President Donald Trump

I’ll never understand why people insist on this excuse

That shitposter posts ad nauseum and the entire forum becomes a crossfire of replies to him

Unless you install some macro that eliminates every trace of his posting from your feed and from replies by others he is literally unavoidable

Edit: see directly one post above this one

You could post political content in the political subsection of the forum and get conversations going, but you never do. You only occasionally whine about trump (and almost never by criticising specific policies, argumenting what instead you would prefer and why and so on), but mostly whine about me.

And you feel you are useful doing that. Not many people would agree.

There is an above average amount of political events going on currently in the USA (especially for a non-election year), with tens of "arrows" shot by the trump admin toward courts, and many complicated cases ongoing, along with a huge bill with an insane amount of elements in it that just passed in reconciliation.

And yet, with all this meat going on which you could discuss a lot, you only choose to post ******ed takes by trump jr , some whines, and how bad i am.

While i talk actual real political content (not only american content) in most of my posts. Which you call "****" ofc, because you cannot comprehend people discussing actual politics, in a political forum.

You are just very juvenile i hope you will mature later in life.

Thank you! I most certainly will!

But we're idiots for a lot of other reasons as well tbh.

Doesn't the new version actually do this?

I think he was being sarcastic

Epstein when?

Trump tariffs was brilliant.
Keep massive tax cuts to the rich .
Give peanuts to the rest .
Create massive deficits
put tariffs that , again mostly regular people will pay down , instead taxing more from the top .

Isn't he one of the people who wants there to be more reproduction? I know JD Vance has gone on about it. I'm the opposite.

I only say extreme things with regards to parenting. I would support the forced sterilization of everyone in the world. That's the only thing I would support being forced on anyone.

He also apparently thinks it is evil to join the current US military.

That's despite the fact that if everyone stopped enlisting, the draft would be reinstated, which generally results in the privileged not serving while those from poor families are forced to do so.

Miller wants the forced sterilization of nonwhites so you agree on a lot.

Who do you think has drummed this into anyone?

When I was in HS and university, mostly in the 80s, these were the main parts of US foreign policy (post-WWII) I learned from my history and political science courses:

Korean War (pointless stalemate costing many lives)
Bay Of Pigs (failed invasion)
Cuban Missile Crisis (very scary / lucky success)
Vietnam War (pointless loss costing many lives and causing much internal strife)
Iranian revolution / hostage crisis (loss of pro-US middle east ally to radical Islamism).

I definitely didn't become an adult while thinking positively about the previous 40 years of US foreign policy.

I haven't heard anything about that, but if true it still would have nothing to do with my opinions on the issue, which have nothing to do with race.

Is it because you are a negative utilitarian and think the world would be better off without suffering? Because even if you sterilize everyone on the planet, you would still likely have sentient life that can rebuild and you will just end up (most likely) with another intelligent race that can emerge.

Pragmatically you should still support reproduction even as a negative utilitarian because you need to be sufficiently advanced to actually wipe out all life on the planet. Right now the technology is not good enough.

Citation? Thanks.

You agree on the forced sterilization of billions. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees more.

I tend to agree. My university education was highly critical of American foreign policy.

Stephen Miller is one of the GOATs of our race. A proud white man who isn't scared to call parasitic scum what they are. A true warrior for freedom, justice, and the American way of life. He would fit right into this nazi bar.

Vast majority of Americans are not university educated.

Chomsky has a quote about how lively debate along a narrow spectrum is encouraged. typically, when America does another mass slaughter fest, the debate is about whether it was good or bad for America itself. I highly doubt your university was criticizing America for what it is - a Supremacist genocidal Empire built on theft and slavery.

and even on that note, the liberals tend to get it wrong as they consider the Iraq war bad for the country. no, it was an extremely profitable endeavor.

pretty sure an overwhelming majority of leftists (which make up most college professors) are morally against the notion of "manifest destiny" for the USA.

Your problem victor is not when you define the usa the way you did in the bold (aside from slavery which you mistakenly think helped non slave american or romans, while it didn't, but that's another conversation)

It's when you fail to realize that describes the totality of succesful countries in history, especially if by "theft" you mean "conquest".

You basically hate human nature and it's inevitable consequences, and get angry at the current most succesful country in the world because what makes a country succesful is something you hate inherently.

I do agree wih you liberals are hypocrites (or deluded) when they deny that the USA is founded on genocide, or when they claim that's a bad thing: they should embrace it as the proper way to get more for you and your offspring (in many cases in the past, less relevant today, but not for moral reasons, just for material reasons) and be happy thei ancestors won the game of life vs all others.

That's viewing it thru a fairly narrow lens--just money. You can arrive at the bad conclusion while acknowledging money was made.

I only took an intro to poli sci or whatever in undergrad as a gen. req. but can def. remember the prof. being critical of America(and especially American politicians lol) in contexts outside foreign policy alone. Lots more exposure to political philosophy etc in school though.

Every time I hear the liberal indoctrination thing I think about some of that poli sci dude's lectures and just kinda chuckle.

So do you think they have been taught that post-WWII US foreign policy has been mostly successful? Where would they have learned that.

History lessons at school and TV and films depicting the US as the winners of WW2 who went on to bring wonderful democracy to backward heathens in other parts of the world, spreading wisdom and enlightenment, and no mention of the theft.

Pretty similar to how UK history used to be taught before they could no longer get away with pretending the transatlantic slave trade didn’t happen and didn’t fuel the Industrial Revolution.

it was more than money. the elites and deep state further strengthened their hold on power.

maybe you had a good professor. did he advocate for the downfall of America?

so much of the analysis I see is criticism of the bad things that America does. over and over. theres no awareness that the America does bad things bc its innately bad and fully beyond changing.