bmdrocks21

Don’t try to put me in such a little box. I notice many patterns like crime rates, IQ, early life Wikipedia pages’ strange correlation with political beliefs, and the composition of the government, Hollywood, and federal banks. I notice all patterns.

This is not a yes or no question, Mr. Chud.

No, I'd have him forcibly removed.

After deliberating for over a year on this question, I'm going to say.... maybe German. The language is just so different from those with a Latin root.

Hey, Lemming!

I've had a couple readings that stand out, many of them for bad reasons but some good.

Of the good ones, I really enjoyed 1984 (although I think it has become a bit overapplied to modern discourse). It was a particularly neat visualization of how bad totalitarianism could get. This wasn't a school read, but a similar book also by Orwell was Animal Farm.

I also liked The Lord of the Flies. Honestly, it is a bit of the opposite of 1984. It's about how not having a structured society, rules, or oversight can lead to people becoming savages. It is through the eyes of adolescent boys on an island.

I wasn't very fond of The Crucible, The Scarlet Letter, Great Expectations, or The Good Earth because they were incredibly boring. At least the first two I mentioned had some moral to the story, but the other two seemed a bit pointless.

Hamlet was decent as far as Shakespeare goes.

The most fun book I read was probably Treasure Island.

A very complex question. He has done a lot of good things, and he has done some pretty garbage things. I'm sure a lot of the things that I would consider "good" you would consider bad, though.

Politically, I think that he is pushing the GOP in the right direction, that being towards a more nationalist, populist party that seems to care about blue-collar workers in a more capitalist manner. While the Democrats seem to want to put a bandage on the problem of poverty with welfare, Trump is getting rid of NAFTA, real wages are going up (pre-pandemic), and while the trade war with China could have been coordinated a lot better, at least he is trying.

The things he has done that I have liked:
Been a protectionist
Lowered immigration and refugee admittance. Hopefully he follows through on his H-1B lowering.
Done a decent job deregulating. Didn't go overboard.
He has been more or less a moderate on climate, which I like. Emissions are going down without too much government coercion. Not losing a lot of important fossil fuel jobs.
Lower taxes
Hasn't started any new major conflict, and he is currently trying to withdraw troops.
Made Central American countries stop illegal immigrants
No DACA amnesty
His judge filling (I guess?). His SCOTUS picks have been somewhat of a disappointment on some key issues, but it is better than what the other side would have put in.
Hope he goes through with his plan to make schooling more patriotic

Things he has done that I didn't like:
Been dickish to allies. Should have coordinated with allies in trade deal instead of targeting them. Would have been a lot more effective.
He should have taken much more drastic federal action instead of tweeting "LAW & ORDER" every other day.
He needs to know when to STFU. During debates, I like that he goes for the throat. Like that quote against Hillary "you'd be in jail". Good if witty, but this round, he just acted like a loud tard.
Hasn't made enough progress on the wall (although I'm not sure how much blame he has since he has been fought the whole way)
Hasn't done much about internet censorship (again, that is Congress' job, but I'm sure he could have done more to push them on it)

I don't blame him for "200k coronavirus deaths". He isn't responsible for what states do, and way before they said 200k was best case scenario.

Those are a lot of the high points. I'm sure I missed a lot of big ones because this is very late. Overall, I think he has been better than the Bush's and better than McCain and Romney would have been.
I just wish he would deliver on more of his 2016 promises. He seemed much more in tune with the needs of his base back then. Now half the time he spits in the face of his base by pandering to groups that won't vote for him.

That is kind of a tough question. Foreign policy is incredibly complex.

I don’t think we should be much involved in regime-change, whether it be direct or indirect.

In terms of direct interactions, I don’t think there is one war we are currently involved in that I think is justifiable. They need to end very soon.

My profile says I am a “nationalist” and “non-interventionist”.

Nationalism is a litmus test for every foreign affair we engage in: is there a very tangible benefit from engaging in this for our citizens and country?

“Non-interventionist” is not to be confused with “isolationist”. Isolationist means staying out of foreign affairs almost entirely, while non-interventionist is a less binding term. The way I’m using it is to avoid war whenever possible.

In terms of our current foreign relations, I think we should reassess some of our alliances. Like NATO, are we really willing to go to war to defend Bulgaria and Albania? I’m sure not. We are foreign policy bankrupt, meaning if a lot of these alliances are called in at once, we are unfit to provide for their needs.

We need to work with other countries for goals when possible and try to mutually meet all of our needs to reduce the burden we take on for global peacekeeping. But in the end, our goals are always supreme

Absolutely. Countries with higher economic freedom have much better qualities of life than those with more Marxist-style governments. This freedom is indicative of capitalist ideals in those countries.

The USSR and China both experienced higher productivity, GDP growth, and stronger economies from economic liberalization.

That being said, I don’t believe in a laissez-fairre, libertarian-esque form of capitalism. The Industrial Revolution is proof that capitalism is good but that unfettered capitalism leads to abuse of workers and consumers.

It is very hard to tell. Similar to last election, the polls are heavily against Trump. He has been making a lot of ground, but he is still down. However, his voter enthusiasm is way higher than Biden's, so his turnout is likely to be greater.

I think the upcoming debates are likely to shift things in Trump's direction among undecided voters, assuming they don't have Biden hopped up on meth or he doesn't have an earpiece in to help him do well.

Assuming no widescale voter fraud, which is possible under such a consequential election when we haven't done mail-in voting nationally before, I think Trump will win with a smaller margin than last time.

Mail-in Voters lean Biden, so if he wins after the fact but Trump wins on election night, our country is done. Tons of lawsuits and a lot of people won't be accepting the results. This is a fairly likely scenario.

I have kinda been all over the place, so bear with me lol.

I started actually caring in 2016 and decided I was a moderate conservative.

I was kind of a dick, thinking most poor people were lazy and the only cultural issue I cared about was abortion.

Then I had a one-year long libertarian phase where I thought all drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. That sort of thing. Tucker Carlson probably pushed me out of that in a debate with Charlie Kirk about drugs, and I just realized that too much freedom and not giving a sh*t about your fellow Americans' well-being isn't how I want to think.

Over the past two-ish years, I have just slowly moved more right-wing and populist. No longer a free trade advocate. I find cultural issues as the most important goal right now, and that immigration is in the way of both that and the ability for lower and middle class Americans to receive fair wages. A culturally homogeneous people is necessary to have a cohesive society.

So now, I'm super nationalist. I believe in putting America and its citizens first in all foreign policy, whether that be war or trade.
Markets usually work for the benefit of people, but sometimes they need to be aligned with American interests via incentives and disincentives. So perhaps a bit of a corporatist, just not the crony type we have today.
Very reactionary. Our traditions and old values were what made us an empire before we began to die off.

You just see the crumbling and polarization of your country, its abdication of its values, and you see a not-so-bright future ahead for your future children. You see the Left side spewing blood libels against your people long enough, talking about your "privilege" and "fragility" and how "racist" your ancestors and country are (completely rife with double standards might I add), and eventually you realize that a future with them in charge will probably be a world in which my children would be abused. That is what moves me rightward.

Patrick J. Buchanan has probably been the biggest influence on me recently. I encourage you to check him out, either with a book or just listen to a speech. Hoping Tucker Carlson runs for president in 2024. His right-wing take on populism is just what we need right now.

Kind of a scatterbrained response, but it gives the general trends in my thinking, I believe.

A lot of other issues with the prison system aside, I'd probably support Three Strikes Laws.

Generally, the debate about prisons is framed as "punishment vs rehabilitation", but that is very limited in scope. There is a third purpose to imprisonment, and that is keeping the general public safe.

Now, when discussing "Three Strikes Laws", I'm assuming you are referring to a law stating "if you have, in the past, committed two violent crimes or felonies, the punishment for the third is much more severe" more or less. I support that because- 1 pretty bad mistake? Ok, sure, we aren't perfect. 2 bad mistakes? Maybe. 3 is definitely pushing it and is seeming to be a habit. Some people are just violent people that cannot be changed, sad as it is to say that.

Too much of this is framed on the perpetrator. They say: you are being too harsh on them. But what I personally ask myself is: what about the victims of these crimes? If they commit three felonies or violent crimes, they are likely to keep doing them. It is then the job of the state to understand that this is a violent person who should be off the streets because they are very likely to continue hurting people.

I hope I adequately answered your question. :^)

100%. Had a whole debate on this site about why he was the best. Unfortunately my opponent didn’t finish it. Must have determined that Nixon was indeed the best :^)

That is really tough. Maybe Fallout 3, just because I played it a ton as a kid. Fallout: NV, Dark Souls 1, some Halos, and some CODs were also really good.

Most friends have it, but I got an Xbox 360 before I knew any of them. Halo is a good franchise. I like supporting American companies, so that is a plus.
i just wish we had Bloodborne :/

Definitely not the Planck temperature.

It shouldn't really be a thing you try for. In my experience, you should just try to be friends with a girl, and as you learn more about each other, you usually know if that is what she wants or if would prefer a relationship. Always be yourself in terms of personality and truthful.

I asked if you wanted me to give you a medal :P

Oh, you already know the answer: my boy, Nixon!

I feel that he was much more impressive. He was a lawyer that became a politician. He persecuted communists back when that was socially acceptable. After committing political suicide and losing multiple races, he began planning. He gathered a team and somehow took the presidency, and even gained the South for Republicans to this day. That type of strategic mind, mixed with his foreign policy genius makes him incredibly impressive.

Reagan was just an actor who became a politician. He was funny and witty. He contributed to the end of the Cold War. But honestly, he doesn't seem quite as substantive.

Not really sure at the moment. Raised Catholic. If I had to choose one that seemed most plausible and had the best moral system, I would choose that. Go back and forth between agnostic and that, I guess, so I didn't put one down.

Eh, in terms of 'stuff', I don't really want anything. Maybe a video game or two.

A perfect birthday would probably be to take a nice trip somewhere. I'd rather have an experience than a 'gift'. I like hiking whenever I can, but I don't live around any state parks.

Won't happen because of school, but that would make it very nice.

:)

Fun Fact: I share my birthday with Mark Twain and Winston Churchill.

I like it!

Not a bad song, but not an overall fan.

I have weird tastes in music: Rap, 90's&2000's alternative, Baroque/Classical, and patriotic music(for any country).

Either my initials or big, moldy d*ck. Your choice. Then rocks. I could either like rocks or am saying that I rock.

21 is my favorite number.

I wasn't aware that my bio said I was leaving. So, I'm not 'back', but I'm here.

I absolutely love turtles. One of the few animals I actually care about.

I have a turtle. Its name is Yurtle. :D

I am also anti-Iraq War. I will admit, I am much less informed on the war in Afghanistan, but it would appear that was more of an attack on terrorism than a regime change war. For that, I believe that it could be justified. Our goal has been accomplished, and I think we should withdraw promptly. I am generally against war in the Middle East as I very much care for the lives of our servicemen, and I feel our involvement seems to create much more tension than it resolves. I also don't believe the burden of fighting global terrorism should fall primarily at our feet.

I'm a GOAT because i'm not a sheep like those lefties we know and love. :)

I try to stay informed because politics is important and I love not getting along with people. I ask you sir, why are you the reeeeaall GOAT?

I think this is a very in-depth question that will be hard to answer all at once. I will give the most simplistic answer I can.

1. It should defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, meaning it shall provide a police force, courts, and a military to make sure none of these are violated. This is the absolutely main purpose of any government.

2. There is occasionally some regulation that needs to be put in place. Very important to have anti-trust laws. Also, it is important to have some environmental regulations, since there isn't always a good market incentive to protect it. How strict these are is very nuanced and varies based on the issue.

3. After that, it gets very subjective. I believe that the US should allow the market to be as efficient as possible. It should deregulate many industries and lower taxes. Most welfare programs should be severely reduced. I will use the example of health insurance. Allow competition across state lines, deregulate, etc. When the prices are reduced from competition, the government can pick up the tab for the few thousand I believe still couldn't afford it. This would ideally be done through the private market with vouchers to maintain competition.

4. There could be a few I missed, but this hits the main points. I want the government to stay out of our lives as much as feasible.

I think that in concept, unions are pretty good. However, in practice, they are rather detrimental to our economy.

They make American auto manufacturers uncompetitive by nearly bankrupting them with their pension plans. The teacher's union constantly demands money, but their teachers with tenure have no need to be competitive. They are very much against performance-based pay. They are against school choice and vouchers, which would allow parents to send their kids to school that best meet their needs, rather than whatever school zone they are in.

The aforementioned pension plans in the auto industry and the excessive workplace regulations they fight for are why companies have a high incentive to outsource jobs and hire illegal immigrants.

In a perfect world, I would support no minimum wage and bare bones regulations on industries and let unions negotiate all of that. Unions in fact did some really good work during the Industrial Revolution. However, as of late, they have been taking advantage of their power. Realistically, state-wide regulations and minimum wages are what I would support.

PS all government unions are trash. Those are a huge conflict of interest.

The main reason i did the debate is because people only think of Watergate, not his amazing foreign policy, environmental policy, civil rights, etc. I like him personally because of his disgust for communists and hippies, but policy-wise, he is still likely the best.