To some extent, all political leaders are beholden in one way or another to foreign influence. Leaders of small states are beholden to, or feel the need to suck up to, the USA, or France, or China, or their World Power of choice. In many cases, a World Power put them where they are.
In the USA, presidents of the past have all been influenced by outside forces - Britain, Saudi Arabia, Israel......many of these countries exert a disproportionate influence. Remember the dreadful, unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty warship by Israel in 1967? Lyndon Johnson wanted to condemn that forcefully, but it was made clear in pretty short order that he was not permitted to do so, or he would be slandered left and right as an "anti-semite" and his legacy would be ruined. He obediently pulled his head in. And remember how slavish the Bush Family were and are to the Saudis? Members of the Bin Laden family were close friends of the Bushes........ As for Hillary Clinton, her best friend is a woman often alleged to be working for Saudi Intelligence.......
Make no mistake about it, if you are looking for a lackey of foreign influence in the White House, Trump is the least of your worries.
I live in a country where, in the last two or three decades, there have been multiple gun-related mass homicides. And in a country of only 4 million people (about the population of Atlanta, Georgia) that is quite an achievement.
While school type shootings in the USA attract a lot of media attention, we need to remember the USA has a population larger than the populations of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, put together.
And I am pretty confident you will find that, in the last few years, more people have died in Europe, in terrorist-related mass attacks, than in mass shootings in the USA. And while guns have been used in some of those (e.g. Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan Theatre), most have been the result of the use of other weapons, such as bombs, vans, trucks, and knives.
As a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I take issue with your claim that "we are all the better for it". How does it make New Zealand (or Australia) safer because criminals have guns and law-abiding folks don't?
You may think it is wonderful for your government to largely restrict gun ownership to the criminal fraternity, but I do not feel the same way.
I dreamed last night that Elton John and Barry Manilow (with a massive mullet) were sharing a house together, over the road from me, and that every Sunday, Elton John would come over and do helpful chores for his neighbours.
Somehow I suspect that is one dream that won't be coming true.
Yes, it was preferable for Vietnam to be united. But NOT under communism. The invasion of South Vietnam by the Moscow-backed North was a tragedy of large scale.
There is some truth in this statement, inasmuch as I believe the world would be a better place today had the Union not succeeded in defeating the Confederacy in 1865. The Confederacy would have preserved the values of the "real" America to a much greater extent than the USA has done, for one thing.
But that is the past, and we have to deal with the "what is" of the situation. At the present time, a united USA behind Trump is the best we can hope for - but I don't see it happening.
In general, I agree with this point. And I normally do not vote, for the same reasons.
It will doubtless be controversial to say this, but I do not believe that democracy, as we know it, is the best form of government. In general, democracy simply means two parties controlled by the same people, where the outcome is never, in any meaningful sense, in doubt, no matter who wins.
However there are exceptions - in some countries the politicians are worth voting for. The Hungarian government is a good example. And Trump's election win in 2016 certainly made a big difference to the world - I would certainly have voted for him. That's a glaring example of an election where the outcome did make a difference, and where the people (for once) bested the powers-that-be, behind the scenes.
Hardly news. There never was any "collusion" nor any likelihood of "collusion". The whole thing was predicated on the belief that if they throw enough mud, some of it might stick.
Hardly news. There never was any "collusion" nor any likelihood of "collusion". The whole thing was predicated on the belief that if they throw enough mud, some of it might stick.
Good question. I am pretty sure we don't grow cashew nuts here, but hadn't really thought about it. I always assumed they are imported. But they taste yummy. I have a mild nut allergy though, so can't eat too many at once.
RE: NO COLLUSION... MOVE ON!
To some extent, all political leaders are beholden in one way or another to foreign influence. Leaders of small states are beholden to, or feel the need to suck up to, the USA, or France, or China, or their World Power of choice. In many cases, a World Power put them where they are.In the USA, presidents of the past have all been influenced by outside forces - Britain, Saudi Arabia, Israel......many of these countries exert a disproportionate influence. Remember the dreadful, unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty warship by Israel in 1967? Lyndon Johnson wanted to condemn that forcefully, but it was made clear in pretty short order that he was not permitted to do so, or he would be slandered left and right as an "anti-semite" and his legacy would be ruined. He obediently pulled his head in. And remember how slavish the Bush Family were and are to the Saudis? Members of the Bin Laden family were close friends of the Bushes........ As for Hillary Clinton, her best friend is a woman often alleged to be working for Saudi Intelligence.......
Make no mistake about it, if you are looking for a lackey of foreign influence in the White House, Trump is the least of your worries.