USA

As a smart person or just someone who supports democracy, liberal values and prosperity you should support the United States. No, i am not being ironic, or baiting or something. I am totally honest right now.
The USA while having some flaws and doing mistakes from time to time is still the best party to stick to. They do defend their interests and the interests of their allies, they provide great economic and financial opportunities and they let those who are with them to prosper and exersice freedom and demicracy.

Who would you rather side with?
Germany/France have only selfish interests in the heart and they only aim to rob and use their "'allies"' (more like puppets) for the Germans'/the French' benefits and profit.What they did (and keep doing btw) to eastern and southern europe is just so disgusting and low that i don't even have enough words to describe how horrible it is.
China? Oppressive authoritarian state with no value of human life whatsoever, no freedom, no democracy. Not to mention that their economy is on the verge of collapse.
UK? They'll stick to the US anyway (as they should have done much earlier).
And the rest are just too weak/poor or even totalitarian to even think about joining them.

So the USA is still the only right choice if you wish you and your beloved nation to prosper.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Democratic liberal values in the current era are for people who want to stay pampered and comfortable while the IDENTITY of the nation at large becomes nonexistant slowly but surely

You only really hit the surface of knowledge when it comes to the political situation, sure USA seems like it's the good guy but in reality the USA is compromised and not working for the interests of themselves anymore.
BTW, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is just making puppet states out of European countries.

In all honesty, the world would be a slightly better place if you died in your sleep tonight.

...

Hahaha how come? Because I understand that human values is linked to race?
Ironically, when white people become a minority and die out any kind of liberal moralist political sphere will completely vanish.

Liberal democracy is shit.

Lel the kremlinbot (yes, you of course) is at it again.

shut the fuck up nawalny

>Because I understand that human values is linked to race?

shut up retard

...

pls not fooling anyone

How come you can't logically dispute what I say instead of telling me to shut up?

Btw i see kremlin produced some OC recently. But it won't help since the world knows that Russia is the biggest supporter and funder of terrorism worldwide.

...

Ignore the kremlinbot.

At least I bump your threads making your useless life better for a while.

hes right tho

t. DeShawn Hernandez

so this is the power of American posts...

The USA started out great, because its political system was the perfect balance between efficiency and liberal values, but that's not the case anymore. The two-party system has turned the country into an oligarchy full of lobbyists by forcing an unhealthy political equilibrium onto it.

>ad hominems
so this is the power of leftist Sup Forums..............

>I'm so far right that everyone else is a leftist

When you just throw out insults at me I can only assume you are doing it because you are on the left, maybe if you gave me some logical basis to your replies I wouldn't do that

Firstly, Mr. Mutt, what is "white"? I'm not one of those idiots who say that race is a social construct, but I will say that the boundaries between races are social constructs, the constructs of imperialists in days of old. How would you define "white" when Sicilians can look darker than some Lebanese? Wouldn't that already prove that the intellectual revolutions originating in Europe were a product of culture, not race?

Secondly, can you prove that no other peoples may espouse these human values that you speak of?

Finally a sane person.

Ah, the bipolarity of ameripolitics never ceases to amuse met.

>what is "white"?
Do you have this issue regarding other races?
My claims are based on demographics and geographical awareness. African countries are not at all liberal and non-European "Americans" always vote for more socialism and bigger government. Also, how the demographic change affected the country of Haiti.

Demographics don't matt-

>Do you have this issue regarding other races?
Why wouldn't I? Why would you ask that?
>African countries are not at all liberal
Nice generalising fifty countries into one lump.

All you are talking about is Africans. Why?

Your point being?

I'm bringing that to light because you don't seem to have this issue regarding other races, you fucking racist

You can include other countries as well: For example, some asian countries, like Vietnam or the Phillipines, aren't very found of freedom

You utter arse, I'm a Chinese person from Southeast Asia.
How did you ever come to the conclusion that I'm racist or whatever?

those who try to divide european nations (EEUU included) = EU propangada department

>EEUU
The US*

>European countries are more liberal because of race and not because that's where liberalism was born

Firstly, Mr. Kim, what is "asian"? I'm not one of those idiots who say that race is a social construct, but I will say that the boundaries between races are social constructs, the constructs of imperialists in days of old. How would you define "asian" when Chinese can look darker than some Korean? Wouldn't that already prove that the intellectual revolutions originating in Asia were a product of culture, not race?

Why do Americans always relate everything to race and politics?

Exactly, Europeans had the guts to speak out against autocracy and that culminated in both scientific and political revolutions. It doesn't have much at all to do with race.

>comes into my country illegally and votes for more welfare and takes jobs
>why do americans connect politics with race so much?

What are you blabbering about? Firstly, I'm Chinese; secondly, "East Asian" doesn't have well-defined boundaries, either.
Where do you draw the borders? Where are those in Turkestan, and those in the Tai-inhabited mountains of southeast Asia?
Your posts are bizarre.

Don't worry majority of western countries think exactly same, don't forget that imageboards are populated by weird people with fringe opinions.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I'm racist against white people. How on earth...?

I'm gay, I'm primarily attracted to white people. What's wrong with you?

Why do Americans always relate EVERYTHING to race and politics?

Why do you seem annoyed enough to keep repeating you're Chinese but not Korean? Asian is just a social construct haha, what even is "Asian" dude?

>human values is linked to race?
Just no.

Refer to I reject that races are social constructs, but I accept that the boundaries between races are social constructs.

Well, the rise of liberalism in Europe is not so black and while like "ancien regime was evil!", and neither the revolutionaries where good people as well.

Of course they weren't, the Reign of Terror was horrid and all. But that isn't the point.

I'm 100% behind the USA. Love the land, love the culture, but above all that, I love the founding principles, the values (what's left of them), and the fact that they're generally on my country's side.

Some of the people are a bit tacky or a bit gross, but that's true of anywhere. I've been over there and people were all friendly. It makes me sad to see racists mock them for not being white enough, or snobby Euros mock them for not being sophisticated enough. I think there are far, far worse countries out there, people-wise.

I wish they'd stayed in the Commonwealth, but I guess we always have Canada.

>muttland
>democracy
U mad. Same kike oligarchy as ours, and tv clowns larping as """politics""".

If you reject that races are social constructs then why do you act like they are?
How come countries outside of Europe and the USA aren't moralist economic superpowers then?

What do you mean?
>How come countries outside of Europe and the USA aren't moralist economic superpowers then?
Because the enlightenment is in Europe?

>I'm primarily attracted to white people
Das racis

Learn to read between the lines, I've mirrored what you have said it sounded racist as fuck, therefore exposing this stupid double standard about whites and other races.
>Because the enlightenment is in Europe?
Why wasn't it in Mongolia? Mongolians are equal to Europeans, it's just melanin!

>this is what russians actually believe
Explain Trump winning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump
>She is the first Jewish member of a First Family.[2]

desu Trump loves Israel

>I've mirrored what you have said it sounded racist as fuck
It doesn't sound racist to me at all, what are you talking about?

"Chinese" has very blurred boundaries, especially with the tiny Chinese urheimat expanding into Manchurian and Nanyue lands.

>Why wasn't it in Mongolia?
Why attribute it to race instead of say, topography?

Some of the ethnicities with very blurred boundaries are in Asia. Burma, China, Siam; all were products of massive expansion into what were once foreign lands. I don't get how that is racist?

You do realize the reason why people's races are a thing is because of topography, yes?

>smart
>Liberal
Look what they did to your country with their democracy and capitalism . Rigged the first election, destroyed the economy and threw your country men into paranoia so now they cling to the only thing that gave them any hope, a populist like Putin.
Explain a rich Jew lover winning

Other things depend on topography too, you know?

Sure, but those of things are very modest compared to it. We're just not taught about it, because it's very politically incorrect and would encourage critical thinking

>but those of things are very modest compared to it
The splitting up of the western Romance dialect continuum into three by the Pyrenees and the Alps is "modest"?
The prosperity of cities along important trade routes - Constantinople, for example - as compared to those off them - such as Kerch or Varna - is "modest"?
The industrial boom in cities from Birmingham to Pittsburgh, instead of other cities, is "modest"?

Folk in Cyprus got copper from their mountains. Folk in Mongolia didn't because they sat on the steppes, and the Sayan mountains are inhospitable. I wouldn't say the effect of topography is modest.

It's postulated by some that the reason Europe expanded and China didn't is because China had sufficient agricultural land; with its large landmass it had enough flour for the north and enough rice for the south. But European topography is so peninsular and mountainous, with arid areas of Spain and Apennine peaks of Italy, that expansion was a necessity in obtaining resources.

The Atlas was called the breadbasket of Rome for good reason. Italy couldn't produce enough on its finite space and had to turn to the Barbary Coast. But China was always too big for its own good, and so were the North Indian kingdoms.

Of course some would say that the Song Dynasty of China was nearing the harnessing of coal and steam when the Mongols invaded and set them back.

If that were the case, manufacturing capabilities would have increased vastly in China, leading to a fall in prices of goods, and subsequently a push for more equitable political measures.

But that happened in Europe instead.

Loool. Never knew that.

And who did these things? What people is attributed to these historical events?
It is not modest in comparison, but modest because those are events are a subjection of topography, which ties into race
You can go on about minute details and shift the goal posts but this would be intellectually dishonest for the discussion, it is ultimately about race and what it means.

You asked what is "White", yes? White is European, European is European history, and European history is European because of it's topography and the peoples that evolved there. The Americas, Australia, etc are all extensions of Europe, and when you replace the native populations of these countries you ultimately bastardize the politics, the international role of the countries, and yet you have the audacity to ask me or other Americans why we ever care or why it's even a big deal

>it is ultimately about race and what it means.
And discount differences in culture?

Why didn't any significant intellectual revolution come out of the Balkans north of Thessaly and west of Silivri? Why do great thinkers - Leibniz, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, all come from several specific modern-day countries?

Can you still attribute that to "Europeanism"?

>yet you have the audacity to ask me or other Americans why we ever care or why it's even a big deal
Why is it a big deal?

>those are events are a subjection of topography, which ties into race
So? Topography is a cause of several things; and you're proposing a causative link between a few of its consequences, instead?

RACE IS CULTURE please get that through your head

>Why is it a big deal even though you told me why it is?
>JAWN LOCKE
Lmao, I'm done. Good bye

>RACE IS CULTURE
Ah yes, of course!

It would have come to that one way or another, wouldn't it.

Whole "jewish" media was against him.

>Liberal
>ex soviet crooks
>liberal

>when the Mongols invaded and set them back.
Yes we too blame dirty mongorians for backwardness of Russia.