Truly evil leaders who aren't acknowledged as such

Woodrow Wilson is comparable to the likes of Mao and Stalin, and a truly evil, heinous man.

Care to explain?
He was just a bit conceited and worked not very well with others.

And his wife was worse than he was.

>17th amendment
>Got America involved in WWI for no reason
>Directly responsible for WWII
>Allowed Bolsheviks to rise and Romanovs to die
>Criticized the constitution alongside violating it, being the first President in history to do the former
>Kickstarted modern Leftism which has been destroying the world since
To name a few

It's hilarious how bad /pol/tards are at fitting in.

He was based

where's the bad stuff

It's hilarious how bad /leftypol/tards are at fitting in.

Shut the fuck up retard.

Not even as bad as Reagan desu

>Selling weapons to Iran illegally
>Backing Bin Laden to fight proxy wars against the Soviets
>Death squads across south america
>Ignoring the AIDS epidemic killing thousands of US citizens
>Absolutely gutted unions and paved the way for globalization and outsourcing of american jobs

Reagan was a piece of shit

That all sounds good desu.

It's all un-American fascism and entirely corrupt statism that, after Lincoln's tyranny, has made the great country of the United States of America unrecognizable from how it was originally intended.

Bastards like Woodrow are the reasons for globalism and tyranny in the West.

Do not crash this thread /pol/tard

I'm not the /pol/tard.

>Wilson
>>fascism

you don't know what the word means silly

>letting bolsheviks take over russia
>fascism

wewlad

>United States of America unrecognizable from how it was originally intended.
>originally intended

Get over yourself faggot. I'm tired of people putting old documents and ideals over what needs to be done now. Its fucking stupid idealism and completely pointless.

yes you are

Fascists make retarded decisions too

>What needs to be done now
Eat fucking cock you stupid retard. We aren't do what needs to be done we're doing what Statists and Globalists want for themselves.

>isn't a globalist
>isn't a statist either
How does that work? What are national borders to you?

So sick of faggots.

>people I don't think: the thread

>Got involved in WW1 for no reason
>no reason
>What is the Lusitania and unrestricted submarine warfare

Don't forget the shekels.

B-but muh t-trickledown reaganomics!

whomst me?

National borders are what separate my sovereign Nation from those with corrupt Governments and unsavory people.

Globalism is an inherent evil for destroying culture that resides land to land, Nation to Nation, and putting innocent people with killers and savages in the name of diversity.

Statism is an inherent evil because the Government is above the law, taxation is literally theft at gun point, and the Government of the USA has become objectively corrupt.

Tyranny is never acceptable, and Globalism is still a tyranny, only with less tyrants and more oppressed subjects/land.

t. Ancapistani

Although I do agree that borders must be kept

Sounds like you need the objectively best form of government.

>Taxation is theft at gunpoint

I suddenly no longer give a shit about anything you said as youve outed yourself as an idiot. Have a great day.

>I no longer have a counter to your argument as I am ill informed, uneducated and silly. I will claim the intellectual high ground despite not being able to provide any points for my argument. La la la, I cannot hear you.
t. You

Well alrighty then

>>Got America involved in WWI for no reason

the public outcry against U-Boat attacks (stoked by unhappy merchants) had NOTHING to do with it. Wilson was LITERALLY Hitler.

>Criticized the constitution alongside violating it, being the first President in history to do the former

He said bad words about the document he was violating! At least Jackson and Lincoln didn't use BAD WORDS!

2/10 troll better

The government isn't above the law. The judiciary is independent. You can sue the government and win.

My question is, how do you keep a "sovereign nation" without a state. Nationalism is inherently related to the nation-state and nation-building, a top-down proccess. The only groups that identify as "nations" without being beholden to a state are migrants like the Roma gypsies.

Borders are enforced by states. Otherwise there is nothing stopping my neighbor to invite over 1.000.000 refugees to live next to me.

Well you can get out of my country back to Mexico if you don't consent to the terms of living here.

Well you can get out of my country back to Europe if you don't consent to the values it was founded on, Leftist scumbag.

>Implying had he gotten into WW1 earlier then he could of stopped nazi germany from possibly ever happening.

Yeah, like slavery!

"Taxation is theft" is not a value America was founded on. George Washington fought some colonists who rebelled against taxes.

I'm not, but why do you think so?

>You can sue the Government and win
Not with the level of corruption in modern American government. Look at the Clinton email debacle
>It's against the law, but I wont press charges

You make a good point.
This would start on a country to country basis. Thus, foreign invaders, ie refugees would be violating the NAP and would be fought off with insurgency tactics.
I do not see how it's impossible to maintain a plot of land without a State, honestly. People would do a better job at enforcing borders than the State, as seen by vigilantes in comparison to actual Statist border agents. Just the concept of foreigners entering land that isn't their own, thus violating the NAP, works well enough for me.

Hobbesian principles can be applied to just about any form of government.

You could have a theocracy, a democracy, na hereditary monarchy, all it takes is submission to a central power that protects you from external powers that would take rights from you in exchange for some of your "natural" rights.

You know how the Germans were sinking passenger ships claiming they were carrying American material support for France and England? It's because that's exactly what those passengers ships were carrying. If America had truly been neutral, instead of "we're choosing sides but we don't want anyone to shoot at us," that shit never would have happened.

Let's not forget outsourcing the production of our currency, leading to the monetary quagmire and perpetual war we see today.

I don't know, buddy. You will know leftypol by their mental gymnastics.

>Yezhov, Beria and Blokhin are so much better than those evil Romanovs

Well besides all the leftypol autism, he's essentially the forefather of the military industrial complex and , albeit unintentionally, created the background to WW 2 upon the creation of the League of Nations.

There wasn't enough evidence to formally prosecute her of any wrong doing. It was actually brave for the FBI to declare that they were investigating her so close to the elections - had she won, the job security of the investigators could be jeopardized.

But you misunderstand me:

If my neighbor invites 1000000 refuges to live with him, next to me, this doesn't constitute a violation of the NAP, because it's my neighbors property and he received voluntarily.

If my entire neighborhood starts a hippie commune around my property, but doesn't trespass at any time, they aren't violating the NAP.

If one dude buys all the property around me for miles, including roads, decides do call himself a king and then charges me unfair prices for the goods I need to live but I can't travel to obtain elsewhere because I'd be trespassing, he isn't violating the NAP.

The NAP is a joke.

I've never seen anyone claim this here, and I'm almost certain you haven't either.

We just had, itt.
/leftypol/ has some autistic thing against imperial Russia, despite defending the black hole that came after it.

>Hobbesian principles can be applied to just about any form of government.

>and then charges me unfair prices for the goods I need to live but I can't travel to obtain elsewhere because I'd be trespassing, he isn't violating the NAP.
That's a violation of the NAP, though. Your other scenarios are not problems at all.

did you capture a flag?

It's true. Even minarchists can be Hobbesian, as long as they understan the need for a monopoly of violence.

>Invite King onto your property
>Wait until his guard is down, inform him he is no longer welcome and to get out
>He has 0 seconds to leave your property before he is violating the NAP
>Shoot him

Inside job

small fry in comparison to greatest commie bootlicker, FDR

Your bait fucking sucks

>implying he would ever leave his the safety of his Mcstronghold without a personal guard of blackwater mercenaries and an army of dirty peasants recruit from among his hundreds of tenants

How is it a violation of the NAP? He isn't forcing me to buy with threats of violence or fraud. It's just that it's impossible for me to buy from somewhere else without agressing on his property rights.

If you want to live without taxation why don't you fuck off into woods so no one has to deal with your shitty opinions

>17th amendment
Whys this bad?
>Got America involved in WWI for no reason
US got attacked.
>Directly responsible for WWII
WWII had other factors too.
>Allowed Bolsheviks to rise and Romanovs to die
Romanovs were corrupt and on their way out anyway.
>Kickstarted modern Leftism which has been destroying the world since
Kek, leftists hate him. He was an imperialist, which is something the right exclusively supports.

>We just had, itt.
No we didn't, neither of the posts you linked corroborated your strawman.

Gas yourself.

>He was an imperialist, which is something the right exclusively supports.

LMAO

LBJ

>founded on
>george washington
>already founded

He's forcing you to pay him an outrageous amount to travel to where you can buy food and other necessities, or starve. If he's only charging you an amount equal to the average amount of damage you do per trip to the road on his property (probably a tiny fraction of a cent), that's different.

This fine chap.

>saying the rise of the Bolsheviks was a good thing
Fuck off, apologist.

>putting ammunition on civilian liners
>receive fair warning that war is happening and that you shouldn't go into the fucking area
that's like sending flights to war-torn syria and not expecting to get shot at

>17th amendment
>bad

fuck woodrow, he killed america and the american way of NEUTRALITY that the founding fathers intended

What of the previous American wars of expansion?

That doesn't count because mental gymnastics let him go might makes right until the shoe is on the other foot and then it is a horrible act of oppression and genocide.

The Lusitania was a perfectly valid target and Germany ducking warned them ahead of time.

It's like the one thing wehraboos are right about

It is. It's just a necessary evil

Lusitania didn't provoke as much of an outrage as modern people think it did. America finally entered the war due to two reasons, the first being the Zimmerman note (which came after German plans to support a revolution in Mexico that would force American involvement), and the second a minor German insurgency in support of their motherland, which Wilson and the other pro-wars made a shitload of propaganda out of. The latter happened because of a mix of rising anti-German sentiment and the German immigrants getting pissed off because America was playing pretend at being neutral while blatantly supporting one side of the conflict.

Trump isn't evil, just laughably incompetent and impotent. Trump's only claim to being evil will be if climate change ends up being as bad as predictions show it to be, though fucking over the entirety of humanity will be a pretty big claim.

>It is.
It isn't. It's part of the social contract and what allowed civilization and cities to exist in the first place.

>proceeds to complain that the terms for living here aren't what you want

>Got America involved in WWI for no reason

Protecting merchant shipping from unrestricted submarine warfare is a perfectly legitimate reason to enter a war.

>Allowed Bolsheviks to rise and Romanovs to die

WTF could he have even done to stop that?

You're perfectly right, but how can you possibly have any form of government whatsoever without taxes?

It's impossible to always have everyone consent to paying.

Calvin Coolidge was able to run the country without income taxes for the most part. The only exception was for the very rich who still had to pay income taxes under him. Not an argument, just an interesting fact.

I'm tired of this meme. The U.S. entered the war because the British and French borrowed absurd amounts of money from the U.S. and if they lost then the U.S. investment would go right in the shitter. Lusitania was just the straw that broke the camels back.

No income tax doesn't mean people didn't pay taxes in other forms

>Allowed Bolsheviks to rise and Romanovs to die
And what's wrong with that?

I'm not denying that, but it's still theft.

this, America should've stayed within it's hemisphere.

how was that dying in Korea and Vietnam for you?

>Lusitania
You mean that civilian ship that was holding small arms munitions that the eternal brits lied about?
Those small arms munitions that the brits tried so hard to cover up?
But in the end did not stop various divers from finding in the wreckage?

Anybody who uses the term "founding fathers" as though they all agreed on everything is an idiot. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and Madison had plenty of internal disagreement about what direction the country should go. Jefferson, for instance, believed that the US should actively seek to spread Democracy throughout the world, and support revolutions in other countries. And as it happened, Jefferson was actually in France when the French Revolution occurred and he thought it was great despite the fact that it led to the death of the same French king who'd helped America win independence. Hamilton was much more pragmatic and believe that the US should stay out of foreign conflicts as much as possible unless there was something material to be gained from it.

He was probably the worst president but he wasn's on par with them. Funny how he's considered one of the best presidents based on the fact that he was influential and lived in interesting times.

In different circumstance he would've been. On historian called him the only proto-fascist president.

>He was probably the worst president

Name 1 thing he did wrong.

What are you talking about?

Income tax, Fed, World War I League of Nations, he introduced the Hegel-like state worship that's modern standard for left wing proggressivism.

No. He isn't.
He may have been a corrupt hypocrite, but he didn't maliciously murder millions of his own people.

>Woodrow Wilson was a truly evil, heinous man.

How is he anything like Stalin and Mao, then?

They had good intentions, he isn't.

And all of that ended up making the US the most powerful nation on the planet. Guess it must have worked.

>magical fairy dust

How about roads and running water, you parasitic retard

No but his presidency did contribute to the political crisis in Europe after WWI as well as economical crisis in 1920-21 and later the Great Depression.

>Veeky Forums is muh sekret club and not a newfag board on Veeky Forums for other board goers to come to as they please

>tfw when you realize that Hamilton was right and that we should have had a monarchy
We could have stopped this, we could still be white