidents but politicians or look at the general state define policies on a long term nature and maybe don't focus so much on ideology but draw political plans to reform and shape the country to a better state.

I would hope that someone can work a bit more on the rich and poor divide in the US.

Personally, I don't think the tax cut had been necessary, there should have been plans to increase the spendable salary for working people and not just for corporations and rich guys.

What I meant with ideology: If someone has issues with abortion ok, I would accept it, but don't start to try to change the realities on every thing. You personal opinion must not always lead to policies. in the US I often see these fights about issues which have mostly already been settled or overcome by the real facts.

you cut the programs on some youth education because some monies are spent on talking about pregnancy and abortion.

The worst topic is healthcare. Get it settled and fast, get a basis of medical care which benefits everyone, but stop those fights about poor people's access to healthcare and the middle class being ripped off but rich people are left out (and even have their own luxury medical care). Every citizen should somehow share public costs, but just stop these ideological fights about healthcare.

The Europeans have accepted that there will be always people who can't afford healthcare and that everyone has to take a share on the costs to offer a minimum of appropriate healthcare. But in US, there is no solution brought forward but just fights on something that should not be. What does it bring if rich people set up Foundations to work on different charity programs if the basic needs for healthcare are not in place?

If the called "Obamacare" is not working or bad, then reform it, make it to a program that works. But please stop these silly fights over the fact that a certain percentage of people won't be able to afford minimum healthcare. The person might have worked the whole live in a plantation and contributed to society. I never understand whey there is no recognition in the US for those people. hard working people.

No worries, I m not a Sanders but I get upset about this ignorance for some basic facts and things which you just have to accept as they are.

lovehandle · March 16, 2019

Be it straight or gay porn

do take note before entering many ctries

they r very strict about it!

it is a surprise that many of u view porn using your phones, played games using your phones too(games could be virtual sex games)

never have i done such thing, i onlu do it for professional dealings and comm or watching news

else, i dont hook to a phone for pleasures

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysian-detained-in-australia-over-child-porn-allegedly-found-11351406?cid=fbcna

March 17, 2019

Followed one of the links above to the liberal website Daily Kos and found this cartoon that exposes the hypocrisy of Republicans.

1429ckCOMIC-socialists-from-the-future.p

Basically everything the Republicans now call 'Socialist' was mainstream in the 1950s that the Republicans claim to love so much.

March 17, 2019

Gays should support gays. I will support this gay candidate and pledge my family and I full support. We will stand behine him and give him the confidence to do the job.

Our 2nd choice will be male candidates as we gays must stand for man's rights. We will not support any women candidates like hilary or elizebeth or coates as I believe women are the downfall of men.

Please send my regards to this candidate and ask him if he need any help, feel free to ask me for assistance or advise.

Steve5380 · March 17, 2019

2 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Gays should support gays. I will support this gay candidate and pledge my family and I full support. We will stand behine him and give him the confidence to do the job.

I like your good intentions towards us gays. But you should not support a politician only on the basis of his sexual orientation. Fortunately, Buttigleg's ideology makes him favorable.

2 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Our 2nd choice will be male candidates as we gays must stand for man's rights. We will not support any women candidates like hilary or elizebeth or coates as I believe women are the downfall of men.

LOL! you feel that you have fallen down because of some woman? I don't, not even having been married to one

Historically, we men have had all the privileges, rights. Today women are being emancipating and increasingly sharing privileges with us.

But we gays have little to worry. There is very little probability that we will be accused of sexually harassing and abusing women.

lovehandle · March 17, 2019

And

http://huffp.st/Vxo5isc

lovehandle · March 18, 2019

Non -binary! Anyone has the same feel like him??

https://bbc.in/2Fh2PHw

neither here nor there?

March 27, 2019

ST News : Brunei to impose death by stoning for gay sex and adultery

PUBLISHED4 MIN AGO
FACEBOOKTWITTERWHATSAPPEMAIL KUALA LUMPUR (AFP)

Adultery and gay sex in Brunei will be subject to death by stoning from next week, authorities said, under a strict Syariah law that has been on hold for four years amid heavy criticism.

Rights groups reacted in horror on Wednesday (March 27) to the latest hardline move from the resource-rich nation on Borneo, which practises a stricter brand of Islam than its neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia.

The tiny sultanate will implement the harsh new penal code - which also prescribes amputation of a hand and foot for theft - next Wednesday.

Homosexuality is already illegal in Brunei but it will now become a capital offence. The law only applies to Muslims.

The new penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand for a first offence, and the left foot for a second offence.

Amnesty International on Wednesday urged Brunei to "immediately halt" implementing the new penalties.

"To legalise such cruel and inhuman penalties is appalling of itself," Brunei researcher Rachel Chhoa-Howard said in a statement.

"Some of the potential 'offences' should not even be deemed crimes at all, including consensual sex between adults of the same gender."

A notice on Brunei's Attorney General's Chambers dated Dec 29 last year said the provisions will take effect on April 3.

Brunei first announced the measures in 2013 but implementation has been delayed as officials worked out the practical details and in the teeth of opposition by rights groups.

Under a shift towards hardline Islamic law, Brunei in 2015 banned excessive Christmas celebrations for fear that Muslims could be led astray.

Brunei's Sultan is no stranger to controversy at home - the monarchy was deeply embarrassed by a family feud with his brother Jefri over the latter's alleged embezzlement of US$15 billion (S$20.3 billion) during his tenure as finance minister in the 1990s.

Court battles and investigations revealed salacious details of Prince Jefri's un-Islamic jetset lifestyle, including claims of a high-priced harem of foreign women and a luxury yacht he owned called "Tits".

March 28, 2019

Hmm. How abt massage place that offers hj?

March 28, 2019

The south east asia is fast becoming the middle east.

Sign In

Foreign / Overseas LGBT News - Gay News Outside Singapore (Compiled)

Recommended Posts

Guest free loading cum fetishist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

briax

Posted Images

Guest ooppss

Dreading Expectations,

Transgender Safiey declines mufti’s invite to ‘tea’

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ooppss

Dreading Expectations,

Transgender Safiey declines mufti’s invite to ‘tea’

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Stop The Madness

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Stop The Madness

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Stop The Madness

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Caught Telling Lies

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites