«12. . .1,9331,9341,9351,9361,9371,9381,939. . .2,5852,586»
I'm kinda liking both proposals. We should defeat ISIS immediatley before they can kill anyone else, and we should also stop drone attacks in Pakistan if America wants to have a warm relationship with them.
Welcome, LSI friends! It's been a pleasure to serve the DSA as our ambassador to LSI; I'm a bit sad to see the region go, as I was MFA when we established relations with them, but it's been a bittersweet experience to be at the beginning and end of the history of a great little region.
Yes, welcome! I'm sorry the region didn't pan out.
There remains the uncertainty of whether Pakistan has been working against the US and sabotaging their efforts. Like how the CIA chief became violently, deathly ill, had to return home, and that doctors were not able to identify or treat said "illness" up to his death. And questions of whether they've been providing cover for known terrorists since the beginning of operations. Not that I like ANY of what is going on. I fully recognize that our continued presence in the middle-east has destabilized it catastrophically, and counterproductively against our efforts to fight terrorism. I'd prefer we didn't get into this quagmire to begin with, but now that we're in it this deep, there's no easy way out. Asymmetrical warfare is the new reality, I guess... unthinkable atrocities on each side, because neither can wage war practically face-to-face.
I seriously have no clue. I feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place with the forecasted choices. With all the accounts I've read about Clinton, even discounting all the overblown and non-issues and being unrealistically optimistic in assuming no intentional wrongdoing, the sheer amount of conflicts of interest and appearances of improprieties add up astoundingly that it might as well be the former. And all Clinton supporters can respond in turn is not to actually address said improprieties or elaborate on policies, but to attack the character and credibility of detractors to their campaign. To hold the blame for any potential loss over, not any actual shortcomings of Clinton herself, but the admittedly overzealous Sanders supporters because criticizing her somehow indicates that they're closet sexists. I've thoroughly familiarized myself with the character and shrewdness of the Clintons since I witnessed the start of Bill's campaign, and at the time I admittedly admired him for it, but only because I had limited political knowledge and historical context. The Clintons' desire to hold the presidency is one of unparalleled opportunism with no clear compass-bearing. She's changed so many of her stances, especially since the start of the campaign, that I have no reason to expect that she'll follow through with them. Even assuming that she does, I haven't the smallest inkling of where her priorities actually lay in regards to policy.
Then there's Trump. Not nearly half as conservative as the other candidates, but helluva lot more nationalist: harking to Mussolini-esque rhetoric and speaking style, winking and nodding to hate groups, and publicly-declaring admiration of historical dictators. He's preyed upon the stereotypes of practically every minority demographic and openly insulted each of them at least twice. He's the very incarnation of the life-long gamble pursued by the GOP, combining xenophobia, paranoia, fear-mongering, blind jingoism, anti-intellectualism, and superstitious deference to wealthy market-witch-doctors, all in one not-so-neat little package. Despite that he runs as a keen businessman, he has failed so spectacularly with his hefty inheritance throughout all of his ventures, that economic analysts have concluded he would have been better off if he just invested all of that money. And not only has he acted incompetently, he has acted spitefully, using his celebrity, connections, and economic power to ruin peoples lives for no better reason than being in his way! He is such an egomaniac, so psychologically fragile, that it is impossible for him to let any non-positive observation about him go without a schoolyard comeback. You can merely observe his family's uncomfortable body language to what a power-hungry control freak he is. He is so used to getting his way 24/7, that he is not in any way shape or form prepared for a position that doesn't give him absolute power.
And neither are addressing the climate issue nearly as much as they should; with as much urgency as it truly deserves.
I guess, for me, it will all come down to whether Hillary can demonstrate the ability to be trustworthy and transparent with a simple gesture. Release one transcript, the latest tax return, something. Anything. At this point in the demands against her, we all know that whatever she reveals won't look good. However, keeping it secret won't give us reason to believe otherwise, nor be any less damaging. She's not some magician that is able to employ the suspension of disbelief upon her audience. Once she does that, I will vote for her unconditionally, regardless of what the revealed content is. If not, I'm thinking third party.
"We"?
Each American citizen? American armed forces? American corporations? Western nations? Western corporations? Western contractors? The whole Empire (= USA + vassals/allies + western corporations)?
That's why I'm sticking with third parties. Go Green and Socialist Party!
Lemur Isles, Uupha, Communicar, and Bourboncois
I meant the world governments.
If Bernie loses the nomination, I'll probably end up voting for Hillary because she has a better chance of beating Trump than Jill Stein does. Also, as much as I dislike Hillary, she doesn't look any worse than Obama (i.e. progressive on social issues but 90s-era conservative on economics, foreign policy and civil rights).
Oh boy! A new term and a new opportunity to be ignored by everyone as I plead for some ambassadors!!!
Just kidding...well not really, just less cynicism :)
Would anyone like to be an ambassador?
Gallifrax and Borq
What do you even do as an ambassador?
Cause I'm quite interested.
Anyone else gonna be at left forum today?
Post self-deleted by Patnium.
I'm a paying member of the UK green party ☺
I'm a member of the Socialistische Partij, though, sadly, it's really a social democratic party.
I'm a member of the People's Front of Judea. I assure you, we are far better than the Judean People's Front.
Tauride, Communicar, Zambique, and Alitone
Nominations and elections for the vacant positions of MIRP and Sec-Gen will be held shortly. If these positions still remain vacant, I will have to delegate someone for them, as I do not have the time nor the expertise to cover such important roles in the Cabinet.
The comrades from LSI are welcome to participate in the government, if they wish: just remember to opt-in our Charter here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/3308885/1/
Have a great day everybody!
"The industrial sector is mostly comprised of enterprising ten-year-olds selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out." Really have to do something about this!
From what I can tell about my economy after looking at other nations is...I don't even have a public sector? the entire thing is just listed as "government" which I can only assume means bureaucracy, yet I also have a very strong economy? My brain is hurting trying to figure this out.
Zambique and Alitone
What happened to the Judean Popular People's Front?
Zambique and Alitone
Hello everyone! It's that time of the Cabinet again, the time to decide upon the title for our new president, Celle franca. I opened a topic on the forum where you may submit your title suggestions, but only one suggestion per person please.
The topic is s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/6054056/
«12. . .1,9331,9341,9351,9361,9371,9381,939. . .2,5852,586»
Advertisement
