With a president this bad at some point even the Democrats are going to realize what a horrible mistake they made 2020.

Biden was always going to be terrible. You just seem to forget how much more terrible Trump was

You are colossally wrong. Trump wasn't great but Biden is trying as hard as he can to be just as bad as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter and Obama. Those are the worst of the worst presidents we've ever had. Trump is no where close to that. I'll take a mediocre president like Trump over a destructive president like Biden.

If Biden follows through with his plan to bring America into the Great Reset then he will be the one who finally kills the United States of America and there goes all of our rights and freedoms.

How were FDR, LBJ and Obama terrible?

LBJ signed the civil rights act, for christ's sake

Oh, and Biden has no such plans, but I already know I can't convince you otherwise

FDR spent a ton of money and only made the Great Depression go on for over 10 years. He locked up Japanese, Italian and German Americans just because their ancestors are from those countries. There was absolute no legal, ethical or moral right do incarcerate any innocent person.

LBJ got us into Vietnam for no good reason. He introduced the great society on us to end poverty and after 50 years poverty levels remained the same. All it did was dissolved black families. Blacks had the lowest divorce rate of any group in the country and then Johnson came out with his plan to keep black poor, single and voting Democrat. Prior to Johnson blacks were all Republicans. MLK was a Republican until he worked out a deal with JFK to increase support for JFK's election.

LBJ signed the civil rights act under duress. The Civil Rights act of 64 would have never passed the House and the Senate if it wasn't for Republicans. I did not have the support of the Democrat party.

Biden doesn't have plans does he? The World Economic Forum has a slogan or phrase or whatever that they are promoting the Great Reset. The phrase is "Build Back Better". Just like Biden's campaign slogan. Not to mention John Kerry said that Biden was fully behind the Great Reset and that he would make it happen faster and strong than anyone expects.

So what we have to look forward to is a bunch of global Socialists planning on collapsing the world's economy with the idiotic notion that they will replace Capitalism with Socialism. Because Socialists are blithering idiots when it comes economics when the Great Reset happens there will be a potential for millions to starve to death waiting for those morons to get their act together trying to solve the very problems they have and will create. It is the very same reason why FDR could never get us out of the Great Depression. He didn't know how to and I really don't think he wanted to.

Hoover just made the whole thing worse. FDR actually did fairly well to end the depression.

And actually, no. Republicans specifically opposed the civil rights act. It would have passed easier if there were no Republicans. LBJ started Vietnam, and I won't defend that, but a lot presidents still didn't end it until Nixon. The idiot. Yes, prior to Johnson, blacks were Republicans. The fact that you are the party if tradition and history surprised me, because you have no idea about the big switch, when Republicans started supporting anti anti racism policies.

So Biden wants to take over the world with socialism. Because Biden is totally red square and not blue square. There are only 2 current politicians who aren't blue square: AOC and Bernie, who are both close to the centre in the green square. And if you think socialists actually have less freedom, just remember that the human freedom index (a libertarian organisation) ranks America with less freedom than 'socialist' countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden

The worst of the Great Depression did happen under Hoover but FDR didn't fix it or end it. The economy never fully rebounded until very literally the day he died. They BOTH were responsible for the Great Depression but FDR was responsible for dragging out so long.

The Civil rights Act of 1964 was passed in the House by 153 Democrats and 136 Republicans. 91 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted against it. If, like you said, the Republicans opposed the bill it would not have passed. Look it up. I did. It was HR 7152.

The "big switch" was not because of racism. The Democrat party was and still is the most racist party. The Republican party was the anti-slavery party and that is why blacks joined that party. It was only because Johnson with his free money welfare state that the poor, and most blacks were poor, all jumped ship and joined the party of the dole, the welfare state.

I am not sure when or why the left got so obsessed over race. I think it probably happened with or after LBJ. But that obsession the left has is why the Democrat party is still the party of racism. You have created generations of blacks who have been conditioned to believe that there is no hope for them. That they cannot make it in America because of racism. It has become so ingrained in the black community that they actually believe to the core that they are oppressed. This was all done with the intention of vote farming.

Democrats started this idiotic idea that if you do not march 100% in lock step with them then you are a racist. If you say anything about personal responsibility or self reliance then to a leftist you are a racist. The Democrats also try to scare blacks by saying that the Republicans are coming for your welfare. They want to take your money away from you. And some how this money that was stolen from those who produce is called an entitlement.

Fortunately a whole lot of blacks are starting to realize that they have been manipulated, lied to and cheated out of a better life by the Democrat party. When that becomes the majority of black voters the Dems are going to have hell to pay for that. We're not there yet but it will happen.

I'm not saying they will all come back to the Republican party because the Republican party following the Democrat party straight into Socialism. The Dems are still about 10 years ahead of the Republicans, it is the Dems who are pushing that Overton window.

So tell me, if the Republican party is still the same one that freed the slaves, then why do you fly the confederate flag? Why do black voters favour Democrats? Tell me. I'll wait

First off I am not a Republican. I left the party about 10 years ago. Second, the Confederate Battle flag has more than one meaning to people. What happened is the KKK decided to use it and then all hell broke loose about that flag. The KKK also uses white bed sheets so should we ban white bed sheets? The Klan also uses fire and Christian crosses.

Just because they used a Confederate Battle Flag all of the sudden the left thinks that flag exclusively represents racism.

The Republican party does NOT use that flag. Some members of the Republican AND Democrat party also use that flag.

Many people who live in the South (white and black) also use that flag. To them it has to do with heritage and where they are from.

Because the Confederacy were called "Rebels" a lot of people who thought of themselves as rebels to society would use that flag. I used to see them in the back window of trucks and motorcycles.

So you really need to change your mind on that. The Confederate Battle flag does not mean racism. The vast majority of times you see it it is representing either Southern pride or some guy who thinks he's living on the edge. There are just not enough Klansmen to where you would ever see an Confederate Battle Flag flown by them except on TV.

I was born in the South but raised in So. Cal. I never ever thought about owning a Confederate Battle flag until a few years ago when that idiot shot up a black church and someone found a picture of him with a Confederate Battle flag. I thought at that time it was about to be outlawed. So I over reacted and bought a Confederate Battle flag. I haven't flown it anywhere, I just own it. There is so much that the left wants to take away from us that I tend to go the other direction in defiance.

However my nephew married a black girl. One day they were over and she saw that flag. I asked her if it offended her and she said no. I told her that it was only because I was born in the South. I certainly do not hate black people. Only leftists hate people.

The simple thing with confederate flags is that it means opposition to Lincoln. It's simple. You can't be the party of Lincoln and still fly the flag of his worst enemies. 2 things that don't work together. You can fly the confederate flag for all I care, but don't go on claiming you are the party of Lincoln afterwards

BTW I can't remember if I told you but I left the Republican party about 10 years ago. I am still conservative and the Republican party leadership isn't. They are more like the Democrats were 10 years ago.

Teaching personal responsibility, self reliance and telling people that anyone can make it in this country is NOT racist. It may surprise you but this is how blacks, by and large, thought prior to LBJ. That is the reason for MLK. The only thing holding blacks back from acheiving the same success that whites were acheiving was the opression coming from the Democrat party. Blacks could not get business loans very easily or at all. Those that were able to start a business had trouble getting the supplies needed run the business and trouble selling their products.

Martin Luther King came along and fought for the right to be able to live without this opression. He wanted to see a time when whites and blacks were not judged by skin color but by the content of their character. Oh and guess what else the Dems have killed in everyone, not just blacks, character. We do not anything to develop character in people. We throw religion out the window. We don't instill any sense of morality or ethich in our children and haven't for a while because those children have grown up. That is who Antifa is. Those are the people who protested Jerry Seinfeld when he scheduled to perform at a college campus. Seinfeld and other comedians have been "cancelled" by these children whose ears cannot hear things that might distress them. It why security cost $600,000 when Ben Shipiro is invited to speak at a college. Those kids have no morals or ethics. It is not all millenials and not even the majority but it is a significant number who find it perfectly acceptable to attack people who they don't even know just because they *think* he or she is a racist.

Teaching people how to make it in the US?

Jeez. Did you know that the US has some of the lowest levels of upward social mobility in the developed world. And I hate to break it to you, but MLK was pretty left wing when it came to things like poverty. And what kind of college invited Ben Shapiro to speak? This is the man who said people in danger of flooding should sell and move. Who is going to buy? Aquaman? Ariel?

I had never heard of Crocker prior to your comment. I don't really care about one way or another about him. I think his comments in that video were a bit awkward and I don't fully agree with them. At the same time I don't have anything against Great Britain. All nations have committed atrocities and many still do. There will never ever be a nation that has no problems because mankind is not perfect.

To act as Antifa did was very hypocritical. They were committing atrocities against the memory of people who were much better then any of them while being filled with ignorant righteous indignation.

Yes, they do put up charts and graphs in PragerU videos and they may not contain references, I don't remember off hand. But it would not be hard to verify the truth of those charts. But you have to look to original sources again. You won't find the truth in the Huff Post and many times the New York Times. So if it a government statistic then you go to a government page where you might think they got it from.

I don't doubt the veracity of the PragerU videos because most of that stuff I already knew. I have learned a few things along the line. There are one or do that I have minor disagreements with. No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes or gets things wrong and it does not matter what side of the political equation you are on. So to nitpick one or two videos and then condemn them all is just wrong. You have to take each one separately because each one has a different person making comments.

Just because Crocker MAY have thought the world would be better if the South had won doesn't mean that everything else at PragerU is false. One video doesn't spoil the whole bunch. And I haven't read any of Crocker's books and I don't know anything about him so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Well I can't exactly trust their sources if they are things like Bitchute. Face it, the only reliable statistics there are are from centrist news websites and US government data (if obtainable). The problem is that they still haven't shown a single source. So either, they are making up the data, or they are too embarrassed to say that their sources were not, in fact, government databases or centrist fact-checkers. Otherwise, how can they claim that reality has a conservative bias?

And the fact that they brought in a southern sympathizer is only one problem. The main problem is that, as stated before, they just throw words at you. They give no hard evidence. Just fake charts. If they published their sources, I would certainly gain some more respect from them. But like Trump's tax returns, they haven't been published.

"Hate to break it to you, nut I never said anywhere that prageru gets their stuff from Bitchute."

Here is what you said, "Well I can't exactly trust their sources if they are things like Bitchute."

The "their" in that sentence is PragerU. So you tell me what you really meant by that sentence, because from here it sounds a whole lot like that you said PragerU gets their stuff from places like and including BitChute. If you specifically meant all other sources similar to BitChute but not including BitChute then don't you think you should have been a little more specific? I lack the ability to read your mind.

Look I think we have, once again, beaten that dead horse about as much as it can take it.

I'm done. I'm just getting bored.

That was bad writing in the comment on my part. Just read the one replying to your reply. That should clear things up a little

Seeing that the liberals control the media and the schools when a conservative says anything they have to have all of their ducks in a row. We typically go to the original sources as much as possible for everything. Many time PragerU features a speaker who IS the original source.

Which PragerU video said they trusted a video on BitChute? What makes a BitChute or any other video website any more or less reliable than the other? Just because BitChute, Rumble, Vimeo and Vidmax are competitors to YouTube does not make YouTube true while all of the others are false. The other video sites are NOT exclusively conservative. They are just YouTube's competition. What makes the left claim they are conservative is because of all of the conservative that have left YouTube when YouTube started censoring them. Now the left is attacking them as being right-winged extremists. Google/YouTube couldn't be any happier then for the left to ignorantly try to eliminate the competition for them. Then they might drive the conservatives back to YouTube where they can continue trying to control them.

I typically don't trust any media sources. That includes centrist because there are a lot of people who claim to be centrist who are just a little different than the right or the left and many times their different way of thinking is neither right or left. Not to mention that nothing in the news media is at all reliable. A centrist can be lead away from the truth just like anyone else.

I rely on principles and not much else. There are moral, religious, scientific and economic principles that are always true and then there is the rest of the crap that some people can invest everything in only to find nothing but disappointment in the end.

I would agree that they should publish their sources when it comes to quoting stats but that is not what all of the videos are about.

What does anyone hope to find by someone's tax returns? There is no requirement or law that says anyone must make their tax returns public. I've never understood why so many people are demanding tax returns from presidential candidates. Do they think they are going to find that they cheated the government somehow? Our tax laws are so egregious all of us regardless of how honest we are are guilty of several felonies. Any president can be found guilty of any one of those laws and I think that is always the goal behind requiring people's tax returns.

Abolish the IRS instead.

Hate to break it to you, nut I never said anywhere that prageru gets their stuff from Bitchute. I'm saying that we don't know where prageru gets their info from. So why trust them? If they get it from Cambridge or from government statistics, then why would they be frightened to publish their sources. If they can't prove the legitimacy of their sources, why believe them?

And the problem with having things like economic principles is that there will always be convincing arguments for both sides. The minimum wage example. Conservative arguments for keeping it the same tend to be generally intuitive, while arguments for changing it are equally believable, although generally more complex. The same with the war on drugs. You never really now whether the intuitive or counter-intuitive argument id the best. And please, don't start a new argument on said political topics right now.

And I'm just saying that Bitchute isn't the most reliable info source. They have been known for right-wing cancel culture, as well as literal neo-nazi videos

You're not breaking anything to me about MLK. He wasn't a conservative icon but, especially now, was not a leftist icon either. He was a man of his times and he fought for the rights of black people. He wasn't looking for extra rights, just the same inalienable rights that were granted to all of mankind by their Creator. Ever since then the left has been looking for extra rights for their 5 or 6 protected groups and no one else.

MLK said things that I might disagree with and things that you might disagree with. Where I agree with him is on restoring black people's inalienable rights that no man has the right to take from another. And by restoring I mean that those rights exist in all of mankind eternally. They had been taken when the Muslims first started making slaves of Africans some 500 or 600 years before the first European ever got the idea of enslaving Africans.

The last college that invited him that I know was the University of Utah in 2017. They had to beef up security to protect him from specifically Antifa who showed up to protest him.

It used to be common practice to invite speakers from all political backgrounds and ideologies to exposed students to all different types of thoughts and ideas. The colleges didn't do the invitations, it was the student body and student clubs or fraternities who did the inviting. As far as I know colleges typically only invite speakers at commencement ceremonies but I could be wrong.

However in the last perhaps 15 years or more colleges have been dis-inviting speakers that had been invited by groups like the Young College Republicans. Some colleges make the students foot the bill of the added security making it impossible for them to invite anyone. Ben Shapiro has spoken as many colleges and universities. YouTube is full of many of his speeches at colleges. Ann Coulter, Charlie Kirk, Candice Owens, Dennis Prager, Steven Crowder have all been invited and then dis-invited from speaking at colleges. Ann Coulter was the first one I think I ever heard about having problems and she was physically assaulted by students.

Then stand up comedians started getting dis-invited because they once made a joke that offended some snowflake. Jerry Seinfeld was the first one I heard about but it wasn't soon that a whole lot of others, including Tim Allen, were getting dis-invited.

And the reason is the same. It is by the college for the safety of the invited guest.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would invite Prager.

Also, you say this as if Islam is responsible for the slave trade. Wrong. The slave trade was probably either Columbus or the first people to use slaves (we don't really know).

Thanks for giving me a point of reference. I looked up H.W. Crocker III on PragerU. Like I said earlier, I don't have a subscription so I can only see what they let me see. This is the the only video I found by him on PragerU.

https://www.prageru.com/video/if-you-live-in-freedom-thank-the-british-empire/

You can see by the web address what it is about. There was nothing in that video that said yeah or nay about the South. The closest he said to it was that it was Englishmen who freed the slaves. And by Englishmen he meant the English when the stopped slavery and the descendants of the English in America when they ended slavery.

That's it. No praise of the Confederacy.

I think I would have to read his book or read more about him. You cannot judge all of PragerU because of one guy who holds an opinion you and I disagree with just because he did a PragerU video about completely different subject.

Prager has also had Alan Dershowitz on a PragerU video and I'll bet there are a lot of things that Prager and Dershowitz don't agree on. Your not going to be one of those cancel culture morons are you?

Columbus had no prior experience as a ship captain, he might have been their leader but he didn't micromanage their lives. Sailors at this time and for centuries after were not some of the best people.

So when Columbus realized that these people were not in fact Indians his very next thought was to enslave them? That makes no sense at all. He never told the King and Queen that if I happen to find a new continent that we don't know about and they are not the people we want to trade with, then I will make slaves of them. It didn't work that way. That is rewritten history to make Columbus out to be the villain.

You'll find tons of articles that all get their information from the same source. It doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't matter what he thought the earth look back then. There were lots if ideas back then that that were false. It doesn't make Columbus stupid, it made him normal. Everyone thought that you had to bleed people to cure them of everything. Somewhere either before or after his time people thought tomatoes were poisonous and cats were evil.

Did you know that back then, any foreigners were considered inferior? So honestly, not much of a surprise he did try to enslave them. Many people at the time would've done the same. I'm not saying he was worse than most people back then, I'm just saying that you shouldn't go around celebrating mass murderers, similar to the way you shouldn't be celebrating slave owners or serial killers. He was just a dude who got lucky.

And I'm mainly complaining about the fact that they brought in they guy who wrote 'the politically incorrect guide to science', as well as the politically incorrect guide to the civil war. And then say he's a bestselling author. And the fact that they are defending the British empire, a group that enslaved and exploited natives just makes it worse. The only empire that exploited natives worse than the British was the Belgians. And I haven't even gotten onto the fact that the British came up with the idea of concentration camps, as well as many brutal punishments worthy of Stalin, not to mention that they completely wiped out Tasmanian Aborigines and committed various other genocides and mass murders.

It is pretty obvious that PragerU lies to you. Many of their graphs and charts have no sources linked to them whatsoever, unlike Kurzgesagt and even the Gravel institute, but the Gravel institute is an argument for another time. They claim to make you wiser in 5 minutes. They say they are a university and that each video is a course. And don't even get me started on their 'quizzes'

IF (and that is a big IF) PragerU put out a video that said it would have been better if the Confederates had won then I am sure they were trying to make a valid point about something else. I don't have a subscription to PragerU so I can't see all of their videos and YouTube has banned some of them. They banned one about the 10 Commandments because they said that it talks about murder and that violates their standards. Yeah it does talk about murder as in "Thou shalt not kill". So I am guessing YouTube and Google must be on the pro-murder side if that offended them. But that is beside the point.

The point is that most of those videos are done by guests and not Prager, himself. He does not tell them what to say. He may give them a topic or he may pick someone who is an expert in a topic but pretty much all he is doing is given people a platform.

In doing so he is trying to teach morality, history, economics and common sense. Something that America and the world is in dire need of. It isn't necessarily right winged, it is just right, as in correct.

Columbus did not murder anyone. Like I said, his men did some bad things but he was not a part of it. What you are reading is history revisionism. A few of decades ago some liberals got it in their heads that had Columbus not discovered America then the native Americans would be living their lives in peace and harmony. It was all the white man's fault. So when history didn't fit their narrative, they did what all liberals do, they changed it and put it in our schools. Now everyone things Columbus was evil and that his entire purpose was to come to the new world (which only the Scots and the Vikings knew about) and made those native Americans submit to his will. That is utter BS. Like I said, he was only trying to find a shorter route to India. When he landed and say the native people he actually believed they were Indians and that is why we have been calling them Indians ever since. If he came to brutalize them then he would be defeating the entire purpose of his mission. He came to establish trade, nothing more and nothing less.

Well, given that pragerU is literally paid by a fossil fuel company to release propaganda, I somewhat doubt he has common sense. He brought in someone who said that the south should've won (H.W Crocker III). He spends his entire time ranting about the left ruining everything (sounds like you've picked a bit up).

When you say 'his men did some bad things', I hope you realise that he was in charge of them. Not to mention that what really happened was that he arrived in the Caribbean and was treated well by the natives. Then, he did the sensible thing of calling for reinforcements from Spain. Next, when the people resisted slavery, he murdered them all. He called for reinforcements. That should be enough evidence for you (those reinforcements were soldiers, by the way). Take a look at how many articles you can find that say Columbus was amazing, and then show them all to me. Not to mention that the only reason he even thought he could make it to India was because of some wild miscalculations he had made. He thought the Earth was Pear-shaped, with a Nipple at the top. Not the brightest. So, instead of just trusting all of the experts, he asked the Spanish royals for some stuff, so they gave him the bare minimum: 3 ships and a few hundred crew. Columbus did nothing but murder.

Have you ever listened to Dennis Prager? He is perhaps the most intelligent radio commentators out there. Ben Shapiro is giving him a run for the money on intellect. Those guys are smarter than both you and I combined. Besides, like I said, these were conservative or Republican campus organizations. The events were open to all but they were mainly for the conservatives on campus.

I'm actually surprised that you haven't heard of all of the troubles conservatives are having on college campuses. This has been going on for at least the last 20 years. Conservative students have to lie on tests just to get a good grade. My wife had to do that in her English class because her professor was a radical leftist and put a very liberal question on a test. I don't remember the question but the teacher was flat out wrong and wrong for asking such a partisan question.

Sorry to inform you but Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with the slave trade or slavery. And, yes, we do know that. All he ever wanted to do was find a shorter route to India so that they could trade with the Indian people for spices. He wasn't the monster the left is trying to make him out to be. There were some of his crew that did horrific things but that was not Columbus.

All you have to is just study history. Islam was not the first people to ever enslave other people. Slavery has happened in every culture against every other culture since the beginning. Did you know that the word "slavic" means "slave"? All of those people who call themselves slavic are descendants from slaves.

We also know who began the idea of enslaving Africans. I didn't just make this up. I first heard this in my college History of World Civilizations class. I did not go to a private college so it wasn't professors that might be biased in any direction. And this was in California, the capitol of liberalism on the west coast.

I have later heard the same thing from other sources. It was Islam who taught the Europeans about enslaving Africans. And here is the thing. Islam, to this day, is still enslaves Africans. We quit over a 150 years ago and there were many people going back to the founding who were always in opposition to slavery. If it wasn't for the state of Georgia and (I think) Virginia, slavery would have ended at day one of the United States of America.

Fun fact: The Mycenaen Greeks, Ancient Egyptians and Romans all had slaves.

Good point. My bad. Columbus didn't have much to do with actually enslaving people. What he DID do, however, was discover the Caribbean and murder 249,800 people.

When it comes to slavery, what really happened was Columbus arrived, murdered a load of people and died in Spain. Then, they sent reinforcements to enslave Americans. A monk arrived at the plantations later and saw how they were working, so he asked the Spanish to use Africans instead, as slavery was already part of their culture. That's what happened.

And if you think the guy who does PragerU is smart(They do such gems as: The US would've been better if the Confederates had won, The Democrats are racist because of the Confederates and The British empire was great), you really need to do some research

What you always, always, always have to do is go to the original source material whenever you can. Because the left has so destroyed history just to perpetuate a narrative.

So I did a little research. Columbus had a crew of over a hundred men and many of them kept journals and wrote letters if the 4 different journeys of Columbus. Years later a man named Washington Irving (he also wrote "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow") compiled all of those journals and letters into a 3 volume set.

When Columbus first landed they met a tribe called the Tainos. Columbus and his men established a great relation with the Tainos tribe. Columbus wrote that he wanted to make this Spanish citizens, make them equals.

The Tainos warned Columbus about 2 other tribes, the Cannibs and the Carribs. The Cannibs is where we get word cannibal and the Carribs is were we get Caribbean.

Columbus leaves his some of his men with the Tainos tribe and sails back to Spain. When Columbus returned his men had been attacked by the Cannibs and had all been killed and parts were eaten. They had removed their eyes and eat them as well. Columbus and his men lead a party to go after the Cannibs. They arrive at their village and find a bunch of Tainos women that has been kidnapped and were used as sex slaves. When their children were born they would eat the children. Columbus frees the women and attacks and defeats the Cannibs.

So while I was wrong when I said that Columbus didn't kill anyone (and he still most likely didn't) but he did lead a party of his men in retaliation of an attack on his men and ended up freeing native women who were being held, not just as sex slaves, but as breeders for the Cannibs dinners.

Columbus did not take any of them as slaves because he had established a very cordial relationship with the Tainos and treated them as equals.

The enslaving of native people came after Columbus and it never worked out very well. In addition there were many native tribes who bought Africans and used them as slaves.

So a decade or so ago some liberals looking to make Columbus out to be a bad guy fabricates a myth about Columbus being a murderer, a slave trader and even a sex slave trader.

Before you start treating Irvine's compilation like the bible, just remember that he wrote that thing to sell (like all his other books). It is classified as a fictional biography, and there is even a University of Cambridge article on why it is unreliable. So, there's that.

Not to mention that the only reason this view was popularized was because of immigration. Yeah. When there was a large influx of Italians into the US, they were persecuted, so they latched on to the idea that Columbus was a great guy, to prove that they were, in part, American.

Biden was never a Socialist but Biden isn't running the show. He didn't write or even read all of those executive orders that was put in front of him the first week he was illegaly in office. His former boss, Barack Obama, was a full on Communist. He was born to a Communist mother, raised by his Communist grandparents and mentored by known Communist Frank Lloyd Marshall. When he went to college he wrote that he "sought out Marxist professors". Kamala Harris is a Socialist. John Kerry is a Socialist. And you gotta admit that there is just no way Biden would have co-incidentally have just came up with "Build Back Better" as his campaign slogan when the World Economic Forum had already been using that phrase. That phrase is popping up all over the world in the more Socialistic countries. It is just not a co-incident. "Build Back Better" is the phrase for collapsing the world's economy, destroying Capitalism (freedom) and replacing it with global Socialisim (slavery) in order to "save the planet". I would rather the planet be a giant trash heap and be free than it to be the Garden of Eden and live in servitude to a government.

Norway and Demark are NOT Socialist countries. You can own a business and you can own a car in both countries. The Prime Minister of Sweden said that they tried Socialism for a while and it nearly bankrupted the country so they backed off and went for a more market based economy, like Norway and Denmark. Seeing that I have a Danish friend who left Denmark because he could not stand how narcissitic the people and government have become, I learnd a thing or two about Denmark. That are a lot more Socialist than we are but they are not Socialist. The suicide rate in Denmark is the highest in Europe. If you want a car you will pay 3 times as much for that car in Denmark than you would in the US. The price difference isn't from the manufacturer, it is from the added taxes by the government. So rather than listening to Bernie promote it as what we should bring here, why don't you move there and see just how much you would like it.

It seems you have very VERY broad definitions of communism. Communism is, very simply, fascism but instead of hating other countries, they hate rich people. It's the same, otherwise.

In fact, most political scientists agree that Obama and Romney were very close on the political compass, with Obama being slightly more left wing and libertarian.

And if you really think that Denmark represents all Scandinavian countries, you really need to do some research. Not to mention that in most Scandinavian countries, the government actually spends their money well. They have the lowest poverty rates and the highest social mobility, in stark contrast to the US. And if your complaint is about taxes, just remember that the US government takes around 45% of your paycheck. In places like Norway, the government takes 60%, and provides them with healthcare, social security, drug rehabilitation and free university. The US pays 45% and gets nothing.

Of course it is going to be discredited by modern so-called historians. They want their agenda preserved not history. The whole lot of them. I have been going round and round on this with my nephew already. He got his degree in history. Even though he generally supports the modern historians he has his reservations about some of the modern stuff he has read. He's a liberal. I love my nephew a lot but disagree on just about everything. We even disagree on Columbus. He's on your side.

This is a compilation of letters and journals from Columbus's men. How more accurate can you get unless Irving himself released it as a book of fiction which it isn't. Instead he went to Spain and read all of the original sources (which still exist) and compiled them into a book.

Much of what is believed without question and is even taught in some schools is a piece of fiction know as A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Zinn exaggerates, embellishes and fabricates everything about this nation that happened prior to the Progressive Era if the early 20th century. In other words the Marxists, American Nazis, the Liberal Fascists, the Fabian Socialists saved America from the grips of tyranny because everything starting with Columbus up to the Progressive Era on this land was nothing but pure evil.

Zinn is the same moron who came up with the 1619 Project which makes the US look even worse. Zinn is NOT a historian although he claims to be. Fiction writers have been closer to the facts than Zinn. If I remember correctly I think that I heard that his A People's History of the United States doesn't even have footnotes or references. If that is true, why he hasn't been laughed out of academia is astounding. If it wasn't for the promotion of the leftist agenda he would have been. Instead he gets accolades.

Again. Columbus actually installed a brutal regime. He had a law put in place that any native without a copper coin would be punished lightly. Light punishment back then meant having your hands cut off and letting said person bleed to death. There were many records of his crew (written by his crew) stating how they raped and abused the Taino people. So yeah. He essentially did what any self-respecting person at the time would do. He wasn't a genius, or a great guy. He was a buffoon who got lucky.

Not to mention that Washington Irvine was not a non-fiction author. He wrote Sleepy Hollow, not Alexander Hamilton. So that makes me wonder why you believe him without question

You need to understand that not everyone who has ever existed, when given the chance, goes on a raping a killing spree. Especially when Columbus was a devout Christian. Cutting of hands is an Islamic punishment, not a European or Spanish. But continue to believe the worst in everyone.

So there has never ever been a fiction writer who has written (or in this case compiled) a non-fiction book?

It was the time of colonisation. He would have been ordered to by the monarchs if he hadn't done it himself. And cutting hands off is not a punishment exclusive to ISIS. Plenty medieval countries used this punishment.

I'm just saying that if a fiction writer writes a new book, take the 'facts' in it with a grain of salt

When it comes to Obama it was very specific. Obama is a Marxist. Marx called his political/economic philosophy "Communism". Marx did not invent Communism he just changed its original meaning. Originally it was people living together in communes. Most communes they shared all things in common but not all of them did that.

Marx's philosophy borrows almost entirely from Socialism.

Any political/economic philosophy that concerns itself with putting the collective above the individual are evil. Communism, Socialism, Nazim and Fascism all do that. They are all forms of collectivism. The notion is that the collective owns everything and they all work for each other. That sounds attractive to many because the collective takes care of everyone. Everyone is equal.

That is the promise but the reality is that the central planners (the oligarchy) controls the collective. And because everything is for the collective the individual is expendable. The individual owns nothing and his/her value to the collective is determined by the central planners. If the central planners find that an individual is not valuable to the collective they can cut his/her rations or exterminate them.

This is a common thread in all of those isms. I really do not care about the minutia that separates them from each other because at the core they are identical. The effect they have on the economy and on the lives of the individual are horrendous. It is the greatest evil that man has ever perpetrated on mankind.

I didn't say Denmark represents all of Scandinavia. If I said something that lead you to believe that then I apologize but Denmark is Denmark. I was talking about Denmark only because you mentioned them.

This sentence: "Not to mention that in most Scandinavian countries, the government actually spends their money well" concerns me. Whose money are they "spending well?" What determines well spending? Any money taken by force from the producers who earned it is NOT well spent. It doesn't matter if it happens in the US or in Denmark. Taxation is theft.

You're not winning any points by telling that our government steals nearly half of everything I work for. That means I am a slave for almost half a year. Norwegians are slaves for almost 2/3rd of a year. I don't WANT anything from the government other than my damn money back.

So tell me. If taxation is theft, who runs the country? Who funds the military? Who enforces law? Do we end up with mercenaries?

And again, you haven't explained how Obama is a marxist/communist/socialist/fascist/nazi.

Spending well is when the government spending helps the people more than the taxes hurt them. Simple.

The only authoritarian governments ARE big governments. The bigger the government the more power it amasses until it becomes authoritarian. Big governments ALWAYS hurts people.

Perhaps Norway is ranked higher than us but that is not because Norway got freer, it is because we are getting less free. A few years back Australia surpassed us on the economic freedom index. I guess now Norway has. Those nations are not rising above us, we are sinking below them.

The solution is to not be like them but to return to be like what we used to be. We were the city on the hill with a beacon so bright the rest of the world could see it. We were the nation that earned the give of the Statue of Liberty from France. We were the nation that most other nations looked up to.

No more. We are fast on our way to becoming a third world toilet because of fairness. Socialists think that it is unfair that we prosper while the rest of the world suffers. The left, being Socialists, agrees with them and leftist politicians have been making it happen for over a century now.

The left always goes negative. Instead what we SHOULD do is restore all of the freedoms the left has stolen and give the world an example of what they can be like. We have no copyright or freedom and prosperity. Any nation in the world has always been welcome to use our Constitution and Bill of Rights and give that a try. So far only Switzerland has come close to that. Our nation isn't great because of the land it is built on, our nation is great because we founded this nation on liberty and individual rights. Something no other nation in the history of mankind has come close to. Ancient Israel and the Roman empire in the first 100 years was good but they fell apart for the exact same reasons why we are falling apart.

The simple fact is that more people want to be ruled than want to be free. There are only 3 types of people, those who demand to rule other people, those who well sell their grandmother for the security of being ruled by someone and a small percentage of us who just want to be left alone. We got this. We can rule ourselves, thank you very much.

The only Anarchist governments are small governments. The smaller the government is, the less power it has until it becomes anarchism. Anarchism is, very simply, a transition period until an Oligarchy or Monarchy emerges. Small government only hurts people.

And before you start fanboying over the Roman Republic, just remember that they were also big proponents of slavery, and they ended up with the problem that veterans and the poor not being able to earn a living because slaves would do it cheaper and big businesses took over everything. Sound familiar?

And one of the main reasons the US has been looked up to was because they (like true patriots) accepted that their country would always have flaws, but worked to fix them. Not because Americans could have Nazi rallies without getting into trouble. The reason they don't look up to you now is because you not only voted a fascist Oompa-Loompa into office, not only because you refuse to accept change, but because your free market is dominated by a few companies. Most glasses in the US are made by the same company. Monopolies is the problem. There may be no government regulation, but a few big businesses are dominating the market. Face it. There is no 'free' market. It's a lot like Standard Oil and Rockefeller.

There no such thing as an anarchist government. That is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy is no government, none. Governments never lose power. There are tyrannical governments that get over thrown and there are governments that can run out of money but no government loses power, they only take more and more and more....

The reason why is because all governments attract narcissists. Some narcissists are evil, like Hitler and Stalin. Other narcissists are more benevolent, like Trump (and as much as it pains me to say this) and Obama. I don't think Obama was all that benevolent but he wasn't Hitler or Stalin either.

I never said Rome was perfect. I was saying that they were for the first 100 to 200 years one of the freest nations to have existed until we blew them away. Rome fell because the people were over taxed, their government no longer listened to them and there were far too many laws that was ruining peoples likes.

If we lose our liberty we won't get it back in our lifetime and most likely never. With the technology that exists now there would never be a way to form any type of coup against the global tyranny without them listening to us while we planned it.

Just how many Nazis do you think there are in this country? Do you think half of the country are Nazis? If every Neo-Nazi in America all came together at one time they might be able to fill a high school auditorium. We don't have a Nazi problem in America. We have a ignorance problem. Too many people think there is a Nazi hiding behind ever other tree and the trees in between has KKK members hiding behind them. That is utter BS.

However, we do have a Socialist problem and Nazis were Socialists but not all Socialists are Nazis.

Not everyone in the world thought Trump was bad. That is a leftist lie that the media likes to spread around. Not everyone in the world is in love with Socialism, ESPECIALLY those trying to escape it and come to America. They aren't running to any other countries, just here.

I know most glasses are made by the same company, however, monopolies aren't as even close to as bad of a problem as a government monopoly.

I also know that there is no free market. I have been saying that all along. We don't have Capitalism in America and haven't had it fully for over a century. Technically a market can only truly be free in anarchy. When the US was founded it was mostly free. And I'll take mostly free over what we have now. We are now Corporatists.

How did we ever survive until 1913? How could we ever survive without a huge massive government that has grown so huge off of the backs of the American people.

Oh dear. How did the transcontinental railroad ever get built without the IRS? How did we ever fight England twice without an income tax? We did have a temporary income tax after the Civil war but not during. That tax was to pay for damages and then it was shut down.

The government used to fund itself with tariffs. Unfortunately that wouldn't work so well today. Back then only the rich were able afford imported goods. Now nearly everything we own was either made in China or made in America with Chinese parts. So a tariff on China would be no different than a tax.

So the next best thing is to reduce the size of government. Probably by about 90% to 95%. Big government always take a lot of freedom from people and ours is no different. There is no excuse for having a government that hires more people than the top 25 international businesses combined. We just do not have need of that much overhead in our lives. It is a burden that anyone in a free country should not bear.

"Spending well is when the government spending helps the people more than the taxes hurt them. Simple."

Back when Reagan was president he employed the services of economist Art Laffer to determine the highest level of taxation that would not have a negative impact on the economy. They came up with 33%.

The problem is they were wrong. There is no amount of taxation that does not hurt people. Government spending always hurts people.

If you are not familiar with the broken window fallacy then go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPmo2e-bAMQ

It is not an economically sound practice for the government to do what we should do for ourselves. That includes building roads and bridges and fixing that infamous "crumbling infrastructure" that Democrats campaign with because campaigning with the promise of raising taxes won't get them elected.

And the people who "fall through the cracks" have always been taken care of by family and churches before welfare and all the other government handouts. Most of those people purposely jump through those cracks on their own.

Big government does not, in fact, hurt the people. Authoritarian government does. Anarchist government does. But, in fact, the Cato institute (a libertarian right think tank) ranks 'big government' countries like Norway higher in the freedom index than the US.

Back to taxes, however. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. It keeps our streets safe, puts out fires, educates our children, (ideally for me) provides the people with healthcare, and runs our courts. Privatising those things would be problematic, to say the least. For example, privatizing college loans was a huge mistake. When it was started, it was government-run and functioned well. It gave out loans, and people could pay them back fairly easily. Then, it was privatized and people were stuck in huge college debt, with some not even being able to pay off the yearly interest. In Canada, for example, the average Canadian receives about $41,000 in government benefits per year. That is a great deal for the vast majority of them.

Biden is already making laws and changing the game on you idiots left and right all without a single tweet, he controls the Senate and the House...lol Trumpy was a simp loser that couldn't get shit done compared. No comparison.

Well.... Someone is but it isn't Biden and what is very distressing is the fact that those "laws" are being created by executive order. That is in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I know Biden isn't the first one to do that. Obama was the first and Trump did it too. But my goodness, Biden is the worst. At the rate he is going he will surpass both Trump and Obama combined within his first 6 months. We are a dictatorship now.

Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution so that ONLY people we represent us can create law. That is why they are called the House of Representatives. They represent us. That is why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. If we were a Democracy we would be voting on all of that legislation that our Representatives vote on for us.

Most of his "laws" are not undoing what Trump did.

But you can continue to think that addled brain, senile old fart is doing great things but all I see is an idiot who's first act is to kill jobs AFTER we permanently lost thousands of jobs because of the pandemic. Way do go, genius. Then he drops bombs on Syria. What was that all about?

Actually I shouldn't say Biden is doing that. He is probably napping when all of this is going on. They only wake him up to sign more executive orders that he didn't write, never read and has no right under the law to create.

Biden is infinitely worse than Trump ever was. If you can't see that then you just don't pay attention, you don't do your own research and just let the TV do all of your thinking for you.

Couldn't or wouldn't? Kinda hard to run a country when you're so busy worried about raking in money in all your golf clubs and investment properties. Trump was never going to be good. He wasn't even planning on winning. Just everything went straight to his head once he got in there. What a shitshow that was.

Do you think anyone at all believes that dribble?