If you didn't support Trump in 2016 do you regret it and will you support him in 2020

[JLW]

Good Lord, who cares about what she reads? A lot of people do not read the newspapers anymore. In fact, I would say that most young people do not read the newspapers. They get their news from alternatives sources, and that is fine. That is not outrageous, but the leftists sure tried to make everyone think it was.

Maybe you don’t care, but it’s a relevant question to me. More to the point, it wasn’t so much what she reads as how she responded. The deer in the headlights, stammering nonsensical response was an embarrassment. To distract, they pushed a narrative that the question itself was an attack on her.

That’s being a perpetual victim. Not because you’re actually a victim, but to cover for your own shortcomings. Trump does it too.

Meanwhile, Obama was asked what kind of underwear he preferred!

But we do know what Obama was reading.

View attachment 301500

OMG..I can't believe it!!! We once had a literate and curious president. It seems so long ago...

Literate and curious. Interesting way to put it. Lol!

Trump has read and authored a few books himself!

All Trump's books were ghost written and the ghost writers themselves doubt that Trump read his own books.

 

[ChrisL]

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Chrisi, she fit in with the new nutball right. You could (if you felt charitable) say she was ahead of her time. I thought she was a flake, and I'm was not part of the left. A lot of people like me were on the, the McCain Train, had donated. thought highly of him, and then this move out of nowhere. It was poor judgement and an unforced infield error.

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

IOW, he was a "polished" politician. Yep, those are the ones you should trust. *eye roll*

 

[JLW]

Good Lord, who cares about what she reads? A lot of people do not read the newspapers anymore. In fact, I would say that most young people do not read the newspapers. They get their news from alternatives sources, and that is fine. That is not outrageous, but the leftists sure tried to make everyone think it was.

Maybe you don’t care, but it’s a relevant question to me. More to the point, it wasn’t so much what she reads as how she responded. The deer in the headlights, stammering nonsensical response was an embarrassment. To distract, they pushed a narrative that the question itself was an attack on her.

That’s being a perpetual victim. Not because you’re actually a victim, but to cover for your own shortcomings. Trump does it too.

Meanwhile, Obama was asked what kind of underwear he preferred!

But we do know what Obama was reading.

View attachment 301500

OMG..I can't believe it!!! We once had a literate and curious president. It seems so long ago...

You serfs are easily impressed.

View attachment 301501

Well Trump is fond of quoting Stalin, so I guess that is fitting that a Trumper would post a picture of Stalin as a symbol of literacy.

 

[DOTR]

Maybe you don’t care, but it’s a relevant question to me. More to the point, it wasn’t so much what she reads as how she responded. The deer in the headlights, stammering nonsensical response was an embarrassment. To distract, they pushed a narrative that the question itself was an attack on her.

That’s being a perpetual victim. Not because you’re actually a victim, but to cover for your own shortcomings. Trump does it too.

Meanwhile, Obama was asked what kind of underwear he preferred!

But we do know what Obama was reading.

View attachment 301500

An excellent book. Has anyone seen Trump ever touch a book?

Really? What's it about?

It discusses shifting political influence given the economic growth seen in previously developing nations that competes with the dominance of American economic influence.

Wish fulfillment. Written by an Indian Muslim for the Muslim in chief....and his anti-American allies in the Democrat Party of course.

 

[ChrisL]

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Chrisi, she fit in with the new nutball right. You could (if you felt charitable) say she was ahead of her time. I thought she was a flake, and I'm was not part of the left. A lot of people like me were on the, the McCain Train, had donated. thought highly of him, and then this move out of nowhere. It was poor judgement and an unforced infield error.

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

I never said Obama was dumb. That is what makes people like him so dangerous.

 

[DOTR]

Maybe you don’t care, but it’s a relevant question to me. More to the point, it wasn’t so much what she reads as how she responded. The deer in the headlights, stammering nonsensical response was an embarrassment. To distract, they pushed a narrative that the question itself was an attack on her.

That’s being a perpetual victim. Not because you’re actually a victim, but to cover for your own shortcomings. Trump does it too.

Meanwhile, Obama was asked what kind of underwear he preferred!

But we do know what Obama was reading.

View attachment 301500

OMG..I can't believe it!!! We once had a literate and curious president. It seems so long ago...

You serfs are easily impressed.

View attachment 301501

Well Trump is fond of quoting Stalin, so I guess that is fitting that a Trumper would post a picture of Stalin as a symbol of literacy.

A Stalinist like yourself complaining about Stalin? I wonder...do you share Stalin’s views on religion? America? Capitalism? Centralization?

 

[White 6]

Do you have a theory of what happened to the Republican party. I started voting mostly republican starting with Richard Nixon and voting Lamar Alexander for Governor back in 72. I do not recognize that party anymore. It is a party of today, appearing almost totally without honor, moving as a rubber stamp. Do they really support his leadership or is it just agenda goals and power?

Without honor? How are they any LESS honorable than the democratic party? How about name a democrat that is "honorable."

I will admit, I am less than impressed with the honor involved in tactics applied to Kavanaugh. Maybe failure to even allow a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee for 10 months prior to the election is when both sides decided the gloves came off.

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Palin was a flake. Doesn’t matter. McCain was naive enough to think he could cater to the left by picking a woman while the right were too emasculated to complain. He thought it was a freebie so he could choose a nutcase and still get brownie points. He found out differently. McCain was useful to the left as a fifth columnist inside the GOP...not as president. And they despise women. She became just another punching bag for them. And you are right...they moralized on her children constantly. These puritan leftists are the most hypocritical people you can imagine.

The GOP has to learn that time and again. And if you doubt it just watch what they do to the next SC pick if she is female (though Trump is refreshingly not bound to quota picks.) The left uses sexist gender appeals to divide America and gain power. But they loathe femininity...except when found in males.

I partially agree with your post, but I don't think Sara was a flake. That is just how the leftist media portrayed her.

She made it easy. It was not her year to make it to the stage. Possibly a filly brought along to fast, by poor judgement of the handlers.

 

[DOTR]

Chrisi, she fit in with the new nutball right. You could (if you felt charitable) say she was ahead of her time. I thought she was a flake, and I'm was not part of the left. A lot of people like me were on the, the McCain Train, had donated. thought highly of him, and then this move out of nowhere. It was poor judgement and an unforced infield error.

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

I never said Obama was dumb. That is what makes people like him so dangerous.

“Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise.”
Francis Bacon

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes. Who could forget the vicious attack on Palin by asking her what she reads.

She shifts blame for her gaffes (if we want to be generous) by becoming the victim.

Good Lord, who cares about what she reads? A lot of people do not read the newspapers anymore. In fact, I would say that most young people do not read the newspapers. They get their news from alternatives sources, and that is fine. That is not outrageous, but the leftists sure tried to make everyone think it was.

Maybe you don’t care, but it’s a relevant question to me. More to the point, it wasn’t so much what she reads as how she responded. The deer in the headlights, stammering nonsensical response was an embarrassment. To distract, they pushed a narrative that the question itself was an attack on her.

That’s being a perpetual victim. Not because you’re actually a victim, but to cover for your own shortcomings. Trump does it too.

Meanwhile, Obama was asked what kind of underwear he preferred!

But we do know what Obama was reading.

View attachment 301500

OMG..I can't believe it!!! We once had a literate and curious president. It seems so long ago...

Not long enough.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh okay, President Trump is just a dummy who has never read a book. Talk about hyperbole. AS much as some of you hate Trump, he is not stupid. He wouldn't be where he was today if he was stupid. And if he IS stupid, as you claim, then he is one hella hard worker to be where he is today.

 

[ChrisL]

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

I never said Obama was dumb. That is what makes people like him so dangerous.

“Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise.”
Francis Bacon

Yes, more intelligent does not equal a better person or a better president. In fact, some people with very high IQs suffer with mental illnesses.

 

[Richard-H]

Curious to see how many like me voted for someone else (Walker in my case) but will support him this time around.

Next time you post a poll give all reasonable choices.

This polls is just trolling!

 

[ChrisL]

Without honor? How are they any LESS honorable than the democratic party? How about name a democrat that is "honorable."

I will admit, I am less than impressed with the honor involved in tactics applied to Kavanaugh. Maybe failure to even allow a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee for 10 months prior to the election is when both sides decided the gloves came off.

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Palin was a flake. Doesn’t matter. McCain was naive enough to think he could cater to the left by picking a woman while the right were too emasculated to complain. He thought it was a freebie so he could choose a nutcase and still get brownie points. He found out differently. McCain was useful to the left as a fifth columnist inside the GOP...not as president. And they despise women. She became just another punching bag for them. And you are right...they moralized on her children constantly. These puritan leftists are the most hypocritical people you can imagine.

The GOP has to learn that time and again. And if you doubt it just watch what they do to the next SC pick if she is female (though Trump is refreshingly not bound to quota picks.) The left uses sexist gender appeals to divide America and gain power. But they loathe femininity...except when found in males.

I partially agree with your post, but I don't think Sara was a flake. That is just how the leftist media portrayed her.

She made it easy. It was not her year to make it to the stage. Possibly a filly brought along to fast, by poor judgement of the handlers.

She made what easy? For leftists to portray her in a negative light? In the leftist mind, I suppose that is true.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you have a theory of what happened to the Republican party. I started voting mostly republican starting with Richard Nixon and voting Lamar Alexander for Governor back in 72. I do not recognize that party anymore. It is a party of today, appearing almost totally without honor, moving as a rubber stamp. Do they really support his leadership or is it just agenda goals and power?

I support the agenda he ran on, and am glad he is actually doing what he said he would. He may be crass, but I think it is good leadership to implement what you ran on while under constant attack. What did the republicans believe in 72 that they no longer do? I'm for less regulation, less taxes, no pointless wars, not increasing the welfare state, and sensible immigration. I'm also pro 2nd amendment, and support Christianity. I'm also big on free speech and not being a trade door mat for every country on earth. I'll add pro law enforcement and rule of law and treating everyone equally instead of pitting groups of people against each other for pointless reasons. That is just off the top of my head.

Well said, but in 72 they took a reasoned approach, did not label the opposition as the enemy of the Republican party, we're the party that started the EPA not the one appointing someone from the coal or gas industry and weakening clean water standards, the Republicans worked across the aisle to get thing done, clean up through the Clinton years. Republicans have not been against pointless wars for 2 decades. Christianity is not the purview of the Republican party. If someone disagreed with Republic point of view, rhetoric or talking point the generally were not labeled fascist, nazi, anti-american, etc. We had, as we do now, the largest economy on earth, following trade policy instituted by republican and democrat parties alike, and our GDP consistently expanded with those trade policies. Trump has been a leader at pitting people against each other, rich/poor, democrat/republican and yes, black/white. Republicans supported NATO and did not Trust Russia, much less take cues from it's leader. Republicans also used to be better at reigning in their own when they went to excess, not act as a rubber stamp. Now elected republicans do not speak to Democrats, or work together to solve problems. Republicans did not come into office and tear down what was put together by republican and democratic parties past, just to break something and put their stamp on it's replacement or replace it with nothing. The also did not raid the military budget after it was agreed by both houses and signed by the President to pay for their pet project, that they promised would be paid for by a foreign government. One party strong man unrestrained rule is a bad idea.

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Interesting point. I do remember Obama saying he would be "more flexible" after he was in office.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I meant *or. Stupid typo. I agree. Trump is the effect. Many whom I know did it as a FU to the PC culture Leftists I doubt they are alone who thought that way

Do you have a theory of what happened to the Republican party. I started voting mostly republican starting with Richard Nixon and voting Lamar Alexander for Governor back in 72. I do not recognize that party anymore. It is a party of today, appearing almost totally without honor, moving as a rubber stamp. Do they really support his leadership or is it just agenda goals and power?

Without honor? How are they any LESS honorable than the democratic party? How about name a democrat that is "honorable."

I will admit, I am less than impressed with the honor involved in tactics applied to Kavanaugh. Maybe failure to even allow a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee for 10 months prior to the election is when both sides decided the gloves came off.

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Palin was a flake. Doesn’t matter. McCain was naive enough to think he could cater to the left by picking a woman while the right were too emasculated to complain. He thought it was a freebie so he could choose a nutcase and still get brownie points. He found out differently. McCain was useful to the left as a fifth columnist inside the GOP...not as president. And they despise women. She became just another punching bag for them. And you are right...they moralized on her children constantly. These puritan leftists are the most hypocritical people you can imagine.

The GOP has to learn that time and again. And if you doubt it just watch what they do to the next SC pick if she is female (though Trump is refreshingly not bound to quota picks.) The left uses sexist gender appeals to divide America and gain power. But they loathe femininity...except when found in males.

Presidential contenders usually try to pick VP's to cover what they don't have. McCain was an old RINO. He needed somebody who was conservative, young, pretty, and still appealing to the possible McCain Democrats and Independents. So he chose Palin.

 

[ChrisL]

 

[White 6]

Do you have a theory of what happened to the Republican party. I started voting mostly republican starting with Richard Nixon and voting Lamar Alexander for Governor back in 72. I do not recognize that party anymore. It is a party of today, appearing almost totally without honor, moving as a rubber stamp. Do they really support his leadership or is it just agenda goals and power?

I support the agenda he ran on, and am glad he is actually doing what he said he would. He may be crass, but I think it is good leadership to implement what you ran on while under constant attack. What did the republicans believe in 72 that they no longer do? I'm for less regulation, less taxes, no pointless wars, not increasing the welfare state, and sensible immigration. I'm also pro 2nd amendment, and support Christianity. I'm also big on free speech and not being a trade door mat for every country on earth. I'll add pro law enforcement and rule of law and treating everyone equally instead of pitting groups of people against each other for pointless reasons. That is just off the top of my head.

Well said, but in 72 they took a reasoned approach, did not label the opposition as the enemy of the Republican party, we're the party that started the EPA not the one appointing someone from the coal or gas industry and weakening clean water standards, the Republicans worked across the aisle to get thing done, clean up through the Clinton years. Republicans have not been against pointless wars for 2 decades. Christianity is not the purview of the Republican party. If someone disagreed with Republic point of view, rhetoric or talking point the generally were not labeled fascist, nazi, anti-american, etc. We had, as we do now, the largest economy on earth, following trade policy instituted by republican and democrat parties alike, and our GDP consistently expanded with those trade policies. Trump has been a leader at pitting people against each other, rich/poor, democrat/republican and yes, black/white. Republicans supported NATO and did not Trust Russia, much less take cues from it's leader. Republicans also used to be better at reigning in their own when they went to excess, not act as a rubber stamp. Now elected republicans do not speak to Democrats, or work together to solve problems. Republicans did not come into office and tear down what was put together by republican and democratic parties past, just to break something and put their stamp on it's replacement or replace it with nothing. The also did not raid the military budget after it was agreed by both houses and signed by the President to pay for their pet project, that they promised would be paid for by a foreign government. One party strong man unrestrained rule is a bad idea.

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

 

[ChrisL]

Curious to see how many like me voted for someone else (Walker in my case) but will support him this time around.

Next time you post a poll give all reasonable choices.

This polls is just trolling!

True. He should have included another option for the never Trumpers, but he did say in the OP that he is interested in who will support Trump this time around. If you are not going to support Trump, then it is irrelevant to the OP.

 

[colfax_m]

Oh okay, President Trump is just a dummy who has never read a book. Talk about hyperbole. AS much as some of you hate Trump, he is not stupid. He wouldn't be where he was today if he was stupid. And if he IS stupid, as you claim, then he is one hella hard worker to be where he is today.

He certainly acts stupid. Who said you have to be intelligent to win an election? All you really have to do is be persuasive. Trump is very persuasive. He got to where he is today by being able to convince people to give him money (although being born rich doesn’t hurt).

 

[colfax_m]

Meanwhile, Obama was asked what kind of underwear he preferred!

But we do know what Obama was reading.

View attachment 301500

An excellent book. Has anyone seen Trump ever touch a book?

Really? What's it about?

It discusses shifting political influence given the economic growth seen in previously developing nations that competes with the dominance of American economic influence.

Wish fulfillment. Written by an Indian Muslim for the Muslim in chief....and his anti-American allies in the Democrat Party of course.

Zakharia is a very good author. You should read it. It’s not wish fulfillment. It’s acknowledging reality.