Former rightist who drank the /pol/ kool aid

this. i get going liberal, but progressive socialist? surely you're trolling

>democratic socialist
Well, when you left your room you clearly didn't get any kind of decent job.

>democratic socialist
>libertarian leanings
So you only like some freedom...

what people fail to realize is that there are troll companies that are hired to shitpost and write de-moralizing posts ;)

I bet this is one of them, to try to make "rightists" *realize* what they have been missing! GASP!

Either way, whatever it is, its pretty pathetic. Who gives a fuck what YOU think. If you dont hate sandniggers, get the fuck off of Yea Forums

Attached: 1553672296819.jpg (796x464, 27K)

No.
I dunno. current system works for me, could be better. But ultimately I am myself, and if the system works for me, I support it. That seems pretty individualistic.
My main libertarian viewpoint is that I am mostly pro-gun.

OP here. Islam is trash my dude. Arabs as a race are fine though.

when the socialist calls you a retard

Attached: 1289619979465.jpg (500x351, 30K)

>l liek guns
Why call yourself democratic? Not a logical position. Either it's all the way authoritarian or liberty. Make up your mind.

>Either it's all the way authoritarian or liberty
That is retarded. That's like saying the speed limit should be either 5 km/h, or unlimited. No middle ground.

TROLL

C-conspiracy!!!!!!!

Attached: 1552950105022.jpg (1200x900, 258K)

What's retarded is saying you want democratic tyranny but not a one man dictatorship. Cause reasons

I have a question. What the fuck are those in the picture. They look like ballsacks

ffs you libs can't even fake conservatives properly

Wtf is a "rightist" Lol

Because democracy makes more people happy. FPTP voting is shit, and a straight majority is a terrible way of handling most issues. But the alternatives are not anarchy or tyranny.
Sea anemones

- Nothing will turn you into subhuman faster.

>alternatives are not anarchy of tyranny
Democracy is a tyranny you miniature tyrant.

>democracy makes more people happy
So if a dictatorship did then that would be fine?

You online larping tyrant

>I realized the world is cold and unforgiving and I have to work for what I want but that's hard to do so I just want government handouts from the largess of other people's labor
When will you eat a gun?

>So if a dictatorship did then that would be fine?
Sure. But it usually doesn't, and it is a very unreliable way to achieve happiness for the masses. Happiness is also a bit hard to define and quantify.

Reasonable observation.
What makes you a Sozialdemokrat?

You should get the paint in your home tested for lead OP

>sure
and this was nice bait but i'm out now you absolute mongoloid.

>happiness
and why is it good that people are happy?

also, there is a difference between social democrat and democratic socialist.
The later being the authoritarian party-elite of the GDR for example, while the former mirrors scandinavian tax-policies while maintaining a (well regulated) free market.

Both get easily mixed up by the left, but are important to distinguish from another.

>rightist
top fucking kek
Screencapped

>socialism
>libertarian leanings

You don't even know what you are believing in

Welcome to the smart team. Trump is a jackwagon who doesn't know that Israel is in the Middle East, who thinks Belgium is a city and who writes the word "honor" as "honer". There's a reason democrats are proved to be smarter and more educated than republicans.

Attached: ohpol.png (1000x1050, 488K)

>not realizing that most jobs are gonna be phased out in a couple decades
>not realizing that mass-unemployment will lead to rampant poverty or corporate tyranny, without state intervention
>and why is it good that people are happy?
the /pol/ kool-aid is real
>What makes you a Sozialdemokrat?
Not sure. Maybe some tru-Sozialdemokraten would label me otherwise.

Move to ANY socialist country. Then come back and post about your experience.

>Not sure. Maybe some tru-Sozialdemokraten would label me otherwise.
The question was: What are the socio-economic policies you subscribe yourself to?

/pol/ for a short time overrode his NPC script, thank god he is back on track

Which jobs exactly are you talking about?

Attached: 6A3784D6-3606-432D-A6D8-D739AEC52B37.png (1334x750, 1.62M)

>pic related
seen that stream during work.
Had to stifle a laughter real hard.

You can't actually justify why it's good that people are happy can you?
Go re-form the USSR then you dictatorship loving tankie.

I’m not OP, and you are retarded that has only hear the word “anti matter” from shows like rick and morty
Which is why you asked what you asked, the most retarded shit I’ve heard
If you are underaged it’s understandable but if not stick to identity politics or go read an actual book instead of watching scifi

>
go and kill. yourself

/pol/ literally follows a script though, the core of their rhetoric is just the same old white supremacist garbage that's been kicked around for many decades. Stormfaggots showed up years ago and simply spammed it over and over until the mindless began to repeat it in unison.
Those idiots literally glorify propaganda created by people who wrote at length about how to create and use propaganda.
If you can't see how /pol/ are the npc's, you must be one too.

I absolutely lost my shit user. This man is a fucking legend

youtu.be/sK27NZon11w

Here is the video for those interested. You’ve gotta wait about a minute till shit gets good

Sounds like you are following a script tbh

> the core of their rhetoric
pol is not a person, nor a coherent group.
you'll find as many communists as stormfags over there, busy with flinging shit at each other all day long.
the fuck are you even on about!?

>Iceland
>Sweden
>Canada
>China (arguably)
All good examples of (lite) socialism by another name.
UBI, automation where possible. 80% income tax on anyone making over 5 million. There is also some truth to MMT, in my opinion.
Truck drivers, cashiers, pilots, factory workers, warehouse workers, in the short term; cooks, pilots, construction workers, and even programmers, in the long term.
I take the desirability of happiness as axiomatic. This is an attempt to derail the thread.

You take that as a premise to build your ideology. You can't justify why it is good though. Feels over reals am I right?

>hasn't realised /pol/ is 95% shitposting
>actually believes what anons type is true
You must be a special kind of stupid user

To a Communist, there are only Communists and Nazis, and anybody who doesn't ban "Nazis" is a Nazi

>this level of NPC

lmao

How soon after abandoning the right did you start sucking dick?

Yes. Happiness is a universal good, and an end unto itself. Everything is just a means to that end; stability, prosperity, justice, etc.

Ah yes, ye olde "I'm tired of playing toy nazi, now it's time to play toy commie" switcheroo. The middle class needs destroyed.

lolbertarians are pathetic

Attached: jidf.png (521x434, 144K)

>universal good
why is it good? You just don't know do you? kek

More like "toy commie larping as a former toy nazi because he thinks there are literal nazis here and then he could convince them to be toy commies"

Nobody on the right says "rightist"

>i get going liberal, but progressive socialist? surely you're trolling
No u

Attached: tenor.gif (220x165, 177K)

>Iceland
>Sweden
>Canada
>China (arguably)
>All good examples of (lite) socialism by another name.

Those are 4 capitalist countries -- the first 3 are capitalist countries with generous welfare states, and the last is a state capitalist/quasi-fascist country

Why is good good? Is reality real? Stabbing someone is just "electrons repelling electrons", right? All meaningless nihilistic reductionist.
I am sorry that you are so lonely and depressed that you do not know why happiness is good.

I have a question. Who the fuck gives a shit?

>UBI
so you're one of these Yang Gang types?
I get that he has reasonable concerns for bringing that up (growing automation and subsequent devaluation of the human working hour), but the policy itself is pure fantasy, impossible to realize.
Also, you're not a democratic socialist judging from that list. You are clearly a social democrat. Keep that in mind if you want to avoid people conflating you with commies.

youtube.com/watch?v=VtBt2OSL2Mw

>arabs
>fine as race

u trippin kid

>why is good good
Not what I said. Why is happiness good? You can't justify it. You can't ground your system. You're basically saying I like this so we should do this.

reductionism*
You will find quite a few worker-owned businesses and corporations in the former three countries, actually.
I'm not American, so I don't know much about Yang. Nor am I particularly invested in the election beyond entertainment value.

Since he is one of the biggest champions of the UBI policy world-wide, you should watch this clip anyways. It includes some insights about economics, necessary to understand the issue, too.

Islam and capitalism turned the Middle East into what it is today.

Attached: iran.jpg (639x425, 63K)

>You will find quite a few worker-owned businesses and corporations in the former three countries, actually.

You'll find quite a few worker-owned businesses in America. Actually, pretty much every large publicly-traded corporation is at least partially worker-owned, thanks to pension and mutual funds, which are trillions of dollars of workers' wealth.

>You will find quite a few worker-owned businesses and corporations in the former three countries, actually.
Because the market is free, and allows ALL individuals to form a company with varying structures.
So if workers want to own the means means of production, they can buy them any day they want. And some actually do.
This is the difference between freedom / choice on one hand and authoritarian regimes (be it dictatorships or party-elites) only allowing you a limited set of (usually equally bad) choices on the other.

there's something wrong with your inanimate object

Will watch.
Sure. Socialist ideas can work sometimes in a capitalist system as complex as America.
Workers holding shares != owning your own labour.

>iran
>arabic race
What's next, you're going to post syrans?
Don't make me laugh

>and capitalism.
do you believe Iran of the 70's to be a communist utopia?
Because if it had a free market (and did), that's called capitalism.

Conservatism can't survive an encounter with the real world unless you're retarded.

>Workers holding shares != owning your own labour.
It literally is.
Shares allow you to return a profit you and your colleges have put into the company. And being a shareholder offers you a legally protected set of rights to influence the future of the company you partially own, too.

>too many niggers
>remove niggers
If this is applied within reality it's pretty much a solid frame of work.
But honestly society has degenerated so much that anything right from social suicide is considered far right.

>to return a profit from the labor you and your colleges have put into the company
fix'd

Yes yes. I should have been more specific. Iranians are Aryans and all that.
Free market capitalism is still vastly superior to the religious authoritarian regime that exists now, even if it is sub-optimal. Granted.
You do not automatically own part of a company you work for, though. Not all companies sell shares to their employees.

>construction workers

No

That's up to you, as for me I'm a former liberal (not leftist thought) who has become right-of-center. I still don't really like Trump but compared to all the Democratic leaders he is definitely the lesser of two evils

Attached: giphy.gif (640x348, 1.58M)

youtube.com/watch?v=TyxooJ-hEpA

conservatism promotes the careful, incremental introduction of change over radical , untested policies to be implemented without careful consideration.
I don't know what else you attribute to conservatism, but you seem to be wrong.
Conservatism simply is a stance towards change, directly opposite to progressivism.

both progressivism and conservatism must be in balance for a nation to progress forwards in a healthy pace.

False.
Not all companies OFFER shares as compensation for lack of otherwise enforced bonus-programs.
Shares still can be bought privately via the stock-market by any and all employees if they should decide to do so.
And if you don't like your employment contract, don't subscribe it. No one forces you to work for any employer under - for you - unfavourable conditions.
You have the choice to do so, or to refrain from doing so.
Giving you the freedom to make this choice is the literal point of capitalism.

>Democratic socialist libertarian
That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. Truly mind boggling.

Conservatism is the political implementation of human flaws.
Hatred, fear, immaturity and stupidity are its fundamental tenants.

This. Anyone truly persuaded by brainlet tier shit like the cock slurping OP of this thread posts probably isnt old enough to be here anyway.

>Shares still can be bought privately via the stock-market by any and all employees if they should decide to do so.
Not all companies are publicly traded.
>You have the choice to do so, or to refrain from doing so.
Legally you do. When you are dirt broke, you take any job you can.

>You do not automatically own part of a company you work for, though. Not all companies sell shares to their employees.

Every publicly traded company does, because anybody can buy stock. Even Wal-Mart offers matching deals if employees want to purchase stock, effectively selling itself to employees at half the price a non-employee pays.

Being part of a socialist collective corporation with thousands of employee-owners and being one of thousands of employee shareholders in a private company amounts to the same thing. Except, of course, if you quit a company you own stock in, you still own stock in it and benefit from its activities. As part of a worker's collective, it would be very costly to switch jobs, even if you didn't particularly like it.

Both sides yell this same retarded bullshit at each other ad ad infinitum. Your position isn't unique or clever.

Come on in
The water's fine

youtube.com/watch?v=DWam9FSRvGI&t=235s

>Legally you do. When you are dirt broke, you take any job you can.

Yes. When you don't have the skills or experience to provide any real value to other people, you make shit money. That's what money is for -- it is an accurate, real-time evaluation of the value you provide to others.

The trick is to gain skills and experience that are valuable to other people. In a capitalist society (with outliers), your paycheck is essentially Value You Provide x Number Of People You Provide Value To, with 10-15% coefficient of your own negotiating skill. The problem with socialism is that it tries to ignore this simple formula for an insane idea that value is based on the labor involved in something's creation.

This is easily disproven by a simple mental exercise: Nobody will compensate you for your labor if it's useless labor. Go and spent a month of 12-hour days digging a hole in the woods that nobody needs, and despite all that labor, your compensation is zero. You must provide value to others in order to receive value.

And that's without even getting into the whole concept of ideas and their value

And progressivism is the direct ignorance of humans being flawed, subsequently causing instability, insecurity, lack of choices and alarmism without second thoughts.
hence both need to be in balance to check each other.

You need progressive agendas to introduce new influences und currently under-representated talking points into the policitical discourse, and you need to conservatism to contrast these issues with traditional solutions and careful consideration, to come to a compromise and consensus, that both adresses these new challenges, but protects the progress being made in the past from becoming overruled and demolished.

conservatism without progressivism stagnates.
progressivism without conservatism regresses.
hence radical fringe groups on the left have the nick-name regressive left. They would actually throw us back several decades if not centuries of political progress if being allowed to legislate without any opposition.

No, faggit.

Attached: 1514725974925.jpg (645x729, 135K)

Progressivism is a religion, and has been exactly as successful as a system of governance as every other example of magical thinking

sorry, but you are as one-sided as him.

This. You'd think these retarded Communists would at least grasp the necessity of a political dialectic. You need (at a minimum) thesis and antithesis producing a synthesis to have a system that can react to changing conditions.

The whole history of Communism has been antithesis shooting thesis in the head, and then everything slowly spiralling out of control into disaster

>Not all companies are publicly traded.
usually the smaller ones aren't.
if you don't want to work for them, it's your CHOICE to stay away.

Quite opposite here.
>Former liberal/ Democratic socialist.
>Went to 3 prisons in 3 cities for 4 years, moved from sheltered dependent life to full independence.
>Now an independent conservative with some libertarian ideologies

Attached: received_283905942222795.jpg (960x839, 51K)

>democratic socialist
So you're a troll or you're retarded. Either way, no point to continue reading this thread.

The world isn't solely conservatives and progressives. There's a billion different takes on the world.

Progressives, however, are religious nuts. That they think they're atheists is the saddest thing.

>if only people would just act contrary to their natures, the world would be paradise!
>we'll just teach people to do the right thing, as defined by us of course, the knowledgeable ones
>why aren't they doing it? I thought they were just ignorant and misguided, but now I'm starting to think some of them are actually EVIL!
>well, we'll have to deal with the evil ones before they corrupt more of the stupid...

This works with progressivism or Christianity or Islam or any other religion. I mean, Christian Utopia sounds great, too! Imagine a world full of love and forgiveness and non-judgement and the poor and the meek being blessed -- let's put the Christians in charge! Oh wait, that's been tried and it's a horrible blood-soaked disaster.

Any system that's predicated on humans not acting like humans is going to be bad, then cruel, and then fail.

see
That user is clearly better words than me.

>Quite opposite here.
>>Former liberal/ Democratic socialist.
>>Went to 3 prisons in 3 cities for 4 years, moved from sheltered dependent life to full independence.
>>Now an independent conservative with some libertarian ideologies

Also, Dubs.

better with*
fix'd
also, q.e.d.

Dubs speak truth.

I'd bet money that no-one who uses "socialist" as an insult even knows what socialists actually believe.

Hell, I've yet to meet a conservative of any stripe who has the first clue what any liberal believes.

Why do you kikes actually think people believe this shit? There's enough "I used to be a republican, but _____" threads on /pol/ in a single day that if they weren't almost all larps, Bernie would be a king.

and yet you conflate liberalism with being the opposite to conservatism.

I already said that up here

>retarded polack goes retarded ”democratic” socialist
Lmao

>Bernie would be a king.

lel he had no chance, it was #HerTurn

>don't know what either "democracy" or "tyranny" means

Attached: God-Damn-Your-Stupid-600x402.jpg (600x402, 34K)

my bad
no post ID's, so no idea who's who

Tide went out, sea anemones stretching horribly.

tyranny is forcing unpopular ideas onto the populace.
when Bundeskanzler Kohl introduced the Euro, he did so against the popular will, as polls of that era clearly indicate.
Despite him being democratically elected, this was a tyrannic act. And he admitted to it being one later in his life.
Democracies can have tyrannic traits, if their chosen leaders refuse to serve the will of the people during their legislative period.

Democracies literally are tyrannies. In a democracy, 51% of people can vote to eat the 49%. That's why we have republics, with democratic elections but limited power of government.

>Iceland
>Sweden
>Canada
All capitalist economies with welfare states. Welfare != socialism. Public goods != socialism. Socialism is the public/state ownership of the means of production. That's the main focus of every definition of socialism.

That said, most people on the right bitch about welfare with no real understanding of its role in economics. It is the natural evolution of a capitalist society, and is necessary as wealth accumulates. Without welfare, the distribution of wealth gets so skewed that the poor 90% will eventually just kill the wealthy 10%. Welfare prevents that outcome.

>china
Also capitalist, on a world-level. Internally, it is mostly capitalist with some state-enterprise. It's also a shithole of a place in terms of living standards, because it's still recovering from actual socialism.

>UBI
Could work, if implemented correctly. I believe it is the next step in the natural progression of a capitalist economy. And it'll reduce the overhead of current welfare dramatically.
>80% income tax
...at any income level would force all productive people to flee. It's retarded.
>but muh 1950s Murricans paid that
No, they never paid an effective tax rate anywhere near that. They hired lawyers to make tax loopholes, with our current abomination of a tax code as the result.
>the better taxation method:
1. Tax financial transactions (stock market trades of all kinds). Every financial transaction that happens in the US stock market, regardless of origin, with absolutely no loopholes. The US markets and banking are far too profitable for investors to leave. A small tax would make them game the market a bit less, stick to slightly longer investments, and ultimately cover a huge portion of the tax burden.

2. VAT. it's a way to tax businesses, regardless of origin. Even if manufacturing moves overseas, we can still tax effectively. And we can drop other forms of corporate income tax to compensate for companies that are fully local.

believe it or not, not everyone is a burger with no clue about politics.

>socialist
>state/public ownership of the means of production
>a retarded idea that has never worked in real life.
>also:
>welfare != socialism
>public goods != socialism
>if you believe these things, you need to take an econ class
>and a civics class
>because you are retarded and you should fix that

I'm not a conservative, and I generally agree with you that most conservatives I meet don't know what liberalism actually is. But neither do most people on the left. It's complicated by the fact that progressives and socialists have co-opted the term for about 100 years, perverting everything admirable about the term. Originally, it was:
>pro-individual
>for natural rights
>against large/authoritarian government
But now most "liberals" are not these things. So the confusion we see now is sort of understandable.

How exactly did you lose your manhood?

Can they even recover from that?

>You need progressive agendas
I think we'd be better off with liberal agendas, rather than progressive. There are plenty of old-school liberals that proposed forms of welfare in the 1700s. We don't need the shitty 95% of progressivism to fuck it all up for us every time we need change, especially since it's all going so far off the deep end as the years go by. I mean, Bernie is seen as too far right now.

I do absolutely agree that we need the left and right to balance each other out. And if both sides didn't radicalize so much, we'd see actual progress.

What were you in for?
Drugs?
It was drugs, right?

Attached: cocaine.jpg (500x500, 208K)

how can they even recover?

Attached: 1553263593526.jpg (506x408, 140K)

You just went full retard. Never go full retard

Lol @ the retarded libtard op. Nobody from the right EVER goes to the left. It never happens. Lefties go to the right, ultimately, as they age and become more mature and start understanding how the world really works.

Only a complete idiot would start a thread trying to convince anons he was once a conservative and (was "drinking the koolaid"; fyi, that is a phrase invented by the right for the left libtard sheep, so this PROVES you are full of shit) then mysteriously just decided to abandon all moral integrity one day, forget about everything he learned over all the years of his life and experience in the world whereupon suddenly he converts to retardation (liberalism).

This thread just proves that libtards are retarded that they think people are as dumb as them to believe fake news and complete bullshit.

Attached: Smollett.jpg (1080x1191, 195K)

You were always scums, it's only now that you've embraced it

this /thread

Attached: this3.gif (300x186, 446K)

>imagine being this deep in the koolaid. Sad.

How many people do you think wont guess youre a total troll?

I would normally agree with this, and truth be told, I'd say 999999 times out of 1 million, you'd be right.

But I had a girl who I was gonna marry once, and she was a Christian conservative who was raised right-wing, and despite being raised in truth and wisdom, she not only became an edgy anti-Christian, but a psychotic lesbian liberal as well, and now she's completely unrecognizable to what she once was. Reading her twitter every now and then makes me want to puke at how utterly braindead she has become. Literal definition of a reprobate mind. She gonna burn in hell one day, mark my words.

no, you being a faggot made her turn into a lesbo ya shrimp dick soyboi

Why are libcucks such liars?

discord
blake .#4387

it's mostly bullshit but not all bullshit... if you don't realize they're right about niggers, you definitely didn't meet many of those, at least the bulk of them, like celebs or people in rich nearly-all-white areas who interact with the top 1% of most civilized nigs so think they're all ok

i was socially conservative until late in highschool; economic conservative for about 8 years after that until enough evidence convinced me that as good as the idea sounds in principle, trick down doesn't really work, the wealthy exploit economic systems way beyond whats needed for profitability and growth, other healthcare systems are superior to ours on the most important metrics, our system is allowing pharma companies to rape us to subsidize the whole world, and mainly that companies get large enough to be insulated from normal market forces and have manipulated the law enough that the balance has shifted to the point where they're a threat to indvidual freedom.

but also being constrained by facts and logic, and mostly concerned with individual freedom and actual equality, i argue with those nutjob identity politics sjw types all the time. they're just as bad for civil rights as the right, but are completely blind to it.

Nah. Aggravated battery.
But drugs and occult were involved.

Attached: XxWLxII_d.jpg (625x613, 19K)

This is what the truth is. Anyone else responding to OP is fueling his fantasy that he is deceiving someone.

I'm just replying for the bait

>(You)
No one is buying your horseshit OP

Give it two years before you figure out before you figure out it's not gay to like dicks if you're a girl, then realize it is gay if it's on a girl. Have fun being a hung lesbian!

fucking brainlets

Attached: 1551387706975.jpg (709x400, 44K)

fuck off nigger kike faggot

That is inapposite. You are mixing apples and oranges. You say "Christian conservative" but those are two different things and you are mixing them together into one. Her conservatism was the result of her being a Christian, not the other way around. She was never really a "conservative" and the fact that she became a "psychotic lesbian" should prove this to you. Of course, if you choose to become an abomination like that, your ONLY choice is to be a liberal. The opposite is not true.

Put simply, she did not "flip" from conservative to liberal. Her political ideology had nothing to do with her (other) life changes, and the result of those life changes limited her choice of political alignment. No Christian church is going to embrace a psychotic lesbian. Her only option was to seek out other psychotics and they are always found in the liberal pool, where most are in fact completely braindead from drinking the koolaid too long.

Liberalism is a mental disease. It is that simple. She was a psychotic, so she was left with other psychotics (liberals).

Attached: liberalism-a mental disease.jpg (400x336, 26K)

Why did you replace one form of bullshit with another?

Attached: liberalism.png (1015x1024, 1.18M)