TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Thoughts on what would happen with Hillary Clinton elected as president?

[deleted]

September 15, 2014
12 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Thoughts on what would happen with Hillary Clinton elected as president?
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 12
Comments 84
Date September 15, 2014 3:13 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2gfcnm/thoughts_on_what_would_happen_with_hillary/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/thoughts-on-what-would-happen-with-hillary-clinton.21134
https://theredarchive.com/post/21134
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill

Comments

[–][deleted] 67 points68 points69 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

new boss, same as the old boss

[–][deleted] 16 points16 points16 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lemonparty7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya, she'll be eager to prove she has balls. That means more wars.

[–]pirateted2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same shit, different asshole.

[–]Surf_Or_Die4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But... but... CHANGE...

Aw you gullible fools, you fell for that again?

New boss = old boss + different face

[–]lemonparty3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

G.W. Obama

[–]SeekingAlpha0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Will get fooled again. YEEEEAAAAAHH!!!

[–]allcapsisyelling 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone who gets remotely close to the presidency is a rat bastard. I'm sure we would continue to have elective wars and suppressed wages.

[–]Deathbeglory9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Aggressive military action every 25-30 days

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]svogliate2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gosh. I want to apologize for being the sort of defective property that can be lost in combat. Sorry, lady. My bad.

[–]biz201 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so raising children is harder than being forced to be in some shitty desert getting shot at constantly? Gotcha.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a1141 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ha! Pretty sure she's past that stage of life, actually...

[–]TI6910 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not much. There will be womyn on Facebook who know jack shit about most of Clinton's policies who will be campaigning hard for her, but if she wins, not much will change really.

Probably some more campaign rhetoric about feminism and women's rights, but her administration wouldn't really be much different from Obama's (or even that of a Republican candidate!). One party system y'all.

[–]The Red Pill RoomIanIronwood5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ain't gonna happen. Let me explain why.

In every presidential election with a strong visual component (starting with the Kennedy-Nixon election), in every single contest without fail the candidate with the higher perceived SMV won the election. Unless the GOP runs a naked Christie with a nasty rash, Hillary's not going to make it. My prediction is that she struggles with the primary, and may lose it all again there if the electorate proves tepid enough about their support for her.

Has nothing to do with politics, little even to do with gender, and a whole lot to do with basic human nature.

[–]MagicGainbow0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep, one of Kennedy's biggest advantages was a rare condition that among other things gave him an unnatural but photogenic tan, it made him show up better on early colour televisions but would have killed him a few years after Dallas anyway.

[–]kindlebluemoon 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It won't make a difference. We'll continue bombing Muslim countries, sending billions to Israel, bailing out the banks, letting corporations get away with paying zero taxes, shipping jobs overseas, allowing hospitals to charge $200 per aspirin, etc.

The president might have some amount of power, but all the real power is in the hands of the billionaires who run everything. Who has more power over the average American, the president of the United States, or his employer? Or is it his creditors?

The president exists to provide PR services to the people making the real decisions. Banks decide they need a bailout? Get the president to sell the public on the plan. Defense companies need to boost quarterly earnings? Get the president to sell the public the latest war. Oh, you want to reform healthcare? Better consult the insurance companies and ask them politely how they'd like to be reformed.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The president might have some amount of power, but all the real power is in the hands of the billionaires who run everything.

I think you might be overestimating the power of billionaires. When you hear what many of them say during their meetings, they're scared of the State.

They have their billions but the State has their men with guns.

The US Federal Government is comprised of fiefdoms that fight with each other for power and screw over the rest of us. The most dangerous of those fiefdoms are DOJ, CIA, FTC, SEC that can put billionaires behind bars (Michael Milken), and all the enforcement agencies.

Who can fuck up your life more, Eric Holder or Jeff Bezos?

If it wasn't for the men with guns and their enforcement of the legal tender laws, FED wouldn't last a month on the free market, and all the bankers and their corporate cronies would go down with them.

Read this article, more things will make sense: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf

[+]SFofallplaces-32 points-31 points-30 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bombing Muslim countries ... so? Sending billions to Israel ... so? Letting corporations get away with paying zero taxes ... so?

You’re a fucking nut.

[–]kindlebluemoon 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bombing Muslims creates more headaches and more enemies for us in the future, at a huge cost of tax dollars. Nobody benefits from this except for the defense industry and ambitious politicians looking to make their legacy.

Sending billions to Israel is bad for the same reason above.

Letting corporations get away with paying zero taxes. How much do you pay in taxes? And you're cool with multibillion dollar companies paying nothing? I guess I'm the nut.

[–]LukesLikeIt7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The real people in power never reveal their identities anyway so more of the same with just a different mouth saying it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's about Obama v. Romney but it will be equally valid in 2016:

"Romney and Obama are both extraordinarily talented and smart. That’s what it takes to pull off the world’s biggest hoax.

In their public debates, they must shamelessly play along with the expectation that they are masterminds of history’s largest and most expansive government with thousands of departments, millions and millions of regulations, astonishingly complex networks of graft and corruption, and legacy content dating back more then a century, and, further, claim — with a straight face — that their personal “vision” can encompass and control the whole apparatus, and, by extension, the nation and the world. They must pull off this ostentatious and wildly implausible display of the pretense of knowledge with the look and feel of genuine conviction.

Anyone who can do this has to be pathological, if he believes what he is saying, or duplicitous to an extent that vastly exceeds the human norm.

It’s all mightily impressive, so much so that the entire show could and should be moved to Broadway as a profitable venture. In that way, it could become consumer-pleasing entertainment rather persist in what it actually is: the biggest threat to peace, prosperity, and freedom in the world today."

Jeffrey Tucker

Source: http://lfb.org/observations-on-romney-v-obama/

http://i.imgur.com/phn1M.jpg

[–]DmDvT6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She's a mercedes Marxist. Shes got hers and she will make damn sure you dont get yours.

[–]pushajudas2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Realistically, not a damn thing (of importance) would change compared to a male president. We will still be in multiple wars at all times, economy will remain shit, and they'll pass a few laws regarding some bullshit about gays, women, or weed that change nothing but are hailed a huge success for their agenda. Meanwhile, Mrs. President gets to be the face of the free world for 4-8 years while the vast majority of her actions are dictated by rich white men (as it has been with every president since Washington).

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LasherDeviance0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She wont get half of the votes that you think she will. The Hispanics that would vote for her can't legally vote, and the other half that want to distance themselves from the gate jumpers will vote GOP. Older white women wont vote for her at all, neither will older black voters, as baby boomers tend to vote how their husbands vote, or are conservative(smart) enough to only vote for a man.

Gen Xer's such as myself, who have reached a moderate level of success, stopped voting Democrat a long time ago.

All she has is the young SJW vote honestly, and the uninformed, which Dem voters tend to be anyway.

[–]rcglinsk2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My only prediction is that US foreign policy would become more manly. Oh, and less golf.

[–]ufaild1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People who seek power should be the last ones to get it.

[–]miss_sogony 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's their best bet at getting a landslide election, Obama was elected because he was black for the most part. Hilary will get voted for being female. Leading the voters to think they are helping shape a new liberal utopia.

Nope.

Just hope she isn't like Maggie Thatcher, great war time prim minister, didn't roll over when the Argentine came kicking down the door. But absolutely destroyed communities and families.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But absolutely destroyed communities and families.

A lot of what she did would have happened regardless.

Margaret Thatcher didn't destroy communities and families, the break up of the coal and steel industries did.

And those industries had been unprofitable for years due to a combination of poor productivity and toxic relations with trade unions.

Parachute packages were offered at various stages by the government that could have softened the blow. They were rejected. Because the unions were confident they could force the government to heel, as they had done before.

Her alternative was what? To keep running pits and steelworks at twice the price that we could import it from abroad? Just to keep the wolves of the trade unions from her door? Worked well for the previous tory government to hers, which was smashed by the trade unions.

Not everything she did was right. Not all of it was wrong either.

Overall i still maintain she was the best prime minister we've had since Clement Attlee, and i say that as a child born in the north, in the 80s.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How ironic would it be if the first female president was also the first one in decades to reinstate the draft

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same shit we are seeing now, but a slight increase in society-wide failed feminist shit tests that will erode the country's foundations a bit more. She'll be checked by a Congress that most likely won't go too Democrat, so there's that.

We may get some gender neutral benefits like better health care, but only after the precious women to get their cut first.

[–]bam2_891 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hell will freeze over. With all of her baggage she couldn't win the primaries in 2008 and now she's added even more baggage and will be trying to pull it off while coming less than a year short of Ronald Reagan's age at inauguration. There are people who can be the President at that age, but she's not one of them. Reagan was more than happy to delegate and did his best to avoid giving an unrehearsed answer, but Hillary has to run everything her way and is a gaffe-prone as they come. The party would be foolish to nominate her.

[–]Cgn381 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No different than if any other republican former Walmart lawyer gets elected.

[–]Olipyr1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same shit, different sex organ.

[–]anonlymouse1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Worst option as far as I'm concerned. There's stuff the left would normally complain about, that they should complain about, that they aren't with Obama as president. Simply because he's black. The same would happen with Hillary. 12-16 years of a neutered left population with a left government can't be good.

[–]MSoftHarem2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

America jumps the shark. What an embarrassment to the previously "best" nation in the world. A woman as President, Jesus Christ I'm leaving.

[–]Flyingbuffaloman8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Angela Merkel is 'alpha' as fuck and has led Germany to prosperity and power despite being a member of the debt-ridden, welfare state EU. AWALT, but the fact that she is a woman doesn't inherently disqualify her as a strong leader, or at least stronger than the slimeballs we regularly give the office. Of course, the woman in question is Hillary Clinton so my point is moot anyway.

[–]MSoftHarem6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

AWALT is right. The male version of Angela Merkel would be a better leader. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else in the RP community. Does this invalidate Angela Merkel as a capable leader? No. She is more capable than most men. However, my point still stands. The most capable male leader will always be more capable than the most capable female leader. With that being the case, why would we handicap society by putting an individual into the most powerful position who is clearly not the most qualified?

[–]topspeedj2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

German society and national thought is generally more productive anyway. In the UK for example people tend to respect the man driving the Bentley more than the man who designed its engine. In Germany it's the opposite, and that sums up why they're doing so well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Male version of Angela Merkel --> Albert Speer

[–]rubycando1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is no country on the planet more careful in choosing leaders than Germany. Their recent history compels them.

Angela Merkel was the best candidate of those available at the time, and the low quality of men that didn't make the cut in front of her is perhaps the most powerful argument against the effects of neo-feminism.

The real argument here, in my opinion, is against feminism, not her capability as a leader, she is a very good one in her own rights, but rather the whole process that led Germany, of all nations, to a point in history where they either didn't have a capable male leader or they collectively though a woman is a better choice by virtue of their recent history. It's not that hard to think that the effects of feminism eroded what little was left of the German people capacity to believe in male leadership.

Further more, at European level (as a whole) the quality of leaders (of nations) is nothing short of appalling. There is literally no one in Europe who would make a good choice per se. Even worst, the only one who somewhat stood up to a real alpha leader (Vladimir Putin) is Angela Merkel, and let's face it with the current situation in Ukraine, it's safe to say even she didn't do too well.

All this is truly a consequence of the mass hysteria called feminism, driving manly traits out of the pool of desired qualities for a man, by means of social conditioning and a set of borderline retarded laws to enforce that.

We need a new Winston Churchill to steer us all through some very hard times ahead, and with the murderous spree targeted at the very qualities required to make a leader I feel we are hopeless. Will we find one such man? I don't believe so but I have faith.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MSoftHarem0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have no doubt. I'm not sure what could be a stronger indication that we are unfit as a nation.

[–]SFofallplaces0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t get how you are down voted in this sub.

[–]MSoftHarem0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We have a lot of BP spectators who are too cowardly to comment and will only downvote.

[–]ShitArchonXPR0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The reasons are obvious. If you comment and get banned, you can no longer downvote the sub with that account. This is precisely why I haven't tried directly pissing off SRS.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whoever says that it doesn't matter who becomes president has apparently forgotten the impact of GWB's presidency...

[–]n4cer1261 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cannot possibly be worse than the PoS current in power but I have no doubt we will find we will have plenty to be shocked & appalled about

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing, nothing is going to happen.

[–]Ob1Kn00b0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing worse then will happen with any other President.

Nothing better, either.

[–]Gabe6678 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We'd probably get nuked by Russia the second she steps into office

[–]nigmondo0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We all know the US President is just a puppet. Nothing will change

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More symbolic, less substantive policy

[–]Fallout99-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

A lot of people lean to libertarian on this sub but I'm personally extreme socialist (free education, healthcare, charging CEO's that outsource with treason.) But nothing will change. The corporations win no matter who wins. That's why they donate to both campaigns. Going forward I'm strictly voting 3rd party.

[–]thro_way8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm personally extreme socialist.

If you don't mind me asking, whats stopping you from being a socialist? Thousands of communes exist in the US; you could join one tomorrow and live under the exact economic system that you want.

[–]ISODAK9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because it's more rewarding to force other people to live by your beliefs than to actually do it yourself...

[–]thro_way3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I just can't imagine the mindset that leads people to think, "Sure, this has never worked before and failed thousands of times, costing hundreds of millions of people their lives, but I'm so absolutely sure that this time I've got it right that I'm not just going to live it myself and let others follow my example if it succeeds, but I'm actually going to force everyone else to do the same, because I know better than them."

[–]Fallout991 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm genuinely curous, what do you mean by these communes. Are they basically hippy farms? I live in a major metroloitian area so that wouldn't be for me. But most European cities, I would definitely live there.

[–]thro_way2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Are they basically hippy farms?

Yup. Thousands exist, and for some reason none of them have managed to evolve beyond a collection of huts whose residents sell bracelets on Etsy.

It's almost as if in societies where no individual person has any incentive to put in the work to build infrastructure, nobody puts in the work to build infrastructure. Imagine that.

[–]Fallout99-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We are literally the only 1st world nation without socialism. Why are you comparing American capitalism to hippie farms instead of Western Europe or Canada.

[–]thro_way4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Western Europe/Canada are free market countries with increasingly socialist components. They're very, very far from a state who's citizens exercise democratic control over the means of production.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

France is a socialist country and look how fucked we are.

[–]SFofallplaces6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Socialist. Because it works every time.

[–]ISODAK0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I understand the mythology behind all the free stuff, and why that would be appealing to a person, but why the treason nonsense? Outsourcing has done far more to help the poor areas of the world than any government or charity. Besides that, it's win-win: lower prices for consumers, and better wages for poor workers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/04/18/heres-how-much-poverty-has-declined-in-china/

[–]Fallout99-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes I'm sure corporations were outsourcing purely from altruism and not their bottom line. Since 1970 real wages are down 20%. For long term economic growth our country needs a healthy middle-class. Unfortunately all CEO incentives are tied to short term profits. That's what leads to job cuts and outsourcing, who wouldn't ship jobs over seas for a $50 million bonus?

[–]johnnygeeksheek2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Capitalism creates prosperity through using peoples greed, and socialism creates death and despair through misguided altruism.

[–]ISODAK0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You could have said "socialism creates death and despair through using peoples' envy"

[–]ISODAK0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I never claimed they did it out of altruism. Market transactions are win-win. You work for me, I pay you. I sell something for money, you get the product. Win-win.

Why do you think the trend started in 1970? The gold standard ended in the '60s, giving government unchecked power to print money and hand it out to cronies. Other non-politically-connected businesses need to work harder to cut costs and compete with the free money cronyism. Sometimes that requires outsourcing (going out of business being the only other option). There's also a natural incentive to outsource to find lower cost labor, but eventually the world will reach an equilibrium of wages across regions.

Because of all the cronyism, CEO pay becomes largely based on political connections. If you can deliver a $100 million in subsidies or tax breaks, you're worth paying $90mil, regardless if you do anything else of value. Chasing short term results is the symptom of billions of dollars being herded into the stock market by government-incentivized 401ks and pensions.

TLDR: the source of all the problems you've observed is government

[–]Fallout99-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It started with the destruction of the unions not the gold standard. The corporations bought up politicians and wrote legislation for them. We now see this with Citizens United and the healthcare bill. And worker output is up something like 90% since the 70's.

How is a wage equilibrium a good idea when most of the world lives off of less than 5 dollars a day?

[–]ISODAK0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's hard to take you seriously when you just parrot propaganda and disregard all contradicting evidence. Also, why jump to such a dumb conclusion about wage equilibrium?

I demonstrated how China and India are now far more prosperous than they used to be. They are no longer the cheapest work force in the world, so global enterprises will seek other poor nations to elevate. As long as countries aren't idiots and try to stop globalization, wages in poor countries will rise until it is not beneficial to hire them over local workers.

Do I need to spell it out for you? That means when their average wage is very close to our own.

[–]Fallout990 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes their wages are increasing, american wages are decreasing.

[–]Str8tuptrollin-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't call that extreme socialism, in most western countries it's common sense and the reason people pay taxes

[–]SpongeCroft-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

absolutely nothing.

your cool first black president talked about all that change and stopping the wars. look what he did, motherfucker's worse than both bushes COMBINED.

[–]skoobled0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The American President? What, you mean the Head of PR for the Military Industrial Complex?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same kind of shit that is happening with the current woman president.

No, I'm not talking about Michelle O. either. She's the president's beard.

[–]whitey_male-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She doesn't look like a feminazi to me. She looks like she had to do things the hard way for the most part.

[–]Dismantlement-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The presidency doesn't matter, corporate interests and unseen networks of corruption rule the world.

[–]superyay-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Until there is a serious change in the amount of power corporations can yield in government, there will never be serious change, regardless of who is elected.

[–]EuphoricWizard-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd rather not even try to think about it. Would book my plane tickets out of this country the second it happens

[–]RejectionEquality -2 points-2 points-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sluts.

Sluts everywhere.

And this.

And this.

And some of that

So yeah, more of the same.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

LMAO Kokesh is a fucking beast at putting people on the spot.

So many avid political supporters know jack shit about the candidate they back.

[–]1Zackcid0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's all about teh feelz before teh realz!

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter