Yet he's still voting for Trump. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about -- I stated above that Trump voters are either "ill-informed or uneducated about politics." Colby's comment perfectly proves it. Idiots like this shouldn't be allowed to vote. Their vote affects the entire planet, not just the US. You need a license to drive a car but any idiot can vote."I don’t support or endorse any of Trump’s policies. I just think it’ll escalate the problem, which is the best we can hope for."
This comment is wrong on so many different levels. First you don't understand how the Electoral College works, thereby further proving my point that Trump voters are "ill-informed or uneducated about politics". Notice I said "uneducated about politics" not uneducated in general.I think it's great. EVERYONE has the freedom to choose to support the candidate of his/her choice. That's no reason to call someone "Uneducated" and "Ill-Informed. Just because someone doesn't think the way you think is no reason to resort to name calling.
I remain more disturbed by what Clinton has DONE than by what Trump has SAID.
In reality, it doesn't matter one bit how we vote since it's not our votes that elect the President of the US. We'd have to go back to Reagan or before to see the Electoral College voting with the popular vote
In reality, it doesn't matter one bit how we vote since it's not our votes that elect the President of the US. We'd have to go back to Reagan or before to see the Electoral College voting with the popular vote
Revolution, in American history, as in Russian, French etc. has been an excellent thing. The nations you mentioned above all have one thing in common - they're all Middle Eastern countries and their "revolutions" have all had American influence that was meant to destabilize their nation, not build it, in order to create chaos in the region so as to provide a non-stop market for American military weapons. Let's at least be honest with the devil you are talking about.As for Colby, anyone who is voting for destabilization is scary to me.
It isn't like we are alone in the world. Revolutions aren't good news. More recently look, look at the "Arab Spring" destabilization results... Egypt got rid of a Dictatorial President and replaced it with a Military coup. In Libya, there has been civil war. Yemen has more than 10000 deaths and is still not recovered. After 3 years, Tunisia has a single body government making decisions. And, Syria is still in a civil war.
So, routing for destabilization... Not something I will support, even if he is hot looking.
Revolution, in American history, as in Russian, French etc. has been an excellent thing. The nations you mentioned above all have one thing in common - they're all Middle Eastern countries and their "revolutions" have all had American influence that was meant to destabilize their nation, not build it, in order to create chaos in the region so as to provide a non-stop market for American military weapons. Let's at least be honest with the devil you are talking about.
That's bullshit. The American Revolution, one can argue, was an internal revolution moving away from an ineffective monarchy as well.Sorry, I'm can't support your reasoning. The Middle Eastern revolutions as examples of internally driven revolutions. The countries involved were not the only examples, true. Some of the Arab Spring revolutions has some positive change. They were the exception, not the rule. In the positive cases, there were more effective monarchies that choose to relinquish power.
The American Revolution was an internally driven revolution that worked, but, as with the French and Russian (which had other external influences), they were moving away from an ineffective monarchy. So, there isn't a true comparison.
Either way, to support a candidate just to destabilize is not the way to make effective change.