Five of swords

I do not understand why anyone would watch a presidential debate.

So...equally newsworthy

So what you are saying is that all you need is to control media to control people's opinions. So...you support democracy?

I did not bother watching the debate because I know that in the current era it is not possible for a presidential debate to even be mildly interesting

Taylor swift is an entertainer. Right? This is about as newsworthy as a king being endorsed by the court jester.

I am not a Trump supporter but I find him quite easy to predict. And no, he would not sign an abortion ban. It's rather irrelevant anyway. Such a bill would need to pass congress, which would never happen

? Yes he was

Absolutely, if you wind up thinking you know more than you do. Drilling holes in the skull is not actually a good way to cure headaches, for example.

If it is a zero sum game and they follow suit then you are admitting it gives an advantage...

Based on your knowledge. Exactly. They did not invade czechoslavakia. In fact they could not have, lol. The czechs had more tanks. This is accepted history. They did have to invade poland if they cared about the germans in danzig. This isn't even some 'alternate history'. Even mainstream history will admit these things.

That is exactly the problem that tariffs are meant to fix, lol. There is no reason why 'countless products' need to be made out of the usa.

This is why the study of economics can actually make you know less about economics. Just no. Tariffs incentivize local production. That means wages are higher and prices for goods can in fact be made lower, because you don't have to waste money on transport Tariffs are simply better for a local business or worker. The only people who are theoretically harmed by it are multinational conglomerates. But even so, one could argue that it is still better for them because an economy without real production is unsustainable and has to collapse eventually.

Well this is just ahistoric. Hitler had no plans of world domination, quite the opposite. And he didn't really ramp up military production until after he decided he had to invade poland. In fact, the Czechs had more tanks and ammunition than Germany had. Amd Czech tanks after the ammunition were the staple of thr german military in the early part of the war. I know you were told otherwise, but the people who told you that simply lied. In fact, you can simply study the history more and check primary sources and it will prove that it was a lie. No revisionism needed. Thr irony is that all the enemies of Hitler were the actual people seeking world domination. The British and French empires, Stalin, and the usa.

Good point. We should ban all guns.

It was wrong to confront Hitler in ww2. He w!no threat to the uk or to France. They easily could have minded their own business. His ambition was totally consistent with 'wilsonianism'. The 14 points everyone was supposed to agree to after ww1, and having strong cultural origins in the Treaty of Westphalia. It is totally insane to go to war with any country that goes to war. And that obviously isn't even what the uk was doing, or they would have declared war on Stalin when he invaded Finland. Alson Stalin was in fact a long term threat to France and the uk. Declaring war on Germany was not only unethical, it was stupid. We could have been spared the entire cold war. If you are interested in this subject maybe you should check this out: https://www.audible.ca/pd/Churchill-Hitler-and-The-Unnecessary-War-Audiobook/B071VQMRB4

You illustrate perfectly what is wrong with modern 'liberalism'. Because you fool yourself into thinking that your government's legitimacy is based on it being oh so moral, you cannot have simple political adversaries. Your adversaries have to also be evil, and thus any negotiation is unethical and thus impossible. If powerful states adopt this point of view, it greatly increases the chance of war bringing an end to the human race.

If the powers that be demand that we have a certain opinion on gays, or black people, or jews, etc. And if their argument does not make much sense, but it is enforced via intimidation, Then it makes perfect sense that people would become preoccupied with such subjects. We care because you care. If it wasn't a big deal what someone's opinion was of gay people, then it would probably not be as vommon a subject...and people would also probably feel more tolerant of gay people. I have no doubt that only about half of salafist Muslim intolerance of homosexuals is the product of actual disgust (which is normal, but does not generally reach the level of execution)...and the other half is simply a rebellion against western powers who demand that homosexuals be tolerated.

Why are you acting like only women care about a person's character?

If you listen to Vance too much you will wind up with a pajeet wife

Actually, millions (maybr billions?) of people believe this. Although many won't speak of it, because it is de facto and sometimes explicitly illegal (why would it be illegal?).

Well the guy asked me a question and I simply answered it. I suppose he cares. You clearly care enough to tell me nobody cares. I dunno man...revealed preferences?

The difference between white people and black people is dna. Nothing else is intrinsic.

Why not? Black people are defined as having different dna, and dna has massive impact on behavior, so why wouldn't different behavior be caused by different dna? How on earth is that NOT the most obvious conclusion? Lol...it's baffling...

I bet that if we started doing it, there would be a massive drop in how many people 'identify' as sexually malfunctioned. We wouldn't need to get rid of all 25%. But anyway, I'm just telling you facts about history. I haven't even offered my own opinion on any of this stuff. You are si ply wrong about which people killed gays.

Dna has a huge impact on the behavior of organisms. For example, sea turtles run to the sea after they hatch. Nobody taught them to do that, it is just in their dna. What the difference between black people and white people? Dna. Just dna. Are the majority of shooters black? Yes Can dna possibly be the cause? Of course. It is simply the most obvious explanation. You would need to figure out some convoluted explanation why dna is not the primary cause, if you think that. Because the difference between whites and blacks is dna, so occasionally razor would suggest dna is also the cause of observable differences in behavior. It is quite simple. The fact you were reduced to suggesting dna cannot cause psychotic behavior...when that is totally absurd and unscientific...just shows you are not firing on all cylinders here. You are brainwashed and it is making you make absurd claims.