Joe Biden: The Forlorn Frontrunner

Biden is the Fake Frontrunner whose entire role is to play the establishment character, who will then be defeated by Warren who is the fake progressive social democrat. It's a circus act manipulated by the DNC to prevent Sanders from winning. The Sanders loss from the last election demoralised and devastated it's voters and activists. They do not want to repeat that nor do they want Sanders to win because Sanders has some very principled market socialist policies. This time, Biden will appear as the unstoppable establishment candidate, and the Sanders mimic 'Warren' will take it from him, appeasing the progressives and socialists. Little do they know that Warren is no different from Biden. Both would enforce a similar policy that would prevent any nationalised healthcare and wouldn't touch Wall Street. Nor would they stop the wars for Israel.

Sanders is aware he's getting fucked over again, but he's too much of a pussy to call it out. He's too ideologically and ethnically committed to what the DNC represents and so he will not call it out. I suspect this is why he had a heart attack; the stress is getting to him.

Warren will be the DNC choice and their activists will be fooled into thinking she's any different from what came before. Sanders is the only option in my opinion, but it's unlikely he will win, and equally unlikely he will call out the charade.

Back to the tread: Yeah, he's an old man from a different time spouting old stories irrelevant to today and surrounded by black youth who have no attention span and don't care. Most are probably paid to be there. Biden doesn't care about them, but I imagine a lot of the old local blacks look at him fondly and revere him because of the nostalgic references he makes to an older time. People laugh at it, I just find it depressing. Even black communities were better back then. They know it, Biden knows it, but the youth don't and nor do they care. Nor does Biden.

I imagine there's another Biden in the 'Berenstein universe' telling stories to attentive white kids in a nice white community that he actually gives a shit about, and not some corrupted kiddly-fiddling wormtoungue puppet for you-know-who's spouting utter fucking nonsense to a crowd of blacks while drugged up to the eyeballs to keep him copacetic as his dementia-ridden mind rots away his self-aware reality.

Trump for 2020

Napisano przez King_Unleashed, 04.12.2019 at 00:39

You like Bernie? With your views I thought you loved Trump?

Why would I love Trump? I loved Campaign Trump, who was an outright Nationalist. He was an economic protectionist, anti-immigration, anti-media, anti-NeoCon who wanted to audit the Fed and 'drain the swamp'. He instead, filled the swamp, did nothing about immigration, blocked laws and tech that would completely cut illegals out of agriculture because it was 'too effective' and recently appointed Jared Kushner to administer the wall project, which hasn't even started.

Trump is the worst kind of neo-con, one who has some public appeal, but does nothing. All he does is tweet and generally do anything Israel wants. Trump isn't president, Jared Kushner is and he's being told what to do by Bibi Netanyahu. Fuck Trump.

Sanders is the only nuclear option left on the table. As is Corbyn in Britain. Radicalism begets radicalism. If I can't get radical social conservatism, I'll support radical economic socialism. As much as I hate their social views, we'll still get them implemented by conservatives anyway.

I don't think any Nationalist can justify voting Trump. They'll just say "he's better than the Dems". I refuse to hold my nose while voting for someone. It's meek and cowardly.

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 04.12.2019 at 21:34

Why would I love Trump? I loved Campaign Trump, who was an outright Nationalist. He was an economic protectionist, anti-immigration, anti-media, anti-NeoCon who wanted to audit the Fed and 'drain the swamp'. He instead, filled the swamp, did nothing about immigration, blocked laws and tech that would completely cut illegals out of agriculture because it was 'too effective' and recently appointed Jared Kushner to administer the wall project, which hasn't even started.

Trump is the worst kind of neo-con, one who has some public appeal, but does nothing. All he does is tweet and generally do anything Israel wants. Trump isn't president, Jared Kushner is and he's being told what to do by Bibi Netanyahu. Fuck Trump.

Sanders is the only nuclear option left on the table. As is Corbyn in Britain. Radicalism begets radicalism. If I can't get radical social conservatism, I'll support radical economic socialism. As much as I hate their social views, we'll still get them implemented by conservatives anyway.

I don't think any Nationalist can justify voting Trump. They'll just say "he's better than the Dems". I refuse to hold my nose while voting for someone. It's meek and cowardly.

Although I'm far more partial to localized mixed economical approaches than you are I believe, pretty much this. Everyone got duped by Orange Hitler, fuck even Uncle Nigel fell for it. Sanders is far too much of an idealist to ever produce most of his meaningful policy, but he's the only candidate with any sort of passion burning inside of him, and I can respect that despite my differing viewpoints. I would rather have a passionate socialist who can't be bought out (as far as we know so far, I'm sure I'll be proven wrong in 2-3 years) than a corporate shill neocon posing as a populist.

Napisano przez Garde, 05.12.2019 at 13:22

Napisano przez Tik-Tok, 04.12.2019 at 21:34

Why would I love Trump? I loved Campaign Trump, who was an outright Nationalist. He was an economic protectionist, anti-immigration, anti-media, anti-NeoCon who wanted to audit the Fed and 'drain the swamp'. He instead, filled the swamp, did nothing about immigration, blocked laws and tech that would completely cut illegals out of agriculture because it was 'too effective' and recently appointed Jared Kushner to administer the wall project, which hasn't even started.

Trump is the worst kind of neo-con, one who has some public appeal, but does nothing. All he does is tweet and generally do anything Israel wants. Trump isn't president, Jared Kushner is and he's being told what to do by Bibi Netanyahu. Fuck Trump.

Sanders is the only nuclear option left on the table. As is Corbyn in Britain. Radicalism begets radicalism. If I can't get radical social conservatism, I'll support radical economic socialism. As much as I hate their social views, we'll still get them implemented by conservatives anyway.

I don't think any Nationalist can justify voting Trump. They'll just say "he's better than the Dems". I refuse to hold my nose while voting for someone. It's meek and cowardly.

Although I'm far more partial to localized mixed economical approaches than you are I believe, pretty much this. Everyone got duped by Orange Hitler, fuck even Uncle Nigel fell for it. Sanders is far too much of an idealist to ever produce most of his meaningful policy, but he's the only candidate with any sort of passion burning inside of him, and I can respect that despite my differing viewpoints. I would rather have a passionate socialist who can't be bought out (as far as we know so far, I'm sure I'll be proven wrong in 2-3 years) than a corporate shill neocon posing as a populist.

Retard. No offense. Yea, so sure that the source of prosperity is taxation, definitely not individuals pursuing their own private interests while being held accountable in a free market.

I want anyone who thinks of himself as a "socialist" to read: https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Then, I want you to read 10 random articles from the Mises Institute.

Then, let me know if you're still a socialist.

Napisano przez Tribune Aquila, 05.12.2019 at 14:19

Retard. No offense. Yea, so sure that the source of prosperity is taxation, definitely not individuals pursuing their own private interests while being held accountable in a free market.

I don't recall claiming that taxation equated to garnered prosperity? And no, the Free Market as a concept does not inherently lend to greater prosperity among all people. You've shown your lack of comprehension of what I stated previously here with your comment: I never claimed to be a Socialist. Rather- as I said- I believe in a mixed economical solution that addresses the very different problems resulting in economic disparity on the micro and macro levels of analysis. Simply put: Smaller communities look after themselves better than a governing agency does, and hence they should have greater economical sovereignty over their financial decisions in the public sector. Not only this, but from a federal standpoint we must clamp down on predator multinational corporations exploiting our consumerism for their benefit and instead enforce a personal mandate declaring the non-payment of annual taxes by said corporations a federal crime without possibility of appeal or expungement. We should re-enforce trust-busting measures of media and industrial conglomerates that have a monopolized stake in our national economy to further drive competition and reinvigorate our currently-dormant free market.

Napisano przez Garde, 05.12.2019 at 14:34

Napisano przez Tribune Aquila, 05.12.2019 at 14:19

Retard. No offense. Yea, so sure that the source of prosperity is taxation, definitely not individuals pursuing their own private interests while being held accountable in a free market.

I don't recall claiming that taxation equated to garnered prosperity? And no, the Free Market as a concept does not inherently lend to greater prosperity among all people. You've shown your lack of comprehension of what I stated previously here with your comment: I never claimed to be a Socialist. Rather- as I said- I believe in a mixed economical solution that addresses the very different problems resulting in economic disparity on the micro and macro levels of analysis. Simply put: Smaller communities look after themselves better than a governing agency does, and hence they should have greater economical sovereignty over their financial decisions in the public sector. Not only this, but from a federal standpoint we must clamp down on predator multinational corporations exploiting our consumerism for their benefit and instead enforce a personal mandate declaring the non-payment of annual taxes by said corporations a federal crime without possibility of appeal or expungement. We should re-enforce trust-busting measures of media and industrial conglomerates that have a monopolized stake in our national economy to further drive competition and reinvigorate our currently-dormant free market.

There are three types of monopolies. The efficiency monopoly, the collusion monopoly, and the government monopoly. An efficiency monopoly has never existed, but theoretically occurs when one company produces a product so efficiently that it drives all competitions out of business. The collusion monopoly, which is the one you spoke of, has never worked successfully because of free market economics, not because of government intervention. Let me explain. First of all, to establish a collusion monopoly ("cartel") each of the constituent firms has to start investing in expensive administration to enforce a fixed price among them for a certain product. Naturally, each firm is distrustful that one of the other firms will break ranks. The problem is that they can write a contract and have it ratified by government so that none of the firms can legally break the cartel. This is one reason why Europe has suffered more from collusion monopolies than the United States. This was the situation in the European truck industry for decades. Absent of government intervention, someone will break ranks, slash prices, and screw over the cartel by stealing the vast majority of the market share. The others have a choice, either they can try to force the firm to jack up prices again, or they can drop their prices too. If they don't, they will be put out of business. Absent of anyone breaking the ranks, a new startup could take on the cartel, stealing all customers and the market share. The only thing preventing this from happening is red tape and government regulation, which makes it difficult for people to start a business in the first place. In a free society where one can start a business, if none decide to, then this only means that the product the cartel is producing is not in high demand and thus their monopoly is negligible. If demand is high, someone will break the cartel and rein in the profits.

The stated purpose of antitrust laws is to protect competition and the public interest, but in reality they actually hinder competition and harm consumers by serving the special interests of a few politically-connected competitors (see government monopolies).

"Comparing the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 to the Fortune 500 in 2014, there are only 61 companies that appear in both lists. In other words, only 12.2% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 were still on the list 59 years later in 2014, and almost 88% of the companies from 1955 have either gone bankrupt, merged, or still exist but have fallen from the top Fortune 500 companies (ranked by total revenues). Most of the companies on the list in 1955 are unrecognizable, forgotten companies today (e.g. Armstrong Rubber, Cone Mills, Hines Lumber, Pacific Vegetable Oil, and Riegel Textile)" (see https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-in-1955-vs-2014-89-are-gone-and-were-all-better-off-because-of-that-dynamic-creative-destruction).

So, the only real monopoly is the government monopoly. End of story. Argument debunked.