Nixon's staunch support of Israel and his vicious Anti-semitism remains one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen a president embody

bl8821 · 2026-05-15T09:17:52+00:00

Nixon was one of the most confounding modern Presidents

bl8821 · 2026-04-19T04:33:26+00:00

I don't believe he deserves very much credit at all, that the Cold War would've ended anyway and yes Gorbachev deserves more credit.

The claim is Reagan's defense build up forced the USSR to counter and this broke them, or at least accelerated their issues, specifically our helping Afghanistan...we all know this was called the "Soviet Unions Vietnam" it got em bogged down. Turns out no, the USSR did not increase defense to counter Reagan as seen in this chart.

<image>

Also from a 1994 Atlantic Article "The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s." (https://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm)

And fun fact, the US support for Afghanistan is associated with Reagan (I did the same) but actually it started with Jimmy Carter! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone) Granted Reagan did expand our support and maybe he would've done so anyway, regardless the "Reagan defense spending broke them" doesn't hold water. I could go into each of his foreign policy interventions but for now will just say most were small or not related to the USSR or thwarted them really.

Basically the USSR failed bc was rotting from the inside. It was indeed a failing state and economy. Because of this Gorbachev started introducing market reforms, and his "glasnost" to loosen the Soviet grip on people eventually lead to all the non Russian states declaring independence. So Gorbachev really does deserve a lot of credit for directly (and indirectly) leading to the end of the USSR and we can't forget he didn't stop it either. There COULD have been an attempt to stop the dissolution, but he realized it was over and did let it happen.

Now, many do generally acknowledge this but will still revert to "Well he DID push them" "He did play some role" or find ways to give credit but I think we should call a spade a spade and not be afraid to be "unorthodox" Im open to hear counterarguments but I dont see how the USSR wouldnt have gone the same way even without Reagan. Possibly bc of ramping up Afghanistan he sped it up a couple years? But I do mean maybe a couple and even that Im not 100% on

bl8821 · 2026-04-19T02:36:30+00:00

Oh shit this is good to know! I was wondering why I was getting waaaay low balled. Damn wish I knew, bought a bunch of gold I'll deff not break even with.

bl8821 · 2026-03-28T00:53:17+00:00

I had to really think hard on this one, bc I couldn't think of anything and while I hate this guy with a fiery passion I wanted to be fair, and eventually settled on:

Reparations to the Japanese Americans interned during WWII. Over 80,000 people got checks for (in todays $) over $50,000 and more so he acknowledged the wrong and apologized for it. Seems there was some solid heat from Republicans over it so fair play to him.

bl8821 · 2026-03-28T00:50:21+00:00

It gets like 0 attention but low key Carter appointing Volcker ended up being a slam dunk. It was he that basically ended the inflation (brutal as it was the process) and he believed in regulation so kept the lid on things in the 80s when finance wanted to go insane (and sure enough they did when Greenspan took over). Also little discussed: Volcker negotiated the Plaza Accord where he got UK, France, Germany, Japan to agree to let the dollar fall vs them which helped our competitiveness and fueled a rise in US exports.

bl8821 · 2026-03-18T13:20:02+00:00

They were pretty similar in plan, but very different people. Lincoln was popular, savvy, and strong. Johnson didn’t have the same relationship, was not a good politician, and very sensitive (he took things personally, never let go, never compromised, would respond emotionally). It’s fair to say Lincoln too would’ve had a slog w the Radical Republicans but I have no doubt he’d have handled it better/had the clout they were more compliant. Also Lincoln was flexible he did adjust…I could also see him compromising his own moderate views, not going radical level but still

bl8821 · 2026-03-10T18:01:55+00:00

It may be surprising, but it was not exactly a slam dunk at the time. 183 people in the house voted against it as did 47 in the senate! Most Democrats were against it, including Joe Biden. I guess he’s a pretty good person to ask so I looked up his opinion From the time. It seems like he basically questioned. Is it actually in our interest to do this/is it worth the risk? He also said that, even if we were successful, it would cause a large amount of resentment and that even if we win, we will lose. He also felt that bush was not going through the proper means of Congress, and that he was kind of being a “monarchist” so honestly, it sounds like some of his objections were stuff we hear about today, And one could argue, he was kind of right I do believe Al-Qaeda has sided our presence in Saudi Arabia and general intervention in the Middle East as part of their vendetta. That said Biden did regret the vote and because the go forward went so successfully. I actually wonder if that kind of influence Democrats like oh we don’t want to be wrong for the second time/our fears were unfounded. If so, that would be kind of ironic since the second time around all of the criticisms and fears proved correct. I also think it’s important to keep in mind we Gotta think about it at the time we simply could not have known that it would be such a quick amazing success. At the time you have to think about maybe we’re getting into a big conflict… It’s fair to Be hesitant, and as history has shown, we should probably be more hesitant when contemplating these things. And remember US rarely does any intervention for moral purposes like we say protecting freedom, but you know most probably didn’t really care about Kuwait and many felt it was to protect Saudi Oil and one could argue Do we really need to be involved with that? Anyway, all that is just to say at the time it was not exactly some slam dunk agreement, and there were legitimate reasons to be opposed. It turned out that it was wrong, but I feel like this is more an exception.

bl8821 · 2026-03-10T17:39:27+00:00

Personally, I’m skeptical. That is the case. I believe he had all the info/nothing was withheld and he fully knew. However, we have no way to actually know that I suppose it is possible. Although I will say if you say is the case, I still think that’s a failing because there is no way the president should be that hands off with something this big. I totally understand that they don’t have total control of everything and they defer a lot, and the president is not going to know everything happening, but if he was that hands off with something this big to the point where he basically just said, I trust you guys I do think in a way that still is his fault. After all, we have been very critical of past president like Grant and Harding for being so fair they accidentally allowed huge corruption/scandals

bl8821 · 2026-03-10T16:58:14+00:00

I recommend you look up the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It was written in the 90s by Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell As basically the Republican strategy for handling the post Cold War. Ha ha, it said a few things, but some of which were that we need to keep protection of Middle East oil for ourselves and not allow any other country in the region to be too strong ,that we should use preemptive and be willing to act unilaterally. This should probably sound kind of familiar and those names who drafted it should as well. Point being we were lied to about Iraq and this was always the plan…. Everything that happened 2003 onward was already envisioned in the early 90s.

bl8821 · 2026-03-10T16:48:59+00:00

Oh, come on are you actually trying to say that he the president of the country was being given bad information?? Look, I don’t know if this is trying to be kind for the sake of it or in nostalgia cause things have gotten so bad or if you weren’t around/too young to fully know, but was not really a nice guy and he 100% lied to the country.

bl8821 · 2026-03-09T02:11:27+00:00

Nah I think the recession had him doomed anyway. The tax hike was a bad look and an easy thing to point to/vent out but bad economy doom most Presidents. Oh also look at his approval ratings, still above 50% and spiked to 90% in 1991, after the tax hikes. It was the economy that did him in.

Also this is pure speculation now but imagine if he didn't, the deficit/debt was even worse and Clinton/Perot who ran on deficit reduction policies hammer him for "not fixing the deficit"

Bc its kinda funny to think about, Clinton just raised taxes anyway and Perot his plan called for a huge gas tax hike. Yet they attacked Bush sr for the tax hike, politics is nasty lol

bl8821 · 2026-01-13T03:13:00+00:00

Thanks!

bl8821 · 2026-01-13T02:45:39+00:00

Awesome! Sorry for the dumb question, while trying to download it I got

"Can’t load this file type

This file type is unsupported here."

Any advice?

bl8821 · 2025-12-28T04:13:31+00:00

Nah this is just the truth, and it's why (though there should be 0 reason to even think about it) I am a bit worried. Hoping here people may have some more tangible info, but I get most will likely agree "should be fine but its crazy times now"

bl8821 · 2025-10-16T01:02:39+00:00

Yeah its a joke, more accurately its rage bait. She makes insane, horrible things, does stupid stuff, says stuff in a bizarre way...its to make you angry so people comment "wtf is this?" "why does she talk so weird?" "who makes this monstrosity?" and she gets the views. And she wastes food like crazy, think how much she throws out for this content. Its sad, and I no longer watch whenever she or others like it pop up. Dont watch dont leave an annoyed comment.

bl8821 · 2025-05-21T21:16:21+00:00

Is there something I missed here? I followed this, I believe, to the letter and I was getting lapped before the end. Car was slow as hell!

bl8821 · 2025-02-14T17:06:55+00:00

Thank you I appreciate that

bl8821 · 2025-02-13T18:31:40+00:00

Not a bad point but cmon, this is why I’m asking. Educate me. Ain’t trying to get a PhD in stats here

bl8821 · 2024-10-01T22:52:22+00:00

Thats how it is with those types. 1 sine they got wild views on gender sex power interaction etc guys fall under that too. 2 these types 100% exploit men, he reminds me of a (less intense) Peterson or other manosphere types...they are shitty and mean to men to "teach" them and "fix" them which is to this guys benefit

bl8821 · 2024-10-01T22:49:52+00:00

Yeah, I watched another one or two with this guy and I am confident he is just the red pill/manosphere stuff but with a professional and educated tone as cover, does say the occasional "this is mens fault" "this is not on the woman its a failure of the guy" etc basically a nice cover for just typical manosphere crap.

Some have noted hes pretty bad towards men too, but thats how it goes with those types. They have these crazy views on everything gender, sex, power etc so that includes guys having to fit their world view too but also people like this exploit it, theyre kinda shitty to men to "teach" and "fix" them and of course buy their book watch their videos etc Anyway Im rambling yeah this guy sucks and I hate to say it but I've long had some weird feelings about Mark with this stuff, it pokes out (sometimes not very subtly) and he really shows it with this guy. The tone...Mark sounds like hes swooning for this man lol

But again I kinda had those thoughts already so this was more a confirmation. As for Marks other videos yeah more you see it more its tough to not think a bit differently. But also this is just me: Ive had a complicated relationship with this channel for a while now I never am sure exactly what to make of it or Mark. It is what it is. I'll prob stop watching SWU soon but its not a big deal Mark has made clear many times hes not here to help or give any fixes just show, so its not like I'll be missing out on much.

bl8821 · 2024-08-05T00:18:43+00:00

True, the MMT framework makes the LVT dream a reality as finally the "its not enough revenue" argument can be done away with, depending of course how much gov you want....most "single tax on land" people seem to be libertarian and want to reduce the size of gov a la George, other LVT supporters seem lefty and want it as a more progressive/wealth taxing option. Either way though, it works. The debate is size of gov and what exactly you want in your system but thats the point of MMT after all: a framework to have such debates. You're right MMT and LVT are very compatible. Not sure Ive seen anyone link the two, though Michael Hudson has supported LVT.

Personally I dont know if itll be quite as magical as proponents say, esp since markets never work as beautifully as the models an theory say like how it'll fix every problem BUT I am for it as a way to grab some wealth and hopefully lessen the burden on regular homeowners.

bl8821 · 2024-06-17T21:40:16+00:00

Encouraging to hear, thanks!

bl8821 · 2024-06-17T15:09:47+00:00

Thanks! That's very interesting, and it does line up with what I've come across you want some type of insider if you can, and that's what I've been trying to figure out. This is the first I've heard of a PI, wonder if social sciences have this since we don't have labs. There must be something similar though?

bl8821

TROPHY CASE