Unpopular opinions

@KingLaddy01

"Tekashi 6ix9ine needs to be murdered."  No he shouldn't.  You may not like them but you shouldn't post stuff like this even as a joke because then employers might fire you on the basis of it.  You can get into a lot of trouble for saying certain individuals should be murdered.

Anyway, diseases can be managed and contained by castrating anyone and everyone who has HIV/AIDS in order to reduce the spread of the disease.  This way, people with HIV are less motivated to have sex and as a result, don't spread the disease. 

To cure every other STD, which are treatable, we simply impose the following on Africans who have an STD:

-Fine them $200 per STD

-Make it illegal for them to have sex.

The reason why they would endure the above discrimination is to provide incentive for them to get the disease treated.  Once this is done, they won't be fined for STDs and if they pass another test, they would be allowed to have sex.  Since they would be richer under an American owned Africa, they would be able to afford this.  If they can't, then they would have to do 14-22 hours of community service per STD in order to pay off their debt, depending on how long it takes them to get there.  More distance means more time to get there, and as a result, means that they would owe the government more money if the government is paying for the road trip.

Something they could do is they could build solar panels in the Sahara, therefore making us less reliant on coal for energy.  This method will also help give Africa electricity, which can improve health conditions as well as various other things.

@ethang5

All of Africa combined(except Egypt, but they won't add much) has a military budget of around $40-50 billion (https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2016/65-years-military-spending).  The USA has a military budget of around $800 billion (https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320).  The USA would win, especially from help from NATO.  The only opponents would be Russia and China, but both of these nations are hypocritical because China invaded Tibet and has yet to let them be an independent nation, and Russia invaded Ukraine via Crimea.

Lets say China and Russia ignore their hypocrisy and help the Africans get independence in order to stop American expansion.  There may be a WWIII, but it won't go nuclear.  Russia and China are probably too worried about retaliations for that due to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.  It probably would be conventional warfare.  If we win the support of the UN (we should since the UN wishes to eliminate poverty and an invasion would help do that) then it would be the USA and NATO and potentially even the African locals (who don't want to be poor) vs Russia and China.  Russia and China don't have a strong military compared to the US, and their military is too busy with the places they want to invade.  Their militaries could get bigger due to Patriotism, but for the next 4 years or so, their military would be pretty untrained and would lose in battles.  By the time their soldiers are trained, the US would have enough time to install education programs in Africa that make the locals okay with being in a US territory.

Ethiopia has yet to conquered by the imperialists.  Leave them alone at least

The idea is stupid. America would have to invade and win 65 different countries. How long would that take? And each country won would need troops stationed there to keep the territory, lowering the total number of soldiers for further invasions.

America doesn't have enough soldiers to invade and hold 65 countries. Only 2 groups think this is possible, the ignorant, who know nothing about Africa except what they've see in old National Geographic programs, and racists.

"Ethiopia has yet to conquered by the imperialists."  And it's why they are one of the poorest nations in Africa

(https://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Africa-Per-Capita-GDP-map-1024x925.png).  They should get invaded just like the rest of the continent for the reasons I previously stated.

@ethang5

"The idea is stupid. America would have to invade and win 65 different countries."  55 different countries (https://africacheck.org/reports/how-many-countries-in-africa-how-hard-can-the-question-be/) and 54 if Western Sahara is part of Morocco (I recognize it as a different country, but I digress).  Also calling your opponent stupid or racist is poor conduct.

"And each country won would need troops stationed there to keep the territory, lowering the total number of soldiers for further invasions."  The US has a big army.  We can do it.  We spend about 12x more on out military then Africa and Our GDP is 9x as big.  Invading Africa is from a military standpoint is easy to do.

"Only 2 groups think this is possible, the ignorant, who know nothing about Africa except what they've see in old National Geographic programs, and racists."  I am in neither of these groups.  

I meant by Death Penalty law. Should have said "executed".

Under what charge?

Let me make this clear. I am not saying that he should be executed based on the letter of the law, I am saying that I personally feel that he SHOULD be, in spite of what the law says. He is a proven pedophile and mugger as I have stated and I THINK he deserves it. I understand that "murdered" makes it sound like I am condoning it in the form of gang violence. I am not.

Being a pedophile and a mugger are not worthy of the death penalty.

But the point is that I think it should be. Even our President has suggested that pedophiles who physically abuse underage citizens should get the death penalty. Now top that with being involved in shootings/robberies and yes, personally I think it should lead to the death penalty, (again) in spite of the letter of the law.

I'm the last person you'd expect to say this, but I actually think sexism is behind much of the extreme animosity toward Hillary Clinton. The mere fact that she's a woman doesn't make people hate her, but it intensifies the hatred people already feel. Instead of "this person is bad" it's "this person is a crazy evil witch from hell". And that goes for democrats who hate her too.

The alt-right have manipulated the public into thinking that progressives/liberals are more violent and less logical when it couldn't be further from the truth.

True. Although if a female conservative was our candidate, we'd vote for her over in a heartbeat over a white male Democrat. If it was Bernie, then it would have been because he is a socialist. Everybody always finds something to hold against the opposing side. Hillary was also the crook with a sketchy past, so there is that.

What about Antifa?  They're pretty violent and illogical (https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html).

I was about to say something similar. 2 posts in and I already worry he is an Antifa apologist.

Isn't it just inevitable that the non-liberal half of the country will take this view of liberals? What does the alt-right have to do with it lol?

The idea is stupid.

I called the idea stupid. But if you conclude that only stupid people have stupid ideas, I wouldn't blame you. And if my opponent is racist, I will call him that.

Not big enough. Right now, the US can't even win or hold Afghanistan or Iraq. Check the size of the US army and do the calculations.

You are speaking from ignorance. America's military budget dwarfed Vietnam, yet they lost. If it took an average of a week to invade and subdue each African country, controlling the continent would take more than a year, and a week is being ridiculously optimistic. Nigeria has more than 100 million, how big a force do you think that would need to keep the territory?

If you think so, then you aren't very self aware.

I know that Antifa exists, but right wing extremists account for many cases of genocide/homicide in total extremist killings as well. I refuse to be a sheep of the press and assume that the right is just more reasonable and passive when sh!t like this also happens. 

Because the right are emitting a false sense of intellectual and moral superiority over the left in the press/internet, even though many of the left's problems can easily be attributed to the right. There is no "better side" and there is no "factual side". A good chunk of the populace will believe anything they hear on the press/internet.

That is not to say the left are without fault, but I will not bend over and pretend like the right are.

Right here is what I am talking about. Ben Shapiro, a man whose main appeals are talking fast and debating sweaty college kids, should be President. It's this kind of circlejerking that reveals how dimwitted these sycophants really are. Oh wait, you are all "people of facts"? Sorry to waste your time by being a politically incorrect fruitcake. I will leave the table to you adults. Such dogsh!t.

This is such a weird position. It definitely belongs in this thread.

Like, everything you're accusing the right of doing pretty much reduces to the idea that right-wingers are human beings, and equally applies to the left, who are also human beings. As for the idea that the right controls the press/internet to a greater extent than the left, I won't bother to comment. 

Honestly, if Trump can win with little experience and still manage to enforce good policy, then yes, I would go on to assert that Ben Shapiro would make a pretty damn good  President. 

You seem to be getting your panties in a wad over something that is clearly defined by the OP as an opinion. You may certainly oppose the opinion, but keep your head on in the future.

It's your choice to take it personally whether we may boast about ourselves or denounce libs. I personally am willing to hear your opinion, although if we are going the route of assumption, then you will probably threaten me if I debate you, considering that you seem fairly liberal. 

You bring up that the right assume that we are above liberals, when it seems you are comfortable with that premise yourself, when it is directed towards conservatives that is. You say that we have this "holier than thou" mentality when that circlejerking and self-glorification can be applied to any sort of radical. Many liberals are part of a circlejerk with the likes of Jimmy Kimmel, who is not an ideal figure. 

I'm sorry, was I supposed to vote for Hillary? Someone who had a vag and experience, but no discernible plan or strategy? If I am stupid for wanting a celeb who knew what he was doing for President, how does voting for somebody with nonexistent appeal the more intelligent choice?

The problem is that Mr. McDan here tries to imply that both sides are equally problematic while also implying that the right are the most problematic.

And don't try to act like you are willing to reason with me when you posted about sterilization of the 'tistics among other retarded ones.

"The idea is stupid."  Why?

"And if my opponent is racist, I will call him that." 

https://www.debateart.com/debates/383?open_tab=comments ought to confirm that I'm not racist.  My opponent in the debate isn't one either, but I digress.

"Right now, the US can't even win or hold Afghanistan or Iraq."

The US didn't try.  The US got involved to eliminate the influence of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein respectively.(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-led-attack-on-afghanistan-begins)(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins).  If the US wanted to incorporate these regions as US territories, they could have.

"America's military budget dwarfed Vietnam, yet they lost."  This was because of the influence of China and the USSR and the US's laziness on the war.

"If it took an average of a week to invade and subdue each African country, controlling the continent would take more than a year, and a week is being ridiculously optimistic. Nigeria has more than 100 million, how big a force do you think that would need to keep the territory?"  If it takes a year, then so be it.  I think an increase in military spending and more troops can help maintain control until ever single African gets Americanized enough to the point that they don't want to secede.  They probably won't want to secede from the country that gives them education from built schools, electricity from the solar panels placed in the Sahara, lowered the infant morality rate and turned Africa into a 1st world place.  If these things are done, I imagine most African cultures would want statehood before independence.  As an example, more people want statehood in PR then in Africa, and PR is culturally different from the US.  The reason why they want this statehood is to improve their economy.  Africa is bound to want the same eventually. 

They got independence from Europe because the Africans got oppressed.  If the Africans don't get oppressed, then they would want to stay within the US.

Technically, either paper should beat all or rock should beat all.

Because its made from ignorance.

So then, for most of the countries, America will not have the advantage of surprise. And what do you think the rest of the world will be doing in that year?

Lol. America has only about 2 million soldiers. That is not enough to hold south Africa, or Nigeria, or Egypt. Then we come to size. Congo is larger than Europe. The larger the territory, the more soldiers needed to hold it.

And America is not able to hold them until that eventuality comes.

And I guess they will not think swarms of US soldiers invading their sovereign country and subjugating them as oppression, right?

You view African as if they are children.

Anime had worse aftereffects than that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

African cities didn't have cities.