>"progressive"
>"saddam should've been left in power!"
>"bombing syria is a mistake! just stay out of their business!"
>"all these trade deals are terrible! get rid of them and bring back factory jobs!"
>"gmo's are bad!"
why has the """far-left""" gone totally fucking stupid the past few years? I blame pic related. The guy knew he had no chance at beating Hillary yet stayed in til the very end and left her wounded for the General Election
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
blogs.wsj.com
forbes.com
bigthink.com
twitter.com
>the left arguing amongst themselves instead of uniting against the common enemy of the right
I too despise the united judean peoples front, bloody switcher.
...
>"hey! go argue on the board that only right wingers post on!"
Doesn't matter. Any discussion of events or politics within the last 30 years belongs on
If you're upset about /pol/ being an echo chamber, complain to the mods about it and get them to do their job deleting shitposts and enforcing civility on /pol/. But that's no excuse to smear /pol/ shit on this board. Keep the cancer in its containment zone.
Saddam was the ultimate progressive though
>universal free education
>women have equal rights and education
>free healthcare for all
>secular
>religious freedom
>nationalised oil
Saddam was more progressive than Wall Street shills like Hillary Cunton or the Jew Bernie sanders
you must not realize what pol is short for
Yes, it's short for politics. Which is what this thread is. Not history. Fuck off to there.
Kind of surreal seeing a centrist liberal on Veeky Forums, though.
By every objective measure of living standards (average years of education, GDP per capita, median income, lifespan expectancy) Iraq was a better country when Saddam was in charge.
>saddam should've been left in power!"
>>"bombing syria is a mistake! just stay out of their business!"
This sounds fine to me and I am pretty conservative.
Science says that GMO's are safe. The GMO debate has moved beyond that. The real problem now is Monsanto using aggressive copyrighting of seeds to destroy smaller farms.
theguardian.com
> The guy knew he had no chance at beating Hillary yet stayed in til the very end and left her wounded for the General Election
Hillary was a shit candidate and only got nominated because she was more of a household name. Bernie had every reason to oppose her. You're clearly an angry Shillary fan trying to shift blame away from your candidate and her godawful campaign.
A lot of people who've been here in a while grew up and discovered these boards back when this place was a haven for V for Vendetta fans and pranksters sitting in the common rooms at left leaning liberal arts colleges. In a lot of cases their politics have since matured but kept the same value base, and they keep coming here out of force of habit even if drowned out by the "Bernie Should Have Won!" children and the alt-right.
>Hillary was a shit candidate
She won the popular vote. She was a very strong candidate.
>supporting social democracy and non-intervention makes you a child
I voted for Clinton in the general election (Sanders in the primary), but she was an inept candidate who represented a moribund political establishment. The Democrats are already starting to move more in the direction of economic populism.
And while Saddam was horrible, Bush's invasion obviously led to more problems than it solved. Also, Sanders supports air strikes against ISIS. Take this to /pol/, they're already turning against Trump anyway.
Popular vote means shit. If you only campaign in NY and California your strategy is crap. And that was Hillary's strategy
Why isn't this on /pol/? Is there moderation on this board?
>Saddam was horrible
>muh 6 gorillion kuwaiti incubators
Veeky Forums mods are too busy sucking dicks and eating hotpockets to do their job.
>She won the popular vote
Her medals in the mail. And she only won because California's fucked up rules meant that there was no Republican Senator on the ticket, so Republicans didn't even bother show up
>Popular vote means shit.
Winning a plurality in a nation of 300+ million people is not "shit." It was an extremely close election.
Leftist policies aren't based on fact or reality. It's why they always fail. In the end those policies are attractive to low skilled uneducated people who suffer from success envy.
4 Chan in general is right wing.
>"saddam should've been left in power!"
>"bombing syria is a mistake! just stay out of their business!"
No one has the right to intervene anywhere unless you're about to decimate a population to the point of pacification. It's up to Iraqis and Syrian to overthrow their governments.
Progressive it's just another world for Marxist socialist
The election is not about how many people will show up to vote you. It is about getting as many electoral votes as possible. Tons of people don't vote in states like California or New York as they alredy know that their vote is worthless
you're right
what do economists and scientists know anyways?
And lost blue states that were sold blue for decades. Doesn't matter how many niggers and spice vote in California
Less then half the country voted. Her popular vote victory reinforces how incompetent she is, running up the score in new York and California instead of strategically crucial states
"i only care when innocent people are maimed when x amount are killed! no more, no less!"
What the fuck kind of economist supports Democrats?
They now free market capitalism is the only policy that works for the greater good
That kike from the Jew your times. But that's about it
It is 50/50 amongst economists with a PhD
Not many innocent people were being maimed in Iraq until after Saddam was deposed. Bush I did the right thing by leaving Saddam in power after the Persian Gulf War. Bush II fucked it all up.
Thomas Friedman is barely an economist, he's an economic writer. His article on what a "reasonable Republican party" look like was hysterical
Bush took US to war with Iraq under false pretenses. Maybe it was an emotional response, or maybe something else.
Saddam was a stabilizing force in the region, as he didn't want the islamists to take power in the region. He was restoring secular rule to Iraq. The Baath party, his party was secularizing Iraq.
The main problem was they were cozy with Russia. I think Russia/Iraq had a falling out after the collapse of Soviet Russia or around early 2000s.
With Iraq having no cold war ally, the US was free to reign in. Now I wonder why he was deposed. I can understand deposing a "tyrant" ruler, there are dozens other in this world right now, or at that time. Why Iraq specifically? Was it some personal grudge between families? Or was it simply politics?
Pessimist in me think he was deposed because he was stabilizing the region, which was NOT what the US would have wanted during the time. US wanted a fractured middle east so we can buy cheap oil and stuff. More neutral in me simply think its just shitty politics with no genuine concern for the "crimes against humanity" claims.
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
file:///C:/Users/Mr/Downloads/KleinDavisHedengrenJan2013.pdf
blogs.wsj.com
bigthink.com