none of this shit actually existed. for instance most of US birdshit history has been one of violence, aparteid and segregation and now they are trying to go back to the norm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262494)

The good periods in the US were world historic times to be alive and what was built here is astonishingly impressive considering the conditions it was founded under

The whole "Founding Fathers" mythos is one of the better parts of American history. The people who dreamt this country up were some of the most impressive and truly human specimens of humanity in that era

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262499)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262516)

puritans? late ming china? before lewis and clark? before the west coast was even settled?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262520)

1. puritanism was largely gone by the time of the constitutional conventions, in any case it had ceased to be a real political force by then. many of the founding fathers were remarkably moderate on most religious issues for the time and place.

2. the west coast wasn't settled for reliable pacific trade until the mid-late 1800s. there were basically no puritans left in the country by that point.

3. the opium trade that ravaged the late ming dynasty was from the british via afghanistan, although there had always been some supply of it through overland trade with nepal, burma especially, and further in. opium poppies do not grow well in most places in the US.

xi's not sending his best, folks

as a bonus the african slave trade was mostly conducted on jewish trade ships buying pre-readied and normal for the era and time defeated african tribes that were turned into chattel by the warlords of northeast africa. those warlords were often moorish or arabic-influenced islamists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262539)

the second it had to deal with competition, first germany and japan recovered by the 80's, it was clear it cldnt compete fairly so it had to kneecap japan

now china and asia has risen and its just game over

also keep in mind commie USSR was competing with the US pound for pound in tech and innovation

prior to WW2 it the US really just inherited the trade routes and shit of the british empire as it declined and then collapsed, the US is a successor state to the british empire, it didnt build that but it benefited from that

hth, birdshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262511)

most of these points here are just flat out wrong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262517)

This is a pretty punchy hot take, but let’s evaluate it seriously.

✅ Points that have truth

Post-WWII “luck”

It’s true the U.S. emerged from WWII with its industrial base intact while Europe and Japan were devastated.

That gave it an economic monopoly: by 1950 the U.S. produced ~40–50% of world GDP, exported capital, ran Marshall Plan aid, and dominated trade routes.

So “the U.S. got lucky” in timing is fair, though it overlooks the massive pre-war industrial buildup.

Germany & Japan competition

By the 1970s–80s, West Germany and Japan had recovered. Japan especially became a major tech/electronics auto competitor.

The U.S. did apply pressure (e.g., 1985 Plaza Accord, semiconductor trade restrictions) — which can be seen as “kneecapping” Japan’s rise.

USSR tech competition

The USSR wasn’t equal across the board, but in some areas (space, nuclear, military tech, math/physics) it was genuinely “pound for pound” competitive.

U.S. policymakers themselves treated it that way during the Cold War.

Successor to British Empire

The U.S. inherited bases, trade dominance, financial systems (Bretton Woods, dollar reserve currency) as Britain declined.

“Successor state” is a fair shorthand: Washington took over many of London’s global functions.

❌ Oversimplifications / issues

“US couldn’t compete fairly”

The U.S. still remained very competitive in innovation, higher education, financial markets, and military R&D even with rivals rising.

The Plaza Accord hurt Japan, but Japan also had internal structural issues (asset bubble, demographics, banking collapse). Not all “kneecapping.”

“Game over with China/Asia”

Asia (esp. China) is rising, yes. But the U.S. still dominates in finance, global reserve currency, elite universities, software, biotech, advanced semiconductors (with allies like Taiwan).

“Game over” is too absolute; more accurate: relative decline of U.S. monopoly, not total collapse.

Pre-WWII U.S. industrial power

By 1900 the U.S. had already surpassed Britain in GDP and was the world’s largest economy.

It wasn’t just inheritance after WWII; it had been building industrial strength for decades (steel, oil, railroads).

📌 Balanced verdict

The U.S. really did benefit enormously from timing: WWII devastation elsewhere, Britain’s imperial collapse.

It wasn’t pure luck: the U.S. had already industrialized and surpassed Britain pre-WWII.

Postwar dominance was temporary and unique, and competition from Germany, Japan, China has indeed eroded that monopoly.

The “successor to the British Empire” framing is useful, but the U.S. built its own foundations too.

Calling it “game over” is overstating — it’s more like a shift to multipolarity rather than U.S. disappearance.

👉 Want me to rewrite this “birdshit hot take” into a sharper version that keeps the punchiness but is factually stronger, so you can use it in debates?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262522)

it confirms biases and can be trained to say anything. you are quoting a djinn.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5773674&forum_id=2Vannesa#49262535)