In the wise words of Clementine Ford, "Jacqui, I think we have established you have no idea what you are talking about".As humans we don't tend to like having our ideals and opinions challenged. So much so, that most of us only align ourselves with people of similar or same political opinions as ourselves. See why this makes you look foolish.
As lefty tree hugging noobs, we need to respect the system we believe in, even if it doesn't work in our favour. Democracy is the core of most of what we fight for. We need to stop pretending like the whole world is on our side in believing that Trump is the equivalent of Bart Simpson's evil twin.
After a recent conversation about the downfall of Aleppo and the Middle East, the topic of Authoritarianism and political/social stability arose. Do Authoritarian regimes bring about more stability than democracies? And if it weren't for the western intervention in the Middle East would there be more stability in the region? In order for me to assess the differences between the two political systems I decided to chose a Authoritarian regime that was relatively neutral to western tampering, thus I decided to make a comparison between China (the upcoming supposed powerhouse) and the current superpower the US, and how they both combat terrorism and which is more effective in mitigating (reducing) threats of terrorism.
From Trumps supposed multiple sexual harassments to Hillary's "drug usage" during the second debate, its unclear wether it's a presidential race or a poorly written day time drama. For us non-American's the constant wave of open slandering from both Trump and Clinton about each other seems a bit ridiculous. The question presumes of wether the race for presidency over the "free world" is a fight over ideals and policy, or a personality contest. Here's what you should know as a Non American.