US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

It pleases me that we won the Cold War, but I think the Cold War, like WW1 and WW2, ultimately promoted totalitarianism in this country and morally stained us.

The US spent over half a century fighting the USSR just to become a milquetoast and transexual version of it.

In all 248+ years of America existing, there was only ONE horrible war fought on its own soil for about five years, the American Civil War. And there is no one alive to remember it now. The US is young, unlike Europe, which went through CENTURIES of this - over there, the World Wars were seen as the end of the "shoot first and ask questions later" kind of thinking, and that's why most of Europe uses diplomatic solutions. America never had a devastating WW1-style war on its own land before. This is why I would prefer to have a President like Washington (Isolationist) or Jefferson (use diplomatic and peaceful solutions to avoid war instead of jingoism).

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

get involved in WW1 - Wilson wanted to be a hero. FDR put an embargo on Japan, which provoked them into attacking Pearl Harbor so he could have an excuse to justify entering a war he desperately wanted to join since the beginning.

The US embargoed Japan because their imperial expansion into China not only hurt US business interests, but also got Americans killed during the invasion of Manchuria. The idea that the US wanted Pearl Harbor to happen is retard bait and contrary to volumes of documented evidence from both US and Japanese sources.

Yup. When I said in that one post that it was the baby boomers who "started feminism," I actually meant the kind of unhinged, man-hating, family-hating, and baby-killing feminism that we see today.

Fair. Second wave feminism was driven by Marxist academics.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

but they made the good toku!

For what it is worth, I don't know that the Japs were actually any more cruel than anyone else in Asia.
But we can also clearly see that getting Britain's/America's foot in the door over there allowed for some places - Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong were Britain's doing - to start to turn into something genuinely admirable.

Most of my thinking is regional in nature, so I prioritize what to me is a natural view of seeing the Gulf of Mexico as American/Southern Mare Nostrum. This body of water and archipelago should be a unifying force, a center of a civilization that spreads along it. But for the West of America, or America as a whole, I feel it is also the most natural thing in the world for the Pacific to be our Mare Nostrum and to cultivate deep bonds with the good peoples of Asia (Thais are another country I heavily respect) and the Australians and New Zealanders.

What I do not feel is a special tie to Europe. It's the motherland, sure, but in many important respects I think Latin America shares more of our historical experience and the Orient/Pacific shares more of our genuine best interests and a receptiveness to us. Orientals also seem to have a great deal of compatibility with Whites, for whatever reason, and some of those countries (South Korea, Philippines) are even Christian.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

It’s honestly mostly the entertainment industry that pushed that image. Conservatives in the US and UK were defanged and “compassionate Conservatism” was pushed. You can not

People like Norman Lear undermined alternative Conservative movements back in the 70’s and 80’s. Through PACs and through media portraying them as backwards hypocrites and blowing up any controversy that happened with them.

That's what I'm saying though-- Conservatives sat back and just let this happen, because "media doesn't matter" and "People are smart enough to find out the truth on their own." It's hard to find the truth when every piece of media and entertainment are literally trying to form opinions for you.

Also, Norman Lear was a great writer altogether, but I agree with your assessment. The funny part, though, is that Archie Bunker became the most beloved character on TV at the time-- to the point where even younger generations who have seen All in the Family gravitate to Archie, too. He was "backwards," according to Norman Lear ... But at the end of the day, he was a blue collar factory worker who talked like a normal human being and who simply didn't have time for the horseshit that was liberalism. He had real financial hurdles and a family to provide for (as his liberal daughter and son-in-law mooched off of him as they screeched at him).

I find it hilarious that people like Norman Lear couldn't grasp how so many Americans fell in love with Archie. Total disconnect. If his intentions were to make the meathead son-in-law look virtuous and Archie look evil and "backwards," then he failed. He's an accidentally brilliant writer. lol.

 

[TheClappening]

Call him vain or whatever, but Trump sincerely wants to perform and fulfill his pledge as the president.

I dont think his vanity is completely divorced from his goals.

He wants to Make America Great again because history will remember Donald Trump as the man who started making America great again.

That's not to say I dont think at least part of him has some genuine patriotism in his soul, but at the end of the day he's still a showman.

In the end it really doesn't matter what his reasonings are. If he can improve the economy, stop world war 3 from breaking out, kick out the illegals, and keep my kids from being trannified, I don't care why he does it.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

The US spent over half a century fighting the USSR just to become a milquetoast and transexual version of it.

In all 248+ years of America existing, there was only ONE horrible war fought on its own soil for about five years, the American Civil War. And there is no one alive to remember it now. The US is young, unlike Europe, which went through CENTURIES of this - over there, the World Wars were seen as the end of the "shoot first and ask questions later" kind of thinking, and that's why most of Europe uses diplomatic solutions. America never had a devastating WW1-style war on its own land before. This is why I would prefer to have a President like Washington (Isolationist) or Jefferson (use diplomatic and peaceful solutions to avoid war instead of jingoism).

Yes. Don't remember the original quote, but totalitarianism wins because even when you fight it it degrades you into another version of itself.

I think the country was given an opportunity to be a city on a hill. I don't much like the Puritans in practice, but that concept of theirs was a powerful one. Or you may compare it to Pennsylvania, a more humane society.(city of brotherly love). But either way, it should be a sort of model of a better way of living, human flourishing, but it should not be an empire itself. And I agree with your view of American military power. It has always been wielded for pure imperialism or to play God with other countries, never for the interests of its own people except in the War of 1812. (The Civil War for Blacks, but they weren't really mentally a part of American people except to a small group of extremists. Is a consequence of how the Union decided to deal with them in the aftermath that they became a part of American identity, I think.)

In some sense I think it all goes back to the Civil War. I assume you just misspoke when you said it did fight a horrible war and then said it didn't, because the only part of the US to actually know what it feels like to experience something of the Eastern Front or Dresden or Tokyo is the South. The death toll per capita was absolutely horrific, up there with modern industrial wars (I think I saw something that a greater proportion of fighting age men died for the Confederacy than for Germany) and similarly revolutionary in its complete destruction of a social order, famine, plague, incredible tragedy. Unfortunately I don't know that it did a damn thing to teach people there about the folly of warfare, because they still went on to support every other war at higher rates than the rest of the country (and especially sucking Israel's dick). It put the Yankees into the driving seat of government as maritime empire builders, which put us into the business of the whole world. (Wilson I think is best understood as a Southerner who kept his region's post-Reconstruction resentment but adopted the Yankee attitude towards power/the state).

That's what I'm saying though-- Conservatives sat back and just let this happen, because "media doesn't matter" and "People are smart enough to find out the truth on their own." It's hard to find the truth when every piece of media and entertainment are literally trying to form opinions for you.

Also, Norman Lear was a great writer altogether, but I agree with your assessment. The funny part, though, is that Archie Bunker became the most beloved character on TV at the time-- to the point where even younger generations who have seen All in the Family gravitate to Archie, too. He was "backwards," according to Norman Lear ... But at the end of the day, he was a blue collar factory worker who talked like a normal human being and who simply didn't have time for the horseshit that was liberalism. He had real financial hurdles and a family to provide for (as his liberal daughter and son-in-law mooched off of him as they screeched at him).

I find it hilarious that people like Norman Lear couldn't grasp how so many Americans fell in love with Archie. Total disconnect. If his intentions were to make the meathead son-in-law look virtuous and Archie look evil and "backwards," then he failed. He's an accidentally brilliant writer. lol.

I've seen a fair bit of Archie Bunker visiting my Pa. People that look at that character and love him for being based are, like Uncle Ruckus fans, so starved for a sympathetic word in media that they'll take what's obviously a joke character, the fool. But like you said, Archie is great because he's a nuanced and maybe even sentimental take on what racism actually looks like for normal people. He's a close-minded, ignorant bigot who is also a well-meaning and productive member of society. He'll run his mouth but he still treats his fellow man decently at the end of the day because there is a very, very wide middle ground between the pathological altruism the media/academy peddles now as decency and the psychopathy (ultimately hateful to humanity in general) of real Nazis. Archie is everyone's old grandpa that has strong opinions about Polacks and Eye-talians and mooneyes and would never think to harm them because they are still people and you can have emotional problems towards other people and still be a good person in your core.

I also love Archie because, as a 1970s TV show, it was WAY more even-handed than anything today. George Jefferson is just Black Archie and the show is very upfront about how (although George is less crude) both of these two fools are the same thing with the skin flipped, and even then they can still have a sort of affection for each other.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

I find it hilarious that people like Norman Lear couldn't grasp how so many Americans fell in love with Archie. Total disconnect. If his intentions were to make the meathead son-in-law look virtuous and Archie look evil and "backwards," then he failed. He's an accidentally brilliant writer. lol.

Same thing happened with Gul Dukat in DS9: Marc Alaimo made a nuanced character, and the writers got big mad.

"How can you like Space Hitler???" You can when you openly portray the Bajoran resistance as terrorists who murdered the families of anyone who didn't fully support them. It's a realistic portrayal of terrorism and it makes Kira's character development excellent, but it also makes people think that maybe - just maybe - Gul Dukat wasn't 100% wrong and is redeemable.

 

[Irregardless]

The astroturfing is insane, but it does have me worried. That being said, 41 cents to bet against Kamala seems like a pretty good deal, especially once the steam runs out and people remember that she's a terrible candidate.

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

Same thing happened with Gul Dukat in DS9: Marc Alaimo made a nuanced character, and the writers got big mad.

"How can you like Space Hitler???" You can when you openly portray the Bajoran resistance as terrorists who murdered the families of anyone who didn't fully support them. It's a realistic portrayal of terrorism and it makes Kira's character development excellent, but it also makes people think that maybe - just maybe - Gul Dukat wasn't 100% wrong and is redeemable.

iirc Kira had no problem with killing her own mother because MUH SPOONHEADS MUH PROPHETS

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Take a look at the Wilson and FDR Administrations and see the world policing has been going on since long before the Bush/Clinton era.

Its even older than that. Theodore Roosevelt, older cousin of FDR was an interventionist. He was keen on the Spanish-American war to expel European powers from the Americas. He was keen to get into the first world war as well. As much as I admire and respect Theodore, he was overly keen on wars.

FDR put an embargo on Japan, which provoked them into attacking Pearl Harbor so he could have an excuse to justify entering a war he desperately wanted to join since the beginning. If you don't believe that about FDR, don't take my word for it - Winston Churchill himself says in his own memoirs of the war that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after FDR put that embargo on them.

FDR let Pearl Harbor happen.

If the US should stay out of foreign wars, as you say we should, than I don't think its a stretch to say the US should also not enable those same wars. Without oil Japan could not sustain a war effort in China, where I will remind everyone that Japan was waging a war of conquest and committing horrific war crimes. The US putting an embargo on Japan didn't provoke them into a war. It was Japanese desires to secure the Philippines to secure a route to the east indies and the rich oil fields therein. Could war have been prevented? Perhaps. Was cutting off oil to the imperialist Japanese the right move? Absolutely. It isn't the obligation of the US to make others wars possible.

I agree FDR let pearl harbor happen, or at the least turned a blind eye to the possibility it could. My real grievance with FDR was his Europe first policy. Oh sure Hitler declared war on us, but Hitler was an ocean away, the Japanese were right on our doorstep. Even going so far as to invade Alaska. It is without a doubt that FDR is one of the luckiest men to ever have lived that the Japanese caused enough damage at Pearl Harbor to gain the unconditional support of the American public for war; without delivering a crippling blow to forces in the pacific.

Europe first was nothing more than bailing out the British and Soviets for their fuckups and was completely unnecessary to the extent it was provided. Hell the actions in Africa was solely about ensuring the Nazis didn't take Egypt and letting the middle east turning to a mass Arab uprising against the British.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS]

I dont think his vanity is completely divorced from his goals.

He wants to Make America Great again because history will remember Donald Trump as the man who started making America great again.

That's not to say I dont think at least part of him has some genuine patriotism in his soul, but at the end of the day he's still a showman.

In the end it really doesn't matter what his reasonings are. If he can improve the economy, stop world war 3 from breaking out, kick out the illegals, and keep my kids from being trannified, I don't care why he does it.

Can't believe that's the baseline for greatness in today's political world.......

What the fuck....

 

[Jade Philosophies]

Kamala flip flops on her position not because of uncertainty but because she outright lies to appeal on whatever she believes is most popular.

Trump = populist
Kamala = popularist

It's those "conservative boomers" who gave us Nixon and Reagan as a backlash to the 60s and 70s communist agitation and anarchism, they weren't sitting around playing nice

And awesome 80s movies!

It’s honestly mostly the entertainment industry that pushed that image. Conservatives in the US and UK were defanged and “compassionate Conservatism” was pushed. You can not

People like Norman Lear undermined alternative Conservative movements back in the 70’s and 80’s. Through PACs and through media portraying them as backwards hypocrites and blowing up any controversy that happened with them.

I already knew about Enoch Powell's "Rivers of blood" stuff but I saw a video recently that seemed to show he was even more based than I thought and also makes it even more hilarious that leftards call him a "Nazi".

Look up Lysenkoism to see how well something like that works out in reality. If you make science the center of your governance, all you've done is made it a target for those who would pollute and pervert it to their own ends. Look at how rife with bullshit the social sciences have become and how many fact-checkers that slip in lies and propaganda and tell me you want governance to be based on that with a straight face.

At best you can hope for a group of citizens who will use truth and logic to come to their own decisions, but that's a people who hardly need government in the first place and can take care of themselves.

You don't seem to have understood what I meant. I'm not talking about "The Science™", I'm talking about people just working out governance issues rationally using the scientific method or whatever method required for the issue without political ideology. Well, I guess you sort of did understand at the end. But there needs to be at least a basic government and infrastructure as anarchy wouldn't work. But the people need to be in control of the government.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

FDR was intentionally sending merchant ships through U-boat infested waters because like Wilson he campaigned on staying out of war, but was keen to get into war. The Japanese were kind of out of nowhere due to like 1/3 of Japanese officers being trained in the US and they knew they had no chance in hell of beating the US.

The issue is that the Japanese had the same problem as the Germans. They overlooked logistics and ensuring they could feed their armies. Not even factoring in the US could produce more battleships in a month to replace the ones they lost. The US’s production output meant they could waste supplies without too many problems.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

iirc Kira had no problem with killing her own mother because MUH SPOONHEADS MUH PROPHETS

I'm sperging here, but that's not entirely fair. At the end of the episode, Kira backs out of the plan, and saves both her mother and Dukat. When she returns to the present, she has a short monologue where she realizes that she killed a ton of innocent people just trying to survive a fucked up situation by labeling them "collaborators." It was kind of a boring episode on its face but is very important for Kira's development.

 

[TheRaptorJesus]

Trump released his 20 core promises (contract with America) and this is all you need to show people.

View attachment 6299431
View attachment 6299435

Harris' 20 core promises

 

[Rimanah]

Give me my clock stickers if I’m late, but I just saw discussion of this on a Catholic news site:
Apparently, Walz repealed protection for born-alive infants, support for pregnant women. This in addition to legalizing abortion up to birth:

https://www.mccl.org/post/minnesota-legislature-repeals-protection-for-born-alive-infants-support-for-pregnant-women

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

I'm sperging here, but that's not entirely fair. At the end of the episode, Kira backs out of the plan, and saves both her mother and Dukat. When she returns to the present, she has a short monologue where she realizes that she killed a ton of innocent people just trying to survive a fucked up situation by labeling them "collaborators." It was kind of a boring episode on its face but is very important for Kira's development.

it also gave us one of the great moment in Dukat being a total dick when he was like "Ah, Major! So nice to see you, love the flowers, reminds me of the time I fucked your mom! Oops, gotta go. Toodles!"

 

[xXthrowawayaccountXx]

Snip

Holy shit, you people are still on this?

Also, what the fuck is this argument? It's shameful that you even put this to keyboard, and brings further shame upon anyone that pressed the like button.

So, they shouldn't have access to the assets, that they worked and paid for, because there is a chance they might decide to use those assets in a voter superPAC for queers? Beyond that, where in this contract did it demand that you needed children? I'm pretty sure they still existed back in traditional america, and still outnumbered modern gay couples by a wide margin. Unless you are one of those LARPers that think marriage went so wrong after divorce itself was made legal.

Again, I don't really care that much about gay marriage itself. I don't know why you have this weird hateboner about it, but I don't care.

What I do care, is that among the people I know in real life, queers (and abortion) are the only reasons anyone is still voting democrat. And you can tell that just from reading this thread. Hell, it's gotten to the point they even accept that uncheck immigration is a bad policy (!!!). Even among the trannies themselves, that's the only separating line.

Again, I don't care about gay marriage. What I do care about, is being able to own a gun, get a job in a field I care about without getting crowed out by overseas applicants, and being able to reasonably live in the same area that I was born in raised in without it being financially impossible.

So if I have to be sitting in a cramped bugpod with 6 other people, eating enviro-meat out of the tray as I file my 100th application that day, because you scared off those voters by not keeping Total Faggot Death in your pants, I am going to be fucking pissed.

 

[draggs]

Those Boomers voted correctly at the time given their choices, don't get me wrong.

But they completely ignored the culture and they completely failed to challenge lefties and just let them run amuck to influence the future generations through all forms of media and corporations.

You're talking about the 1990s...

Nixon was a moderate and voted in by greatest gen not even boomers. Reagan was straight up a long term disaster for shutting down the insane asylums

Nixon was a moderate lol. Nixon was a hardcore law and order cold warrior thx

Reagan was straight up a long term disaster because muh insane asylums lol. That's all that matters, not that the problems didn't start until decades later, not that he picked the country up out of the abyss of the Carter years, not that he fucked global communism

These glib retard opinions are so tiresome

 

[Justsomecicada]

You're talking about the 1990s...

Nixon was a moderate lol. Nixon was a hardcore law and order cold warrior thx

Reagan was straight up a long term disaster because muh insane asylums lol. That's all that matters, not that the problems didn't start until decades later, not that he picked the country up out of the abyss of the Carter years, not that he fucked global communism

These glib retard opinions are so tiresome

Nixon was literally part of the centrist or pragmatist wing of the Republican Party with Reagan to his right Goldwater to his further right, paleocons on the far right and the Rockefeller types to his left.was largely seen as such by the public, as well you can see this in polling. Seems like your the retard and your don’t understand American political history or republican party factionalism of the 60s and 70s. Just because he wouldn’t be a moderate today doesn’t mean he wasn’t during his time.