How come you losers don't support Communism?

>How come you losers don't support Communism?

What is communism regarded in your cunt?

Not communism but we were founded as a socialist nation.

Socialism is the direct cause of nationalism.
All Countries that push too far to the right rebound extremely to the left once their ideologues fail to achieve their dreams.

After Trump collosal failures at running the US there will be a large growth of socialist programs and Obama will end up being looked at as the P.Elliot Trudeau of the USA.

...

>Posting reddit
>Posting downvoted reddit posts
>Admitting to reading reddit.

BAN

It's generally hated by everyone but the most edgy hippy young liberal arts majors and their fat Jew professors.
All the commies here who want to get anywhere in life outside of a university bubble have to be really covert about it.
Most intelligent people realize this kind of shit only half ass works in tiny white countries that were doing good already.

...

Because it's retarded and only fat spergs are commies.

What's the difference between a Nazi and a communist ?

The Communists went to space while the Nazi's went to hell.

nazis went to space first with the V2 rockets jej

Homosexuality is a mortal sin though.

>implying the Nazi's wouldn't have been to Space far before if the Jews/Commies hadn't fooled the Allies into thinking the Nazis were the bad guys

Jews have proved themselves as a strong opponent.
When they really want to get something done they have puppets to do their bidding.
Nazi's held their ground well against all odds.

>What's the difference between a Nazi and a communist ?

Communists went to space using Nazi technology while starving and massacring their own people.

Nazis went to hell while starving and massacring other peoples.

They went to Valhalla for their strength and courage actually

Many people considered Obama to be a rebound from Bush. Where does Trump fit into the picture?

The impressions of Presidents and their legacies are written years after they leave office. If Trump does badly (which he will without a doubt) it will strengthen the case that Obama did great things and make him look like a martyr who was pushed down by republicans and the forefather of a new political movement.

>(Which he will without a doubt)

Lol ok.

And what if he does well? And gets elected for a second term and all you fags eat your words? What then?

Will you concede or insist on calling him a terrible president and racist?

A disease. Communists should be shot.

>Cabinet full of billionairs
Yes goy, he's going to drain that der swamp, yee.

>billionaires mean that he wont do well

On what planet?

The s&p will hit 2500 by 2018 and I will be made rich again

The two biggest crashes in US history have been under republicans.
I'd say the evidence is looking pretty bad.

No... you fucking retard

>Evidence is looking bad
Deutsche bank is predicting 2500, it's looking good by all measures so far stop being dumb

...

.

Let me remind you that everyone clinging onto their statistics meant nothing during the US election.
They don't mean anything during his presidency either.
Stocks are a perception, they are not a reflection.

Obama wasn't a martyr. His two terms were up.

This is how Communism is regarded in Japan, a wakazashi through the fucking gut

Here in America we want them out but love freedom of speech too much.

Yeah so all the projections by top banks are wrong and you just KNOW he'll do bad...

Yeah ok kys idiot. Invested all of my money into the US, waiting to get rich while retards like you stay poor and dumb

>m-m-muh drumpf!

>He didn't even diversify his portfolio
Good luck.
Hope those certificates look great on your wall when Trump stacks those 35% terifs on manufacturing.

You'd get your head bashed in for being a commie

You dont know what you're talking about.

Even Jack Bogle advocates for buying the s&p as the companies do a large part of their business outside the United States, which ties their income with the success of the rest of the world.

Drumpf is lowering corporate taxes and getting rid of Dodd-Frank

Guess what commies and anti-commies have in common? Neither of them knows what the fuck they're talking about.

They are pretty good, they like just about anything the west likes
Europe a lot

Both are also insufferable idiots.

Canada is in the best position right now to grow.
Your greed and shortsightedness for Trump is deluding you.

Commies = terrorists

Nope

Im counting my money right now. Thinking how ill spend it. Maybe buy a boat, not sure tho

We never had here 100% real communism, but we had soviet socialism for 45 years. General characteristics: 15 dollar monthly salary, constant lack of products in shops, general poverty, decaying infrastructure everywhere. Good sides: government cared about everything, there was no unemployment, an average citizen could have 5 children without caring about such things like food, kindergarten or schoolbooks for them because everything was funded by govrnment. Social relations were much better than today because there was no Internet, so people were meeting each other everyday and talking to each other physically.

The other good aspect was the fact that we had closed borders, so Poles couldn't move out from Poland and we weren't losing people. Today we are a member of EU, and can live, work and have right to pension in westerneuropean countries that are 3x richer than us, so everybody from here moves West for easier life, and we are left here only with pensioners and alcoholics. It was also forbidden for foreigners to come to Poland for sex-tourist reasons so our women weren't as degenerate as they are today.

I think that socialist Poland wasn't much worse than capitalist Poland and probably even better. At least our population was growing very fast and we didn't need bringing here Ukrainians and other hostile people

Do really think that billionaires can run a country with a decent sense of public interest ?

Yes

They're smart people, that's why they're rich.

>If a billionaire rule a country as a business, just like Trump claim it, he will basically do it in a self-interest perspective

Self-interest as in the country's best interest, is what he meant.

They're rich because they know how to exploit people in order to make money for themselves.
If a billionaire rules a country as a business, just like Trump claim it, he will basically do it in a self-interest perspective. Thus, you don't manage politics as you manage businesses, in politics you have real power but you need to rely on others. You don't do shit on your own as in business because you are supposed to represent the interest of billions of people.
Seems obvious to me.

srry I deleted and corrected my post

>They're smart people, that's why they're rich.
americans are fucking simpletons

>Le people just got rich by stealing from others

Go back to sleep Marx

You know, our current politicians are career politicians. They talk about improving the situation for starters and small business with the best intentions. But nothing happens. They have never worked a day in their life so they don't know what the problems are.

I recently started my own business. And the bureaucracy that hit me was ridiculous. I even considered moving abroad just to avoid the bureaucracy. I have to give myself a wage that I can't even afford. But yay, I got a small tax cut. Who the fuck cares about a tax cut if I have to deal with ridiculous rules like that I have to give myself a wage I can't afford.

Why would a billionaire turns his self-interest into the country's best interest? This guy is here for power as he is used to always see power as a way to achieve his proper goals.
This is the source of a lot of critics, that he appointed people from his business world/family on some important offices. It might be possible for a guy to suddenly feel like he wants his country's best interest ; but this happening for his whole family and friends that comes from the world of business... eh lads come on.

Of course, you can not win 1000x more than one of your workers while you are basically the same sort of humans with same capacities.
If you earn that much money it's because somewhere people work for you and that you are the guy in charge of redistributing this work, and that you decided to collect a part for yourself. Then if your earn that much, then you decided to collect money from a lot of people.

>Why would a billionaire turns his self-interest into the country's best interest? This guy is here for power as he is used to always see power as a way to achieve his proper goals.

As opposed to which politician?

The fact of the matter is that all politicians are corrupt and take foreign donations but this one is self-funded, is a successful businessman and has had one of the most inexpensive campaigns of all time.

>Of course, you can not win 1000x more than one of your workers while you are basically the same sort of humans with same capacities.

When you start a business you take on a lot of risk and have to do much of the difficult work. If your business fails what happens to the workers - they get their severance package and told to fuck off. For the business owner he has the whole headache of problems left.

It's a lot harder to run a business than to work a salaried job. Risk and reward.

What sorts of rules ? You would have preferred some people of your profession to make business law ?
I've heard that in Germany it's much easier to create small businesses. By the way what you say happens same in France. It's a big problem of centralization and having a political class, that only big company can afford representing its interest.

I think we should be more inclusive and decentralized with economics, but I the idea of having a billionaire as a ruler repeals me. As he comes from the highest spheres of his society, this guy wouldn't be more inclusive of comprehensive than our current politicians.

>You would have preferred some people of your profession to make business law ?
We have 150 seats in parliament. I wouldn't mind if we added another 50 seats to represent different industries. Defense, oil industry, banks, farmers, starters, elderly, students etc.
The added bonus of this situation would be that lobby groups don't have to enter through backdoor and have to discuss things in the public.

>the idea of having a billionaire as a ruler repeals me
I don't think having a billionaire as a ruler would be a bad thing. The advantage of a billionaire is that he's free to do whatever he feels like. He has no reason to conform to the status quo, so he can do what he feels necessary. And then you can evaluate afterwards.

I think changing the direction from time to time is a good thing by definition. Then you get the best elements of all sides.

This to be honest.

You never want retarded politicians who've never ran a business in their life to be the ones making decisions in this area. It's a recipe for disaster.

I supported both Obama and Trump because they both intended to kick the status quo out.

>It's a lot harder to run a business than to work a salaried job. Risk and reward.

Ok, but once your business started and expanded the risk decreases significantly.
At a moment you have to stop. There's something unfair in being richer than country where lives millions of people.
This is what triggers me, how can people that never gave a shit of philanthropy be able to suddenly rule countries while their selfishness (Trump claimed to avoid some taxes because he just didn't gave a shit) are the reasons of many of the disorders in society. Society is not just a cow, you have to feed the cow back.

>There's something unfair in being richer than country where lives millions of people.

There's nothing unfair about it. You're creating jobs and providing people with things they want.

Get the idea that life is "fair" out of your head.

says who

Ok with kicking the status quo, but you can't give it to anybody. Out of being a mere billionaire, Trump is like the worst of them. As I said above I don't see why this guy would be more inclusive than others.

Nah. There's no way a single human might concentrate that much wealth whereas millions are starving. None deserves that much wealth.

>There's no way a single human might concentrate that much wealth whereas millions are starving. None deserves that much wealth.

Who are you, or anyone else to say how much someone "deserves"?

How do you determine what someone deserves?

Taigs are the bad guys confirmed.

But having a Trump as a president is not about being inclusive.
Something business people excel at is creating a system that can support itself. They can ensure continuity.

Mainstream politicians constantly try to bribe people at the expense of future generations. This generation is now paying the (financial) price of decades of populism. This can be seen in our unsustainable pension funds, seasonal workers from North Africa from the 80s that still harass us today, the government has been spending our gas money instead of creating a green energy (which has to be bought by this generation), billions of government debts etc.

Having a billionaire politician can counteract this trend. But ideally you have a bit of both.

*instead of investing it in green energy

Our politicians are too busy trying to be liked that they forgot that they have to future proof the country.

You are correct.

Politicians just sell the next generations to the wolves.

Promise retards a bunch of shit and they won't even ask how you're going to manage to pay for it. The answer always being "Someone else will come along and figure it out for us".

In the Netherlands they subsidize mortgages, this was originally meant to allow people to buy a house.
But it has resulted in people being able to get gigantic mortgages, so the housing prices have inflated.
Now starters can't afford houses anymore.
The government wants to build more houses, but if they would buy sufficient houses to meet the demand then the housing prices would drop and everyone with a mortgage would be in trouble.

So the proposed solution is to slowly stop with the subsidization of mortgages. Which means the housing prices will slowly decrease in a sustainable manner.
This effectively means that this generation will pay for it. As everyone who buys a house now will experience the decrease in housing prices.

Without having enjoyed the earlier increase in housing prices.

>In the Netherlands they subsidize mortgages, this was originally meant to allow people to buy a house.
>But it has resulted in people being able to get gigantic mortgages, so the housing prices have inflated.

But it sounds so good to the people voting in the the election where the politician promised this......

Reminds me of the freakonomics episode I was listening to where they talked about how the ideal politician by views of economists would never get any votes because his platforms sound terrible but are best for the eoconomy.

Filth that have to be exterminated

common decency

That doesn't explain anything.

It does if you have common decency
But you're a cuck to the rich