******Official politics thread ******

[Wonkie]

libertarian
[lib-er-tair-ee-uh n]

a Libertarian is a republican who doesn't want to pay taxes.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Xaanka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[sassy black trump-lady gif]

WRONG!

pretty much any economic system cant survive mass immigration and socialists displacing the country's actual residents with the desire to subvert and end their economic system.

capitalism is actually the only economic system post feudalism which has had any long term success.

i believe you're wrongly ascribing all of the failures of the west to capitalism,

which i should remind you despite its shortcomings is still currently the most successful group of societies in the world right now and responsible for just about every single thing that makes your life better which you enjoy on a daily basis.

here's my question for you: what about muslim countries do you think makes them accept slavery, spousal domestic violence, public torture and killing of rape victims and homosexuals, genital mutilation of babies, child rape, child marriage and beastiality? their economic systems?

here's my other question for you: why does socialism always end in slavery starvation and subjugation? like i get it if your ultimate goal is to lower the human pop. i might even not say that's such a bad thing, if they would own it.

Socialism as in what? What they did in Sweden? Besides the immigration fuck up -- which they are correcting -- Sweden is fine. But Sweden is also capitalist in the context of the USSR vs the West.

If you mean socialist as in China and Russia? there was a lot of reason any government there would have killed lots of people, communist or not...You haven't even used the best example of horrible communist government, Pol Pot -- In his case, he was worse than any other kind of government Cambodia could have adopted. But in China? It was even worse when Capitalists were in charge. Same with Russia for the most part...Stalin did do some next level killing -- but he also made huge gains in science and industry. That was kind of how the era worked. Roosevelt oversaw the death of many American soldiers so he could go planting the flag for future generations. Lot's of questionable behavior to go around in this era, few faced with the problems Stalin was. It's hard to say if he was certainly worse than a capitalist government would have been.

Communism did not just spread death and destruction. It played a huge rolls of making these countries important. The one that has fully abandoned communism is doing worse from what I can tell, despite having a better start under Stalin than China under Mao. There is still widespread death and corruption in Russia -- just not to the scale of the Great War era of the world.

To accuse the kind of socialism I am proposing to America, as something likely to lead to death and destruction is laughable. I'm saying lets be more like Denmark, not Russia during the USSR era.

Wholesale immigration is a problem with some socialist platforms, but I honestly think they have learned from negative experiences...especially immigrating Muslims.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^ got some proof for this highly butt-hurt conjecture?

Yo that's bars

[JurisDictum]

Capitalism works at bringing us from the feudal age to the industrial age. It just isn't doing us a lot of good in the information age and the age of automation around the corner.

See China adopted capitalist economic policy -- sort of, temporarily, that is the best way to do it. If you root your society in liberal capitalism the market will tear that society apart.

By our own Milton Freedman "move with your feet" Libertarian ideology, we have destroyed the family and flooded ourselves with needy people of the third world that take housekeeping jobs rather than working in textile mills.

Xaanka wants to blame all this shit on socialists, but immigration was more of a product of the industrial era -- when we needed immigrants for shit jobs. As always, the government was slow to get the message we don't need immigrants for factory jobs anymore.

America since the 1900s, has worked best when it was most socialist. In the past, shit is different and that's why there was no communism around...Everyone agrees capitalism is good for improving feudal societies. First, you need to build productive power, then you can talk about everyone sharing more of it....but it has to be built with capitalism.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find that the most esteemed high paid people are the easiest to replace. Most are glade when they are gone.

Honestly, why do you guys think capitalism fails so hard in the long run? Because the poor aren't good enough?

I'm living in a world where people accept Miley Cyrus as a talented young star. Trust me, music doesn't need Cyrus. She didn't write her own songs and her voice is interchangeable. She represents a team of people that would have pushed some young rich cunt on us regardless. And chances are John Lenin was overrated too...there just wasn't very much competition then.

I want licensing to have children and mandated health requirements. Until then I will continue to complain about the poor, who are disportionately obese and responsible for broken homes

Mistakes aren't ok

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Socialism as in what? What they did in Sweden? Besides the immigration fuck up -- which they are correcting -- Sweden is fine. But Sweden is also capitalist in the context of the USSR vs the West.

If you mean socialist as in China and Russia? there was a lot of reason any government there would have killed lots of people, communist or not...You haven't even used the best example of horrible communist government, Pol Pot -- In his case, he was worse than any other kind of government Cambodia could have adopted. But in China? It was even worse when Capitalists were in charge. Same with Russia for the most part...Stalin did do some next level killing -- but he also made huge gains in science and industry. That was kind of how the era worked. Roosevelt oversaw the death of many American soldiers so he could go planting the flag for future generations. Lot's of questionable behavior to go around in this era, few faced with the problems Stalin was. It's hard to say if he was certainly worse than a capitalist government would have been.

Communism did not just spread death and destruction. It played a huge rolls of making these countries important. The one that has fully abandoned communism is doing worse from what I can tell, despite having a better start under Stalin than China under Mao. There is still widespread death and corruption in Russia -- just not to the scale of the Great War era of the world.

To accuse the kind of socialism I am proposing to America, as something likely to lead to death and destruction is laughable. I'm saying lets be more like Denmark, not Russia during the USSR era.

Wholesale immigration is a problem with some socialist platforms, but I honestly think they have learned from negative experiences...especially immigrating Muslims.

The danish government and system happen to be based on the danish people and culture

Why you think Jamal Williams or Jose Hernandez will ever contribute to an analogous system in America is beyond me. I'd personally love to know how they could contribute even if they so desired (they don't)

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The danish government and system happen to be based on the danish people and culture

Why you think Jamal Williams or Jose Hernandez will ever contribute to an analogous system in America is beyond me. I'd personally love to know how they could contribute even if they so desired (they don't)

well said. the only thing fresh imports do in the US is buffer Marxist and Communist numbers.

JD's policies are about mobbing up and proliferation of ideology. That, and pedophilia.

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To accuse the kind of socialism I am proposing to America, as something likely to lead to death and destruction is laughable. I'm saying lets be more like Denmark, not Russia during the USSR era.

It is reassuring that I don't have to be anything but me. I hope you find happiness someday, JD.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mickmoranis]

Juries you compare successful socialist countries which have populations of one American state. They have cultural differences less than one American state. They have huge banks full of oil money that they use to pay for the socialism. And it’s been like 20 years, give it time. Socialism’s problem is that it

1. Doesn’t last
2. Requires deep pockets to pay for it
3. Requires less of a diverse culture

America does not have the money that the democratic socialist countries have, and we’re too diverse.

We also have a system of government that has proven to be superior in the long run than socialism has ever proved to be in mankind’s history.

You sound right I know, your points seem to make sense. But the problem is you’re an idealist and you leave out very important reasons it’s working in scandanavia, the ONE example where socialism “works” out of hundreds of times socialism has been used as a form of government.

Fact: socialism isn’t working. What’s working is exploitation of oil reserves in tiny countries that use the oil to pay for its government. When the oil dries up, those countries will collapse and it will be the end of democratic socialism.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Juries you compare successful socialist countries which have populations of one American state. They have cultural differences less than one American state. They have huge banks full of oil money that they use to pay for the socialism. And it’s been like 20 years, give it time. Socialism’s problem is that it

1. Doesn’t last
2. Requires deep pockets to pay for it
3. Requires less of a diverse culture

America does not have the money that dennark has irnany scandavian country and we’re too diverse.

We also have a system of government that has proven to be superior in the long run than socialism has ever proved to be in mankind’s history.

You sound right I know, your points seem to make sense. But the problem is you’re an idealist and you leave out very important reasons it’s working in scandanavia, the ONE example where socialism “works” out of hundreds of times socialism has been used as a form of government.

Fact: socialism isn’t working. What’s working is exploitation of oil reserves in tiny countries that use the oil to pay for its government. When the oil dries up, those countries will collapse and it will be the end of democratic socialism.

None of that shit is actually true you realize? What do you expect our billion-dollar plutocrat media industry to come up with to answer the call for socialism? Nothing?

Well you would be right for about two years, then Bernie Sanders become Dem. front runner and a few months later this story pops up...

Don't look at GPD! the articles assure us we are much more poor than Scandinavia (not true) and that oil is significant (not true -- GNP is the real important number regardless of oil reserves)...along with implications that they have more oil per cpita...also not fucking true.

But your average American just believes that article and believes the ludicrous idea that this is all about oil reserves.

Now there is more of a point to the multi-cultral argument....but its important we understand why the argument works...

It works because of racist whites, a handful of useless immigrants (mostly from muslim countries) that immigrate to western states with shit attitude. Now, as long we don't sabotage ourselves with the later, we can take care of the former.

Racism is not at all popular. But it gets a lot more popular with Muslims streaming in and nothing but bad arguments about why. Same with this whole movement to turn America into a partially latino country...which we probably are now...I'm sorry but that was a really stupid move from the perspective of poor white people, and a really good move from the perspective of elites.

I guess the question is...considering we have less than 1% muslims in this country, and latinos do seem to be assimulating mostly, is it really that impractical to get whites to set aside racism long enough to vote in socialism?...most are banking on yes.