1
1146
1147

[india]/u/CharmingRamsayBolton explains India's geo-political dislike of America (reddit.com)

submitted by mctwists

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]narad_muni 104 ポイント105 ポイント

"Modi" who was denied US visa, mentioned in point 11, is the new Prime minister and he will be visiting US in September. So its gonna be ..... awkward.

[–]redpourain -67 ポイント-66 ポイント

Awkward for India. Because we elected a fundamentalist.

[–]mods_are_babies 37 ポイント38 ポイント

Well America elected a pretty serious fundamentalist (twice) and they didn't blow themselves up, so I'm sure there is hope for India.

[–]CaptainSnacks 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Please don't kill me, but who is that 'very serious fundamentalist'?

[–]Fluttershy_qtest 21 ポイント22 ポイント

He's probably talking about Bush.

[–]JumbledOne 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Whats sad is the Republicans have gotten even crazier. At least they will never win a presidential election again, but boy are they fucking up congress

[–]nolan1971 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The Democrats have been through the same sort of thing, during the 80's and 90's.

[–]ShadyApes 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Except he created two disastrous wars, endangered American lives even further, crippled the global economy, destroyed the majority of manufacturing in America, sold out most of the country's best interests to the highest bidder, and watched two major (and culturally important) American cities destroyed in the process - I mean, yeah we "didn't blow ourselves up" literally but we basically did figuratively.

Acting like electing fascists is not that serious really undermines the majority of modern history.

[–]Aceinthenite 13 ポイント14 ポイント

I hate bush as much as anyone else, but he didn't do anything to destroy manufacturing any more than the normal economic forces did. It could be argued that Clinton was worse because if NAFTA. Entire factory towns popped up in mexico south of the border overnight after that.

[–]ShadyApes -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Yes, this is all true. But I'd say the death rattle was under Bush. It doesn't help that the "FINISH HIM" of the unions happened under Bush as well.

[–]Aceinthenite 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Seems to me Obama is just carrying that on. To pin it solely on bush is being dishonest about how terrible the other presidents of the past 20 years have been.

[–]ShadyApes -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

He sure is. You're acting like I'm on the Democrats side just because I view Bush as one of the top 10 worst presidents.

And it's not dishonest. Bush's cronyism is one of the most egregious in history: it oversaw the destruction of New Orleans. But that's not a big deal. They're all the same, right? It was Obama who scapegoated gay people in 2004 to win an election. Obama also fluctuated terror ratings and manipulated reporters to sell the case for war and released spy names (isn't this treason?). In all seriousness though, he did catch Osama bin Laden - you know - the guy who actually attacked us.

So take your bullshit 2000-2008 revisioning and shove it up your ass.

[–]Aceinthenite 1 ポイント2 ポイント

You sure are angry. Obama didn't do a damn thing that contributed to the capture of Osama, that was the people in intelligence/the military.

Bush had nothing to do with the destruction of New Orleans, that was the Corp of Engineers that fucked up pier safety, and the fact the damn place is below the water level in hurricane alley.

Keep drinking that kool aid.

[–]nolan1971 0 ポイント1 ポイント

So take your bullshit 2000-2008 revisioning and shove it up your ass.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[–]bored_me 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Youre just looking for reasons ro bash bush which is entirely unhelpful. People need to stop bein so emotionally invested in showing their team is better than the other and just admit that they all suck.

Saying bush is worse than clinton for manufacturing jobs is just stupid.

[–]ShadyApes -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Well, I'm gay. I was also personally scapegoated in 2004 so that he could win an election. Much like Clinton did with DOMA (although DADT started with good intentions). Clinton's cronyism didn't see a complete eradication of New Orleans.

I'll never forget Bush. I'll bring him up every chance I get. He was an awful president and his administration is burned into my memory as being a corrupt and disastrous one. So don't act like this is entirely unhelpful - how do you prevent future bullshit without people who remember how it actually was.

[–]bored_me 0 ポイント1 ポイント

By being level headed and not criticizing presidents for shit they didnt cause? By appropriately placing blame and being fair?

Youre just being irrational, and ill just leave it at that.

[–]ShadyApes -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Sounds good!

[–]Fluttershy_qtest 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Well we can hope that Narendra Modi doesn't turn out to be a hindu fundamentalist. After getting elected he hasn't really done anything objectionable yet. It's okay to be apprehensive I guess.

[–]ShadyApes 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Honestly, I'd rather be proven wrong than right.

[–]mirchman 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Well you talk about economic implosion under Bush. Look at Modi's track record as former CM of Gujarat. In short, it's far and away the most prosperous state in India.

[–]ShadyApes 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Except most of that growth came from selling all domestic interests to private industries, primarily those with strong ties with Modi (at least it went to Indians, I guess).

ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!1!! for the sake of economic growth does nothing when you're stealing land from farmers and giving them to your friends to build power plants that then pollutes the entire land.

[–]TMWNN 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Bravery level: 11/10

[–]perseus0807 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Well, you do have very limited checks and balances with just two major parties. We don't have that (massive) problem. Though yeah, we kinda do this time, in the Lok Sabha.

[–]blues2911 7 ポイント8 ポイント

The only people who feel awkward about it are the ABCDs and superleft Indians for whom anything right leaning = hitler. I'm sure the 36% of his voters will be perfectly fine with the election results.