The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Dem Debate Dream Questions
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

– Was immigration good for American Indians?
– Were the Founding Fathers white supremacists?
– Polls show women are less pro-choice than men. Why do you think that is?
– Should American citizens be able to speak English?
– Should your party nominate another white person? Isn’t important that the nominee reflects the voters it represents?
– Do you like socialism?
– Which country is America’s greatest ally?

Each one of those is a figurative nuclear bomb that would leave a crater where the candidate who did anything other than obfuscate like hell to avoid giving any semblance of an answer had been standing.

Other suggestions?

As it happened, the toughest question I caught in the first debate was “what do you say to voters who are afraid you’ll take away their guns?” Sigh.

Tangentially:

If “isolationist” is a dog whistle for anti-Semitic and everyone who is critical of deadly wars is an isolationist, what does that tell us abo–uh, never mind. I support starving Yemeni children, pinky swear, just leave me alone!

 
• Tags: Election 2020 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I would drop

    – Do you like socialism?

    I might add

    – A NumbersUSA question – What level of legal immigration would you support? Do you think there is a maximum level of immigration the country can support?

  2. 216 says:

    Precisely why are whites not entitled to Affirmative Action in the states where they are a minority?

    Is there anything redeemable about the Right? Or else are they heretics to be cast into the outer darkness?

    Woodrow Wilson introduced the concept of national self-determination, why do you no longer support it?

    Your party has not won a majority of white male voters since 1964, but they have paid the vast majority of taxes. Is that immoral?

  3. Way more mentions of socialism on day 2

    Harris won the 2nd debate

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  4. How low does the White percentage of the population need to go for us to be “diverse” enough?

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called “racist”?

    • Replies: @216
    Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    When we're the new 13%ers
    , @neutral

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called “racist”?
     
    The answer is exactly 0%. In South Africa such things are absolutely forbidden, even in Zimbabwe where the few remaining whites are counted in the low thousands, there is still talk about seeking justice for the past.
    , @Oleaginous Outrager
    There is no lower bound: This Grift Must Never End!
  5. 216 says:
    @Rosie
    How low does the White percentage of the population need to go for us to be "diverse" enough?

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called "racist"?

    Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/susan_b_anthony_quote.jpg
  6. How important is an immigrant’s merit in deciding whether or not he/she should be allowed to live in the US?

    Do white people have culture? If so, should they be proud of it?

    Any regrets about how the media or even you yourself reacted to the initial news story about the Covington kids? What about Jussie Smollet?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The last set of questions would be especially devastating if directed at Booker and Harris, both of whom potentially knew about it beforehand.
  7. @Rosie
    How low does the White percentage of the population need to go for us to be "diverse" enough?

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called "racist"?

    When we’re the new 13%ers

    • Replies: @216
    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)
  8. Why are we supposed to subsidize the reluctance of the NATO allies to engage in defense spending?

    Do you believe in the Blank Slate?

    Would you hire Feryl as an advisor?

    Which ox should be gored to reduce the cost of college?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    subsidize the reluctance of the NATO allies to engage in defense spending?
     
    That's a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).

    First of all, a lot of US military spending is directed against China, which is not really a European concern. Then there are those Middle Eastern wars. They are very expensive, and you pay for them (mostly), so you get a very high military budget, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the defense of Europe.

    Now the US maintains a number of military bases in Europe, but they are needed for the idiotic (but quite popular among Americans) Middle Eastern wars for Israel. It's America's choice, and cannot really be called a "subsidy." If the US wanted to protect Europe from Russia, those bases perhaps shouldn't be located in Germany, thousands of kilometers from the Russian borders.

    Then there are the large-scale (or sometimes smaller) US military exercises - the US gets practice out of those. If they reduced their participation, they would simply get less practice for their own troops.

    Then there's the recent increased presence in Eastern and Central Europe (this includes Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania) and of course Ukraine. This probably doesn't cost more, than the European participation in some stupid US wars (especially Afghanistan, and before that Iraq). Withdraw from Europe, we'll withdraw from Afghanistan. (Though it'd be mutually beneficial to do that, you cannot really call it an American subsidy - we spend money on your stupid wars, you spend money on confrontation with Russia, which is at least partly also a result of your foreign policy, for example your push since at least 2007 to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.)

    There's the US nuclear umbrella over Europe - it costs nothing (the US would keep the same nuclear forces with or without NATO), and I guess the US wouldn't want to see many countries developing their own nuclear deterrent.

    Now, on to the other side of the equation. I've already mentioned European presence in Afghanistan. We provide our airspace to stupid US wars - you cannot say it's worthless. Just check out how much money you were willing to spend on Turkey for them to allow your air force use their airspace before the 2003 Iraq War. (It was all cancelled, because the Turks then went on to deny their airspace.)

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That's also a European contribution to your defense industry.
  9. @Oblivionrecurs
    When we're the new 13%ers

    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    More and more the ideas of setting up an series of ethno-state makes sense.
    , @Anon000

    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)
     
    Future is bleak for RSA.

    https://qz.com/africa/940619/chinese-traders-changed-south-africa-now-theyre-leaving/

    Chinese migrants have changed the face of South Africa. Now they’re leaving.

    ...The association has filed hate speech lawsuits as well as a complaint with South Africa’s Human Rights Commission over comments left on their Facebook page last month. After the association organized a Chinese New Year celebration, advertised on its page, users left remarks calling for the Chinese to be banned, “wiped out,” or for their children to be killed. “Can we not stop these slant eyed freaks from coming into the country?!” one comment said.
     
  10. @216
    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)

    More and more the ideas of setting up an series of ethno-state makes sense.

  11. Oh here are the most searched candidates per country previous the first debates

    Notice that black belt! Also notice the early 4 states (problems for Biden ahead)

  12. Didn’t watch the debates but was told that Yang was basically too polite to shout over other people. Hence why he “lost”, though he did win the drudge poll, but is likely because of NEET sympathy from drudge readers.

    The only thing the debates have solidified is why “representative” democracy is a sham, only the most loudmouthed and venal people thrive. It’d better to go full decentralisation and just do direct democracy to the greatest extent possible.

    The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Gillibrand was the worst in terms of shouting over others, while Harris was quite good about not doing so--and it gave her an aura of gravitas. It can be useful, of course, but it isn't necessarily always so.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!"

    She's a member of the CFR and as big an immigration monger as any of the rest of these dopes. Her words are meaningless. Her military service is irrelevant. She's a childless careerist with no palpable investment in the future of the US. She has absolutely nothing in common with working class whites and her immigration stance (as well as her fair weather flop on the LGTB"Q") works directly against their interests. I mean based on her background, she very well may have lived her entire life without walking past a negro on a city street. Imagine the explosion in visa applications from the subcon once they found out a Hindu was the POTUS.

    She is useful in outing the (now apparent) great number of thirsty orbiters here and elsewhere, however.
    , @Feryl
    Yang is trying to be cerebral and productive, the rest are pretty typical career politicians who mostly want to blather non-sense wrapped in a nice and shiny package. I mean, that's what a corrupt and failing empire (still committed to a failing ideology) deserves.

    I would be curious to know how much the uber-PC responses about immigration, welfare, etc. poll with average Americans, as opposed to SJWs and yuppies. I do know, as you guys have indicated, that being in some way "anti-war" still resonates on a popular level, many years after any sort of visible anti-war movement died off when Bush left office. Since Vietnam, our leaders just can't convince us, for a sustained period, that protracted bloody war is useful and necessary.

    Ending Pax American, possibly, is why the Pentagon installed so many people in the Trump white house. That is the one thing, more than anything else, that can't be questioned or stopped. And why wouldn't the Pentagon be this way, seeing as how since Reagan they've been elevated to such high status.
    , @L Woods
    The same sort of people thrive in every dimension of American life — not just politics, unfortunately.
  13. Also your kamala harris prediction is looking much better

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  14. I think when Harris wins South Carolina and leap frogs into victory in California/Virginia people will see her as the serious contender.

  15. anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    Do you support outlawing “hate speech”?

    Do you “believe all women”?

    Would you reverse trade tariffs on China?

    Is English the national language?

    Do you support reparations and how would you pay for it?

    Do you support carbon taxes? Would you destroy the coal industry to fight climate change?

    Since you say climate change is an existential threat, why then do you support mass immigration which can only increase the country’s carbon emissions?

  16. What is the racial and ethnic composition of your neighborhood? How many black and Hispanic people are your neighbors?

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Cory Booker actually made this a talking point. Per UR commenter Art Deco, his claims may be a little fishy.

    Related:
    https://www.nj.com/essex/2019/02/now-everybody-is-talking-about-cory-bookers-time-as-mayor-of-newark-but-how-did-he-do.html
  17. @Rosie
    How low does the White percentage of the population need to go for us to be "diverse" enough?

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called "racist"?

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called “racist”?

    The answer is exactly 0%. In South Africa such things are absolutely forbidden, even in Zimbabwe where the few remaining whites are counted in the low thousands, there is still talk about seeking justice for the past.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The answer is exactly 0%.
     
    Indeed. Our job would be much easier if only we had the power to force them to say so directly.
  18. – Is single motherhood good for America?
    – Do you support giving welfare to new immigrants?
    – Should we have any standards for immigrants? What should they be?
    – Do you think you can fairly represent the interests of white people with families, given your base is almost entirely minorities and single white women?
    – What is the ideal ethnic composition of America in your mind?
    – Tell me what you like about white people.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    You basically got #2 there, and every single one of them said they did. And that's the clip that is getting the most boomercon sharing. IOW, speaks well of the difficulty of your proposed questions!
  19. – Would you be willing to send your child to a school matching the ethnic composition of your constituents?
    – Do you think intelligence is heritable? Does this worry you given the immigrants we are currently receiving?
    – Should white people receive affirmative action once they are a minority?
    – What’s your favorite state besides the one you live in and why?
    – America has along the lowest test scores of any OECD country and lower than many developing countries due primarily to the low performance of non-Asian minorities and its performance will continue to decline given current immigration patterns. What implications does this have for America’s economy?
    – Does Africa’s population explosion, on track to reach half the world’s population given current fertility rates, and its implications for global warming, pollution, and food prices worry you?
    – America’s average IQ is declining, closer to 95 in younger cohorts. China, Vietnam, and much of East Asia are solidly above 100. What implications does this have for our economy and democracy?
    – Should people who don’t speak English be able to become citizens?

  20. @neutral

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called “racist”?
     
    The answer is exactly 0%. In South Africa such things are absolutely forbidden, even in Zimbabwe where the few remaining whites are counted in the low thousands, there is still talk about seeking justice for the past.

    The answer is exactly 0%.

    Indeed. Our job would be much easier if only we had the power to force them to say so directly.

  21. @Twinkie
    What is the racial and ethnic composition of your neighborhood? How many black and Hispanic people are your neighbors?

    Cory Booker actually made this a talking point. Per UR commenter Art Deco, his claims may be a little fishy.

    Related:
    https://www.nj.com/essex/2019/02/now-everybody-is-talking-about-cory-bookers-time-as-mayor-of-newark-but-how-did-he-do.html

  22. How about: If an American Citizen who resides abroad is not counted in the decennial census, why is it right for the US government to insist they file and pay taxes (where not fully credited) to the US for money earned abroad and subjected to foreign country taxation while an illegal resident alien must be counted and seems to be eligible to take the benefits of those taxes?

  23. @216
    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)

    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)

    Future is bleak for RSA.

    https://qz.com/africa/940619/chinese-traders-changed-south-africa-now-theyre-leaving/

    Chinese migrants have changed the face of South Africa. Now they’re leaving.

    …The association has filed hate speech lawsuits as well as a complaint with South Africa’s Human Rights Commission over comments left on their Facebook page last month. After the association organized a Chinese New Year celebration, advertised on its page, users left remarks calling for the Chinese to be banned, “wiped out,” or for their children to be killed. “Can we not stop these slant eyed freaks from coming into the country?!” one comment said.

    • Replies: @216
    I saw that China piece too.

    I've speculated that India will take an increased interest in Africa as part of a Great Game with China. Some survey estimates indicated that Colured/Indian voters shifted towards the DA, while the DA lost Afrikaner votes to the VF+. That's a good outcome in the longer term, and Indians have been the main winner in post-94 SA.

    The Chinese are being outcompeted by Nigerians/Somalians/other Africans who have better rapport with the locals; while the Chinese bamboo network is much weaker in South Africa.

    Otoh, China knocked off Mugabe and has mineral investments throughout Africa. South Africa is less desired for mining thanks to militant labor unions.
  24. Most of these questions are so bizarrely out-of-touch with political reality I am starting to think Epigone is a 14 year old boy. No experienced politician would have an issue with any of them.

    “– Do you like socialism?”

    Really? Of course every candidate except probably Bernie would just say “no” and stop right there. None of them are on record as supporting “socialism”. This is a right-wing fever dream. Bernie would just start talking about Denmark or something.

    – Should American citizens be able to speak English?

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer – no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that “English only” is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.

    • Replies: @216

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer – no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that “English only” is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.
     
    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov't employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    The US has never declared as educational policy to begin foreign language acquisition in elementary school; rather in high school when the brain finds it harder to adopt more languages. Europe mandates English teaching much earlier.

    I don't know the Canadian policy, but the Canuckpoasters here could fill in the blanks.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    A flat "no" to socialism is emphatically not what any of the candidates want to have to say for primary/caucus purposes. It almost seemed like Hickenlooper was a fall guy who said what the others wanted to say but won't say, especially as Sanders' peters out. Notice no one else touched the socialism question at all with the partial exception of Gillibrand, who only alluded to it in the context of capitalism vs greed.

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question--and the reason it wasn't asked--suggests you're not from the US.
    , @L Woods
    Your manner is abrasive and senselessly contrarian, but you do have a point here I’d say.
  25. @216
    Why are we supposed to subsidize the reluctance of the NATO allies to engage in defense spending?

    Do you believe in the Blank Slate?

    Would you hire Feryl as an advisor?

    Which ox should be gored to reduce the cost of college?

    subsidize the reluctance of the NATO allies to engage in defense spending?

    That’s a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).

    First of all, a lot of US military spending is directed against China, which is not really a European concern. Then there are those Middle Eastern wars. They are very expensive, and you pay for them (mostly), so you get a very high military budget, but it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the defense of Europe.

    Now the US maintains a number of military bases in Europe, but they are needed for the idiotic (but quite popular among Americans) Middle Eastern wars for Israel. It’s America’s choice, and cannot really be called a “subsidy.” If the US wanted to protect Europe from Russia, those bases perhaps shouldn’t be located in Germany, thousands of kilometers from the Russian borders.

    Then there are the large-scale (or sometimes smaller) US military exercises – the US gets practice out of those. If they reduced their participation, they would simply get less practice for their own troops.

    Then there’s the recent increased presence in Eastern and Central Europe (this includes Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania) and of course Ukraine. This probably doesn’t cost more, than the European participation in some stupid US wars (especially Afghanistan, and before that Iraq). Withdraw from Europe, we’ll withdraw from Afghanistan. (Though it’d be mutually beneficial to do that, you cannot really call it an American subsidy – we spend money on your stupid wars, you spend money on confrontation with Russia, which is at least partly also a result of your foreign policy, for example your push since at least 2007 to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.)

    There’s the US nuclear umbrella over Europe – it costs nothing (the US would keep the same nuclear forces with or without NATO), and I guess the US wouldn’t want to see many countries developing their own nuclear deterrent.

    Now, on to the other side of the equation. I’ve already mentioned European presence in Afghanistan. We provide our airspace to stupid US wars – you cannot say it’s worthless. Just check out how much money you were willing to spend on Turkey for them to allow your air force use their airspace before the 2003 Iraq War. (It was all cancelled, because the Turks then went on to deny their airspace.)

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That’s also a European contribution to your defense industry.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you, Mr. Tor, on the here-and-now. The Cold War has been over for 30 years, which negates the whole need for NATO, BTW. During the Cold War, however, American money, soldiers, sailors, airman, and engineers/technicians did indeed pay for an implement the defense of the (rest of) continent of Europe.

    People in government, either via idiocy, or more likely willful ignorance, want to act like it's 1985 in terms of relations with Russia, 1960 in terms of "civil rights" for blacks only, and 1947 as far as relations with China. It's pretty easy to fool an American public that has long felt there was no need to pay attention to politics.*

    .

    * Rightfully so, in fact, over a century ago, when the Feral Gov't was small enough to where the average person had ZERO dealings with it, as long as there was not a war on.
    , @216

    That’s a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).
     
    The readiness rates in Europe are much lower vis-a-vis the US. I recall not long ago a leaked report that most of Germany's Typhoons were not combat capable.

    Polling also indicates that most Western Euros don't have a dint of patriotism and would not fight if their country was attacked. Who knew that liberal supremacy was a worthless ideology?

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That’s also a European contribution to your defense industry.
     
    Even Israel didn't get the F-22 Raptor. All those obsolete Rafales, Typhoons and Grippens would also counter your claim. Not to mention the overpriced Heckler & Koch firearms that the German government doesn't trust its own people and the American people to own. The US military actually bought some of them.

    No European country uses the M1 Abrams, only one bought the C-17. No European country has bought the Burke-class or the Virginia-class. The new Russian tank, assuming they can actually build enough of them, outclasses the existing tanks.


    Without the US, the EU will be either Finlandized or outright seized by Russia. Arguably I think that's not such a bad outcome. Because the EU will otherwise fill it with Africans and Arabs.
  26. – Should we go to war with China now or later?
    – Are you now or have you ever been an Amalekite or do you support them?
    – What is the conclusion that can be drawn from the National Debt Clock?

  27. – Is race a social construct?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    While holding something like this up:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Razib_Khan.png
  28. @reiner Tor

    subsidize the reluctance of the NATO allies to engage in defense spending?
     
    That's a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).

    First of all, a lot of US military spending is directed against China, which is not really a European concern. Then there are those Middle Eastern wars. They are very expensive, and you pay for them (mostly), so you get a very high military budget, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the defense of Europe.

    Now the US maintains a number of military bases in Europe, but they are needed for the idiotic (but quite popular among Americans) Middle Eastern wars for Israel. It's America's choice, and cannot really be called a "subsidy." If the US wanted to protect Europe from Russia, those bases perhaps shouldn't be located in Germany, thousands of kilometers from the Russian borders.

    Then there are the large-scale (or sometimes smaller) US military exercises - the US gets practice out of those. If they reduced their participation, they would simply get less practice for their own troops.

    Then there's the recent increased presence in Eastern and Central Europe (this includes Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania) and of course Ukraine. This probably doesn't cost more, than the European participation in some stupid US wars (especially Afghanistan, and before that Iraq). Withdraw from Europe, we'll withdraw from Afghanistan. (Though it'd be mutually beneficial to do that, you cannot really call it an American subsidy - we spend money on your stupid wars, you spend money on confrontation with Russia, which is at least partly also a result of your foreign policy, for example your push since at least 2007 to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.)

    There's the US nuclear umbrella over Europe - it costs nothing (the US would keep the same nuclear forces with or without NATO), and I guess the US wouldn't want to see many countries developing their own nuclear deterrent.

    Now, on to the other side of the equation. I've already mentioned European presence in Afghanistan. We provide our airspace to stupid US wars - you cannot say it's worthless. Just check out how much money you were willing to spend on Turkey for them to allow your air force use their airspace before the 2003 Iraq War. (It was all cancelled, because the Turks then went on to deny their airspace.)

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That's also a European contribution to your defense industry.

    I agree with you, Mr. Tor, on the here-and-now. The Cold War has been over for 30 years, which negates the whole need for NATO, BTW. During the Cold War, however, American money, soldiers, sailors, airman, and engineers/technicians did indeed pay for an implement the defense of the (rest of) continent of Europe.

    People in government, either via idiocy, or more likely willful ignorance, want to act like it’s 1985 in terms of relations with Russia, 1960 in terms of “civil rights” for blacks only, and 1947 as far as relations with China. It’s pretty easy to fool an American public that has long felt there was no need to pay attention to politics.*

    .

    * Rightfully so, in fact, over a century ago, when the Feral Gov’t was small enough to where the average person had ZERO dealings with it, as long as there was not a war on.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    During the Cold War, however, American money, soldiers, sailors, airman, and engineers/technicians did indeed pay for an implement the defense of the (rest of) continent of Europe.
     
    That much is true. Though there were some selfish American reasons to do so - had the USSR overrun Europe, and acquired its industrial might and technologies, America would no longer have been safe either. And Europe had conscription armies until the very end of the Cold War (something America abolished after Vietnam), so I wouldn't say Western Europeans didn't contribute their fair share. Though in the current situation Western Europe is not under any threat at all. Only former Warsaw Pact states and former USSR republics are under any kind of threat.
  29. Oooh, oooh! [hand way up high] Pick me!

    “If you feel that America must keep being the world’s policeman that implements democracy throughout the world via sanctions and bombing the shit out of people, how will we pay for all this, without putting our grandchildren (Mr. Butt-Edge excepted, of course) in even deeper debt than they are already in?

  30. A couple of follow-up questions, please, if you will indulge Peak Stupidity, your honors. You may use the calculators on your phones.

    “How much does the interest on 23,000,000,000,000 dollars work out to for each of the approximately 100 million American households, at the current 1.2% interest rate determined by the FED? How much of the budget will it be when interest rates must rise to a natural rate of, say, 7%? Will reparations payments increase or decrease these burdens on us? No, I no, not you all, us taxpayers.”

    “Anyone … anyone, Cortex?

    AOC: “When I signed up for this debate, I was led to believe there would be no math.”

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "AOC: “When I signed up for this debate, I was led to believe there would be no math.”"

    She went on to say "At least if I had you know, like, known, I'd have worn my really cute open toed sandals so I could count all the way up to 23!"
  31. @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you, Mr. Tor, on the here-and-now. The Cold War has been over for 30 years, which negates the whole need for NATO, BTW. During the Cold War, however, American money, soldiers, sailors, airman, and engineers/technicians did indeed pay for an implement the defense of the (rest of) continent of Europe.

    People in government, either via idiocy, or more likely willful ignorance, want to act like it's 1985 in terms of relations with Russia, 1960 in terms of "civil rights" for blacks only, and 1947 as far as relations with China. It's pretty easy to fool an American public that has long felt there was no need to pay attention to politics.*

    .

    * Rightfully so, in fact, over a century ago, when the Feral Gov't was small enough to where the average person had ZERO dealings with it, as long as there was not a war on.

    During the Cold War, however, American money, soldiers, sailors, airman, and engineers/technicians did indeed pay for an implement the defense of the (rest of) continent of Europe.

    That much is true. Though there were some selfish American reasons to do so – had the USSR overrun Europe, and acquired its industrial might and technologies, America would no longer have been safe either. And Europe had conscription armies until the very end of the Cold War (something America abolished after Vietnam), so I wouldn’t say Western Europeans didn’t contribute their fair share. Though in the current situation Western Europe is not under any threat at all. Only former Warsaw Pact states and former USSR republics are under any kind of threat.

  32. Is it Ok to be white?

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @216
    No, next question
    , @Twinkie
    You win.
  33. – If the sexual orientation of a fetus could be determined, how do you feel about someone aborting a gay fetus?

  34. 216 says:
    @reiner Tor

    subsidize the reluctance of the NATO allies to engage in defense spending?
     
    That's a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).

    First of all, a lot of US military spending is directed against China, which is not really a European concern. Then there are those Middle Eastern wars. They are very expensive, and you pay for them (mostly), so you get a very high military budget, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the defense of Europe.

    Now the US maintains a number of military bases in Europe, but they are needed for the idiotic (but quite popular among Americans) Middle Eastern wars for Israel. It's America's choice, and cannot really be called a "subsidy." If the US wanted to protect Europe from Russia, those bases perhaps shouldn't be located in Germany, thousands of kilometers from the Russian borders.

    Then there are the large-scale (or sometimes smaller) US military exercises - the US gets practice out of those. If they reduced their participation, they would simply get less practice for their own troops.

    Then there's the recent increased presence in Eastern and Central Europe (this includes Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania) and of course Ukraine. This probably doesn't cost more, than the European participation in some stupid US wars (especially Afghanistan, and before that Iraq). Withdraw from Europe, we'll withdraw from Afghanistan. (Though it'd be mutually beneficial to do that, you cannot really call it an American subsidy - we spend money on your stupid wars, you spend money on confrontation with Russia, which is at least partly also a result of your foreign policy, for example your push since at least 2007 to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.)

    There's the US nuclear umbrella over Europe - it costs nothing (the US would keep the same nuclear forces with or without NATO), and I guess the US wouldn't want to see many countries developing their own nuclear deterrent.

    Now, on to the other side of the equation. I've already mentioned European presence in Afghanistan. We provide our airspace to stupid US wars - you cannot say it's worthless. Just check out how much money you were willing to spend on Turkey for them to allow your air force use their airspace before the 2003 Iraq War. (It was all cancelled, because the Turks then went on to deny their airspace.)

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That's also a European contribution to your defense industry.

    That’s a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).

    The readiness rates in Europe are much lower vis-a-vis the US. I recall not long ago a leaked report that most of Germany’s Typhoons were not combat capable.

    Polling also indicates that most Western Euros don’t have a dint of patriotism and would not fight if their country was attacked. Who knew that liberal supremacy was a worthless ideology?

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That’s also a European contribution to your defense industry.

    Even Israel didn’t get the F-22 Raptor. All those obsolete Rafales, Typhoons and Grippens would also counter your claim. Not to mention the overpriced Heckler & Koch firearms that the German government doesn’t trust its own people and the American people to own. The US military actually bought some of them.

    No European country uses the M1 Abrams, only one bought the C-17. No European country has bought the Burke-class or the Virginia-class. The new Russian tank, assuming they can actually build enough of them, outclasses the existing tanks.

    Without the US, the EU will be either Finlandized or outright seized by Russia. Arguably I think that’s not such a bad outcome. Because the EU will otherwise fill it with Africans and Arabs.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    overpriced Heckler & Koch
     
    Hey, now, H&K guns are not overpriced. They are the most reliable guns I have ever used. It’s just that they are so awesome the company doles out the privilege of buying them very judiciously and hesitantly to peasant (read civilian) peons.
    , @reiner Tor

    The readiness rates in Europe are much lower vis-a-vis the US.
     
    And how is that relevant? Europe is a $20 trillion economy, while Russia is a $2 trillion one. Spending 1.5% of the former on the military just results in a much stronger military than 4% of the latter. Even if much of it is not combat ready (I bet you those combat readiness rates would suddenly increase if Russia actually attacked), there's so many.

    Germany’s Typhoons
     
    Yeah, you cherry-picked the worst of the whole of Europe. Do you realize that German combat readiness is probably the worst in the whole of Europe? (And that's true of military spending, Holocaust guilt, self-hate, etc.)

    Polling also indicates that most Western Euros don’t have a dint of patriotism and would not fight if their country was attacked.
     
    Europe has professional militaries, so it's not very relevant. But there's a relentless campaign against Russia for a long time now, so it wouldn't be particularly hard to find a consensus for fighting the Russians, especially if Russia attacked Europe.

    Even Israel didn’t get the F-22 Raptor.
     
    And how is that relevant?

    All those obsolete Rafales, Typhoons and Grippens would also counter your claim.
     
    If they are obsolete, then so is most of the US Air Force. Fortunately, the whole of the Russian Air Force is also obsolete, then, so obsolete planes are good.

    You must also realize that many European countries use American planes. Like the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland (F-16, but also intends to buy the F-35), Finland (non-NATO), Italy (only recently started buying the F-35), UK (only recently F-35), so lots of countries.

    Without the US, the EU will be either Finlandized or outright seized by Russia.
     
    In a world where logistics doesn't exist, and occupying a country requires exactly zero soldiers, sure.

    But in the real world it's just not the case. Even occupying Ukraine would be a stretch. Even in 2014, when Ukraine had only 50,000 combat capable soldiers, none of them particularly highly trained or well equipped, they only dared occupy the few parts of Ukraine where actual ethnic Russians were a majority. The whole of EU being occupied or even just Finlandized by Russia is just a fantasy.

    I forgot to mention European help to the American intelligence services. Here's Germany, though there's similar help from other countries as well:

    https://www.dw.com/en/german-courts-ruling-on-mass-spying-is-a-victory-for-the-bnd-and-nsa/a-36402749

    European vassals constantly supply the US with intelligence, even in 2003, when many European governments (and the public) opposed the Iraq War, services like the BND continued to help the US in that war.
  35. @Locke Smith
    How important is an immigrant’s merit in deciding whether or not he/she should be allowed to live in the US?

    Do white people have culture? If so, should they be proud of it?

    Any regrets about how the media or even you yourself reacted to the initial news story about the Covington kids? What about Jussie Smollet?

    The last set of questions would be especially devastating if directed at Booker and Harris, both of whom potentially knew about it beforehand.

    • Replies: @Truth
    Oh, cut it out with the conspiracies, David (Wh)Icke.
  36. 216 says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Most of these questions are so bizarrely out-of-touch with political reality I am starting to think Epigone is a 14 year old boy. No experienced politician would have an issue with any of them.

    "– Do you like socialism?"

    Really? Of course every candidate except probably Bernie would just say "no" and stop right there. None of them are on record as supporting "socialism". This is a right-wing fever dream. Bernie would just start talking about Denmark or something.

    – Should American citizens be able to speak English?

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer - no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that "English only" is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer – no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that “English only” is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.

    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov’t employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    The US has never declared as educational policy to begin foreign language acquisition in elementary school; rather in high school when the brain finds it harder to adopt more languages. Europe mandates English teaching much earlier.

    I don’t know the Canadian policy, but the Canuckpoasters here could fill in the blanks.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Is it wrong for immigrants to speak in a language other than English? or some such question is easy to virtue-signal on. But asking whether or not immigrants should be capable of speaking English is dicey--everyone knows there are large swaths of Hispanic immigrants who cannot, and almost no one thinks that is a good thing, even leftists.
    , @Feryl
    Gahd being an empire sucks. I don't want foreigners to be conversant in English. Please, stop. Don't encourage America to be more globalist and a continuing empire, it's bad enough as it is. I wish Germany could've hung for a couple more generations, or that the Soviets didn't fold in 1990, so it wouldn't be so obvious that America is"#1".

    It's also kind of creepy that so many foreigners profess some degree of annoyance with the US, bet then they don't do more to disentangle themselves from Pax Americana. Have some balls. Trust me, a lot of Americans are fed up with their own society/empire, and wouldn't mind if other countries do more to distance themselves from it.

    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov’t employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    Language goes hand in hand with distinct ethnicity, which is why bi-lingualism is horrible (and guys like Ron Unz must've seen what's happened with Canada, and said, sheesh, that's one problem we don't need to impose on ourselves). All regions of a country ideally should speak the same dominant language, with no effort made to "legitimize" other languages as being "equal". Given all the difficulties of diversity, why make things even more difficult by encouraging spoils competition based on spoken language?
    , @Pontius
    No student in Canada leaves high school fluent in French, believe me. If he/she/zhe/them does, it is certainly due to enrolling in an immersion program or through vigorous self study. It always seemed like such a horrible waste of time and money. I can't imagine broken French with a Cork/Kilkenney/Limerick/Wexford/West Country English/Welsh-Newfoundland accent was particularly intelligible to native French speakers. French instruction began in fourth grade and continued throughout.
  37. @Curious
    Didn't watch the debates but was told that Yang was basically too polite to shout over other people. Hence why he "lost", though he did win the drudge poll, but is likely because of NEET sympathy from drudge readers.


    The only thing the debates have solidified is why "representative" democracy is a sham, only the most loudmouthed and venal people thrive. It'd better to go full decentralisation and just do direct democracy to the greatest extent possible.


    The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!

    Gillibrand was the worst in terms of shouting over others, while Harris was quite good about not doing so–and it gave her an aura of gravitas. It can be useful, of course, but it isn’t necessarily always so.

  38. @Aft
    – Is single motherhood good for America?
    – Do you support giving welfare to new immigrants?
    – Should we have any standards for immigrants? What should they be?
    – Do you think you can fairly represent the interests of white people with families, given your base is almost entirely minorities and single white women?
    – What is the ideal ethnic composition of America in your mind?
    – Tell me what you like about white people.

    You basically got #2 there, and every single one of them said they did. And that’s the clip that is getting the most boomercon sharing. IOW, speaks well of the difficulty of your proposed questions!

  39. 216 says:
    @Anon000

    Whites are 8% of South Africa, and only 4% of the births.

    Indians are only 2%

    But Julius Malema is still tapping into anger, while also demanding that South Africa have open borders. (some suggest this is why EFF underperformed the polls)
     
    Future is bleak for RSA.

    https://qz.com/africa/940619/chinese-traders-changed-south-africa-now-theyre-leaving/

    Chinese migrants have changed the face of South Africa. Now they’re leaving.

    ...The association has filed hate speech lawsuits as well as a complaint with South Africa’s Human Rights Commission over comments left on their Facebook page last month. After the association organized a Chinese New Year celebration, advertised on its page, users left remarks calling for the Chinese to be banned, “wiped out,” or for their children to be killed. “Can we not stop these slant eyed freaks from coming into the country?!” one comment said.
     

    I saw that China piece too.

    I’ve speculated that India will take an increased interest in Africa as part of a Great Game with China. Some survey estimates indicated that Colured/Indian voters shifted towards the DA, while the DA lost Afrikaner votes to the VF+. That’s a good outcome in the longer term, and Indians have been the main winner in post-94 SA.

    The Chinese are being outcompeted by Nigerians/Somalians/other Africans who have better rapport with the locals; while the Chinese bamboo network is much weaker in South Africa.

    Otoh, China knocked off Mugabe and has mineral investments throughout Africa. South Africa is less desired for mining thanks to militant labor unions.

  40. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Is it Ok to be white?

    No, next question

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'd be inclined to vote for any candidate that actually came out and answered in exactly that way.
  41. @Peter Akuleyev
    Most of these questions are so bizarrely out-of-touch with political reality I am starting to think Epigone is a 14 year old boy. No experienced politician would have an issue with any of them.

    "– Do you like socialism?"

    Really? Of course every candidate except probably Bernie would just say "no" and stop right there. None of them are on record as supporting "socialism". This is a right-wing fever dream. Bernie would just start talking about Denmark or something.

    – Should American citizens be able to speak English?

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer - no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that "English only" is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.

    A flat “no” to socialism is emphatically not what any of the candidates want to have to say for primary/caucus purposes. It almost seemed like Hickenlooper was a fall guy who said what the others wanted to say but won’t say, especially as Sanders’ peters out. Notice no one else touched the socialism question at all with the partial exception of Gillibrand, who only alluded to it in the context of capitalism vs greed.

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question–and the reason it wasn’t asked–suggests you’re not from the US.

    • Replies: @216

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question–and the reason it wasn’t asked–suggests you’re not from the US.
     
    Linguistic policing is Boomercon pandering. Younger whites consider it somewhat embarassing that Euros know three languages on average, as do Gen X parents. At the same time, I can't recall any effort by parents to pressure school board to extend foreign language to elementary/middle; perhaps some upper class parents would spend money visiting other countries/tutors.
  42. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    A flat "no" to socialism is emphatically not what any of the candidates want to have to say for primary/caucus purposes. It almost seemed like Hickenlooper was a fall guy who said what the others wanted to say but won't say, especially as Sanders' peters out. Notice no one else touched the socialism question at all with the partial exception of Gillibrand, who only alluded to it in the context of capitalism vs greed.

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question--and the reason it wasn't asked--suggests you're not from the US.

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question–and the reason it wasn’t asked–suggests you’re not from the US.

    Linguistic policing is Boomercon pandering. Younger whites consider it somewhat embarassing that Euros know three languages on average, as do Gen X parents. At the same time, I can’t recall any effort by parents to pressure school board to extend foreign language to elementary/middle; perhaps some upper class parents would spend money visiting other countries/tutors.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    How do you think black primary voters feel about immigrants not speaking English?

    Case rested.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Our children are on track to learn four languages young (including English). They should be completely fluent in English and Mandarin.

    We think it’s both economically and politically/culturally shortsighted for American kids to lag so far behind in learning other languages. All American kids should be introduced to a foreign language with daily classes starting in kindergarten, then a second foreign language starting with daily classes in sixth grade. Immersion 50/50 or more where possible. It’s especially impractical and foolish that we have so few people learning mandarin still, and almost nowhere for younger kids to learn Russian affordably in school in the entire country.

    It in no way follows that we support allowing the further encroachment of Spanish or any other alien peoples’ language on OUR land in OUR country. The language used in our workplaces, in our gov offices, on our streets, in our schools, in our campaigns, is a clear marker of who has or is asserting cultural preeminence and eventually economic power and political and physical control.

    These languages should be for business and educational opportunities abroad, for tourism, for personal enrichment, not to fit in to a mistrustful, Balkanized Tower of Babel here on territory that used to be ours.

    For comprehension, true mutual affection and loyalty, and social cohesion and solidarity, any people who wish to be unified needs a common language, even more so in a geographically or demographically large polity. Even more important in a large and/or racially/ethnically diverse country than somewhere atypical like Switzerland (very small population, very close genetic and cultural relation between the “different” peoples).

    We should have enacted a constitutional amendment long ago pointing out numerous things that the founding fathers would have found it completely unnecessary to specify because they were so obvious and fundamental, including the transaction of all us government biz only in English (most of all including any application for temporary residency, permanent residency, citizenship, taxpayer-paid benefits such as food stamps, schooling, medical insurance or care, drivers license, voting, contracts).

    Our family will be very welcoming and helpful to people visiting the USA for tourism, business, education, using their fluency in other languages to do so. But we will never stop demanding that people who wish to SETTLE long-term in our Country know and use English — or get the Hell out.

  43. @Pericles
    - Is race a social construct?

    While holding something like this up:

  44. @216

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer – no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that “English only” is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.
     
    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov't employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    The US has never declared as educational policy to begin foreign language acquisition in elementary school; rather in high school when the brain finds it harder to adopt more languages. Europe mandates English teaching much earlier.

    I don't know the Canadian policy, but the Canuckpoasters here could fill in the blanks.

    Is it wrong for immigrants to speak in a language other than English? or some such question is easy to virtue-signal on. But asking whether or not immigrants should be capable of speaking English is dicey–everyone knows there are large swaths of Hispanic immigrants who cannot, and almost no one thinks that is a good thing, even leftists.

    • Replies: @216

    But asking whether or not immigrants should be capable of speaking English is dicey–everyone knows there are large swaths of Hispanic immigrants who cannot, and almost no one thinks that is a good thing, even leftists.
     
    It comes across as both bullying, and an exposure of the "ugly american" stereotype.

    Anything we do gets filtered and policed by people who are quite adept at following the dog whistles.

    I'm sorry, but we can't punch down.

    The GOP also gets mauled among households that don't speak English at home. So it helps to both have someone capable of speaking in the ethnic press, as much as it does trying to promote English.
  45. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    Is it wrong for immigrants to speak in a language other than English? or some such question is easy to virtue-signal on. But asking whether or not immigrants should be capable of speaking English is dicey--everyone knows there are large swaths of Hispanic immigrants who cannot, and almost no one thinks that is a good thing, even leftists.

    But asking whether or not immigrants should be capable of speaking English is dicey–everyone knows there are large swaths of Hispanic immigrants who cannot, and almost no one thinks that is a good thing, even leftists.

    It comes across as both bullying, and an exposure of the “ugly american” stereotype.

    Anything we do gets filtered and policed by people who are quite adept at following the dog whistles.

    I’m sorry, but we can’t punch down.

    The GOP also gets mauled among households that don’t speak English at home. So it helps to both have someone capable of speaking in the ethnic press, as much as it does trying to promote English.

  46. @216

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question–and the reason it wasn’t asked–suggests you’re not from the US.
     
    Linguistic policing is Boomercon pandering. Younger whites consider it somewhat embarassing that Euros know three languages on average, as do Gen X parents. At the same time, I can't recall any effort by parents to pressure school board to extend foreign language to elementary/middle; perhaps some upper class parents would spend money visiting other countries/tutors.

    How do you think black primary voters feel about immigrants not speaking English?

    Case rested.

    • Replies: @216
    I'll apply an "ouch" to myself here

    Ouch
  47. @Audacious Epigone
    How do you think black primary voters feel about immigrants not speaking English?

    Case rested.

    I’ll apply an “ouch” to myself here

    Ouch

  48. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Is it Ok to be white?

    You win.

  49. @216
    No, next question

    I’d be inclined to vote for any candidate that actually came out and answered in exactly that way.

  50. @216

    That’s a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).
     
    The readiness rates in Europe are much lower vis-a-vis the US. I recall not long ago a leaked report that most of Germany's Typhoons were not combat capable.

    Polling also indicates that most Western Euros don't have a dint of patriotism and would not fight if their country was attacked. Who knew that liberal supremacy was a worthless ideology?

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That’s also a European contribution to your defense industry.
     
    Even Israel didn't get the F-22 Raptor. All those obsolete Rafales, Typhoons and Grippens would also counter your claim. Not to mention the overpriced Heckler & Koch firearms that the German government doesn't trust its own people and the American people to own. The US military actually bought some of them.

    No European country uses the M1 Abrams, only one bought the C-17. No European country has bought the Burke-class or the Virginia-class. The new Russian tank, assuming they can actually build enough of them, outclasses the existing tanks.


    Without the US, the EU will be either Finlandized or outright seized by Russia. Arguably I think that's not such a bad outcome. Because the EU will otherwise fill it with Africans and Arabs.

    overpriced Heckler & Koch

    Hey, now, H&K guns are not overpriced. They are the most reliable guns I have ever used. It’s just that they are so awesome the company doles out the privilege of buying them very judiciously and hesitantly to peasant (read civilian) peons.

    • Replies: @216
    I've never seen the logic in how FN, Glock, Sig and B&T can sell anything evil in the US, but H und K cannot.

    Our Marshall Plan failed by not installing RKBA into Euro constitutions.

    Mutti thinks that we can't have MP7.

  51. @Achmed E. Newman
    A couple of follow-up questions, please, if you will indulge Peak Stupidity, your honors. You may use the calculators on your phones.

    "How much does the interest on 23,000,000,000,000 dollars work out to for each of the approximately 100 million American households, at the current 1.2% interest rate determined by the FED? How much of the budget will it be when interest rates must rise to a natural rate of, say, 7%? Will reparations payments increase or decrease these burdens on us? No, I no, not you all, us taxpayers."

    "Anyone ... anyone, Cortex?

    AOC: "When I signed up for this debate, I was led to believe there would be no math."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiP7IuDAanc

    “AOC: “When I signed up for this debate, I was led to believe there would be no math.””

    She went on to say “At least if I had you know, like, known, I’d have worn my really cute open toed sandals so I could count all the way up to 23!”

  52. @Twinkie

    overpriced Heckler & Koch
     
    Hey, now, H&K guns are not overpriced. They are the most reliable guns I have ever used. It’s just that they are so awesome the company doles out the privilege of buying them very judiciously and hesitantly to peasant (read civilian) peons.

    I’ve never seen the logic in how FN, Glock, Sig and B&T can sell anything evil in the US, but H und K cannot.

    Our Marshall Plan failed by not installing RKBA into Euro constitutions.

    Mutti thinks that we can’t have MP7.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    H und K cannot.
     
    Not “cannot.” Will not. They are just too good for you, you know. Having said that, the gun business environment is bad in Germany. H&K is building a large new facility in the US, so look for more availability in the future.
  53. @Curious
    Didn't watch the debates but was told that Yang was basically too polite to shout over other people. Hence why he "lost", though he did win the drudge poll, but is likely because of NEET sympathy from drudge readers.


    The only thing the debates have solidified is why "representative" democracy is a sham, only the most loudmouthed and venal people thrive. It'd better to go full decentralisation and just do direct democracy to the greatest extent possible.


    The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!

    “The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!”

    She’s a member of the CFR and as big an immigration monger as any of the rest of these dopes. Her words are meaningless. Her military service is irrelevant. She’s a childless careerist with no palpable investment in the future of the US. She has absolutely nothing in common with working class whites and her immigration stance (as well as her fair weather flop on the LGTB”Q”) works directly against their interests. I mean based on her background, she very well may have lived her entire life without walking past a negro on a city street. Imagine the explosion in visa applications from the subcon once they found out a Hindu was the POTUS.

    She is useful in outing the (now apparent) great number of thirsty orbiters here and elsewhere, however.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    I think “like” is a highly relative term here. I quite doubt that anyone commenting here has any true affinity for any mainstream politician, let alone a Democrat. What’s “likable” about her is that she heightens the contradictions in the democrat coalition.
  54. – Is it OK to be white?

  55. @216

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer – no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that “English only” is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.
     
    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov't employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    The US has never declared as educational policy to begin foreign language acquisition in elementary school; rather in high school when the brain finds it harder to adopt more languages. Europe mandates English teaching much earlier.

    I don't know the Canadian policy, but the Canuckpoasters here could fill in the blanks.

    Gahd being an empire sucks. I don’t want foreigners to be conversant in English. Please, stop. Don’t encourage America to be more globalist and a continuing empire, it’s bad enough as it is. I wish Germany could’ve hung for a couple more generations, or that the Soviets didn’t fold in 1990, so it wouldn’t be so obvious that America is”#1″.

    It’s also kind of creepy that so many foreigners profess some degree of annoyance with the US, bet then they don’t do more to disentangle themselves from Pax Americana. Have some balls. Trust me, a lot of Americans are fed up with their own society/empire, and wouldn’t mind if other countries do more to distance themselves from it.

    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov’t employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    Language goes hand in hand with distinct ethnicity, which is why bi-lingualism is horrible (and guys like Ron Unz must’ve seen what’s happened with Canada, and said, sheesh, that’s one problem we don’t need to impose on ourselves). All regions of a country ideally should speak the same dominant language, with no effort made to “legitimize” other languages as being “equal”. Given all the difficulties of diversity, why make things even more difficult by encouraging spoils competition based on spoken language?

  56. @Curious
    Didn't watch the debates but was told that Yang was basically too polite to shout over other people. Hence why he "lost", though he did win the drudge poll, but is likely because of NEET sympathy from drudge readers.


    The only thing the debates have solidified is why "representative" democracy is a sham, only the most loudmouthed and venal people thrive. It'd better to go full decentralisation and just do direct democracy to the greatest extent possible.


    The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!

    Yang is trying to be cerebral and productive, the rest are pretty typical career politicians who mostly want to blather non-sense wrapped in a nice and shiny package. I mean, that’s what a corrupt and failing empire (still committed to a failing ideology) deserves.

    I would be curious to know how much the uber-PC responses about immigration, welfare, etc. poll with average Americans, as opposed to SJWs and yuppies. I do know, as you guys have indicated, that being in some way “anti-war” still resonates on a popular level, many years after any sort of visible anti-war movement died off when Bush left office. Since Vietnam, our leaders just can’t convince us, for a sustained period, that protracted bloody war is useful and necessary.

    Ending Pax American, possibly, is why the Pentagon installed so many people in the Trump white house. That is the one thing, more than anything else, that can’t be questioned or stopped. And why wouldn’t the Pentagon be this way, seeing as how since Reagan they’ve been elevated to such high status.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager

    Since Vietnam, our leaders just can’t convince us, for a sustained period, that protracted bloody war is useful and necessary.
     
    Who has ever argued that "protracted bloody war is useful and necessary"? It's an insane notion.


    Still wondering exactly what use are these "dog whistles" that apparently everyone can hear, contrary to the entire purpose of dog whistles.

  57. @Feryl
    Yang is trying to be cerebral and productive, the rest are pretty typical career politicians who mostly want to blather non-sense wrapped in a nice and shiny package. I mean, that's what a corrupt and failing empire (still committed to a failing ideology) deserves.

    I would be curious to know how much the uber-PC responses about immigration, welfare, etc. poll with average Americans, as opposed to SJWs and yuppies. I do know, as you guys have indicated, that being in some way "anti-war" still resonates on a popular level, many years after any sort of visible anti-war movement died off when Bush left office. Since Vietnam, our leaders just can't convince us, for a sustained period, that protracted bloody war is useful and necessary.

    Ending Pax American, possibly, is why the Pentagon installed so many people in the Trump white house. That is the one thing, more than anything else, that can't be questioned or stopped. And why wouldn't the Pentagon be this way, seeing as how since Reagan they've been elevated to such high status.

    Since Vietnam, our leaders just can’t convince us, for a sustained period, that protracted bloody war is useful and necessary.

    Who has ever argued that “protracted bloody war is useful and necessary”? It’s an insane notion.

    Still wondering exactly what use are these “dog whistles” that apparently everyone can hear, contrary to the entire purpose of dog whistles.

  58. @Audacious Epigone
    The last set of questions would be especially devastating if directed at Booker and Harris, both of whom potentially knew about it beforehand.

    Oh, cut it out with the conspiracies, David (Wh)Icke.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Truth says:

    Oh, cut it out with the conspiracies
     
    Who are you and what have you done with the former commenter Truth?
  59. @Rosie
    How low does the White percentage of the population need to go for us to be "diverse" enough?

    How low does the White percentage of the population have to go before we are allowed to assert our interests and identity without being called "racist"?

    There is no lower bound: This Grift Must Never End!

  60. @216
    Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Muhammad’s “revelations” much?
  61. @216

    Regarding English, it is of course the closest thing we have to a native language. That you are unable to appreciate the power of this question–and the reason it wasn’t asked–suggests you’re not from the US.
     
    Linguistic policing is Boomercon pandering. Younger whites consider it somewhat embarassing that Euros know three languages on average, as do Gen X parents. At the same time, I can't recall any effort by parents to pressure school board to extend foreign language to elementary/middle; perhaps some upper class parents would spend money visiting other countries/tutors.

    Our children are on track to learn four languages young (including English). They should be completely fluent in English and Mandarin.

    We think it’s both economically and politically/culturally shortsighted for American kids to lag so far behind in learning other languages. All American kids should be introduced to a foreign language with daily classes starting in kindergarten, then a second foreign language starting with daily classes in sixth grade. Immersion 50/50 or more where possible. It’s especially impractical and foolish that we have so few people learning mandarin still, and almost nowhere for younger kids to learn Russian affordably in school in the entire country.

    It in no way follows that we support allowing the further encroachment of Spanish or any other alien peoples’ language on OUR land in OUR country. The language used in our workplaces, in our gov offices, on our streets, in our schools, in our campaigns, is a clear marker of who has or is asserting cultural preeminence and eventually economic power and political and physical control.

    These languages should be for business and educational opportunities abroad, for tourism, for personal enrichment, not to fit in to a mistrustful, Balkanized Tower of Babel here on territory that used to be ours.

    For comprehension, true mutual affection and loyalty, and social cohesion and solidarity, any people who wish to be unified needs a common language, even more so in a geographically or demographically large polity. Even more important in a large and/or racially/ethnically diverse country than somewhere atypical like Switzerland (very small population, very close genetic and cultural relation between the “different” peoples).

    We should have enacted a constitutional amendment long ago pointing out numerous things that the founding fathers would have found it completely unnecessary to specify because they were so obvious and fundamental, including the transaction of all us government biz only in English (most of all including any application for temporary residency, permanent residency, citizenship, taxpayer-paid benefits such as food stamps, schooling, medical insurance or care, drivers license, voting, contracts).

    Our family will be very welcoming and helpful to people visiting the USA for tourism, business, education, using their fluency in other languages to do so. But we will never stop demanding that people who wish to SETTLE long-term in our Country know and use English — or get the Hell out.

  62. @216

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer – no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that “English only” is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.
     
    Up to a point, you are right. But monolingual Anglos are correct in their fear that official bilingualism could become law in the US as it did in Canada. That would create affirmative action for Spanish-speakers, in the same way that gov't employment in Canada is way of pacifying Quebecois.

    The US has never declared as educational policy to begin foreign language acquisition in elementary school; rather in high school when the brain finds it harder to adopt more languages. Europe mandates English teaching much earlier.

    I don't know the Canadian policy, but the Canuckpoasters here could fill in the blanks.

    No student in Canada leaves high school fluent in French, believe me. If he/she/zhe/them does, it is certainly due to enrolling in an immersion program or through vigorous self study. It always seemed like such a horrible waste of time and money. I can’t imagine broken French with a Cork/Kilkenney/Limerick/Wexford/West Country English/Welsh-Newfoundland accent was particularly intelligible to native French speakers. French instruction began in fourth grade and continued throughout.

  63. @HammerJack
    http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/susan_b_anthony_quote.jpg

    Muhammad’s “revelations” much?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  64. @216

    That’s a popular American myth. The European countries collectively have strong enough militaries for self-defense (for example even excluding Turkey, the combined European air forces would have air superiority against Russia, and no other country in the world would be even remotely capable of threatening Europe).
     
    The readiness rates in Europe are much lower vis-a-vis the US. I recall not long ago a leaked report that most of Germany's Typhoons were not combat capable.

    Polling also indicates that most Western Euros don't have a dint of patriotism and would not fight if their country was attacked. Who knew that liberal supremacy was a worthless ideology?

    Then we keep being pressured into buying overpriced American equipment. That’s also a European contribution to your defense industry.
     
    Even Israel didn't get the F-22 Raptor. All those obsolete Rafales, Typhoons and Grippens would also counter your claim. Not to mention the overpriced Heckler & Koch firearms that the German government doesn't trust its own people and the American people to own. The US military actually bought some of them.

    No European country uses the M1 Abrams, only one bought the C-17. No European country has bought the Burke-class or the Virginia-class. The new Russian tank, assuming they can actually build enough of them, outclasses the existing tanks.


    Without the US, the EU will be either Finlandized or outright seized by Russia. Arguably I think that's not such a bad outcome. Because the EU will otherwise fill it with Africans and Arabs.

    The readiness rates in Europe are much lower vis-a-vis the US.

    And how is that relevant? Europe is a $20 trillion economy, while Russia is a $2 trillion one. Spending 1.5% of the former on the military just results in a much stronger military than 4% of the latter. Even if much of it is not combat ready (I bet you those combat readiness rates would suddenly increase if Russia actually attacked), there’s so many.

    Germany’s Typhoons

    Yeah, you cherry-picked the worst of the whole of Europe. Do you realize that German combat readiness is probably the worst in the whole of Europe? (And that’s true of military spending, Holocaust guilt, self-hate, etc.)

    Polling also indicates that most Western Euros don’t have a dint of patriotism and would not fight if their country was attacked.

    Europe has professional militaries, so it’s not very relevant. But there’s a relentless campaign against Russia for a long time now, so it wouldn’t be particularly hard to find a consensus for fighting the Russians, especially if Russia attacked Europe.

    Even Israel didn’t get the F-22 Raptor.

    And how is that relevant?

    All those obsolete Rafales, Typhoons and Grippens would also counter your claim.

    If they are obsolete, then so is most of the US Air Force. Fortunately, the whole of the Russian Air Force is also obsolete, then, so obsolete planes are good.

    You must also realize that many European countries use American planes. Like the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland (F-16, but also intends to buy the F-35), Finland (non-NATO), Italy (only recently started buying the F-35), UK (only recently F-35), so lots of countries.

    Without the US, the EU will be either Finlandized or outright seized by Russia.

    In a world where logistics doesn’t exist, and occupying a country requires exactly zero soldiers, sure.

    But in the real world it’s just not the case. Even occupying Ukraine would be a stretch. Even in 2014, when Ukraine had only 50,000 combat capable soldiers, none of them particularly highly trained or well equipped, they only dared occupy the few parts of Ukraine where actual ethnic Russians were a majority. The whole of EU being occupied or even just Finlandized by Russia is just a fantasy.

    I forgot to mention European help to the American intelligence services. Here’s Germany, though there’s similar help from other countries as well:

    https://www.dw.com/en/german-courts-ruling-on-mass-spying-is-a-victory-for-the-bnd-and-nsa/a-36402749

    European vassals constantly supply the US with intelligence, even in 2003, when many European governments (and the public) opposed the Iraq War, services like the BND continued to help the US in that war.

  65. @Truth
    Oh, cut it out with the conspiracies, David (Wh)Icke.

    Truth says:

    Oh, cut it out with the conspiracies

    Who are you and what have you done with the former commenter Truth?

  66. @Curious
    Didn't watch the debates but was told that Yang was basically too polite to shout over other people. Hence why he "lost", though he did win the drudge poll, but is likely because of NEET sympathy from drudge readers.


    The only thing the debates have solidified is why "representative" democracy is a sham, only the most loudmouthed and venal people thrive. It'd better to go full decentralisation and just do direct democracy to the greatest extent possible.


    The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!

    The same sort of people thrive in every dimension of American life — not just politics, unfortunately.

  67. @Peter Akuleyev
    Most of these questions are so bizarrely out-of-touch with political reality I am starting to think Epigone is a 14 year old boy. No experienced politician would have an issue with any of them.

    "– Do you like socialism?"

    Really? Of course every candidate except probably Bernie would just say "no" and stop right there. None of them are on record as supporting "socialism". This is a right-wing fever dream. Bernie would just start talking about Denmark or something.

    – Should American citizens be able to speak English?

    This is one case where the right answer is the same as the PC answer - no. Of course not. No Amish farmer has an obligation to learn English, nor does any Cajun nor does any Lakota or Puerto Rican. Nor should a Hawaiian native. Almost every Latino immigrant to the US does in fact learn English, as does every African American from birth. If you love English speakers so much, just keep welcoming Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants. The problem with the American Right is how amazingly provincial it is. English is a powerful global virus, slowly destroying native languages even in China and Russia, and yet somehow Americans have convinced themselves that "English only" is a rallying cry. Anyone who is opposed to globalism should be opposed to the spread of English, first and foremost.

    Your manner is abrasive and senselessly contrarian, but you do have a point here I’d say.

  68. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The only candidate I like is Tulsi, who is suitably hated by ZOG and neocons. Which is always a good sign!"

    She's a member of the CFR and as big an immigration monger as any of the rest of these dopes. Her words are meaningless. Her military service is irrelevant. She's a childless careerist with no palpable investment in the future of the US. She has absolutely nothing in common with working class whites and her immigration stance (as well as her fair weather flop on the LGTB"Q") works directly against their interests. I mean based on her background, she very well may have lived her entire life without walking past a negro on a city street. Imagine the explosion in visa applications from the subcon once they found out a Hindu was the POTUS.

    She is useful in outing the (now apparent) great number of thirsty orbiters here and elsewhere, however.

    I think “like” is a highly relative term here. I quite doubt that anyone commenting here has any true affinity for any mainstream politician, let alone a Democrat. What’s “likable” about her is that she heightens the contradictions in the democrat coalition.

  69. @216
    I've never seen the logic in how FN, Glock, Sig and B&T can sell anything evil in the US, but H und K cannot.

    Our Marshall Plan failed by not installing RKBA into Euro constitutions.

    Mutti thinks that we can't have MP7.

    H und K cannot.

    Not “cannot.” Will not. They are just too good for you, you know. Having said that, the gun business environment is bad in Germany. H&K is building a large new facility in the US, so look for more availability in the future.

  70. Polls show women are less pro-choice than men. Why do you think that is?

    I can answer that one. “Men” includes young single men, who would be happiest if abortion were mandatory for the women they impregnated.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS