The Official daily Elon is the New Trump attack thread

[MarJhi 925]

7 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

South Africans dislike black people not from South Africa. They believe they are stealing our jobs.

They dislike "black people" stealing their jobs, or any people stealing their jobs? Why the distinction?

 

9 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

And the people in control of South Africa are KINGS and QUEENS and had power during Apartheid.

So all of people in control are un-elected monarchs? Their elections are a sham?

 

11 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

Also, white people who had power during Apartheid are super fine. Still have their money and have moved all their stocks to the LSE.

Not sure what they were supposed to do. In the same situation I cannot imagine anyone else keeping their assets in an unstable country run by unelected monarchs. If they were super fine, why would they move their money and stocks?

 

15 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

Nothing has really changed in post apartheid South Africa. 

Yes and no (from an outsiders point of view). It seems to be "post apartheid" because the skin color of the corrupt people in charge of the country has changed, but the results are still the same. 

[MarJhi 925]

8 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

Black people elected in SA

BUT

They need to run the country in a certain way to make the US and the EU happy~ 

They are still controlled by the Western World.

Apartheid South Africa fell due to sanctions.

Post Apartheid South Africa is fine because they are avoiding sanctions. 

Out of curiosity and by no means am I attempting to be snarky, but as far as economic prosperity goes, where does South Africa rank on the continent? If the Western World was not "controlling" things, what do you think the result would be or would have been?

 

BTW I am not saying I am for the Western World having any sort of control. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, so in my opinion I would say don't. 

[Redro 4,602]

4 minutes ago, MarJhi said:

Out of curiosity and by no means am I attempting to be snarky, but as far as economic prosperity goes, where does South Africa rank on the continent? If the Western World was not "controlling" things, what do you think the result would be or would have been?

 

BTW I am not saying I am for the Western World having any sort of control. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, so in my opinion I would say don't. 

South Africa is the USA of Africa... 

I'll leave it at that. 

I have not lived in SA for several years and I would move back home but I have a USC partner and petitioning for a foreign spouse is a a lot more difficult than moving to the US. 

The "haves" in SA are doing amazing... the have nots are in the same position they were during apartheid times. 

When people think about SA they think about our position relative to the world wide stage not how those in power are actually doing~ 

others might have a different interpretation of life in SA. But, I'm just speaking from the position of my associates. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by ROK2USA

[MarJhi 925]

4 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

The "haves" in SA are doing amazing... the have nots are in the same position they were during apartheid times.

So there are no "have nots" from the apartheid times that are in the position of being the "haves"?

 

If nothing has changed as far as who the "haves and have nots" are, why do we say "post apartheid"?

 

What I am saying is, I look at South Africa like I would look it any large urban metropolitan city in the US. For a very long time, there were the haves and have nots. Demographics change and the ability for the have nots to vote and have their voices heard through their vote changed, but all that really happened was people from the have not side got into power, and those people have become just as corrupt (if not more so) than the haves who had full control before. Has Chicago's crime and corruption level improved because Lori Lightfoot is in charge? She wasn't from the "haves" (as she would define by her skin color and sexual orientation). Corruption, bad policies, mismanagement, incompetence or whatever you want to call it are not exclusive to "haves or have nots". You can change the faces of those in charge, but you won't change the result because people are flawed. 

[Redro 4,602]

8 minutes ago, MarJhi said:

So there are no "have nots" from the apartheid times that are in the position of being the "haves"?

 

 

some of the "have nots" have changed to "have" and can travel all around the world! 

The husband informed me Mandela was not allowed to travel to the US until he became president! 

My husband (the USC in my relationship) has told me things about SA I had no idea about. 

He told me about sanctions I didn't know SA was subject to as a South African.

My long and short of the story is those with privilege are never disadvantaged. 

 

ETA: This is my experience as a South African. Maybe another South African will come along and speak of some major disadvantage that was only overcome via the end of apartheid. 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by ROK2USA

[MarJhi 925]

4 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

some of the "have nots" have changed to "have" and can travel all around the world! 

The husband informed me Mandela was not allowed to travel to the US until he became president! 

My husband (the USC in my relationship) has told me things about SA I had no idea about. 

He told me about sanctions I didn't know SA was subject to as a South African.

My long and short of the story is those with privilege are never disadvantaged. 

 

ETA: This is my experience as a South African. Maybe another South African will come along and speak of some major disadvantage that was only overcome via the end of apartheid. 

 

Again, wasn't being snarky, not my intention. Basically I was getting to the idea that just we don't call it apartheid doesn't mean anything is different. Mandela is a perfect example of the have not to have transition. But outside of the technical definition of the word "apartheid" nothing is really different for those on the lower end. 

[Redro 4,602]

1 minute ago, MarJhi said:

Again, wasn't being snarky, not my intention. Basically I was getting to the idea that just we don't call it apartheid doesn't mean anything is different. Mandela is a perfect example of the have not to have transition. But outside of the technical definition of the word "apartheid" nothing is really different for those on the lower end. 

To me Mandela is a "have" 

He had all the support. All the privilege. 

He is king, a royal! 

You need to realize the black leaders in South Africa are royalty. They are either Xhosa royalty or Zulu royalty.

South Africans from any other tribe will not rise to the presidency. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,330]

45 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

South Africa is the USA of Africa... 

I'll leave it at that. 

I have not lived in SA for several years and I would move back home but I have a USC partner and petitioning for a foreign spouse is a a lot more difficult than moving to the US. 

The "haves" in SA are doing amazing... the have nots are in the same position they were during apartheid times. 

When people think about SA they think about our position relative to the world wide stage not how those in power are actually doing~ 

others might have a different interpretation of life in SA. But, I'm just speaking from the position of my associates. 

except a lot has changed since the end of apartheid. The country and quality of life has gone down the drain.

 

So if understand. Black got complete control, we got free elections, freely elected blacks now run the country. The country has collapsed  and it's all whiteys fault .   

[MarJhi 925]

1 minute ago, ROK2USA said:

To me Mandela is a "have" 

He had all the support. All the privilege. 

He is king, a royal! 

You need to realize the black leaders in South Africa are royalty. They are either Xhosa royalty or Zulu royalty.

South Africans from any other tribe will not rise to the presidency. 

I personally don't recognize royalty as having any meaning to me, so on that front I am gonna have to recuse myself. I don't get it and I don't understand why it means anything to anyone. 

[Redro 4,602]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

except a lot has changed since the end of apartheid. The country and quality of life has gone down the drain.

 

So if understand. Black got complete control, we got free elections, freely elected blacks now run the country. The country has collapsed  and it's all whiteys fault .   

You spoke about people finding info to show Musk as a terrible racist that racists the racists and I'm showing you they have a slam dunk because he lived in SA.

It doesn't matter if he was the perfect "white" who only helped his domestic workers... because he a white SA people can twist his life into a racist racist who racisted. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by ROK2USA

[Fuerteventura 29]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I do agree with that somewhat. I am wondering if he just screwing with Twitter

Like yesterday's comments where he is shocked to hear that Twitter is infested with Bots so the deal is off. 

[Redro 4,602]

7 minutes ago, MarJhi said:

I personally don't recognize royalty as having any meaning to me, so on that front I am gonna have to recuse myself. I don't get it and I don't understand why it means anything to anyone. 

In South Africa, royalty have power. And currently the black South Africans people vote for are kings and queens in Zulu and Xhosa culture. I don't know how to explain it. 

Maybe it is same to how people voted for Bush because his dad was president???

idk I cant even comment on US politics. 

EXPLAIN LIKE IM FIVE!!!! 

Edited May 20, 2022 by ROK2USA

[MarJhi 925]

10 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

In South Africa, royalty have power. And currently the black South Africans people vote for are kings and queens in Zulu and Xhosa culture. I don't know how to explain it. 

Maybe it is same to how people voted for Bush because his dad was president???

idk I cant even comment on US politics. 

EXPLAIN LIKE IM FIVE!!!! 

I voted for Bush because I have certain core values that prevent me from voting for a Democrat, not because of who his father is (or was). I think most Americans are single issue voters, they have a line that cannot be crossed and will not vote for anyone who differs from them on that one issue. For some it's the 2nd Amendment, others it may be the abortion issue or maybe a combination of different things. 

 

The Bush family would hardly be considered American royalty because they don't have the adoring media to prop them up to be in that position, if anything they were demonized. The Clinton's and the Obama's are the one's who get the "royal treatment" from the American media and celebrity endorsements. 

[Redro 4,602]

1 minute ago, MarJhi said:

I voted for Bush because I have certain core values that prevent me from voting for a Democrat, not because of who his father is (or was). I think most Americans are single issue voters, they have a line that cannot be crossed and will not vote for anyone who differs from them on that one issue. For some it's the 2nd Amendment, others it may be the abortion issue or maybe a combination of different things. 

 

The Bush family would hardly be considered American royalty because they don't have the adoring media to prop them up to be in that position, if anything they were demonized. The Clinton's and the Obama's are the one's who get the "royal treatment" from the American media and celebrity endorsements. 

But tell me he wasn't up for election due to legacy~

[MarJhi 925]

4 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

But tell me he wasn't up for election due to legacy~

The cupboard was bare. His daddy didn't have a particularly outstanding presidency and was a one termer, so hard to imagine he benefitted too much from that. Where he benefitted was that Al Gore would start talking.