If Mort Divine ruled the world

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"if you have evidence"? you cant possibly be that retarded can you? Do you think people checked in some magic "voting for him because of white guilt" box on some type of form or poll? You want me to prove something that you have witnessed and seen with your own eyes? Lmao. You constantly keep proving just how much of a fucking idiot you are.

and i said a huge chunk btw, never said it was the only reason.

Oh and once again lol @ you saying Obama = outsider status

 

[Dak]

a presidency worse than most of the 20th century.

What makes W worse than the litany of failures in the 20th? I see him as just more of the same. Even Reagan and Eisenhower had their issues.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

What makes W worse than the litany of failures in the 20th?

He's far from it actually.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What makes W worse than the litany of failures in the 20th? I see him as just more of the same. Even Reagan and Eisenhower had their issues.

I'm using "presidency" to mean the duration of time over which a man was president. Two unpopular wars and the economy falling apart right at the end of his tenure made him justifiably hated, even if he didn't do much in terms lasting negative policy (though I'd argue he still did with the Patriot Act/DHS, plus Medicare Part D). I'm surprised to see TechBarb defending a Zionist puppet.

Reagan had a great presidency, even though he amped up the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, Islamic terrorism, government overspending, and other things. The economy improved under him (thanks, computers), he "ended communism" (thanks, communism), etc. Overall a damaging president and overcredited, but the effects of his negative policies fell on others. He, of course, was elected because of the crap presidency of Carter, even though Carter was one of the best presidents and had some of the best policies of the 20th century.

My personal bottom three from 1900 to present would probably be FDR, Truman, and LBJ, two of whom enjoyed massively successful presidencies. Eisenhower comes close to the other three though. Terrible period for most of the world.

 

[CiG]

The people that voted for Obama and then Trump did so more because of the outsider status. Obama was the new guy that took down the Clinton machine the first time and even ran on an anti-NAFTA, populist platform. I've never seen anything suggesting that white guilt was why Obama won.

How can you shoot down my claim that race was a major motivator in voting for Barrack Obama with a claim of your own just as unsubstantiated?

Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama are almost completely interchangeable to me, however Barrack Obama promised change and I think white America, especially back then, had race fatigue.

It was like a mass virtue-signal.

 

[Dak]

I'm using "presidency" to mean the duration of time over which a man was president. Two unpopular wars and the economy falling apart right at the end of his tenure made him justifiably hated, even if he didn't do much in terms lasting negative policy (though I'd argue he still did with the Patriot Act/DHS, plus Medicare Part D). I'm surprised to see TechBarb defending a Zionist puppet.

Reagan had a great presidency, even though he amped up the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, Islamic terrorism, government overspending, and other things. The economy improved under him (thanks, computers), he "ended communism" (thanks, communism), etc. Overall a damaging president and overcredited, but the effects of his negative policies fell on others. He, of course, was elected because of the crap presidency of Carter, even though Carter was one of the best presidents and had some of the best policies of the 20th century.

My personal bottom three from 1900 to present would probably be FDR, Truman, and LBJ, two of whom enjoyed massively successful presidencies. Eisenhower comes close to the other three though. Terrible period for most of the world.

You are making no sense at all in this post.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How can you shoot down my claim that race was a major motivator in voting for Barrack Obama with a claim of your own just as unsubstantiated?

Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama are almost completely interchangeable to me, however Barrack Obama promised change and I think white America, especially back then, had race fatigue.

It was like a mass virtue-signal.

Because

1. The whites that both Obama and Trump won have a blue-collar, protectionist background in common
2. Obama actually won the primary, not Clinton
3. The same whites that voted for Trump abandoned Obama in 2012 (but not the upper-class ones to nearly the same extent)

http://news.gallup.com/poll/155156/obama-white-base-shows-cracks-compared-2008.aspx

Obama Loses Support Among Low-Income Whites

There was a modest income skew in Obama's support among whites in 2008, but that has largely disappeared in the recent 2012 data, given the larger-than-average declines in support seen for him among low-income whites.

Obama's support is down nine points among those earning less than $24,000 as well as among those earning $24,000 to $59,999 per year. At the same time, his support among higher-income Americans is down only three points.

All those virtue-signalling Walmart greeters, amirite?

You are making no sense at all in this post.

Sure thing

 

[no country for old wainds]

 

[Mort Divine]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

You are making no sense at all in this post.

because he usually does, right?

 

[CiG]

K.K. Warslut is my hero.

 

[Dak]

Because
Sure thing

because he usually does, right?

HBB seems to have serious issues with categorization and labeling that are not limited to any one sphere. Labeling something a "presidency" which is independent of the president, odd "genrezation" of metal, arguing about empire vs country, etc.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Secret Facebook Page Reveals Marvel, DC Comics Writers Conspiring to Harass Comic-Con Conservatives

 

[CiG]

Wow.

Anybody that says the SJW agenda in comic books is a conspiracy is getting blown the fuck out by reality a lot lately.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

HBB seems to have serious issues with categorization and labeling that are not limited to any one sphere. Labeling something a "presidency" which is independent of the president, odd "genrezation" of metal, arguing about empire vs country, etc.

pres·i·den·cy
ˈprez(ə)dənsē/
noun
noun: presidency; plural noun: presidencies

the office of president.
"the presidency of the US"

the period of this.
"the liberal climate that existed during Carter's presidency"

You were saying?

In any case, since you've admitted that your issue was with my use of the word "presidency", which I had already previously defined correctly, what is preventing you from understanding my post now?

Your problem is that you lack intricacy. Like many a dumb libertarian, you take the simplest approach to all problems and reject those that don't fit within the idealistic bounds of your worldview. "That CAN'T be right, it contradicts my one central tenet! It makes no sense!"

 

[Dak]

You were saying?

In any case, since you've admitted that your issue was with my use of the word "presidency", which I had already previously defined correctly, what is preventing you from understanding my post now?

Your problem is that you lack intricacy. Like many a dumb libertarian, you take the simplest approach to all problems and reject those that don't fit within the idealistic bounds of your worldview. "That CAN'T be right, it contradicts my one central tenet! It makes no sense!"

Yes, the era as it relates to things pertaining to the president. IE decisions, appointments, policy, etc. It makes zero sense to say someone was a good president with a bad presidency. The "badness" of the presidency cannot be mere circumstances. Otherwise we can list an endless number of things as pertaining to the "presidency".

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, the era as it relates to things pertaining to the president. IE decisions, appointments, policy, etc. It makes zero sense to say someone was a good president with a bad presidency. The "badness" of the presidency cannot be mere circumstances. Otherwise we can list an endless number of things as pertaining to the "presidency".

But not all things that happen under a presidency are things that are caused by the sitting presidency. Problems can be created under one presidency, and fruit under the next. Obviously I'm talking about things that still pertain to the president, and all the examples I gave were things under the purview of the presidency. I didn't blame George W Bush for Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2.

 

[Dak]

But not all things that happen under a presidency are things that are caused by the sitting presidency. Problems can be created under one presidency, and fruit under the next. Obviously I'm talking about things that still pertain to the president, and all the examples I gave were things under the purview of the presidency. I didn't blame George W Bush for Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2.

Explain how Carter was a good president but had a bad presidency, or how FDR etc were bad presidents and had successful presidences. There were no examples. I don't think Reagan was a good president except in comparison to the normal shit show.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Explain how Carter was a good president but had a bad presidency, or how FDR etc were bad presidents and had successful presidences. There were no examples. I don't think Reagan was a good president except in comparison to the normal shit show.

I gave the examples of W and Reagan, I don't know what two more examples will do to convince you, but here you go:

Carter privatized industries, moving the country away from the controlled economy FDR introduced, and also generally sought more peaceful solutions to international problems rather than swinging his military dick around like so many others. His admin was also relatively free from corruption afaik. The oil crisis of his time was largely inherited from the Iranian Revolution, a reaction to decades of meddling begun by Truman and Eisenhower. Hostage situation, obviously the same case.

The Great Depression ended under FDR and WW2 nearly ended under him. He was extremely successful in exercising political control and redefined the Democratic party, creating a legacy that lasts to this day. In order to do so he created a government with nearly unstoppable reach over private citizens.

 

[Dak]

I gave the examples of W and Reagan, I don't know what two more examples will do to convince you, but here you go:

Carter privatized industries, moving the country away from the controlled economy FDR introduced, and also generally sought more peaceful solutions to international problems rather than swinging his military dick around like so many others. His admin was also relatively free from corruption afaik. The oil crisis of his time was largely inherited from the Iranian Revolution, a reaction to decades of meddling begun by Truman and Eisenhower. Hostage situation, obviously the same case.

Hadn't really read much about Carter tbh, outside of knowing he created the DoEs. Just went and did some reading and it appears he had a much better presidency than I realized.

The Great Depression ended under FDR and WW2 nearly ended under him. He was extremely successful in exercising political control and redefined the Democratic party, creating a legacy that lasts to this day. In order to do so he created a government with nearly unstoppable reach over private citizens.

Yeah, all it took to end TGD was FDR shipping off a bunch of the workforce to be killed and/or paid by govt debt and helping craft the increasingly totalitarian state. #winning. FDR might be the biggest piece of shit in American history and his presidency was a disaster for millions.