James K Polk - The most underrated president
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
James K Polk - The most underrated president
James K Polk - The most underrated president
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
that's not franklin pierce/andrew johnson
Used to think like you, OP, but it is actually Maddison
Pierce should have been hanged
>two d’s
Fricking proofread your shit jesus christ
>Pierce
Kys. Wasn’t his fault those white morons chimped out. Kansas/Nebraska Act was the best way forward and supported by Congress because it finally got them away from the deadlock of constantly debating the slave question
Both in the running for "biggest scumbags in office,' to be fair Grant is in like, 9th or 8th place.
Polk poked Mexico and took half their land. Having achieved his desired outcome, he didn't bother running for a second term.
Here is Mexico before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
>Having achieved his desired outcome
He was literally dying in his final months in office. Let this “he accomplished everything” midwit meme die already
>Latinx lost half their country to a guy diarrheaing himself to death
Imagine being this shit at being a country lmfao. Mexico got buck-broken by the Spanish so hard they’ve been loosing literally every century since
The “he didn’t seek a second term because he did everything” bit is a meme, and a shit one at that
>Mexico got buck-broken by the Spanish so hard they’ve been loosing literally every century since
you don't know anything about Mexican history
Mexico got buck broken by Mexico the most.
that would be more accurate
How the frick is it a meme? He accomplished everything he said he was gonna do, what does it matter if he was dying or not? Makes it more praiseworthy if anything
I think that meme might have started because he said up front he didn't want a second term. In his June 12, 1844 letter accepting the democratic nomination, Polk stated his intent to serve only one term.
The "accomplished everything" part of the meme might have started because he did fulfill his biggest three stated objectives. First and foremost, territorial expansion. Secondly, reduction of bank power by reestablishing an independent treasury. Also resolution of the disputed border with Britain in the Oregon Territory.
California is his fault.
*is the reason you're rated so highly*
You got the wrong pic
Even ignoring whether he was good or not, objectively wrong because libertarians slobber over his wiener more then any other president.
You're thinking of Jefferson/Coolidge. Libertarians criticize Jackson a lot, especially Southern ones.
>Coolidge
IMO, he was the last great president we had. Too bad he was grief sticken after so many of his family members died, thus decided not to run for a second term.
>the president should do literally nothing
There really isn't a more moronic take possible
Reminds me of an old French joke about Napoleon II "The Egret". He was the best monarch because he raised no taxes and lost no wars. Of course, he spent most of his life as a "guest" the Hapsburg court and died young, before he cold have meddled in French politics.
>before he cold have meddled in French politics.
Based. At least he didn’t frick anything up, whereas as Coolidge actively led the US into the worst financial bubble of all time
Cannot disagree.
They killed him knowing how powerful his bonaparte-habsburg bloodline would be if he reached his full potential
>Super Hapsburg Grade 2 combined with Ultra Bonaparte
Could you imagine if he got involved in the Greek or Texas revolutions? Or if he and Prinzessin Sophie von Bayern had been around the Austrian court in 1848? Or if he'd gotten involved in the final overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty in France.
If only he'd lived a few years longer.
When you do things right, people will think you did nothing at all.
frick that guy
t. mexican
You lost, Jorge.
maybe, but i still won't forget about it
Literally the only reason you would think Mexico is in the right is if you let your ethnic bias influence your opinions.
b***h the usa stole that land, this is not "ethnicity bias" it's a reality
manifest destiny was their ideology and justification for conquering all that land and commiting genocide of their indigenous inhabitants
>bitch
Watch that tongue, Hector.
>the usa stole that land
The US was prepared to buy the land after Mexico was reneging on Santa Anna's agreement to cede Texas. Mexico then attacked and killed American soldiers, thus starting the war. And winning a war your rivals started isn't stealing.
>this is not "ethnicity bias" it's a reality
Delusional.
>manifest destiny was their ideology and justification for conquering all that land and commiting genocide of their indigenous inhabitants
America didn't conquer all land nor genocide anybody.
>Watch that tongue, Hector.
no
>The US was prepared to buy the land after Mexico was bla bla bla
none of that shit matters in this case, none of these disproves of what I said
>hurr durr you're delusional
>America didn't conquer all land nor genocide anybody
holy cope and denial of basic american history lol, and you're the one that calls me delusional
>no
See, the problem with you people is that you don't have respect for your superiors.
>none of that shit matters in this case
cope
>none of these disproves of what I said
It quite literally does.
>holy cope and denial of basic american history lol, and you're the one that calls me delusional
You are delusional. America amicably settled territorial disputes with multiple nations and let Mexico keep the vast, vast majority of its territory. Further, here is the definition of genocide
>the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Name a single group America deliberately killed. Obviously not the Mexicans, because you're here unfortunately.
you're no better than me pal, let's put that clear, I see you as someone I could step over like nothing
>cope it literally does
how exactly? that stuff happened yes but it doesn't disprove of what I said, the USA stole that land for their "manifest destiny" believes
>America amicably settled territorial disputes with multiple nations and let Mexico keep the vast, vast majority of its territory
amicably with european nations that is, not with Mexico or the indigenous people
we have still most of the territory where most people live sure, that doesn't discredit all the territory your country stole
>Name a single group America deliberately killed.
lol imagine being so ignorant you don't even know about the genocide against indigenous americans in your own country
I'm not even gonna name them, how about you search it up for yourself and learn history from your own land
that's ignoring all the other wars that can be considered genocidal too your country did/supported like in Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Phillipines, etc.
>you're no better than me pal, let's put that clear
I disagree.
>I see you as someone I could step over like nothing
I doubt that. I'm quite tall, and Mexicans aren't, generally speaking.
>how exactly? that stuff happened yes but it doesn't disprove of what I said
It does.
>the USA stole that land for their "manifest destiny" believes
Winning territory in a war of defense and then paying for it isn't stealing. True manifest destiny would have been sending Scott to conquer your whole country, which he probably could have.
>amicably with european nations that is, not with Mexico or the indigenous people
Not true, but either way, you're now back tracking and conceding we just didn't steal everything.
>we have still most of the territory where most people live sure, that doesn't discredit all the territory your country stole
Again, we didn't steal anything, but your belligerent, dishonest behavior is making me think we should have.
>lol imagine being so ignorant you don't even know about the genocide against indigenous americans in your own country
I'm not ignorant about any of the Indian removals or wars, they simply don't fit the definition of genocide.
>that's ignoring all the other wars that can be considered genocidal too your country did/supported like in Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Phillipines, etc.
>every war is a genocide
Okay, moron.
>America didn't ...genocide anybody
Tell that to the Pequot tribe. Or the Mohegan. Or the Massachusetts tribe.
So which of these tribes were deliberately killed by the American government? Because I guarantee you, they all are federally protected, if anything.
Sure. The war was started because Mexican soldiers started killing American troops, not simply to steal land without paying for it.
They cannot be federally protected because they are all extinct.
I just looked them up, and that doesn't appear to be the case for at least 2/3 of them, but regardless, who made them extinct?
Some Spaniard that sneezed
>The US was prepared to buy the land after Mexico was reneging on Santa Anna's agreement to cede Texas
We paid them even after we won the fricking war.
>b***h the usa stole that land
And Mexico didn’t?
if you wanna go technical, no, it was Spain, we didn't have a "manifest destiny" moment
If you’re going to blame the United States for atrocities against the Pequot which happened long before it declared independence from Britain, then you should do the same with Mexico and its native population when it was under Spain.
I'm not blaming the USA for the genocides and land-stealing before independence, but after
it's stupid to blame the conquering of Mexico on Mexicans, especially when "Mexico" wasn't even a thing at that time
>I disagree.
How can you disagree in a fact? that's denying reality
>I doubt that. I'm quite tall, and Mexicans aren't, generally speaking.
doesn't matter, you're still a regular normal human being
>It does.
again, how exactly? you keep saying that yet not explain on your reasoning, you expect me to just believe you because you say so?
>Winning territory in a war of defense and then paying for it isn't stealing.
the war was not on defense from your side, liar, the war was based on the USA wanting that territory for themselves despite being from another nation, their justification being "our race is superior therefore we can" you know, manifest destiny, it is stealing
>True manifest destiny would have been sending Scott to conquer your whole country
not really, manifest destiny was still implemented here, idk if you'd consider the plans of the Confederates of conquering Latinamerican and Caribbean territory a thing here
>Not true
lol ok
>you're now back tracking and conceding we just didn't steal everything
nah, a lot of the land of your country had no real owner, even with the Louisiana Purchase there were many indigenous people that had nothing to do with it and technically their land
>your belligerent, dishonest behavior is making me think we should have.
spoken like a true American Patriot™
>they simply don't fit the definition of genocide.
they 100% absolutely do, how the frick can you even say this? that's straight-up genocide denial
>Okay, moron.
those were literal genocides too, don't trust me? look it up yourself
your country supported/made these genocides all for political power
>How can you disagree in a fact? that's denying reality
I'm not Mexican.
>doesn't matter, you're still a regular normal human being
I'm actually neurodivergent.
>again, how exactly?
I already explained to you that the war didn't start simply because America wanted to steal Mexico's land. Again, they sent a negotiator to purchase the territory and then Mexico started killing American soldiers, which started the war. Even after it finished, instead of just seizing the land, which we could have, we formally purchased it from you.
>the war was not on defense from your side, liar, the war was based on the USA wanting that territory for themselves despite being from another nation, their justification being "our race is superior therefore we can" you know, manifest destiny, it is stealing
You're just making stuff up at this point.
>manifest destiny was still implemented here
Eh, kinda. Just not in the way you're making it out.
>idk if you'd consider the plans of the Confederates of conquering Latinamerican and Caribbean territory a thing here
That is completely different from what happened in Mexico.
>lol ok
You can laugh, but it's true. The reason Texas became American property is because Santa Anna gave it to us in a deal and the reason the Mexican territory became America is because we purchased it from you.
>nah
I mean, you already do. You said we settled territorial disputes amicably with Europe and Canada. There's no need to back track now.
>a lot of the land of your country had no real owner
Then it's not stealing.
>even with the Louisiana Purchase there were many indigenous people that had nothing to do with it and technically their land
Take it up with Napoleon.
>spoken like a true American Patriot™
Correct.
>they 100% absolutely do, how the frick can you even say this? that's straight-up genocide denial
They don't, which is why the only examples you could provide are what happened to a few tribes before America even became a country.
>I'm not Mexican.
ok and? now you're getting into racist bs
>I'm actually neurodivergent.
lol ok
>Again, they sent a negotiator to purchase the territory and then Mexico started killing American soldiers, which started the war. Even after it finished, instead of just seizing the land, which we could have, we formally purchased it from you.
yea and that "negotiator" wasn't genuine, it was by force, it was all a deliberate plan to make war and justify it, again, manifest destiny was a thing
>You're just making stuff up at this point.
this is literally the truth, the hell are you talking about, this information can be easily found if you look it up, have you not even read about the Mexican-American war or the war with Texas?
>kinda. Just not in the way you're making it out.
it was, the way you present it is as if manifest destiny was maybe just against indigenous lands but not in Mexico, but really manifest destiny also falls in here, the war was to get that territory, to claim it as their own
>That is completely different from what happened in Mexico.
sure but you can't deny the plans were there
>Santa Anna gave it to us in a deal
>we purchased it from you
yeah, by force, it's not like he wanted to give all that territory like it was nothing
>You said we settled territorial disputes amicably with Europe and Canada.
yeah, but again, not with Mexico nor the indigenous people
>Then it's not stealing.
how about all the indigenous people in said lands? what i meant with that is colonial owner
>Take it up with Napoleon.
yeah, and your country men too
>Correct.
go frick yourself, I have no respect for you
>They don't, which is why the only examples you could provide are what happened to a few tribes before America even became a country.
again, ignoring reality, genocide denial despite the tons of obvious evidence there is, this is not even something I should be searching for you, this si something you should absolutely know, it's the history of your country ffs
>now you're getting into racist bs
Really?
>yea and that "negotiator" wasn't genuine, it was by force
It objectively wasn't. Polk was open to resolving Mexico's brutality on Texas civilly, which is why he sent a negotiator and told troops to not make the first move. It's also why America ended up coming to an agreement on the land anyways.
>it was all a deliberate plan to make war and justify it
It wasn't. No one forced Mexico to attack American soldiers.
>this is literally the truth, the hell are you talking about, this information can be easily found if you look it up
No, it's simply talking points and copium churned out by butthurt Mexicans and anti-American forces in our country. I've already demonstrated to you why it's not true and your only response was "I don't care, still muh manifest destiny!"
>it was
It comes down to how you view definitions. "Manifest destiny" currently has a negative connotation, which is why I'm skeptical to use the phrase, especially when it's used to obfuscate the fact that the majority of Texans wanted to apart of America, Santa Anna wouldn't let them and then Mexico started killing American soldiers when we tried peacefully buying the territory to solve the issues.
>sure but you can't deny the plans were there
I can. The American government was never going to fight Mexico without Mexico being the aggressor. Same with things like WW1, WW2 and the Civil War.
>yeah
So your initial point was false, there's no need to keep backtracking.
>but again, not with Mexico nor the indigenous people
Not true. Again, America was open to amicably handle the border dispute with Mexico, as they were with England and other European powers, Mexico decided to shoot first, completely ending that. And even with the Indians, the supposed worst thing we did against them, the Indian Removal Acts, had to be granted with a tribal leader's approval.
>how about all the indigenous people
Most of this was started similarly to the Mexican-American war.
how can you say that Polk wanted to end it civilly when he himself was the reason the USA conquered all that territory? you are making it sound as if he was defending himself from us, he wasn't, he was the man that started it, that story you say about the negotiator was a clearly a facade to make it seem civil, you wouldn't just sell a huge chunk of your territory like that, a war broke because with Texas because there were already revolts of gringos wanting Independence backed up by the USA
>No one forced Mexico to attack American soldiers.
yeah, and nobody forced USA troops to attack first either
>talking points and copium churned out by butthurt Mexicans and anti-American forces in our country
what a way to put it huh, i could argue the same thing about what you're saying, just change Mexicans with gringo and anti-American with anti-Mexican
>I've already demonstrated to you why it's not true and your only response was "I don't care, still muh manifest destiny!"
you didn't, what you said doesn't disprove what I said, I didn't even say that your point were fake in that one argument, but that you were missing the bigger picture
>Mexico started killing American soldiers when we tried peacefully buying the territory to solve the issues.
again, missing the bigger picture, you are ignoring the fact that this is what the USA government planned to get that territory
>The American government was never going to fight Mexico without Mexico being the aggressor.
yeah, thing here is you made Mexico the aggressor on purpose with the plan of stealing that territory on the first place
>So your initial point was false
what initial point? that the USA stole indigenous territory? Mexican territory? Louisiana purchase? what are you talking about?
>Mexico decided to shoot first
not true already explained why
>the supposed worst thing we did against them
lol I like that tone you say it, as if your country never did anything bad against them or as if it's exaggerated, frick off
>how can you say that Polk wanted to end it civilly when he himself was the reason the USA conquered all that territory? you are making it sound as if he was defending himself from us, he wasn't, he was the man that started it, that story you say about the negotiator was a clearly a facade to make it seem civil, you wouldn't just sell a huge chunk of your territory like that
Polk didn't ask for as much as America ended up winning, he simply wanted the majority of Texas. And it wasn't facade. A negotiator was sent out with troop protection, and then your subhuman countrymen started shooting them.
>a war broke because with Texas because there were already revolts of gringos wanting Independence backed up by the USA
Yes, because they were being genocided by the Mexican government.
>yeah, and nobody forced USA troops to attack first either
Correct and they didn't.
>i could argue the same thing about what you're saying
Yeah, but you'd be wrong. Whereas I am correct.
>what you said doesn't disprove what I said
It does. You just refuse to acknowledge it because of your racial and anti-American bias.
>you are ignoring the fact that this is what the USA government planned to get that territory
They didn't. It's what they ended up winning, but the plan was simply to get the Texas territory.
>you made Mexico the aggressor on purpose
Nobody forced Mexico to attack American soldiers or commit genocide on people that didn't want to be ruled by a manlet, Mexican dictator.
>with the plan of stealing that territory on the first place
Once again false.
>what initial point?
That all the land we have acquired has been through force.
>that the USA stole indigenous territory? Mexican territory? Louisiana purchase?
None of this was stealing. In all of these cases, America achieved this land through treaties. Our government is much different than yours.
>not true already explained why
It absolutely is.
>he simply wanted the majority of Texas
>your subhuman countrymen started shooting them
>they were being genocided by the Mexican government
>Correct and they didn't
>Yeah, but you'd be wrong. Whereas I am correct.
>It's what they ended up winning, but the plan was simply to get the Texas territory.
>Nobody forced Mexico to attack American soldiers or commit genocide on people that didn't want to be ruled by a manlet, Mexican dictator.
>Once again false.
>None of this was stealing. In all of these cases, America achieved this land through treaties. Our government is much different than yours.
holy shit you know what, I'm sorry but I can't take it anymore, at this point I genuinely have to explain the whole fricking war, I'm not gonna fricking do that, instead of reading gringo propaganda how about you actually read books or articles about this with real historians, literally everything you said here is wrong, many of these I already explained why yet you still deny it and keep pushing your bullshit
I'm sorry but I just can't, you are too stubborn, ignorant, stupid and arrogant to have a genuine conversation about it, is like conspiracy theorists that believe in reptilians and all that shit, you simply can't win them, they are always right no matter what, they will always pull something out of their ass and deny everything else
I'm done with this, good bye
Nice cope and projection, Paco. Literally everything you've said has been thoroughly disabused. You shouldn't reply anymore, because you embarrass yourself further every time.
>lol I like that tone you say it, as if your country never did anything bad against them or as if it's exaggerated, frick off
Pretty much, yeah.
>yea, by force
Objectively false.
>>inb4 it wasn't by force they amicably left the territory for colonizers to take it for themselves 🙂
All of the agreements were reached by the government and Indian leaders, yes. If other tribesmen resisted and reneged, that's on them, not us.
>yeah, and your country was well aware of the indigenous people living there still
Sure, but they had no claim to the land, as it was officially ours. Despite that, we still arranged amicable removal with all of these tribes.
>this is projection from your part pal
cope
>genocide denial of course
It's already been debunked and you still haven't provided an example of genocide committed by the American government other than stuff that happened before we even declared independence.
>Pretty much, yeah.
>Objectively false.
>All of the agreements were reached by the government and Indian leaders, yes. If other tribesmen resisted and reneged, that's on them, not us.
>they had no claim to the land, as it was officially ours.
> we still arranged amicable removal with all of these tribes.
>It's already been debunked
kek this is laughable at this point, you're country is good and has never done bad, everything people claim they did are lies, DEBUNKED, sure sure, whatever you say
>the Indian Removal Acts, had to be granted with a tribal leader's approval
yea, by force
>inb4 it wasn't by force they amicably left the territory for colonizers to take it for themselves 🙂
> we simply bought the land, hence it became our complete property
yeah, and your country was well aware of the indigenous people living there still, that's why all the treaties with their territories and all that shit, your country still decided to frick them over, die or get out
>seething
>sounds like cope for me
this is projection from your part pal
>Blah, blah, blah.
genocide denial of course
>yeah, and your country men too
No, because we simply bought the land, hence it became our complete property. If Napoleon wasn't honoring the various tribes' claims to it before hand, then that's on him.
>go frick yourself, I have no respect for you
seething
>genocide denial despite the tons of obvious evidence there is, this is not even something I should be searching for you, this si something you should absolutely know, it's the history of your country ffs
Sounds like cope to me.
Blah, blah, blah.
>those were literal genocides too, don't trust me? look it up yourself
I'm sure Latin American nationalists and Marxists like yourself consider everything a genocide, however, once again, none of your examples meet the definition which I've already provided.
they 100% do lol, genocide denier
at this point I shouldn't even bother talking to you, no matter what I provide you will either ignore it or deny it, like you frickers always do
>I'm not blaming the USA for the genocides and land-stealing before independence, but after
Then why are you bringing up the Pequot? For frick’s sake.
>why are you bringing up the Pequot?
I didn't
>no, it was Spain
Oh yeah, forgot that Mexicans have nothing to do with Spain. Everyone knows only pure Aztec blood flows there, not a drop of Spanish in me sir!