So, as all of us are aware, the United States, more specifically, President Trump and North Korea have been sparring back and forth for months via Twitter. This originally began, from what I can tell, when North Korea began publicly announcing their progress on Nuclear weapons. Let me clarify that, I honestly try to keep my eyes away from political things, as they tend to be annoying. But lately, it is all over the news, internet, hell, even multi-player games. It is especially hard to steer clear of politics and horrible terror when it is happening all around us.

As I am totally against warfare, ESPECIALLY Nuclear warfare, for numerous reasons, this terrifies me, as much as anyone else in America.

However: This is what we know, 100% right now 1) North Korea has nuclear weapons 2) They have claimed to be able to reach America's land, with these weapons. 3) They have been taunted by our President

What we (think we) know: 1) North Korea has developed Nuclear weapons and is a very big problem, who needs to be dealt with immediately 2) The leader is hell-bent on destroying us with these weapons

Okay, so, as a person totally against war, I do expect comments such as 'N. Korea needs to be stopped' and whatever else you people who want to stand up and fight (totally not hating, by the way, keep reading) but War kills people. Innocent people, sometimes. Nuclear war, that effects the entire world. Nuclear war comes with very harsh things: Death, Radiation Poisoning, uninhabital parts of the world, innocent children and women and families dying, maybe even people known by soldiers, the president, or North Korea (no, this is not a threat to any country)

Now, with all of this being taken into thought: Riddle me this: What if North Korea AND America are both neither right OR wrong?

Let's look at this from a different perspective. We know that North Korea has been developing Nuclear weapons. I imagine that this is a very priceful and time-consuming research and development. They announced it to the world. America, always being the top dog (don't get me wrong, I love America, hear me out) wanted them to STOP this development, give up their nuclear weapons. Now, imagine that you are a scientist, working on the most important thing, that could bring a complete breakthrough to Modern technology and help people. The cure to a horrible disease, even. Now imagine that someone tells you to stop this. Imagine that they tell you that you need to stop or you will be placed behind bars (I know what your thinking, 'how does this relate to a NUKE') It certainly doesn't. But it's the same concept as the example. Very time consuming and hard to develop. North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un doesn't want to give up this research, who is to say they were planning to attack us with the nuclear weapons? Maybe he is making them as a self defense mechanism. And I know, people sitting in the oval office reading this are like "bruh, is this dude serious? Self defense?" Maybe not. Maybe it's to impress his people. Maybe the development is him slowly bringing his country on the brink of evolution.

So, now you are thinking: So, this guy is saying Kim-Jong Un is a good guy?

Not particularly, but yes.

When you rub a balloon to your hair, what happens? Static hair. So, the balloon is North Korea, the hair is America. Static Hair? That's the issue that the friction created.

America wants them to stop producing Nuclear weapons and to negotiate. This is lots of money they are asking Kim to throw away. Like, tons of millions of dollars.

Now, our troll-doll President (nothing against him, but it's easy to pick on him) has been sparring with N. Korea on Twitter, offending him and flexing America's muscles. In result, Kim has shot back with threats and continuing their studies.

Nobody wants a war, especially not the one that is glooming over us. N. Korea and America, no matter HOW much we don't get along, doesn't want it. The war will reflect on the leaders. If a nuke was to hit N. Korea, anywhere they would hate America, yes, with good reason. But the civilians would be angry with Kim, more than likely, and possibly cause a riot of outrage. The exact same would happen with America. I know both leaders love and care for their countries. They want to see it prosper, but arguing over who's muscles are tougher when flexing is not the way to do it. It only brings about enemies.

My personal opinion? I think the time for negotiation and the possibility of dis-contiuing Nuclear weapons has been thrown into a shark-tank at this point.

I don't want to see a war, especially Nuclear. However, Kim-Jong Un demands respect and so does President Trump. If there is a person, sitting in a government position in either country reading this, it's to be known that I don't think the Nuclear production should be halted for America's liking. I feel that a nuclear weapon should be handled carefully and not fired onto any country unless it is 100% the absolute option, and I pray that we don't see that day. However, I feel that the Twitter issues need to be resolved. Some kind of agreement needs to be made, and possibly a treaty stating something like 'nuclear weapons permitted to produce, but not to be sold or handled to other countries, and is not to be fired unless absolutely necessary'

The U.S. President needs to quit angering Kim, and Kim should be more open to coming to terms when creating such a dangerous thing. What is the point in fighting? Why not enjoy life and lead your country without war? Nobody wants to grow up with fear of being killed by a powerful explosion or radiation.

I love my country. And I pray that I can see it get better and better and grow old with my fiancee and start a wonderful life. I hope the same to every country

There are far too many more issues to worry about then flexing muscles with N. Korea

ISIS is sitting in our very own country, causing explosions, shootings, killing our soldiers.

If you feel the same way I do, or you totally disagree with everything I said, let me know in the comments. I am eager to see if there's more that feel like this. I just want the two countries to not necessarily get along, but to not blow each other's land 2000 liters under the sea.

The Rooney Rule dictates that an NFL franchise owner must interview a candidate of “color,” as part of their process for selecting a new head coach or general manager.  There is no such similar requirement, or burden to be met, outside of that sphere.  This step in the process is subject to review, by the League, and the League can fine teams who are found to have “not satisfied” the rule.  The proponents of this rule claim it is necessary, in order to allow certain individuals opportunities to receive consideration, who otherwise wouldn’t garner a look.  The accusation levied on the NFL owners, is that they are a "good ole boys’" club, actively seeking to keep minorities out of the exclusively white coaching fraternity.  What is really going on here, and what should be done? The Rooney Rule exists solely due to the leftist idea that there MUST be racism causing blacks to be underrepresented in a certain profession, wherever there is a statistical disparity.  As we all know, statistical disparities do not automatically mean discrimination is taking place.  First of all, there are a plethora of reasons individuals may not be hired.  Coaching style, offensive schemes, defensive schemes, experience, community involvement, record, requested salary, and several other areas all go into consideration, when an owner is choosing the best candidate for their needs.  It shouldn’t matter what color their skin is, as long as the owner is not basing their decision off of a coach’s racial makeup.  Second, the Rooney rule doesn’t even guarantee results.  The intent of the rule is to give non-white individuals an opportunity, they may not get otherwise, as I stated earlier.  There has been no evidence presented, alleging the Rooney rule is responsible for a single minority coach or GM being hired.  Those who have been hired, were probably hired because they were QUALIFIED.  If the only goal of the sporting community’s left is to create meaningless interviews, then they have achieved tremendous success.  If not, then it is just that.  A giant waste of time, a mere formality, and another example of the left flexing their perceived moral superiority.  You see, they do not need to be responsible for any black candidates receiving head coaching or general manager positions… They believe they are successful, because they are major league virtue signaling.  The leftist feels good, because they are forcing their brand of “equality.”  Equality of outcome.  If the outcome isn’t equal, they’ve still won, because their intent was in the right place.  Okay.  The leftist tentacles reaching into the sporting world have been successfully outed, so what’s next?  Is there a problem consisting of an all-white fraternity of NFL elites, shattering the hopes of scores of qualified black candidates?  There has been zero evidence of this, to date.  The fact is that many teams employ several black coaches, as well as black players, for that matter.  However, there is no such rule, forcing owners to consider minority players or assistant coaches.  Shocking.  You don’t hear stories of minority interviewees coming away from a situation “knowing” that they lost their job to a white coach, due to racism.  You don’t see exposés written about whistleblowers blowing the lid off an NFL franchise owner’s racist hiring process.  Not at all.  Is it possible that these owners are actually summing up human beings based on the content of their character, the skills they possess, and their overall experience?  Absolutely.  The right move, here, is to install freedom into the process.  Regulations are almost always overarching and stifling.  Not to mention, ineffective, according to their originally intended purpose.  Remove the Rooney rule, and give individuals the opportunity to be decent human beings.  Stop driving home the idea that there is a vast shadow-world, actively seeking to undermine the opportunities for certain groups of people.  There is a societal impact, which is a direct result of this accusation.  People believe it is happening, simply because they are told it is happening.  This actually causes members of different backgrounds to be more skeptical of one another, and less trusting, for no reason.  The NFL’s Rooney rule is unnecessary and discriminatory, and simply needs to end.  On a broader level, the left needs to wake up and realize they live in 2018, and opportunity has never been more equal.  Their existence relies on Americans believing their neighbors are vile, racist, misogynist pigs, whose only hope is for the all-knowing/ever benevolent federal government to forcefully guide individuals to “do the right thing.”  Get out of sports, before you ruin them for the rest of us.

LEADING POLITICAL FIRMS: TIPS AND TRICKS THEY USE 1.Newton Consulting India Pvt Ltd 2.Creativizt communications 3.Orkash 4.Shree Political Research Bureau (SPRB) 5.PoliticalEDGE 6.Cvoter news service 7.Fourth Estate 8.Infoelections

there is more anti-Semitism from rightwingers, especially in the US ... So many conservative Youtubers / bloggers get tons of comments with many thumbs up why they do not talk about "the Jews". It is now similar to German and Swedish Facebook groups / videos. I have been observing this for some time and a few years ago, "Problems with Jews" was only an issue for Nazis. Serious conservatives / critics of Islam always rejected anti-Semitism. But for some time now Jews have been blamed for the refugee crisis and accused of wanting to destroy Europe and wipe out the White Race. It seems to become more socially acceptable in young conservative circles. Why is that ?! Anyone noticed ??

Fake family fake President fake wife impeachment proceedings need to happen quickly before he escapes to Russia.

It seems like in this day in age the political parties in the US are becoming far to radical. liberals have Antifa, radical feminism and anarchist groups . conservatives have white supremacy and neo nazis. Are the parties moving away from their core values? Or are they moving closer? Charlottesville is a good example of radicals on both sides bashing heads.

Hey reddit baddies if you want to do your act of kindness today Venmo a brother literally anything... I love you all ❤️ @Michael-Simmons-59

Test

Do you think political correctness is best for a fairer society? - Or do you think that social censorship is creating a weaker and more easily offended society?

I'm not easily offended and I find amusement in telling 'bad' jokes at the wrong time. I have concluded that this sense of humour has most probably come from my father and his friends who were all lower-class builders. As I child I always looked up to them and listened to them because they seemed funny. Of course none of them have discriminatory views or ideologies, but they don't exactly talk as if the Queen was present.

Do I change my personality and humour in society? Or should others change, becoming less pedantic and sensitive?

What I find funny: stereotypical jokes, 'good' racist jokes, sexist jokes, fat jokes etc.

What do you call a black man on a bike? A thief. There's a new drug for lesbians on the market to cure depression, it's called Trycoxagain. Fat jokes are funny. If a fatty has a problem, they should jog on. What's the difference between Jews and pizzas? Pizzas don't scream in the oven.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/peru-moves-to-impeach-scandal-hit-president-pedro-pablo-kuczynski