- Dołączono
- 26 Lis 2018
They and everyone who upvoted them probably think that they're sooooooo smart.
Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿
- Twórca wątku Randall Fragg
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Dołączono
- 17 Sie 2018
Is she trying to say that US press is more valuable than Iranian reporters? That's a bit elitist, don't you think?
- Dołączono
- 16 Maj 2019
A retort to the thumbsucker crowd:
I do not want war with random people in random locations far away. Most people don't. That much is true.
But I do want war with the people who are currently trying to kill us, or who will be trying in the near future.(*)
You would get agreement on that second statement from every average American, average Iranian, average European, average Chinese, etc. No pressure from the elites needed; that's a normal, human reaction.
The unsolvable problem that the anti-war moralizers never address is, how do we identify that group of current/future belligerents? They do exist; they aren't all FUD and propaganda, or boogeymen conjured by the military industrial complex. And that's how wars start; enough of your populace gets worried about outside belligerents that they support taking action, with varying levels of justification, and varying levels of accuracy about the targets.
You can't just sit in your country's borders and pretend everyone else will throw a big kumbaya peace party for the next 100 years. At some point you're going to get attacked, and either you get credit for preparing against it, or blame for not preventing it when you had the chance.
(* If not outright war, then at least targeted assassinations. Basically, if someone wants me dead, I want them dead first. Whether by carefully aimed shot from a fully involved Marine, or by casual missile-to-face by an Air Force desk jockey piloting a drone thousands of miles away, I care less about the investment and more about the results. The idea that people who think seriously about security would find drone strikes "immoral" is silly; you have to care less about your own security first, before you can arrive at that conclusion.)
The Trump-Iran situation is downright laughable. The "elite" Trump used his AUMF-enabled authority to kill one guy, then let Iran blow off some steam with meaningless attacks, and then immediately de-escalated into economic sanctions. (You know, the same kind of sanctions that Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama was a big fan of using.) Now he's letting the "battle" play out in the insanity containment zone called Twitter.
He might even get diplomatic cover for withdrawing completely out of Iraq and letting the Middle East fuck itself over without our involvement, saving us the headaches and cost.
If that's warmonging, it's just about the laziest version you could do.
- Dołączono
- 10 Sty 2019
Whatever happened to American Pride?
I'll tell you what happened, we have people who honestly believe that the world would be a better place if America wasn't in it. And because of this belief, anytime someone, anyone, states that they are Pro-America, they are deemed as racist or that they hate other cultures. There's a reason why Multiculturalism is so dangerous.
Which is why Trump is so hated. He constantly states that America is the best country in the world. Which is why Iran is screwing themselves so hard right now. Because they know that Donald fucking Trump would wipe his ass with the Iranians, because he doesn't bow down to them like Obama did. Which is why the Iran Deal was dissolved by Trump.
I'll tell you what happened, we have people who honestly believe that the world would be a better place if America wasn't in it. And because of this belief, anytime someone, anyone, states that they are Pro-America, they are deemed as racist or that they hate other cultures. There's a reason why Multiculturalism is so dangerous.
Which is why Trump is so hated. He constantly states that America is the best country in the world. Which is why Iran is screwing themselves so hard right now. Because they know that Donald fucking Trump would wipe his ass with the Iranians, because he doesn't bow down to them like Obama did. Which is why the Iran Deal was dissolved by Trump.
Noideawhattopick
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 10 Lip 2019
These are the same motherfuckers that would handle foreign politics comparable to a toddler, and their whole country would suffer because of that.
- Dołączono
- 10 Sty 2019
Just like Germany. And France.
- Dołączono
- 16 Kwi 2019
The White House Twitter account is trolling the TDS afflicted (or for some other reason they just decided to post the photo a few days late).
Either way, they never said the picture is from today.
But people's broken brains can't handle it.
Either way, they never said the picture is from today.
But people's broken brains can't handle it.
- Dołączono
- 8 Cze 2015
Once you realize that multiculturalism says "Every OTHER nation EXCEPT the US is at least of neutral morality" you realize the entire point of "diversity is our strength" is to shame the average citizen into not protesting their being maneuvered into poorer and less powerful positions eventually ending up in a box being fed bug paste until they naturally die from neglect and old age because they "deserve it" for being part of the ONLY evil culture in the world....
It makes you worship an untrue narrative over objective reality, and when the two clash, those who support reality itself are aggressively attacked with the highest level of force local law allows.....
- Dołączono
- 23 Sty 2015
Because it worked so well the first time, right?
- Dołączono
- 17 Gru 2019
If you're wondering about Nancy's mental state, just a friendly reminder that she's turning 80 this year. Wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if she's going senile.
- Dołączono
- 1 Wrz 2019
Puny God
- Dołączono
- 18 Mar 2016
They call this "pinkwashing".
- Dołączono
- 4 Lis 2017
Lol.
Lol.
Lol. My nigga if you only fucking knew.
Its an everywhere west of India thing. Its only a visibly East African, namely Egyptian, thing because they give enough of a shit to take their daughters to a doctor to have it done, and they are used to the Coptic doctors back home being "Fine whatever put her in the stirrups" and so don't understand when other non-islamic doctors flip their shit. Everyone else just goes to the local witch doctor or are used to only discussing Islamic shit with trusted muslim physcians.
Its wildly popular in Pakistan, and Saudi's/Yemeni's love it, and I read (but did not source check) that its been becoming popular in Iran as way to get their uppity slut daughters to behave.
While its wide spread, its one of those "You can't say a majority because Indonesia is home to over half the world's muslims". But Indos aren't suicide bombing or trying to zerg rush Europe/Britain. But give it time, i'm sure it'll catch on there.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 21 Gru 2018
Any Munchkin can mash their head on a keyboard and produce clickbait these days but for some reason the media still think they're a better class.
Pelosi: You're actually telling me Trump's polls have actually risen since this whole impeachment push began!?
Staffer: It seems the people feel only they should have the power to remove elected officials from office.
*Pelosi pours herself her seven glass of "water" for the day. It's 11AM*
Pelosi: ... Clearly we need to double down on impeachment. Thank you Paul. Now run along, grandma's tired,
Staffer: Ma'am I'm not your grandson. Also, I'm a girl.
*Staffer quickly ducks "water" bottle thrown at her head*
- Dołączono
- 8 Kwi 2017
Girls can be grandsons, too, you cis-normative shitlord.
- Dołączono
- 31 Maj 2019
Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires (a book which is becoming increasingly relevant in our day and age,) has an explanation for why great nations turn soft against outside influences, and indeed, welcome them in, believing them to be a boon upon the land instead of a force to be evaluated carefully:
XVII Defensiveness.
Another outward change which invariably marks the transition from the Age of Conquests to the Age of Affluence is the spread of defensiveness. The nation, immen-sely rich, is no longer interested in glory or duty, but is only anxious to retain its wealth and its luxury. It is a period of defensiveness, from the Great Wall of China, to Hadrian’s Wall on the Scottish Border, to the Maginot Line in France in 1939. Money being in better supply than courage, subsidies instead of weapons are employed to buy off enemies. To justify this departure from ancient tradition, the human mind easily devises its own justification. Military readiness, or aggressiveness, is denounced as primitive and immoral. Civilised peoples are too proud to fight. The conquest of one nation by another is declared to be immoral. Empires are wicked. This intellectual device enables us to suppress our feeling of inferiority, when we read of the heroism of our ancestors, and then ruefully contemplate our position today. ‘It is not that we are afraid to fight,’ we say, ‘but we should consider it immoral.’ This even enables us to assume an attitude of moral superiority. The weakness of pacifism is that there are still many peoples in the world who are aggressive. Nations who proclaim themselves unwilling to fight are liable to be conquered by peoples in the stage of militarism... history seems to indicate that great nations do not normally disarm from motives of conscience, but owing to the weakening of a sense of duty in the citizens, and the increase in selfishness and the desire for wealth and ease ...
...
XXII The influx of foreigners.
One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population—Persians, Turks, Arabs, Arme-nians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in its streets. In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so. This problem does not consist in any inferiority of one race as compared with another, but simply in the differences between them.... in the Ages of Commerce and Affluence, every type of foreigner floods into the great city, the streets of which are reputed to be paved with gold. As, in most cases, this great city is also the capital of the empire, the cosmopolitan crowd at the seat of empire exercises a political influence greatly in excess of its relative numbers. Second- or third-generation foreign immigrants may appear outwardly to be entirely assimilated, but they often constitute a weakness in two directions. First, their basic human nature often differs from that of the original imperial stock. If the earlier imperial race was stubborn and slow-moving, the immigrants might come from more emotional races, thereby introducing cracks and schisms into the national policies, even if all were equally loyal. Second, while the nation is still affluent, all the diverse races may appear equally loyal. But in an acute emergency, the immigrants will often be less willing to sacrifice their lives and their property than will be the original descendants of the founder race. Third, the immigrants are liable to form communities of their own, protecting primarily their own interests, and only in the second degree that of the nation as a whole. Fourth, many of the foreign immigrants will probably belong to races originally conquered by and absorbed into the empire. While the empire is enjoying its High Noon of prosperity, all these people are proud and glad to be imperial citizens. But when decline sets in, it is extraordinary how the memory of ancient wars, perhaps centuries before, is suddenly revived, and local or provincial movements appear demanding secession or independence. Some day this phenomenon will doubtless appear in the now apparently monolithic and authoritarian Soviet empire. It is amazing for how long such provincial sentiments can survive. Historical examples of this phenomenon are scarcely needed. The idle and captious Roman mob, with its endless appetite for free distributions of food—bread and games—is notorious, and utterly different from that stern Roman spirit which we associate with the wars of the early republic. In Baghdad, in the golden days of Harun al-Rashid, Arabs were a minority in the imperial capital. Istanbul, in the great days of Ottoman rule, was peopled by inhabitants remarkably few of whom were descendants of Turkish conquerors. In New York, descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers are few and far between. This interesting phenomenon is largely limited to great cities. The original conquering race is often to be found in relative purity in rural districts and on far frontiers. It is the wealth of the great cities which draws the immigrants. As, with the growth of industry, cities nowadays achieve an ever greater preponderance over the countryside, so will the influence of foreigners increasingly dominate old empires. Once more it may be emphasised that I do not wish to convey the impression that immigrants are inferior to older stocks. They are just different, and they thus tend to introduce cracks and divisions.
Another outward change which invariably marks the transition from the Age of Conquests to the Age of Affluence is the spread of defensiveness. The nation, immen-sely rich, is no longer interested in glory or duty, but is only anxious to retain its wealth and its luxury. It is a period of defensiveness, from the Great Wall of China, to Hadrian’s Wall on the Scottish Border, to the Maginot Line in France in 1939. Money being in better supply than courage, subsidies instead of weapons are employed to buy off enemies. To justify this departure from ancient tradition, the human mind easily devises its own justification. Military readiness, or aggressiveness, is denounced as primitive and immoral. Civilised peoples are too proud to fight. The conquest of one nation by another is declared to be immoral. Empires are wicked. This intellectual device enables us to suppress our feeling of inferiority, when we read of the heroism of our ancestors, and then ruefully contemplate our position today. ‘It is not that we are afraid to fight,’ we say, ‘but we should consider it immoral.’ This even enables us to assume an attitude of moral superiority. The weakness of pacifism is that there are still many peoples in the world who are aggressive. Nations who proclaim themselves unwilling to fight are liable to be conquered by peoples in the stage of militarism... history seems to indicate that great nations do not normally disarm from motives of conscience, but owing to the weakening of a sense of duty in the citizens, and the increase in selfishness and the desire for wealth and ease ...
...
XXII The influx of foreigners.
One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population—Persians, Turks, Arabs, Arme-nians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in its streets. In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so. This problem does not consist in any inferiority of one race as compared with another, but simply in the differences between them.... in the Ages of Commerce and Affluence, every type of foreigner floods into the great city, the streets of which are reputed to be paved with gold. As, in most cases, this great city is also the capital of the empire, the cosmopolitan crowd at the seat of empire exercises a political influence greatly in excess of its relative numbers. Second- or third-generation foreign immigrants may appear outwardly to be entirely assimilated, but they often constitute a weakness in two directions. First, their basic human nature often differs from that of the original imperial stock. If the earlier imperial race was stubborn and slow-moving, the immigrants might come from more emotional races, thereby introducing cracks and schisms into the national policies, even if all were equally loyal. Second, while the nation is still affluent, all the diverse races may appear equally loyal. But in an acute emergency, the immigrants will often be less willing to sacrifice their lives and their property than will be the original descendants of the founder race. Third, the immigrants are liable to form communities of their own, protecting primarily their own interests, and only in the second degree that of the nation as a whole. Fourth, many of the foreign immigrants will probably belong to races originally conquered by and absorbed into the empire. While the empire is enjoying its High Noon of prosperity, all these people are proud and glad to be imperial citizens. But when decline sets in, it is extraordinary how the memory of ancient wars, perhaps centuries before, is suddenly revived, and local or provincial movements appear demanding secession or independence. Some day this phenomenon will doubtless appear in the now apparently monolithic and authoritarian Soviet empire. It is amazing for how long such provincial sentiments can survive. Historical examples of this phenomenon are scarcely needed. The idle and captious Roman mob, with its endless appetite for free distributions of food—bread and games—is notorious, and utterly different from that stern Roman spirit which we associate with the wars of the early republic. In Baghdad, in the golden days of Harun al-Rashid, Arabs were a minority in the imperial capital. Istanbul, in the great days of Ottoman rule, was peopled by inhabitants remarkably few of whom were descendants of Turkish conquerors. In New York, descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers are few and far between. This interesting phenomenon is largely limited to great cities. The original conquering race is often to be found in relative purity in rural districts and on far frontiers. It is the wealth of the great cities which draws the immigrants. As, with the growth of industry, cities nowadays achieve an ever greater preponderance over the countryside, so will the influence of foreigners increasingly dominate old empires. Once more it may be emphasised that I do not wish to convey the impression that immigrants are inferior to older stocks. They are just different, and they thus tend to introduce cracks and divisions.
Tl:dr: As the founding stock of a nation gets wealthy and spoiled, it becomes hedonistic and villifies the militant past of its ancestors. Immigrants come in to the nation, looking to improve their lot in life, file into the cities, and gain power and influence, playing up to the founding stock until they begin to founder and fail. Then the immigrants eventually rise to the top of the pecking order. Nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it. It's just a natural cycle of life between a settled people and a resource-seeking people.
- Dołączono
- 10 Lut 2017
If Pelosi really thought this was going to hurt Trump, then that was
beyond belief.Trump is far from the first president who has been censured or even impeached. Andrew Johnson managed to shake off the specter of his narrowly averted impeachment trial and got himself elected to the U.S. Senate to prove that it meant nothing to him shortly before his death. Nixon managed to rebuild his reputation after he resigned just before they could impeach him successfully, and Clinton survived his impeachment with no lasting political consequences and a slap on the wrist legally.
James Buchanan and Andrew Jackson were both censured, neither of them took it very seriously either.
Essentially, impeachment was not a very good historical choice for making eternal shame stick to an American head of state, and sure, the history books will mention the attempt, but by the time they do, Trump won't care.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2014
If Pelosi really thought this was going to hurt Trump, then that was
Trump is far from the first president who has been censured or even impeached. Andrew Johnson managed to shake off the specter of his narrowly averted impeachment trial and got himself elected to the U.S. Senate to prove that it meant nothing to him shortly before his death. Nixon managed to rebuild his reputation after he resigned just before they could impeach him successfully, and Clinton survived his impeachment with no lasting political consequences and and a slap on the wrist legally.
James Buchanan and Andrew Jackson were both censured, neither of them took it very seriously either.
Essentially, impeachment was not a very good historical choice for making eternal shame stick to an American head of state, and sure, the history books will mention the attempt, but by the time they do, Trump won't care.
Andrew Jackson also killed like twenty people in duels over the course of his presidency and banged the colored help. Shame was not an effective tactic on that man.
Come to think of it, he was basically proto Trump.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 17 Sie 2018
You think they'll put Trump on a dollar bill? Watch as people throw away their circulated Trump dollars to protest.