The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I have an awfully strong suspicion I'm going to spin those words back on you. Wouldn't be the first time, but this seems like the most hypocritically one-sided thing ever.

"I'm not here to use Google for you, but I refuse to believe you both before and after you post abundant evidence from abundant sources."

You can do whatever you want. I have very little time for people that spend a page of forum posts defending their use of Sargon videos

It only destroyed all existing power structures, killed millions pointlessly and took decades to recover from. Of course Europe's sore over the very thing it got destroyed and divided by. And Germans don't want to pretend it never happened, you're thinking of Japan whose response to WWII is to silently nod their heads as they completely ignore all the massacres and rapes they held.

Hell, most Germans have a more realistic view of their history than many an American, who regularly ignore that they carpetbombed people, topped legitimate democratic goverments for fun and are still the only country to nuke another, always with some justification of how it saved lives, even if that's questionable. Or their own rampant colonization of their continent including mass-murder of natives and downright denying millions basic human rights, and nowadays full-on denying that it was ever that bad.

If you ask a modern german if 1945 was a defeat or a liberation, they'll call it a liberation, and they do their utmost best to root out fascism. Denying the holocaust happened is punishable by law. It's more than you can say about how the US treats history.

Also: the forum slowness problem got solved, so i can finally make longer replies without going through hell.

Omggggggggggggggggggg


now trump wants to give himself complete legal pardon for anyone. at what point are there enough red flags? at what point do you set off the "Dictator! Dictator! Dictator! " alarm?

Spoiler: videos

pfffffffffff

*
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/888724194820857857
why oh why??!?

Question. If the US mass produced nukes and told every country to surrender to US control or their capital would be nuked and then every remaining large city until they did, do you think the US could successfully have conquered the world?

That was the single most successful chance ANYONE has had to conquer the world. It wasn't taken. You're welcome. We have better things to do, than just be jagoffs to random other countries. Next, you'll say we bombed our own WTC for an excuse to bomb the middle east tens of thousands of times over a decade.

America's execution of foreign policy has been a bit hostile. It's intentions, are mathematically proven, to be social in nature.

Uhm, Mr. "America" Expert...??? He didn't give himself it, the Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution gave the president that ability in 1787 iirc. This kind of shtuff right here, this is exactly what ruffles my feathers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

i think you're missing the point. If he uses it that's admission of guilt

also just your everyday trump :

But they weren't mass producing nukes. Nor would it work, as it would instantly align the world behind the USSR and cause a war on america itself. It would be a dumb move. One they couldn't make anyway as they weren't mass producing nukes. Besides, this is the exact kind of justification i'm talking about. Same goes for the "mathematically social". It's all fine and dandy unless you happen to live in a country now in ruins thanks to poorly thought-out american invasions.

Plus, the US president can nuke the world, but if he starts talking about it that raises questions. Same way for the pardoning: sure there may be instances where pardoning may be useful for whatever reason, but if a president starts talking about it while in the middle of investigations into collusion etc, that's when the alarmbells ought to ring. Having power and actually exercising it are different things.

What if Donald Trump Said exactly the same thing but with a posh British accent?

Spoiler: what if

The America between the Hawaii wetwork and the wetwork just before the cold war end, is just a "trust fund nation" built off the success of it's WWII predecessors and prior.

I'm consistent about that too. One day you say old-America is worse, the next day new-America is worse. I forgot, who ended wars and evolved technology on the best final result of the western world? F*ckups notwithstanding, America isn't some absolute evil, and has probably contributed more per each unit of damage it caused, than... oh, let's compare it to... Germany, for instance. No 10^18th currency inflation, still killed fewer people, was less "prejudice" in it's killing (not that it excuses it in any way), and has a lot more to show for it that it doesn't have to censor or hide (we have the 1860s and 1960s apparently, and Germany has the 1939-1945).

History. People here act both sensitive, like it's their shame for something before they were born or had any part in it, and hostile, like other people are responsible for what happened before they were born. Can't just accept the awful establishment for their mistakes, without damning everyone randomly. As if Trump had dropped thousands of bombs a year for the last 10 years, and Obama didn't. Trump quasi-started doing the same old song and dance, picked up from Obama, with the established military strategists being the only variable carried over. Ever think it's not Trump's fault the US were dropping bombs for 10 years, just because they're still doing it now?

Germans?

I'm also not saying that "old/new America is the worst". But it loves to do shady **** all the time, and when someone brings that up, the justification starts immediately. No "yea nuking people is bad, we can agree on that" or "Invading people without a plan to make it better was dumb". Every mistake gets defended till the end of the Earth.

Nuking people is bad. America literally did that once.

At that time, nuking people was good, because it was only 2, it was the only ones either side could throw, they were weak in comparison to modern world-ending multiple-warhead ICBMs, and since it was America's decision it was better than a single American dying in duty instead. If it's you or them, then you always choose to look after you at the cost of them.

No country never has ever even once chosen "yeah we'll just roll over and die lol enjoy your reign dearest enemy". That's not an American thing, that's a human thing.

Before WWI, America didn't futz with "global conflicts", they were isolated. Before WWII, America was not looking to get involved again. So, if WWII America, has nuked you, and was the only country to ever nuke another country in all of history, you need to take a step back, and ask yourself... what led to their decision such as to take those durastic measures?

Since then, technically the biggest problem with nukes are mass usage. America hasn't detonated the most/strongest nukes since then, the Soviet Union did, own soil or test or otherwise, pretty sure you can turn your attention away from America and toward the Soviet Union on most neglectful handling of nukes.

But alas, at least we agree; Nukes are a non-option in the modern day. They only exist, because Japan is an example of what happens when only 1 country has access to nuclear weapons.

I know you nor Gorbles are "here to use Google for me", but... substantiate your claim pls?

...or is there anyone else here who knows the obvious abundance of modern technological breakthroughs resulting from Germany? Beside the MP44 and father of modern assault rifles?

Mind you, they were a few months shy of inventing nuclear weapons first, but horseshoes and hand grenades, you know? Months decided the outcome of the European front. I guess it's good for Judaism, that they didn't. Things could have been worse.

I appreciate the random jab for no apparent reason whatsoever, so I just want to say this:

You are championing the USA, in that they did something we should be thankful for ("you're welcome"), in not forcing a totalitarian nuclear agenda on the rest of the world?

Did I seriously read that?

As a defense of American foreign policy?

lols

Absolutely. It's not what the USSR did. You're WELCOME. The US aren't total arsewipes, when there were way far more pressing candidates for total arsewipes, like the USSR, Germany, and honestly the Middle-East extremists. They're a result of poor actions of the US, I have been consistent in that, since 1950-2004, and now pretty much just lingering constant day-after-day resulting from that era, the US policy has been manipulative and has created modern enemies much more dangerous and divisive than the original enemies they were intended to deal with.

Instead of constant internet articles, let me demonstrate I know what I'm talking about, with an actual paper-published book titled "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq". Btw, has anyone actually referenced a published paper book in this thread yet, besides Mein Kampf (just kidding)? Tatsu keeps suggesting videos that aren't TeamFourStar for some reason, and Gorbles pulls numbers our his arse and on the internet (news flash, everyone can publish to the internet. I mean, here we are!), and then he blames me for pulling numbers out my arse. Classy.

If you like America-blaming, that book should honestly be required reading for you. I read it. I can still moderately both blame America for the actions in it, and still accept the good things it did in-between.

In layman's terms, Civil Rights = good, Overthrowing Hawaii Monarchy for Dole's Best Interests = bad. Hawaii had no long-lasting negative effects, but Arming the Taliban on the other hand, oh boy...

inb4"IJabbedAtGorblesAgain". Look, I'm apparently a kid, an animal, an alt-right, a Nazi, and- hey, you're keeping track of the list here, not I... so if I'm all these things, why am I NOT going to jab, at the source of the insults? Oh, look, Trophy is over here defending itself again, what a monster Trophy is being!

actually that's what we've been trying to get you to admit since the start.

glad to have you on our side of the argument there finally.


we don't see history as personally incriminating. If we bring it up though it's because it is mother of lessons and the only point in remembering it ever is preventing ourselves from being caught in loops which will try to happen bizarrely unless you can remind sufficient amounts of people of history.

just to clear things up. the reason why the world is effectively scared of america for that choice is because the war was un-debatably won just objectively nothing you could say about it. it was won. german and italian surrender was already in the japanese were done they only had to hand in the surrender and multiple historic reports concur that the generals had agreed on it and it was going to be handed in within days time.

the U.S. knew about this but they didn't want to loose the opportunity to make the show of force that would place them in a position of power.

you've probably heard this phrase from the mouth of every monarch represented in film or series (I know in "The Tudors" they had Henry eight say it right in the pilot) : "as a ruler is it better to be loved or feared?" the implied statement being that of course fear has negative connotations but in terms of the power you reap theoretically it should be tenfolds better.

So they pushed the bombing plans through at an accelerated rate. there's lots of documentation on that as well.

basically the day the bombs drop was japans surrender day.

It's a bit chilling that having known this the U.S. (or at least the people in charge) didn't factor all those civillian lives above that of frightening the world and hold the position of "first power in the world" thereafter for what ended up being not all that long.

I don't think it was worth it. and I think the bad rep and the good arguments it gave the U.S.S.R. in the ensuing cold war were a pretty terrible choice (that is, completely excluding the absolutely barbaric and inhumane side of it).

Someone has to be the Hegemon and there is no better embodiment of values to occupy that position than the US. It's an absolute godahm miracle that lady fate found favour with the US out of all the global powers in existence.

Only a fool would try and argue otherwise. The torch of individual humanity came incredibly close to being completely snuffed out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is so astoundingly ignorant of history to the point of it being some sort of freak occurence.

When humanity leaps across a pit full of snakes by the skin of its teeth and the only thing you can do is wish we had jumped into the pit instead because we have some dirty fingernails, it's time to take a few of those cold showers again.

If you think you could have done better in bulk as some supreme dictator than the US and the values it represents has over the last half century, you're already a dangerous person unaware of your own failings, weaknesses, and blindspots. How old are you? What do you think are the chances that you've got everything figured out already? That out of the billions of humans who have ever existed, you're so astoundingly unique in your genius as to have figured out the right path. If there was anyone who should not be given power in any degree over other people, it would be this kind of a person.

So you are telling me, Japan surrendered first, and then at any point and time afterward, the US nuked them in spite of their surrender?

No? That's not how history happened then?

Okay then...

Either a country surrenders, or it doesn't. It's very binary, with absolutely no room for argument. It can't just be a surrender that doesn't identify as a surrender, there'd be valid argument if that were the case, but it's binary, so it's not.

Soldiers are literally shooting other soldiers up to that point and time. Soldiers die. Do you know specifically how many soldiers died on both sides of the Pacific front, between the last major battle, and the time the bombs fell? BOTH BOMBS, may I add, as if 1 wasn't enough for unconditional surrender?

Btw, they didn't surrender conditionally because allegedly "pride", until they finally did surrender unconditionally, because they could not accept government under anyone beside their leadership, yet the terms were more than satisfactory in the end anyway.

If they didn't surrender because "reasons", then it's just as bad for the US, as it is for everyone, that they don't just surrender before someone has to go and bomb them first.

Unless it was a surrender and THEN a bombing, it was a justifiable action. It was an act of war, during war. It needs to be an act of war when war was undeclared, to be what you're describing as an unforgivable crime of hatefulness.

Furthermore, you forget an entire ******* continent declared war with each other, because some single dumb piece of crap person shot another person who happened to be important, and then pissing contest ensues, and the piss got all over the shoes of civilians who then DIED and weren't even a part of the nations at war. Really, if America started the Middle East wars, then Europe started America's global involvement, so Europe, once again, transitive property of algebra, specifically Germany as it so happens again, in fact caused the Middle East. Quit sinking an isolated neutral nation's ships, GERMANY. Quit taking things too far, AMERICA. Everyone's a bastard, afaic.

And, you know what? The western world generally solved the problem. Hostilities end, no more intentional violence toward civilians. Germany learned. America learned. Everyone in the west wins. Japan learned, almost forgot that one. Middle east, still okay to kill whoever they want, their own people with strict laws, other's people with terrorism, that **** totally has to stop, preferably both, but specifically killing our random citizens. In 1940, what the Middle East is doing, regardless, would begin with war, the moment casualties came into play anyway.

Total war. The kind that ends with an unconditional surrender. Not one of Tatsu's wars. Which is essentially what we ended up having, is an open-ended war where we still piss about the place in the Middle East with seemingly no organized objective.

I'm not surprised at all you'd pick up the absolute defense in disregard of any points made position.

it's just childish. at a certain point in growing up you normally become capable of criticizing anything. even things you identify with. even yourself.

whatever this is obviously going nowhere.

what about that sweet sweet justice about me being right?

you mocked me early on in this thread for saying under trump LGBT were under threat.

now that the trumpbus has trampled what say you ?

I'm going to need a source. I will simply repeat this request if you cite a video ffs. You can use text, to say what Trump said when, and I'll take it for face value, as long as you don't use a video. May I remind you Colin said you technically are required to use words before posting a video anyway, so best to just use your words aye?

But for consistency's sake, my stance is that marriage easily exists in culture far before and outside of Christian or any religious influence. As far as stance on gender identity, that is an individual's label for themselves and should be respected (mocking it is a ***** move and is unchristian to be mocking and/or a *****), and someone else's gender identity for them (using the wrong pronoun, especially accidentally), is between those two people and is not government business. It also makes physical sense for a government to use real-id act, although at the same time the same act makes no sense because it's the government's job to do it's own id work and not to enforce it upon a citizen by threat of jail. Medically, a person should not be forced one way or another, for instance, I believe a person seeking "gay-conversion" therapy, whether gay-to-straight or vice-versa (if that even exists), should only be allowed to under complete free will choosing to do so, anyone found forcing it should be subjected to laws already existing for forced control of another human. Some people want to try therapy, the therapy is revolting tbh, not my place to decide for them, honestly parents can be pieces of **** so honestly it's probably not their place to decide at... oh, what's a good age for sexual consent anyway... 17? I'd even elaborate to say then, that conversion therapy before then, should be a no-go because sexual consent isn't even established so a parent can't possibly issue therapy for something off limits.