Has anyone seen the debate between Dave Smith and Dinesh D'Souza? D'Souza has been obsessively posting in favor of Israel, and making fake 'documentaries' making really weird claims about the Bible prophesying the fight between Hamas and Israel. Really bizarre.
But he humiliated himself utterly in this debate. I had to listen to it again just to make sure that I heard everything correctly.
He claimed that the Cold War was a war, even though 'bullets didn't fly', because missiles were built. He simultaneously claimed that invading Venezuela, killing a hundred people and kidnapping their president was not a war.
He said that Europe is too lax in its enforcement of 'hate speech laws'. He cited the Emirates as a good example of fighting Islamism and quoted one of their guys as saying: "In America and Europe, anti-semitism is an opinion, here it is a crime".
He claimed that America helping the Islamists in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets was an example of an intervention that was a great success.
He unironically cited the "narco-terrorist" line about Venezuela to justify the invasion. Later on, he admitted that it was just a pretext and claimed that it was about Maduro allegedly emptying prisons into the US.
At one point, he said that he only supports wars that are in accordance with "our values and our interests". Then he said that he supports Venezuela because they have oil that we want. His values include stealing other people's oil?
He's also a Machiavellian through and through. He advocated for ignoring the constitutional prescription that only Congress can declare war, saying that Congress doesn't do much. Exactly the leftist excuse for judicial lawmaking: "Congress didn't do what we wanted, so the judiciary had to act." And at the end, he mocked Dave Smith for believing that Congress should have the ability to declare war, not the president, because Congress is easier to influence by moneyed interests. As if Smith would then say: "You know, Dinesh, I never thought of it that way. I guess that since Congress is easier to manipulate, we should just ignore the Constitution".
All in all, a complete embarrassment. It really wasn't worth the $7,000.
I hate Indians. They don't belong here.
You should work on that. Learn to hate.
I think it's a compromise that's workable. The important thing is that there is agreement on them being expelled.
How is it possible not to hate them?
Are you guys some kinda cucks who are unable to hate disgusting and vile things, such as jeets?
You clearly haven’t had enough exposure to jeets to be saying that.
You're talking to a pagan who cheered the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Explain why it's good to hate Indians.
I don't think it's "good" to hate Indians, or anyone for that matter. Rather, given the cultural over-exposure over the last few decades, I am not surprised when people do.
You have to admit they speed-ran becoming the most hated race, with Somalians maybe now outpacing.
I remember a time when India was thought of more or less positively - an exotic land filled with wise gurus and lovable scamps.
Now people think: poo, rape and scams.
They did. But I do think they get more hatred than is deserved, probably because they're taking "good" jobs with H1B, from people who have the social capital to fight back.
Many years ago, I said that Pakistan and Somalia are two places you definitely want no immigrants from. I think that withstood the test of time.
I remember during the Second Gulf War he made the same argument that if it was blood for oil, that lower gas prices benefited Americans so it was a justifiable position. It's kind of a valid position if you're the bully, not so great if you're the nerd.
Do you know the last country the US "declared" war on? It was Romania in 1943/44, I forget the exact year. Think about all the military conflicts the US has been in since the early 40s, not one had a war declaration. Declaring war is just a quaint notion in history. There were no war declarations during the Revolutionary War or the Civil War
The declaration of Independence was a declaration of war. They literally said "We are independent of your rule". The UK fired the first shots on Americans, you don't need to declare war if you are defending yourself. The Civil War was also a defensive war by definition, the Confederacy attacked Union forts first.
Oh if you're defending yourself you don't declare war, ahhh I see like how we didn't declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor? Oh wait we did.
WWII wasn't a defensive war, we invaded Japanese held territory and Axis Europe. If you are defending yourself from invasion, meaning foreign troops on US soil, then a declaration of war is not needed. The declaration was only needed once we sent troops from US soil to invade foreign soil.
Not that anyone really cares about the Constitution, it's laws are broken every day.
Which is bad, of course. Maybe it started when Truman argued that he didn't need a declaration of war for Korea because the UN authorized it, which made it a 'police action'.
That said, maybe I misstated this. I don't recall if this was specifically about declarations of war or Congressional authorization. I'm pretty sure Dinesh was arguing against any role for Congress.
Weird comment. Was the Revolutionary War before or after the US Constitution? And who were you supposed to declare war on during a civil war where you're not even acknowledging that you're fighting anything but an internal insurrection?
It's not a quaint notion. In fact, the reason that you don't need a declaration of war is the reason the US is addicted to wars.
I'm just pointing out that the US has a history of conflicts without formal declarations of war.
I think 1789 to 1944 is quite a long period. I wouldn't call it a quaint notion.
Since WW2 and the imperial state? Sure. You can judge for yourself if you think this has been good or bad.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the US never declared war on any tribes during the Indian Wars
Hey, if anyone could correct you, it's not me.
I'm not sure if that is meant as a compliment or a reproach
A reproach against myself for not knowing anything of any Indian war.
Dinesh is the prodigal Reaganite Neocon. That’s been his grift for decades.
A 2020's Bill Kristol
Doesn't Bill Kristol hold that position?
He's a dim light now, let's make the Jeet Kristol then
it is not proper for an indian to comment on us politics
I have to listen to this as it's an insane stance to have.
What?
That was my reaction as well. But he framed that as 'fighting Islamism', so it's OK, not?
Link
The quote wasn't exactly right (I reproduced it from memory), but it was similar.
Fighting Islamism, hilarious lol. The only reason it's a fight is because traitors let them win.
I remember during one of the Gulf Wars, one of the reasons given for not invading Iraq was because they killed a bunch of Muslims with their border skirmishes with Iran.
Muslims, much like Communist, seem to like to fight each other to prove they are the true believers.
While it's true that Muslims love to fight Muslims, this is different. Obviously, Saddam the secularist wasn't fighting Iran to show who is the real Muslim. Iraq invaded Iran in large part due to the USG asking them. It then used chemical weapons that the USG supplied them, while it used its diplomatic leverage to prevent any consequences for thos actions.
It makes sense to protect people who committed war crimes on your behalf.
Europe too lax? What is this guy smoking
What your witnessing in real time is a foreigner, with low IQ and with no understanding of the culture or the history of the nation realizing that the the nation is run by jews so he's trying to pander to jews without any real knowledge of anything.
Dinesh has been the greatest gift to the identitarian right.
Good job; you fell for it.