Message from @Tom_Servo
Discord ID: 478568449866465280
fact - supported by data..... he lies more than other politicians... a lot more
Okay fine. He lies a lot.
Who cares if Zuma lied a lot. What matters is this.
Compared to this.
honesty indicates to me how someone will conduct business and deal with the power that office gives you. Zuma is a great example. His dishonesty along with a mobilised supporter base that would defend anything he did laid the path for unprecedented state capture. Based on what we have experienced in this country I am weary of leaders who exhibit these brazen levels of dishonesty and are able to unite large portions of the population by being deliberately divisive towards the rest.
it takes time to empty koffers... I am not saying Trump will or is doing that, but what he the character traits he has exhibited makes me think he is more likely to
An honest politician is an oxymoron.
sigh
he is a level of magnitide different to other politicians
that is fact based
This is why I am not an economist... Of course being a leader is subjective, but obviously he is doing something right... The average American is surely benefiting from this. Strong growth means more money in the pockets and more spending. If these numbers continue, no doubt he should get another term... Decreasing socialist policies will also have a positive effect on the economy.
we can get into that economic data, but it would be best to look at it after 4 to 5 years
zumas first 3 didnt look so bad either
If you cant trust a president that lies would that mean you would never trust any president.... Since they all lie?
i dont trust any president
or politician
would you agree that Zuma's corruption was on another level to Mbeki's corruption?
yet they were both corrupt
your argument is like saying, well they are all corrupt so we can just except the ridiculous turbo level corruption then
corruption is like a circle, whether it is big or small, it is still 360 degrees...
No for sure, corrupt is corrupt and lies are lies.
Zuma's first few years were actually very unstable.
it was just 2009
the rest were fairly stable
The massive dip shows instability. After that was stable, yes.
between 2.3 and 3.5 most of the way
ag come on... you cant say massive and then remove figures
Between 2009 and 2011 were unstable for the SA economy.
Therefore, his first few years were not "didnt look so bad either".
At the time, they were horrid.
Yeah Stability, but no growth
is anyone going to expand on context
or are you just going to pretend that that was a direct and immediate result of zumas election?
there is no point in discussing if you are going to actively ignore facts because they dont support your position
you dont have to guess
there is data
Well Zumas presidency started on the axing of Mbeki, so of course there would be some turmoil
which I know you love
why do choose to ignore this data?