https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/2711716/13765177
I'm ignoring the top part and getting into the part where he starts listing the dates. I'm figuring alot of users here agree with his arguments and I want to here your defence against them.
1913 - Why is paper currency bad?Would he rather we had to carry round bags of gold and silver to pay for stuff? Didn't the states he probably gushes over like Nazi Germany use paper currency?I don't agree or disagree with this point. I simply can't understand what argument he is making.
1917 - How was Wilson a Jewish puppet?Also the US entered the war against Germany because of German bombing of US merchant ships and the Zimmerman telegram where Germany tried to instigate Mexico to invade the US.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-the-British-forged-the-Zimmermann-note-to-bring-the-United-States-into-World-War-1
To say the US got nothing from the war is also ridiculous. The war contributed to the roaring 20s boom, expanded the US influence and standing across the world and cemented stronger relations with Europe. Bullshit point.
1920 -The vast majority of US suffragettes were not Jewish. Why should women not be allowed to vote?The majority of White women vote conservative. What exactly makes a woman lesser and unworthy to vote? Do you not see how harmful it is for the movement by alienating and being hostile towards a significant portion of the population, potential supporters?
For his last point. He provided no example of these collapsed civilizations. Did the Roman Empire allow women to vote?Did the Ottoman Empire allow women to vote?Did Tsarist Russia allow women to vote?Did Monarchist France allow Women to vote?Did the Soviet Union allow women to vote? Did the Spanish and Portuguese Empire allow women to vote? Again just an ignorant point from someone with a simple and narrow minded view on human history. Bulshit point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suffragists_and_suffragettes#United_States
https://i.imgur.com/GB04Xzw.png
1933 - Point is objectively true but I don't understand the point he is making or why exactly this is a negative thing. Also as stated in the wikipedia article, Gerald Ford repealed this act in 1974. This is a point I neither agree of disagree with. I just want to hear your point on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
1934 - His point that it banned ownership of firearms is of course wrong. The wikipedia source states it ' imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms'. The act was passed mainly in response to high crime during the prohibition era. In the miller case, the Supreme Court ruled it was Constitutional. I can sorta get the argument of it being a slippery slope however to me, it seems reasonable to reduce crime. This is a point I neither agree or disagree with and I'd like to see your defence of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
1935 - What exactly is wrong with Social Security?Especially during a time when Capitalism utterly pulverised the American economy and people. How is the Government helping it's people a negative thing?How is Social Security inherently Marxist? This retarded Libertarian rhetoric is also harmful for the right as it alienated the Northern White working class who remained subdued by the Left because of the right's anti social security stance. I'm also sure the state this guy gushes over had Social Security. The act was passed in congress and was declared constitutional twice by the US supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act#US_Supreme_Court_cases
1941 - Objective bullshit. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the US. Regardless if you think the US was involved earlier or whether they were justified. The fact stands the Axis struck the move that pulled the US into the war. How was FDR a Jewish puppet? If he was why weren't the Jewish refugees aboard the voyage of the damned not allowed in and why were anti semitic preachers allowed to freely gain a wide following? Also to say the US got nothing is again bullshit. It saved the US economy, led to the economic boom, massively expanded the US sphere of influence which led to the nation becoming a world superpower. Aswell as eliminating threats to US power.
1946- I can't make a statement on this one. According to wikipedia it established commercial and financial rules for relations between the Western allies. My guess is his point is that it lead to the establishment of Globalism. I neither agree nor disagree, I want to hear your defense on this and why it is bad.
1950 - The US had authorization from the UN because the Soviets boycotted. North Korea invaded first and was unjustified. It's hilarious also how he establishes his opposition to Marxism with the Social security point yet is bothered by the US defending a ally from Marxism.
1955 - Objectively true but similar to the one above, it was because of McCarthyism and US's autistic fear and crusade against Communism. However he is right and I agree.
1959 - Agreed but same as above.
1965- Correct but the part where he says 'THE POLITICIANS ADMITTED THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO COMMIT GENOCIDE ON WHITES' is untrue. In fact it is the opposite. Vermin like Ted Kennedy lied(or was naive) saying the bill would only bring in a few thousand highly skilled immigrants instead of a full scale replacement. Also calling it a genocide is pretty silly imo. Replacement is a better world. Although I think most of the congressmen who passed it were naive to it's effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#Legislative_history
1965 Domincan -Objectively true however it was to defend American interests. I agree with it though.
1967- Based on accounts from sailors aboard and evidence of the Levon affair.I can this is most likely true.
1968 -Wasn't civil rights introduced in 1965? Anyway his point is true on the surface however I think the act was justified. African Americans were treated like absolute shit under segregationist America with worser services and quality of life. I think the bill was justified however I am willing to listen to your arguments against it and why it was negative.
1973 - Roe vs Wade point -true albeit there is a context to it. US defending Israel is true but his reasoning for why the US entered( Israel saying it was going to obliterate the US) is bullshit with no evidence presented by him. Assuming he is talking about the Samson option in particular this point 'In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of "very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option'. The serious consequences would have been Israel launching nuclear strikes against the ATTACKING states if Israel was about to lose which would have killed millions. Israel wouldn't even have the means to obliterate the US. The reason the US so strongly supported Israel was because of Cold war power playing and desire to expand influence in the Middle East to prevent the region from falling to the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#Deterrence_doctrine
1980s - Objectively true but similar to the Korean and Vietnam points, it was because of the US's anti Communist crusade.
1990 - Bullshit. Israel didn't even participate in the war. Saddam was allowed to stay in power and Kuwait kept independence. The war started because of Saddam's invasion not Israel.
2001 -Not even going to reason or entertain with this one.
2003- True
2008 - I'm no expert on this so feel free to explain it please.
2010 - How is Obamacare unconstitutional? The Supreme Court disagrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius
2015- True but whats the issue? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?Why does it bother you?
2018 - True
2019 - True
2020 - First point absolutely disagree, have just one look at Brazil, US,Italy, India etc as to why this thing has to be taken seriously, I lowkey hope this person does catch it. Second point citation needed. Third point- true but there is nuance to it.
[–]RedPillDessert 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)