File: America Loses.swf-(781 KB, 200x86, Loop)
[_] Seems more relevant then ever Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)10:02:24 No.3194537
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)11:03:20 No.3194548
America loses every 4 years. Except this year.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)11:24:03 No.3194556
>>3194548
No, we definitely lost the hardest this year.
Corrupt businessman for president.
Hardcore christfag for VP.
Everyone that trump is nominating for important positions is some buddy of his that has no
qualifications for the job.
Gonna have to hang tight for the next 4 years.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)11:36:16 No.3194560
>>3194556
Government is a business. Honestly most politicians are demagogues. And no transparency. Plus,
since there are outraged people like you, maybe people will be actually involved in politics and
learn what's going on.
Trump supporter or not, this is the perfect time for transparency of information of the
President's job due to Trump's obsession with Twitter, assuming he continues doing that. He can
rally people to the senate or congress for change of opinion to let people hear their freedom of
speech. Did you hear about the "countering disinformation and Propoganda act" that was passed
this month? No, no normal person has talked about it, you would think. And honestly trump hasn't
talked about it yet either. But he has talked about the Chinese drones with his famous
"unpresidented" tweet, and nobody in the general public would have any inkling to research
chinese affairs if it weren't for Trump pointing it out.
The positive is, like I said earlier, trump supporter or not, it's a new age of transparency
given that trump tweets his opinions. People will actually be able to do protests to the senate,
to him, and/or communicate directly with him just due to the controversy of his image. I am aware
that the current POTUS also did have a twitter account, however none too controversial/retweeted
as much as Trump's tweets. This is a glorious time for critique, sensationalized on both sides or
not. Politicians revealing their true colors in Twitter battles. People debating. This is a
catalyst towards the image of democracy.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)11:58:16 No.3194564
Not sure what is to dislike about Trump.
>will keep out Muslims
>won't fuck with our gun rights or free speech
>will troll the left into insanity and keep shitting on the (((media)))
>kick out illegals
>bring some jobs back by not letting companies completely fuck over Americans for money (but
they'll still fuck us obviously)
Yeah.
Or we coulda gone with Hillary
>who said she wanted to dissolve our borders and increase Muslim immigration by 500%
>wanted a ban on gun rights
>wanted to censor media and internet
>said White people are evil and should become a minority to make up for it
Yeah...
Hillary was a massive bullet and one of the most evil and corrupt deep state actors in our world.
We are VERY lucky we avoided her even if Trump is a wildcard.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)12:21:44 No.3194570
>>3194560
>Plus, since there are outraged people like you, maybe people will be actually involved in
politics and learn what's going on.
This is going to be the biggest change after this election. Which is good, because Trump is gonna
fuck some shit up.
Assuming we don't get into a frivolous war with China, say goodbye to social security, social
programs, any chance of education being fixed, net neutrality, and every state sponsored program.
Which is actually hilarious, because the people who live in rural Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
West Virginia, and the rest of the Rust Belt that voted for Trump are going to be shocked to find
out that not only are the auto and coal and manufacturing jobs not coming back (and if they do,
they'll be fucking awful thanks to the dissolving of unions started by Reagan and finished by
Clinton) but they're also going to lose their medicare as well. Sucks for them.
Assuming that war with China doesn't happen, we'll probably get a shit president for two years
and then, come midterm elections, maybe see some change. But probably not. However, if we're
lucky, the DNC is going to shape up and get their heads out of their asses.
But probably not.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)13:50:24 No.3194599
Is this the original Thunderbirds?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:03:29 No.3194604
>>3194560
>people will be actually involved in politics and learn what's going on
I don't thinkt those protesters will want to learn anything and just stick with their delusions
about trump being a second coming of hitler
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:11:19 No.3194607
>>3194564
>will keep out Muslims
Trying to ban religion, so thought policing? That's some good b8 m8 8/8
>won't fuck with our gun rights or free speech
I don't care about guns but doesn't he rage on any media and disagrees with him and wanted to
"open" up those libel laws?
>will troll the left into insanity and keep shitting on the (((media)))
Translation:
>Be a thin skinned man-baby for the entire term
Great president material
>kick out illegals
Good luck with that, Nazi's tried that on their "illegals" also senseless, their not the drain on
social systems as out to be, more of a willing scapegoat, mostly for Reps.
>bring some jobs back by not letting companies completely fuck over Americans for money (but
they'll still fuck us obviously)
That Carrier deal is a great example of how that worked out but still interesting see how he
wants to accomplish that, also technology and automation is unstoppable force
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:12:30 No.3194608
>>3194564
>who said she wanted to dissolve our borders and increase Muslim immigration by 500%
That "dissolve borders" bullshit, really, also 500% was related to Syrians, not Muslims, be
raised from 10,000 to 65,000
Is it really that kind of a big deal? 65k more people seems like a laughable number, look to
germany.
>wanted a ban on gun rights
She considered it, consideration is not equivalent to will, is thinking about solutions equal now
to actions, but I concede she would have most likely put more restrictions on it. No-one knows.
>wanted to censor media and internet
What? When? Why? How?
>said White people are evil and should become a minority to make up for it
Misinterpretation is real, but yeah, she neglected the white voter if this is what you getting
at, that is why she lost.
>Hillary was a massive bullet and one of the most evil and corrupt deep state actors in our world.
Looking over the massive conflict of interests and possible foreign influences on his businesses
being unconstitutional for a President,
and decking his cabinet picks being rich white CEO types and his top-donors fro his campaign
makes the above statement look laughable
>We are VERY lucky we avoided her even if Trump is a wildcard.
Trump a wild card? That is pure gold, he is a conman and business-man rotten to the core looking
to enrich himself with the tools of presidency,
running of his mouth/twitter at any opposition and lies that could melt steal beams and
flipflopping that makes Mitt Romney making Pancakes look harmless.
His VP ain't any better.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:20:47 No.3194613
>>3194556
better than the war that Hillary would have brought. she's running her lips all the time and dont
know when to shut up, just a matter of time before she'd practically force russia or china to
declare war on USA
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:23:23 No.3194615
>>3194607
>religion
it's all fine and dandy to promote religious freedom when its harmless but you have to see
something as bad when it clearly is.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:25:23 No.3194618
>>3194613
not to forget she'd probably collapse during a meeting with chinese leaders due to her secret
medical conditions and make USA look weak
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:28:10 No.3194619
>>3194615
So only promote freedom when someone approves of it? Great freedom.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:36:37 No.3194621
>>3194556
U MAD U MAD U MAD U MAD WOW!!!!
Doo dah doo doo!
U MAD!!
Doo dah doo doo!
Ahh nigga U MAD!!!!!
Doo dah doo dee doo wah doo
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:39:55 No.3194625
>>3194619
sure, let's implement shariah law even though it causes distress to most of the culture
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:49:39 No.3194634
>>3194625
Great try putting words in my mouth.
Freedom shouldn't just be revoked just because some folks has differentiating viewpoints, isn't
that the whole point of freedom to begin with.
Why you gotta ban something just because a few people misrepresent that.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:50:15 No.3194635
>>3194607
>kick out illegals
Pretty sure he's only kicking out illegals with bad criminal records. Have you checked the Bureau
census data? Social welfare recipients have gone up. Positive economic return(mostly full-time
jobs) jobs are dropping. Most of the inflated statistics are the way they are because Obama spent
some money on govt projects to increase number of part-time workers. It did increase the amount
of jobs, but since it's a gov't project, it's only temporary
>thought police
HonestlySJW'sshouldbeagainstIslam.They'rethemainpropagatorof(((mysogyny)))intheircou
ntries.FreedomofSpeechisanadventofinfluencingtheoneswhoputpeopleinpower.Ifcensoringp
eopleiswhattheywant,thenthat'sfreedomofspeechandthey'llimplementit.Itsoundshorrible,
butifyoulookatitfromapositiveperspective,suchasthoseoftheblacksandLGBTabcwhateverthe
fucktheirnameis,theyhavealsobeenoverthrowingpeoplewhowanttoexpresstheirreligiousrigh
tsofnotservingthosegaypeople.Ifanything,freedomofspeechdoesnotguaranteethatallpeople
talk,butratherthatanopinionisheardandcanchange.Backwhenniggers(blacks)rightswerethep
oliticallyincorrectthingtotalkabout,freedomofspeechallowedthemtochangethesocialpersp
ectivedespitehowdegeneratethepeopleofthatsocietyviewedit.Itgoesbothwaysaswell,inacce
ptingdegeneracyorfightingagainstit.FreedomofSpeechinAmericaisaliein
that it is not a right to everyone, but a power to only the most outspoken people. Granting all
people freedom of speech and allowing them those policies would just end up destroying cultural
values of whatever the majority feels the degenerate. If the Nazism is the majority, their
freedom of speech will allow their form of undesirables to be purged. If (((minorities))), such
as gays and such, are in charge, their power of freedom of speech will purge all christian
ideologies.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)14:57:41 No.3194636
>>3194634
Refer to here>>3194635
Freedom of Speech is not a right, but a power of the majority. Anyone who has the loudest voice
in the media or any form of communications will be able to put forth their policies. It's a small
issue, but look at the Christians who were not able to deny service to the Gay couple. They were
exercising their freedom of speech, but because of the SJW media uproar, they were forced to
serve them. Same goes for people against Islam. Because of the multitiude of images in Germany
and France of Terrorist attacks, people all over the media realms are getting riled up, and want
to put a stop to this.
That is the beauty of Freedom of Speech. As long as we have a Republic based upon Democratic
ideals, we don't know what the catalyst will lead us to. Once what right-wingers perceive as the
muslim threat is gone(cue absence of muslim terrorist groups/attacks in media), then they will
lose relevancy and a new group will rise.
The only reason I think you believe it is against freedom of speech is because it does not
collide with your views. When in fact, freedom of speech has never existed equally for everyone,
and just depends on the person running the heard message.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of Speech is what motivated these people. This anti-immigration can be perceived as
against a religion, but it's just a coincidence, not a causation, that the majority of the
immigrants being prevented from getting into the US are of Islamic culture. I see no
anti-religion tendencies in this law. It's preventing a culture from mixing with our current
culture. Right now, since the (((alt-right) holds the power of the media, they are able to
express and show their distaste quite easily.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:00:01 No.3194638
>>3194635
I thought the US already does kick out illegals but I am not up to speed,
regarding thought police, I am NOT advocating for implementing shariah law/islamic state or any
other bullshit, I am for the right of freedom of thoughts including religion and practising said
religion in the boundaries of not hurting the freedom of others, that is the fine line, as always.
No second thought some (most?) Islamic sates have horrible human rights records,BUT that doesn't
mean I get to forbid Islam as a religion as a whole, you agree?
Separation of state and religion is very important matter.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:05:36 No.3194639
>>3194635
>>3194636
Freedom of Speech is not a Right to get heard,
just as nobody can shut you up (legally speaking),
no-one has to listen either.
And I think I can spare us all the debate how some political systems in the US are indirect and
unrepresentative as fuck.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:09:35 No.3194640
>>3194638
I agree with you. Christianity used to be much worse. But then it got "Westernized". I think
Islam needs to go through this "westernization" before they enter the US.
I'm not sure how to address the problem. I personally don't like the Islamic values, and I feel
biased against them. But I know freedom of Speech is important. However, I recognize that the
immigrants in other countries are freely expressing the parts of their culture that I was worried
about. Muslims that I have met are rather "westernized" and suppress part of the culture that can
ignite controversy similar to the controversies of Judaism and Christianity and all other subsets
of religion. I don't know.
The USA is proof that people can live with each other despite their past. People can supress
values of their religion that they feel are valuable. Hell, some protestant christian
group(forgot the name) is rooting for multiple wives similar to some middle eastern countries.
Maybe we've just gotta realize that USA ain't truly free and that we have a standard. Every
religious and non-religious person know it in the back of our heart. I'm reading 1984 right now
and I'm not sure what to think.
But all I know is that it's socially acceptable to root for the suppression of some parts of a
culture as people here have done it as well. Christians, like me, seemingly ignore/dont say the
anti-LGBT parts of the bible in public as much, but we express part of the Bible as well.
>>3194639
Yeah, I was trying to say this basically. I think.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:10:25 No.3194641
Being forced to suffer a life in servitude of a corporation when ancap is put into place is
certainly a better idea than a quick, relatively painless death from whatever war would've broken
out. Pretty rad that we'll be sold to Russians and Muslims that we hate so much as slaves
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:15:47 No.3194644
>>3194640
Good that we are on the same page, direction: freedom.
But I think very strongly that Trump is not, but he got the presidency which I totally respect,
we can just sit back, be vigilant of any freedom violations and watch the show.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:16:24 No.3194645
>>3194639
So is not allowing migrants in our country technically not against freedom of speech considering
they are not citizens(constitution grants right to american citizens only)?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:18:00 No.3194647
>>3194644
One of the first things he wants to squelch is freedom of speech to silence anyone saying
anything unpleasant about him, he also is planning to tear down net neutrality, but then both
candidates were aiming to take down net neutrality
>>3194645
Name a country where isolationism didn't fucking ruin the country or leave it 400 years behind
the technological curve
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:21:59 No.3194650
>>3194607
>That's some good b8 m8 8/8
...said the pot to the kettle.
Topkek, Achnad.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:22:03 No.3194651
>>3194647
>Democrats cutting Net Neutrality
No, I don't see it, chair of the FCC Tom Wheeler plans to resign as soon as Trump is in office
which speaks lengths in favour of Dems.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:23:02 No.3194652
>>3194645
wait nvm 14th amendment.
>>3194644
I'm not sure about that. It's true that he wants to gut Net Neutrality, but Net Neutrality was
never the best option to begin with. Honestly, people without Net Neutrality, it gives more power
to the people rather than the government as it allows people to choose companies that will be
able to not suppress their views. Only problems are monopolies(one internet provider) in barren
states. If anything, cancelling of Net Neutrality gives more power to the people by allowing them
to not have to lobby the government but the capitalists themselves. Net Neutrality was mostly
good if it weren't for the last paragraph saying that the government could make any rules to
basically censor the same way that companies could except this time it would be globally enforced.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:24:05 No.3194653
>>3194652
nationally enforced*
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:31:26 No.3194659
>>3194652
Net Neutrality is, in a nutshell "all data coming through the cable is equal, regardless of
origin, and is to be treated as such"
If you wanna gamble that some ISP's will still enforce it, I warn you, companies have one primary
goal, profit maximization inside of the legal framework.
When you remove the legal requirement for all data being treated equal, companies are able to
charge on both ends, the client and the clients target of reaching on the other end, for
effectively "fast" lanes.
Many citizens have no other options then one ISP so the change to something like that would be
inevitable for them, and hoping that ISP's stay true to morals of Net Neutrality, I just don't
see it.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:35:23 No.3194661
>>3194652
The problem is that most internet providers have a monopoly even in major cities, where huge
regions cannot obtain any of the alternative higher speed internet options and would have to
sacrifice speed if those high speed companies decided to block out, censor, or throttle the
avenues that they use. Spectrum for instance is the only high speed non-T1 option for about 1/3rd
of Los Angeles, it's also the only option for a lot of surrounding areas. They're also staunchly
against net neutrality and are among those who want to charge differently based on where people
go on the net and be able to freely throttle and thought police anyone on their services.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:35:34 No.3194662
>>3194659
Picture to illustrate my viewpoint on what will inevitably happen: http://imgur.com/ReMn6b3
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:38:57 No.3194663
>>3194659
>>3194661
fugg. I guess I was a victim of both media's in the end. I paid more attention to the immigrant
crisis that I ignored news on both fronts about the advancement of censorship on both ends.
Not sure what to think of this. I feel played.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:42:00 No.3194665
>>3194663
I think it helps to say, you are not alone,
nearly everyone got played,
I think it is safe to say, with this election, everybody lost.
>> [_] Heaven 12/28/16(Wed)15:44:33 No.3194666
Kanye was the correct choice. But you were all too blinded by memes to realize that.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:46:34 No.3194667
>>3194666
danke satan. praise kek
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:47:36 No.3194668
>>3194665
well at least we know meme magic works. don't know if you shitpost on /pol/ but it was pretty fun
election night.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:48:35 No.3194669
>>3194570
You had fucking 8 years to fix education in any way shape and or form. Sit the fuck down.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:51:47 No.3194672
>>3194668
/pol/ makes my Sanity-, and Faith in Humanity-o-meters drop too fast, but I do participate in
political discussions on /f/, the only board I visit, occasionally.
You will recognize my posting style if you read my post, probably at least.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:52:57 No.3194673
>>3194668
Oh and yes, election night was pretty entertaining as it was horrifying.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)15:58:05 No.3194675
>>3194669
With 2/3rds of the other parts of government being republican, the same party that passed the No
Child Left Behind bill that caused national standards to tank as well as education levels. You
probably were too young to remember the early aughties though.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:00:16 No.3194676
>>3194548
>>3194556
>>3194560
>>3194564
>>3194570
>>3194599
>>3194604
>>3194607
>>3194608
>>3194613
>>3194615
>>3194619
>>3194621
>>3194625
>>3194634
>>3194635
>>3194636
Is >>>/pol/ down?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:03:16 No.3194679
>>3194676
yeah it's run into the moral dilemmna of supporting israel(da jews) or supporting
palestine(muslims). Plus, they just found out Israel was rather right-wing and Soros is actually
against Jewish propoganda. Basically /pol/ is shitting itself as it redpills itself and breaks
their stereotypes.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:05:44 No.3194680
>>3194675
Well, the House flipped Rep after 2 years of Obama and after another 4 years Senate was flipped,
so Congress was red as a whole.
Total block was only the last 2 years, which was still horrifying enough as it is.
>>3194676
Sorry for posting such a bait-y flash /s
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:11:20 No.3194683
>>3194680
don't use /s. Pretty sure that's from reddit.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:14:29 No.3194686
>>3194683
Oh sorry, mostly a facepuncher myself,
I only look at 'the_donald' for shits and giggles sometimes though.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:36:29 No.3194693
>>3194556
Oh shit, you're right. I voted for Trump but now you have enlightened me
Fuck Drumpf and fuck white people!
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)16:42:14 No.3194695
>>3194693
Sarcastic much?
Also ironic considering, the majority, which are white, are gonna suffer under republican rule.
Say goodbye to any social programs that people might use, small government my ass, only where
Reps can use it for their advantage do they use it.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:02:36 No.3194698
>>3194672
you post like a faggot, thanks for your personal blog and shit-tier political commentary
now gtfo
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:05:32 No.3194699
>>3194698
Make me.
>> [_] friendsofsandwiches 12/28/16(Wed)17:07:31 No.3194701
stickywavyarms.jpg
Posting in a /pol/ thread!
on /f
Because... /f is now /pol
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:09:20 No.3194702
>>3194693
Hillary was a shitty choice too for different reasons, including privacy, but it was a vote for
status quo and possible war vs. let's see what happens if we can set everything up to burn
All options were shit and everyone was going to lose regardless of outcome, we were going to
become a fallen empire with whomever won this election.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:11:10 No.3194704
>>3194698
4chan is counter culture and until obama's administration the site was super left leaning, and
swung right towards the middle of his run. With as many hard rights as we've got coming into
office with Trump, we're going to probably see a swing harder than what Tumblr can offer
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:19:46 No.3194708
>>3194564
>wanted to censor media and internet
Trump is also okay with the Internet being censored. He's stated that he believes free speech on
the Internet is "Silly".
I know we chose the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to get fucked
in the ass again.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:34:17 No.3194710
>>3194537
>54 replies
wew
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:47:24 No.3194713
>post political flash on /f/
>watch the replies roll in
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)17:54:32 No.3194718
>>3194695
>Also ironic considering, the majority, which are white, are gonna suffer under republican rule.
>Also ironic considering, (the people paying the taxes and harmed by an unsuccessful economy),
are going to suffer under (a pro-middleclass president)
lol
make the case that blacks will starve and gays will get zapped, claiming employed people will be
harmed is incredibly ignorant, so much so Hillary didn't even try on her campaign trail
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)18:07:16 No.3194720
>>3194718
OH YES, republicans with their trickle down bullshit are known to stimulate the economy.
Pro-middle class, that's a laugh.
For one because Trump has to bow to congress,
and second, have you actually looked what he does,
clean energy and research and eveything thereof is a big potential job market, but nope, climate
change is a myth apparently, well played.
No doubt Hillary's arrogance once part of her downfall, but she lost, this is all about Trump
now, but I will argument you to death by my standpoint, status quo would have served Americans
better then anything Trump will throw our away.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)18:11:57 No.3194722
>>3194720
>decreased taxes
>Keynesian-style infrastructural stimulus
>decreased regulation
>reinvested interest in technological advancement other than solar panels
none of these things are detrimental to white people in any way, especially not in the short term
>have you actually looked what he does
you're delirious, he's not even president yet and he has indeed done more for the working class
and middle class white voterbase than Obama has in 8 years
what's your point?
>Trump has to bow to congress, and this is a feature unique to Trump
astute observation, but do you actually understand the leverage a competent president has over
the house, even ignoring his direct powers?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)18:13:21 No.3194723
>>3194720
>>3194722
doubleposting for 22 dubs, the fact you assume that Trump is a "trickle down economics" proponent
based on the fact he's a Republican seems to be the reason Hillary got any goddamn votes at all,
your status quo is corporate interests being served
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)18:18:53 No.3194726
>>3194722
>>3194723
We'll see if he is really in it for the people or his own pockets/ego but I highly suspect the
latter.
Looking at some states, like e.g. Kansas,
Republicans don't have a good track record at economy stimuli but colour me surprised if they
pull it off, very doubtful
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)18:27:48 No.3194730
>>3194726
Joe Biden could be a space-demon wearing human skin and there'd be about as much actual evidence
to suggest that as compared to suggest Trump just happened to forfeit extreme amounts of wealth
for his 'own pockets'
A healthy measure of egotism, sure, but you need that to tell yourself to get up and work for
others every day. Enough ego to decide you aren't a loser and that you don't want to live in a
country that loses.
States in a downturn or without major currency interchanges tend to gravitate to red, and this
hampers the state of red economies by default. Democrats aren't responsible for the growth
provided by having a coast to the ocean and yet the coast states trend blue.
In either case, it's a good thing that very little of Trump's economic policy is in line with
Republicans.
>> [_] smugfu 12/28/16(Wed)19:26:51 No.3194756
replies~~~
>> [_] Anonymous 12/28/16(Wed)19:35:50 No.3194761
>>3194756
c-cute
