ITT politicians/famous people and their pokemon
Why are you putting Slowpoke next to a commie oldhag, what did Slowpoke ever did to you
>>27039569
Wheres trumps yungoos
>all of them are terrible
Yep
>>27039591
bernie is easily the best option of the three
inb4 /pol/ posters start sperging about trump and pretending he isn't mentally retarded
Nigel Farage
>Purugly next to Hillary
Come on Purugly isn't that bad.
>>27039569
>Hillary
>not Hypno
>>27039569
So Clinton and Trump are both past their prime?
>>27039616
>I want a man that can't even take the microphone back from a niggerwoman sperging out about white privilege to lead the country
>better
You have a retard, a woman and the real woman. All of them suck.
>>27039569
>trump
>not yungoos
>>27039569
>Trump
>Staraptor
I don't get it
>>27039660
i would rather a weak leader over a manipulative criminal or an oblivious moron
Whismur, Murkrow, Poyrgon-Z
in that order
>>27039690
all three of those options are just awful
>>27039690
We're talking about the US election, what the fuck are you on about
>>27039690
Doesn't Hilary's manipulative nature and unscrupulous work as a lawyer and shit make her the best leader?
>>27039690
And people like you are the proof that western civilization is never going to stop going downhill. The phrase "weak leader" is a contradiction. You cannot be a leader if you're weak, it would just lead to an undeniable demise.
>>27039739
found the trump supporter
>>27039690
>an oblivious moron who just so happened to exponentiate a million bucks
You're one of those fags that spout shit about the "lamestream media" when you're just as fooled by them as every other shmuck.
Trump
>Exploud
Clinton
>Malamar
Bernie
>Slowking
>>27039760
have you ever heard trump talk about politics? it's unashamed ignorance and shitflinging. he's more concerned about his image than he is about policy
>>27039730
Not if their interests are directly in opposition to the peoples'
>>27039815
but the ignorant and unwashed masses don't know what they want
>>27039690
Weak politicians are the definition of cuck. He may have some nice ideas, but he'll fuck the country even more than now.
>politics discussion on /vp/
this oughta be interesting
>>27039616
>a Jew who doesn't know shit about the economy, just wants to steal shekels from young kids
Kill yourself b.
Granbull
>>27039955
the kids don't have any shekels. Like, not a single fucking shekel. He wants to give shekels to thye kids by taking them from the middle aged
>>27040099
>not Mr. Mime
missed opportunity
>>27040099
>not Ditto
>>27039591
When you're so stupid you don't know the difference between socialism and communism. Hehehehe you're a real dumb dumb. I think Bernie is an old cuck, but you're dumb for saying shit like this. Maybe we need to reform our education system if you're an American.
>>27039569
Bernie has drampa
>>27039758
>anti-Trump
>posts a nigger
Checks out.
>>27040294
This
This
This
This
This
This
>>27039758
Found the fucking idiot.
Why don't you go to some anti-gun riot or something.
Nigel Farage.
>>27040356
A communist saying that doesn't hold much ground.
Nigel Farage
>>27039569
more accurate Donald Trump
>>27040550
drumpf*
>>27040493
>dont support trump
>get characterized as a feminist antigun hillary/bernie supporting tumblr browsing hippie
everytime
why are trump supporters so stupid that they believe that anyone that doesn't support trump can be dismissed as a bleeding heart liberal
>>27040519
I'm curious, how do you fucking liberal idiots justify stealing peoples money who earned it.
>>27040564
Trump supporters know nothing of politics.
A lot of the ones on 4chan are just memeing.
>>27040557
lel xD
lmao gr8 post xD
>>27040361
>trump supportrs rnt racis thy r tru amerciannans trump dont atrakt riacsts
>>27039569
Staraptor doesn't deserve this faggotry
>>27040564
By definition if you support Hillery or Trump you support Liberals, which makes you a Liberal, that also makes you a fucking idiot.
>>27039799
And Hilary is a criminals who is more concerned about bribing people to ensure her prestige and fortune than being an effective leader.
And Bernie is more concerned about living in his red-diapered socialist fantasy than actual knowledge of world affairs and basic fucking economics.
Everyone sucks. You suck. I'm literally writing in a joke candidate for the President and just focusing on the down-ballot races for state positions.
>>27039569
Trump would be hypno since he's a Jew making everyone fall for his tricks
Hillary drowse
Bernie Parasect for being a parasite
>>27040596
This is underaged posters trying to fit in because /pol/ is were the cool kids hangs out now
>>27040620
hey man are you retarded or what
>>27040356
>>27040244
>\pol\itically challenged retards think there's a legitimate difference between socialism and communism
>\pol\itically challenged retards think Sanders' rhetoric about social make him an IRL socialist
On the first point, for most of history, communism and socialism were more or less interchangeable concepts -- they're used this way even in Marx's writings. The only reason Amerifats think socialism = government spending, is because Americans have silly, topsy-turvy ways to describe everything -- see, for example, libertarian (a traditionally anarchist/socialist concept) being co-opted by the far right.
On the second point, Bernie might call himself a socialist, but the policies he's proposed a fundamentally socially democratic (which is a different thing entirely from democratic socialism). Most of his proposed policies would not have shocked, say, FDR or even Eisenhower (a republican from 50 years ago).
>>27039569
>Bernie
>not probopass
good goy
>>27040649
Instead of telling me that I'm retarded why don't you try a counter argument, which I'm doubt that is one
>>27040596
increasingly nervous man
>>27040652
>The only reason Amerifats think socialism = government spending, is because Americans have silly, topsy-turvy ways to describe everything
France is considered a socialist country for that exact reason
>>27040698
i didn't express support for any candidate. all i said is that trump is retarded. the post you were responding to was pointing out that if i attack trump, people that respond to my posts act as if me disliking trump makes me a bernie or hillary supporter. you then proceeded to respond to my post attacking trump as if i was a bernie or hillary supporter. you are stupid
>>27040726
Why are you nervous, man?
>>27040755
Ok so your just so edgy that you don't support any candidate and have any opinon then?
>>27040852
no, i don't like any candidate. even if i did support a candidate, attacking hillary or bernie isn't a valid defense for trump's stupidity anyway.
>edgy
nice buzzword that doesn't pertain to the discussion moron
>>27040755
Go to bed, Ted
>>27040500
are nige
>>27040557
>Deadnaming
Wow, I cannot even.
>>27039815
>implying Trump's interests are in line with the people's either
I don't consider Trump supporters people. They have the mental capacity of pond scum.
>>27040108
You mean, taking them faceless corporations who deserve nothing as they are not people?
Can't believe you failed me, /vp/.
Pic related, Trump's Pokemon
>>27041333
Not an argument.
>>27041333
I'm pretty convinced half of Trump supporters (the young ones anyway) don't even like Trump, they just hate Hillary more. /pol/ needs to be collectively gassed though.
>>27040570
>muh greater good
who pays for the roads?
>>27040570
Not a liberal, but if we're talking about very wealthy folks, much of their wealth is literally co-opted from those labouring under them
Alternately, we could look at the financial industries (which house some of the most wealthy folks in the world), we could see that, even after they fucked up the global economy, none of them were penalized, and most of them are wealthier for their mistakes
There are all sorts of rich folks who 1) don't deserve the extreme wealth they've accrued, 2) don't *need* the extreme wealth they've accrued, and 3) are hoarding their wealth to the detriment of the global economy (capital needs to be in motion constantly for it to be productive, so when a handful of inordinately wealthy folks sit on their horde of cash, they're damaging the very system that gave them their wealth).
If we want to be liberal about this, we should tax income above, say, $150,000 at 90% (something even republicans did well over half a century ago), and put that money to proper use, rather than letting people sit on it or make even more money off fictitious capital (which is almost by definition non-productive).
>>27044421
>over 150 k
Ah yes, punish tenure doctors, surgeons and small business owners
>>27044421
>$150,000 at 90%
Kill yourself. I'm not giving Jamal all my money because I worked hard.
>>27044463
>can only make $150k
>how will i possibly feed my children?
$150k yearly income is a considerable amount of money. What's more, assuming this is put toward decent services (public infrastructure, education, health care, etc.), it's not as though doctors, surgeons, and small business owners won't benefit from the proper use of their tax dollars.
In any case, it was an arbitrary number. We could make it a 90% tax on income over $350,000, and that would be about about equal to the tax policies under FDR or Eisenhower.
>>27044421
Typical retarded college age kid who doesn't know what the Lafter Curve is, yet I bet you like to call yourself educated.
>>27044628
150k is not a considerable amount of money when you own a business or you have malpractice insurance and an office to pay for.
>>27044632
>m-m-muh one theoretical economic principle proves you can't tax the wealthy
Typical Reaganite, market fundamentalist actually believes economics is an objective science, and that their one theorum of choice is the most objective of the objective science.
ishiggydig
>>27044730
Must suck being poor lol, how about you and earn some money, then you'll see.
>>27039616
>Preferring a communist to someone who genuinely loves the country
Okay
>>27039618
underrated post
>>27044781
>Typical market fundamentalist, called on their shit-tier understanding of economics, falls back on "lol u must be poor"
Why is it only die-hard capitalists who get away with knowing nothing about capitalism?
>>27044730
This is an observed phenomenon. The people you want to tax have the resources to avoid being taxed. If you tax more than the amount it costs to avoid said taxation, you make it much more likely for the avoidance to happen.
Same thing happened in the UK not too long ago. Taxes raised on their highest bracket. They lost 40~ billion in tax revenue over 3 years.
Absolute illiteracy if you think more taxation will fix absolutely every problem when every single time "punishing the rich" just means moving more pressure onto the middle class.
>>27040652
You do realize programs like Social Security, health care, minimum wage, and workers rights are socialist programs that the government just avoids calling socialist programs?
America is already socialist. Deal with it.
why is trump forced everywhere? only creates contempt for him, remember ron paul?
>>27044862
>This is an observed phenomenon
Sure, and so are the successes of a 90+% tax rate. The major problem with economic theories is that they rarely show concern for time or space, and this has folks (like you) who see a theorem's temporary accuracy, and assume it will be accurate throughout history.
>Absolute illiteracy if you think more taxation will fix absolutely every problem
When did I suggest taxation alone would fix "absolutely every problem"? It was a single suggestion of how we might fix the issue of overaccumulation.
>when every single time "punishing the rich" just means moving more pressure onto the middle class.
FDR, Eisenhower, etc. would like to have a word with you.
>>27044918
Government spending is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism is, fundamentally, worker controlled ownership of the means of production. The only reason Amerifats think government spending = socialism, is because the right's propaganda campaigns to smear anything remotely beneficial to working class folks was so successful (particularly with the big boogeyman of communism looming).
I'm not opposed to social spending, and I'm not necessarily opposed to social democracy, but these things are not by definition socialist. I say this as a socialist.
Wow alt-right BTFO'd in this thread
>>27039569
ITT butthurt bernie supporters call trump a racist
Pic related
I fucking hate John Oliver.
I want to hate fuck his stupid fucking face
>>27045306
>CTRL-F "racist"
>one match
>it's your post
>>27044628
But they earned that money for services and or goods they provided. I think they're entitled to what they earned plain and simple.
Bernie=Zoroark because his free shit is an illusion
>>27039569
trump pokemon is not braviary serious anon
>>27044974
What successes of that tax rate?
You're gonna point out nordic countries, I'm sure. Countries that built their economies on the back of free markets or are riding the oil gravy train.
We can also talk about every other leftie populist shithole. We can talk about greece, we can talk about spain, we can talk about venezuela, we can talk about argentina, we can talk about brazil. we can talk about every single leftist populist country you want.
>When did I suggest taxation alone would fix "absolutely every problem"? It was a single suggestion of how we might fix the issue of overaccumulation.
What is the problem? Other people having more wealth does not mean you have less wealth. That's not how wealth works.
You don't target the obscenely wealth with high taxation. You target the doctors, the lawyers, the business owners. No one who is in the absolute top echelon of humanity has something you can call an "income". You don't phase them with this shit. Sure, maybe you'll slightly annoy new rich, but old rich does not give a shit.
Capital gains taxes are probably the only way to actually effectively target big fucks, but even that comes with a whole slew of problems.
>FDR, Eisenhower, etc. would like to have a word with you.
All terrible presidents, the first of which caused nearly every shitstorm that has happened in the last 60 years.
>>27047912
>What successes?
A 94% tax rate on incomes above $150,000 (what I believe is about $300,000-350,000 in real wages today) was instrumental in pulling the US out of the great depression, for one very widely known example. Of course a world war helped as well (hence my comment about economists tendency to ignore spatio-temporal context when it comes to developing theories).
Of course I'm not going to point out Sweden, Finland, etc. -- notably because none of them have tax rates even approaching 90%.
>venezeula, argentina, brazil
Three countries that were ravaged by US foreign policy and plundered for their natural resources by powers in the global north for centuries. It might also be worth noting all three of which have housed brutal, US-backed dictatorships within the past century, two of which as recently as the 80s.
>all terrible presidents
All New Deal democrats are terrible presidents? Including FDR, a president so popular and successful that he managed to serve with popular support (for four terms) until he died? A president instrumental in ending the great depression? I'd love to hear how you believe he caused "nearly every shitstorm" (some examples, perhaps?) of the past 60 years.
>free markets
What do you mean by free markets? Moreover, you have to realize that the US is hardly a free market, right? Some of the US' biggest industries past and present (from textiles to aerospace, IT, hi-tech industry more generally, biomed, etc.) have received massive state subsidies or have grown only out of massive trade barriers with other countries (the same is true for nearly every superpower since the end of feudalism, it should be noted) -- nearly all of American technological developments were developed by taxpayer money in the state sector, whether in public universities, the military, etc. before being handed to private business. Most of America's largest industries would have failed if not for constant state intervention.
>>27047791
You mean staraptor
>>27039660
>>27039955
>>27044791
>not supporting the only realistic candidate that has consistently voted against surveillance and corporate buttfuck legislation
>Preferring a communist to someone who genuinely loves the country
>implying hillary or trump even give 1% of a shit about the country
>implying Bernie and Rand paul weren't the only candidates who do/did
>>27047912
>What is the problem? Other people having more wealth does not mean you have less wealth. That's not how wealth works.
I'm not even talking about problems of inequality -- that's not the problem of overaccumulation. I'm talking about problems with capital accumulation more generally (problems that can cause, if unchecked, massive crises for the capitalist system). The problem of overaccumulation has to do mainly with a bunch of idle workers sitting alongside a bunch of idle capital with no way to bring the two together (or no way to bring the two together without empowering labour).
This causes problems when we have an impoverished workforce that can't afford to buy all the wonderful products being made (without a massive expansion of fictitious capital in the form of the credit system, which, in turn, brings about a bunch of other problems). When your products aren't being bought, it disrupts the most rudimentary cycle that makes up capitalist growth (and, as we know, capitalism runs into crises if it isn't growing).
If workers can't afford to buy products, and if the wealthy sit on massive piles of capital, productivity is massively hampered. This is, in part, what caused the great depression, and, in part, why the wealthy were so heavily taxed, and why massive initiatives were set up to help the working class, following the great depression.
Wealth inequality should be deeply disturbing even to staunch capitalists, as it has the possibility of bringing about massive crises or collapsing the system on the whole.
>>27041477
It was. Then Yungoos happened.
Right on Donnie's B-day too.
>>27039781
underrated post
What're y'all gonna do when Hillary wins despite all the shitty memes you made to stop her candidacy?
David Cameron
>>27039700
Very underrated
>>27040557
Look Mommy, I called him Drumpf again! Hehe :3~
>>27039847
Are you saying they cannot make the judgement call?
>>27039616
Oh yeah i'm sure, too bad he lost. When will people shut the fuck up about this old fart?
Is he the Ron Paul of the underage lefties?
>>27040652
>\pol\
>>27039569
>OP starts a thread about "powiticks" on a board full of underage kiddies and expects serious discussions
>>27039569
All 3 should be Probopass.
>>27049117
Why do half of all pro Sanders posts look like they're from fucking 9gag? I'm non-political, but jesus christ.
