LogFAQs > #921401964

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Nationalist politics topic 15: The "Russian collusion" was a hoax!
Vlado 05/03/19 5:39:23 AM #251:	foolm0r0n posted... In your philosophy they absolutely did, because you can't explain why some things are and aren't nations. You just arbitrarily picked some rules and picked the exact "evidence" that you needed to build the theory that titillated you the most, ignoring all the other facts of the world's thousands-year history. And boom, there's your nations. Feel free to suggest alternative theories. I would say nations forming over centuries and many generations is a pretty obvious thing. But go ahead, suggest another theory. foolm0r0n posted... I was going to explain how it's all about the post-war (including the 50s but also new deal era) socialization booms, same as what Reagan meant when he created the term. Centralization and nationalism. Executive order. Overreaching the Constitution. Are you seriously going to argue that globalist puppet Reagan was "nationalist"? lmfao foolm0r0n posted... So it's not surprising that you're disappointed in President Trump, when the core of Candidate Trump is something you made up and has no relation to the policies he was actually talking about. Wrong. I am disappointed because he fails to achieve the things he campaigned on, but mostly because he's not putting up much of a fight. I am still not convinced he's controlled opposition, maybe he was genuine all along, but it seems he lacks the spine to truly try something great. He doesn't even need to succeed. He could fail. But failure would not take away the good intent. It could still be a long game, he could still actually go hard in a second term. Not very likely, I say. But we can hope. foolm0r0n posted... Trump is by all measure the most consistent president after election we've seen in a long time. Well, sure. That's because his predecessors set the bar pretty low. foolm0r0n posted... Obama, Bush, all the way back to Reagan were straight up liars when campaigning. Not to mention how Hillary would have been... Good we agree on something. foolm0r0n posted... I would say, if you're truly disappointed in current Trump, to examine the propaganda you fell for during his campaign, and what propaganda you are falling for TODAY with your current favorite leaders. Because you keep making this exact mistake over and over. I am not making a mistake. Look, I am loyal only to myself, and my own views. I support leaders when they align with me, but I will withdraw support if they betray me. It's simple. It's called being a politically competent individual. Espeon posted... Just noticed you never responded to this. Should be a simple answer, right? I didn't because it was a hare-brained question I'd addressed a million times before. "Divide and conquer" is obviously not in the interest of the masses the elites apply it on. Meanwhile, Vox reporting on latest shooting: "Not white? Damn." "Not nationalist? Damn." "Not Christian? Damn." "I suppose we'll have to make do with "male."" --- Blitzball fan? Try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES! *Best game reviews: http://betweenlifeandgames.com* <cite>Vlado posted [p:921401964] in Nationalis... [t:77594041]...</cite> <quote><cite>foolm0r0n posted...</cite> <quote>In your philosophy they absolutely did, because you can't explain why some things are and aren't nations. You just arbitrarily picked some rules and picked the exact "evidence" that you needed to build the theory that titillated you the most, ignoring all the other facts of the world's thousands-year history. And boom, there's your nations.</quote> Feel free to suggest alternative theories. I would say nations forming over centuries and many generations is a pretty obvious thing. But go ahead, suggest another theory. <cite>foolm0r0n posted...</cite> <quote>I was going to explain how it's all about the post-war (including the 50s but also new deal era) socialization booms, same as what Reagan meant when he created the term. Centralization and nationalism. Executive order. Overreaching the Constitution.</quote> Are you seriously going to argue that globalist puppet Reagan was "nationalist"? lmfao <cite>foolm0r0n posted...</cite> <quote>So it's not surprising that you're disappointed in President Trump, when the core of Candidate Trump is something you made up and has no relation to the policies he was actually talking about.</quote> Wrong. I am disappointed because he fails to achieve the things he campaigned on, but mostly because he's not putting up much of a fight. I am still not convinced he's controlled opposition, maybe he was genuine all along, but it seems he lacks the spine to truly try something great. He doesn't even need to succeed. He could fail. But failure would not take away the good intent. It could still be a long game, he could still actually go hard in a second term. Not very likely, I say. But we can hope. <cite>foolm0r0n posted...</cite> <quote>Trump is by all measure the most consistent president after election we've seen in a long time.</quote> Well, sure. That's because his predecessors set the bar pretty low. <cite>foolm0r0n posted...</cite> <quote>Obama, Bush, all the way back to Reagan were straight up liars when campaigning. Not to mention how Hillary would have been...</quote> Good we agree on something. <cite>foolm0r0n posted...</cite> <quote>I would say, if you're truly disappointed in current Trump, to examine the propaganda you fell for during his campaign, and what propaganda you are falling for TODAY with your current favorite leaders. Because you keep making this exact mistake over and over.</quote> I am not making a mistake. Look, I am loyal only to myself, and my own views. I support leaders when they align with me, but I will withdraw support if they betray me. It's simple. It's called being a politically competent individual. <cite>Espeon posted...</cite> <quote>Just noticed you never responded to this. Should be a simple answer, right?</quote> I didn't because it was a hare-brained question I'd addressed a million times before. "Divide and conquer" is obviously not in the interest of the masses the elites apply it on. Meanwhile, Vox reporting on latest shooting: "Not white? Damn." "Not nationalist? Damn." "Not Christian? Damn." "I suppose we'll have to make do with "male."" --- Blitzball fan? Try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES! Best game reviews: http://betweenlifeandgames.com</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1