If /pol/ loves totalitarianism now, why does pol/ not support Hillary Clinton? I mean you guys love Hitler but you seem to forget that he was a socialist. Not only does Clinton support socialist policies but she is also pro-war and pro-invading other countries. I mean do you really hate Mexicans so much that you're willing to pass by the candidate that is willing to bomb other countries for the "glory of America"?
>>75812661
Totalitarianism isn't an end in itself, just like a "strong leader" isn't an end intiself.
Why would anyone want their enemies to have a strong leader?
>>75812661
I don't want kike totalitarianism.
>>75812661
You generalize /pol/.
Hillary is shit. Nazicucks are against capitalism so won't ever vote for her. Ancaps neither because of muh free market and she's all about crony capitalism. Only old people and niggers vote for clinton.
>>75812661
If hillary is totalitarian, what is Trump lol?
Will he just enslave all living forms inside US soil?
>>75812895
You'd rather a jihadist totalitarianism?
I want a dictator who's looking out for Americans, not one who will more us closer to joining some faceless global bureaucracy who puts third worlders' interests on the same level as Americans.
>>75813018
You know what he is. The CEO. He'll just fuck off like Bush did to his ranch and let the other people deal with things. Luckily Trump doesn't have an evil father like Bush Sr. so it won't be a bunch of evil cronies.
>>75813104
What if I told you that third world countries doing better makes us better? Less terrorism and better business. You think price of merchandise went up by working with China, as opposed to against them?
>>75813257
I'd say you have a low time preference. I'd rather have a country with a thriving, employed, procreating populace in 50 years than a cheap iphone now.
>>75812661
She likes cats.
>>75812661
>If /pol/ loves totalitarianism now, why does pol/ not support Hillary Clinton?
I want there to be a reckoning for the republic.
>>75813374
So what makes a thriving employed procreating population better then a stable world economy? To focus on a single economy cannot be done since we have multi-national corporations, and without a globalized economy we will just bleed out money.
let me tell you since we have cloud computing now, economy is about statistical analysis more then ever, and if indicates to invest world wide that's what to do.
Opinions has so little to do with economy now that you can say we shouldn't invest in africa, and if we can prove that's the best thing we can do with statistics it'll be done without even consideration for public opinion.
It is worlds of objective truth above every subjective opinion that use to be used in lieu of hard facts.
What you're doing is what we use to do, because there was no alternative. To computerize the entire statistical spread was impossible.. hell to even understand the word computize was impossible.
Economics was all just randomly guesses using pseudo math.
so ya, stick to that opinion, maybe it'll be relevant if the robots turn on us and we have to go back to pre-1970's.
>>75813921
Because the rest of the world is not white. Their economical success does not depend merely on access to markets. You're putting your country's economy partially in the hands of Zimbabwe. It will not work out. We won't end up mutually benefiting each other: instead, the US and EU will end up supporting them, whether inside or outside of our borders. It's a bleed.
>>75812661
Her immigration policy blows
