READY FOR 2017???

Man get out of here with that airbrushed pussy. Where is the cute asian chick?

there's a beautiful thumbnail right there for you
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE PROLES

I did where did you get this article?

USSR v2.0 100 years after october revolution confirmed

if dubs world revolution happens next year

...

This better raise class consciouness

thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/forecast-for-2017/

That's a nice butt
And I think right wing media will soon it as Obama's fault if it happens this year or next

Spin it*

It's important for the Bernie camp to get control of the DNC in 2017 or everything else is for naught and only ensures Trump a second presidency.

Ironically the people who screech about Trump on how he is a sexist racist homophobe will be his fiercest supporters in 2020, as the right-wing Democrats (including the SJWs) won't accept the left taking over (just like right-wing Labour in UK doesn't accept Corbyn as head of Labour) and there will be a failed coup by congress Democrats and low poll results.

But polls ain't that good nowadays, since it's incredibly obvious, that media bias play a huge role in it. So even if they turn against the now left leaning Democrats, elections will show, just how small and irrelevant a minority these fucktards were.

Bernie won't candidate for 2020. He ran in 2016 to make a point and he did that nearly too well (as in don't just hand over Clinton her presidency candidature, out of mere muh privilege) and he battled her in all 57 places, nearly driving the point he made home. Also he kinda lost cred by endorsing Clinton. Just as Warren lost cred for not endorsing Sanders. So by 2019 a fresh candidate (and a fresh VP candidate as well) who at this moment may be a literal who should be crystallised.

I just can't imagine anybody halfway good running for Democrats in 2020. Bernie came out of nowhere so who knows, but the party does anything they can to prevent left-wingers from winning primaries

Crash in 2017-2018
Who will be blamed?

Millenials, for not buying diamonds and dinosaur media

fuck the "Democratic" Party

the US needs a Labour party

Very likely, Trump will try and push economic strategy for short term gains in USA. I'm not aware what China is going to do.

Europe is a sinking ship that outright refuses to either reform the European Union or discard the project as a whole which is going to keep causing damage until something is done, and when something will get done it is far too late and the consequences that Euro countries will face will be bad.

Shared currency with countries having their own fiscal policies and their own economies is doomed to fail. This is because when there is a downturn in one economy but a surge in another one, the economy that has had a downturn can't simply devalue their currency to attract investment. Which is a very prominent reason why southern Europe is suffering and this issue has not been addressed at all ever since the EU was created. Yet every economist knew that this would be a major issue.

Checked

Like I said, the candidates for 2020 are not established yet.
Many fingers point to Tulsi Gabbard, but she needs to do a lot more before we get there and she needs to be CONSISTENT in what she is doing, unlike Hillary. Even if some Hillbots start claiming shit like "I owe nothing to a guy who was anti-segregation/pro-gayrights when it actually fucking mattered unlike the gal I support now, who opposed what I liked but flipflopped on it, that means she truly changed".
But a lot can happen within 4 years. There are mid term elections, a good platform for others to establish themselves. Having Sander's blessing, like he blessed Ellison sure wouldn't hurt.

The Democratic Party right now is in disarray. I think they are still all over between stage 2-4 on the Kübler-Ross model.
The immediate goal is to put Keith Ellison in charge of the DNC. I have my doubts that he will make it, but why not try?

A Labour party will only work, if we also manage to create the Cucktastrophy by splitting the Rethuglicans, the Tea-Baggers and the Alt-Right.

But why create yet another left leaning split?

That's the most self-centered shit I ever read. "These people who are totally the most self-centered selfish narcissist entitled selfish babies ever are going to fix things for me." If shit goes down anything like that at all it's gonna be like that fantasy Rorschach has at the beginning of Watchmen where they shout "save us!" and he whispers "no."

Media was very biased for Clinton during the election, that is the mainstream media (not the alternative news which was much more pro Trump).

Bernie is lucky if he even lives 4 years from now, he looks extremely old. I don't think retiring in a 600k house is really making his point either.

The best hope the DNC has is to go back to identity politics again and let a decent looking black person with charisma run. None of his policies would matter, just Obama 2.0 playing full on identity politics.

Very likely the EU as I tried to explain here
The EU is consistently ignoring their structural and eventually the consequences of this will knock at the door.

You're forgetting the Obama voters who went Trump this time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Considering how only garbage pro EU pro globalist stuff comes out of the UK and Netherlands labour parties I'd rather not. They rely completely on identity politics and importing their voters to win elections, not actually making good policy. They both have been a blight in the past 20 years on the lower and middle classes judging by policies they've made.

But still it's a good point that the two party system is crappy. The only way to change it up is if you have enough money that you can do your own campaign, sort of what Trump did (he still took donations later on). But Trump wasn't really an outsider either, he still went through one party.

If you yourself are a solid candidate and run third party and are succesful the only thing you succeed at most of the time is splitting the republicans or the democrats, causing the opposition to automatically win.

Why are millenials getting shat on?
This must be the most hated generation ever.
Even millenials hate themselves.
And the problems they are hated for were caused by baby boomers in the first place.

This looks like a shift blame ruse to me.

Because they are the first generation in almost a century that will be poorer than their parents. They are also dislike capitalism. Thus, millennials need to be demonized.

...

It would be way easier to just kick out or over saturate all the neo-liberals and make the democrats a labor party than it would be to get a third party to win.

They dislike capitalism but they have no idea what socialism is. Great.

Creating a viable leftist third party is a lot harder than it is for folks on the right. We don't have the same kind of funds flowing in to political candidates that the libertarian party has. And the sources that we would get funding from: like unions (especially teachers) and such have been hit hard in the past decades and will likely take a huge hit in the next few years.

Also the next dem candidate will likely be someone like Cuomo. It's not gonna be exiting. I don't even think Kanye will run.

millenials all over the "developed" capitalist world aren't fitting in with what's necessary for capitalism:
aka training for ever more complex and skilled jobs at competitive wages
we're depressed, anxious, alienated, hopeless for the world, and we fucking hate work (hur durr fuckin lazy leftists I'm a rightard class cuck and I love competing with slave labor)
as we fucking should

That butt 👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌

What is with you and butts? Are you a black man on the inside?

5000% yes

I'm going to eat more pussy and ass this year than I did last year. I will drink more unwisely with the anti-depressants I take, which isn't a change from last year. I will take more xanax than prescribed, which isn't a change from last year. But what matters is I will eat more ass and nobody can stop me.

New Years Resolution.

Well, at least I'll be able to get my rifle before the collapse.

(Posted from a secure and necessary People's Bunker)

Why? That is disgusting and unsanitary.

Not if you're clean. Plus I want to please my partner, whomever they may be. Unsatisfaction is the least of my wants in bed.

A big reason is that boomers were raised with the American Dream™ still being preached and really believed that their nice lifestyle came from working hard and not just being born in an economic boom. When millennials have access to massive amounts of data never before had, we realized that our shitty fast foot jobs were making us work harder for less pay compared to previous decades. When we raise the issue to boomers it looks like we're whining. I actually had a teacher in high school who bragged about working 2 jobs and going to school full time, and still had plenty of money for fun stuff. Us kids were just shitty with finances and spoiled. Turns out his "jobs" were only 15 hours a week and adjusted for inflation paid more than current minimum wage jobs. Now days a "part time" job can be anything under full time, even 36 hours. Also college has gotten over twice as expensive, not just in tuition but every aspect; housing, food, books, cars, etc. I've noticed this same thing happening with a lot of millennials and their parents/elders: the boomers just don't want to fucking listen to their kids. We're just "lazy" and "entitled", part of the "gimmedat" generation. They blame us for being raised with a participation trophy despite their generation being the ones that were giving us the fucking trophies in the first place.

Posadist emancipation now!

it's the best fk u

I am mad just thinking about it

spot on, user

I want to say hipsters and problem glasses type liberals, but that very likely isn't the case. Only reason why I dislike my own generation is due to the aforementioned. I just don't get along with those type of people, and they're very common if you're going to an university. Luckily not all millenials are like this.

That would describe problems quite well. You forgot to mention the fact that the study whatever you like the most and you'll be succesful came from the babyboomers. While now it's mocked because there are a lot of bunk degrees out there that don't really make you anything, when the boomers were around you would easily get a very nice income with an university education regardless of major.

36 hours is a full time job where I live. In America only a minority earn minimum wage though.

Courtesy of the great educational system in USA. Courtesy of the great post standardization of education in EU countries.

Who am I kidding though, a miniscule amount of people are even genuinely interested in certain trains of thought.

It's still triggering hearing arguments that Britain should've remained in the EU. However it would be a disastrous move for Britain to remain, the standardizations that the EU is trying to force are done in a truly awful manner, doesn't matter what area it is (education, medicine, finance, banks, recently pensions). The shared currency is a fundamental flaw because the EU isn't one governing body. Which means that if one country is in a recession it can't get out of it due to them being unable to devalue their currency.

wew

Trump and the brocialists who handed him the election

Obama 2.0 wouldn't win as comfortably as Obama did in 2008 but he/she would still have a good chance of getting over the line with high minority turnout. Trump won very narrowly this year.

No they don't. The average millennial is a brainwashed establishment stooge with delusions of edginess. Being in favor of social democracy (plus open borders and SJW garbage) is not subversive in the least.

To be fair, I've yet to see a valid non-nationalist argument against open borders. Assuming you're talking to a utilitarian who refuses to recognize the validity of nations, how do you justify telling people that they can't cross certain imaginary lines?

I'm dreaming of a Red October.

Also, anecdotally, last year Home Depot bought all its employees turkies for Thanksgiving. This year we had a "contest" to bring non-perishables and stock the store pantry and win a $10 gift card.

Open borders between a poor country and a rich country results in people flooding from the former to the latter, causing heightened competition for jobs, space, and resources. Good for the people who control and dispense those things, bad for the native proletariat and consequently bad for the political prospects of anyone who supports open borders. Also, Islam is fucking cancer and I don't care if it's nationalistic not to want Muslims settling in my country.

Where's your evidence that it results in a net decrease in standard of living for the average person in that situation?

It seems obvious to me that in the case of a small and very poor country having open borders with a large and very rich country, even a total migration would be beneficial on average. The poor will experience a huge increase in their standards of living, but they will have an almost negligible effect on the "native" population.

Also,
You seem to have far, far too much faith in the ability of people to know what is good or bad for them. Every single election I've seen can be best analogized as turkeys voting for Christmas.

Where do you live?
I'm going to move there.

How do I get into ass eating?

The best arguments against open borders aren't nationalist, but statist:
Different states have different laws, resultingly different ability/sincerity in enforcing those laws, and resultingly different economic/social conditions. If people are allowed to flaunt those laws by passing things over the border without any restriction or interference by the state, the rule of law is weakened for those capable of transnational activity, and everything that derives from it falls apart.

In order to keep effective, fair and equal rule of law for everyone domestically, doing or using things abroad that would be illegal at home must be banned or punished.

Why import immigrants instead of using natives? Why export to foreign processors instead of domestic ones? Why import foreign goods instead of using domestic ones? Today, the answer to that question isn't because of actual supply or demand shortages, nor because of vast efficiency differences, it's purely because of regulatory arbitrage.

That means if you apply countervailing duties against what should be legal violations to most trade and migration today, you end up with a massive net loss to the global economy.

Since open borders are founded on parasitic arbitrage, while some poorer populations may be made more wealthy and industrially developed in the short term, the primary long-term effect is burning the muscle of far more efficient and politically free economies to spread a little fat over the ruling class of less efficient politically abusive economies.

The ultimate result of this is to crack apart the strength of the working class, and bolster the tyranny of capital at its worst, which will make EVERYONE poorer once capital consolidates for its endgame.

Neoliberal transnationalism is a long-con shell game by capital to play labor against itself, in a slippery downward spiral to match weakness with greater weakness. Our eventual counter must be globalized socialism, but ONLY after the laws of all nations involved have harmonized at the same high level through nondestructive mutual aid.

I despise most of the laws of almost every country on the planet. The overwhelming majority of laws serve to increase suffering and worsen the problems they pretend to solve. As such, I feel this is more of an argument in support of open borders.

Transporting goods half way around the planet just to take advantage of differences in wages and employment regulation is wasteful, I agree. That said, the free movement of goods is very different to the free movement of people. In fact, closed borders tend to increase discrepancies in wages and working conditions, leading to more wasteful shipping of goods.

Again, this sounds like much more of an argument against the free movement of goods than the free movement of people. Taxing imports based on the conditions of the workers who produced them isn't a bad idea, but I'd contest that forcing those workers to stay in their shitty abusive countries while taking advantage of cheap imports from those countries is the worst of all worlds.

Sorry if I haven't understood anything properly.

So what? Without the good ones, you'd be living in Somalia-tier mideival neofeudalism. Slavery, child labor, minimum wage, workplace safety, construction zoning, environmental protections, free speech, strict bureaucratic enforcement, inspections, anti-bribery, due process, free elections, anti-fraud, etc. Things could be far better, but the good laws labor struggled all of history to obtain more than outweigh the bad ones.

Not really. The difference between offshoring to take advantage of the results of different laws to bully domestic workers, and importing torrents of desperate slaves to bully domestic workers, is a slim one. Not to mention the sheer waste of importing people instead of exporting laws.

Only if you allow it. That's sort of like saying the protection of your endangered species will only increase killing of them abroad. The goal is to stamp out poverty, not to stamp out prosperity.

Three huge objections:
1) That's obviously not what I or most anti-immigration people want, opposition to mass economic immigration overlaps almost totally with opposition to offshoring. I admit many of them are spooked isolationists, but still.
2) Even ignoring the spooky culture, classcucked obedience, desperate poverty, and abusive conditions most are funneled into even domestically, immigrants still represent a needless source of excess population pressure in what should've been demographically stable countries decades ago. By contrast, sources of migrants are so overpopulated that the same number of immigrants that completely topples the scales in destination countries, barely shaves anything off the pressures of their homelands.
3) The great, overwhelming majority of global poor will never, ever, ever emmigrate, nor be able to. Absolutely jack shit (except perhaps reparations from the inefficient exploitation of their emigre relatives, which worldwide barely even equal the annual aboveboard US DoD budget) is given to these people by mass economic immigration. What's taken from them? Agitation and leadership by the most dynamic people there. Literally the only way mass economic immigration could be justified is by EVACUATING high-double-digit percentages of entire nations, billions of people:
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Obviously, the best approach would be rigorous foreign aid, funded by highly productive 1st-world labor, and export of our superior laws in the form of (ideally, subsidized) FairTrade-style enforcement on production abroad. But prima-facie, immigration as a cure for global poverty is pure nonsense.

Richer countries pollute more. More people living there means more pollution.

...

...

So we either maintain a stark divide between rich and poor or we change our societies to be less wasteful and polluting.

Of course people here freak out and turn to nationalism/statism as soon as you suggest the slightest reduction in western standards of living.

Bullshit. This applies to all countries.

That's turd-worldist thinking. Defeatism, in other words.

Even the smallest turn toward conservation and sustainable technology would allow standard of life to continue growing apace while massively slashing resource demands.

For instance, look at these maps, and notice that while there is a rough correlation between standard of life and environmental demand, there are very large differences between the more wasteful (i.e., USA) and efficient (i.e., Sweden).

What applies to all countries?

Into the trash it goes!

Oh I agree, but a lot of people seem to think that becoming more efficient is a reduction in living standards. "What do you mean I can't drive my 4x4 to the shops every day!?"

Not an argument, it's properly sourced and has data

So what? That doesn't mean it's probably made by a non expert. Holla Forums can source data as well, doesn't mean they are right.

it's a great blog. You should read it, it's from a marxist perspective but even a non-marxist can hear interesting critiques of keynesians, austrians, Monetarists, and mainstream ("") marxists

Is it made by a real economist? If not, ditch it entirely. Also, marxists mostly suck at macro economics.

Absolutely, the burgerian aversion to public transit (and the general boss's aversion worldwide to telecommuting) is strange and mysterious. But a lot of it would be almost undetectable in everyday experience.

For instance, simply by installing geothermal heat pumps for HVAC and solar hybrid centralized fiber-optics for lighting, nearly all electrical demand would be eliminated outright.

Please let this happen, elections are too boring

Green comrade, with all due respect, do you have any idea just how big the US is?

It isn't just our cities that are spread out: Our grocery stores, our dry cleaners, our pharmacies; every aspect of our daily lives is usually at least half an hour's walk away. More than likely, the ones we'd actually like to visit would take upwards of an hour to reach by foot or bike, so it just makes darn good sense to take a car.

Take it from me: I happen to live in the single best-connected region of the country, and transit lines are jam-packed during peak hours. But it'd still take an hour's bus ride to get to the train station; several hours to get to the park; hour and half to get to the grocery store, and even if you did, you'd still be limited by what you could carry on your person! (It's rather telling that, outside of metropolitan areas, most Americans buy their groceries for at least an entire week at a time.)

This isn't anyone's fault; it's just a natural (if unprecedented) problem that occurs when a powerful nation claims vast swathes of territory in a short amount of time.

This is the biggest problem with Australia as well.

Everything is spread out as fuck, insane suburban sprawl, takes me an hour to talk to my closest shops, 5 minutes by car.

It's not only just the distance, but the actual layout. US and Australian suburbs are often just squiggly lines all over the place with very little actual thought into layout, this means you get the saying and I'm going to paraphrase "1 square kilometer in europe is smaller than one square kilometer in the US" because in the US, to walk one square kilometer from one side to the other, you're basically zig-zagging it all over the place, where in Europe and some major US city central design with actual proper blocs, it's just one line right through from one side to the other and there is way more shit in that dense square kilometer.

There's a pretty good image out there illustrating this, I'll try find it.

Charlie Brooker's 2016 Wipe

youtube.com/watch?v=XanyPq5BcoA

Not the image I was thinking of, but same point.

True, I myself have resided in the countryside near one or other small towns my entire life except two brief stints, but folks like me are no excuse for what's happened to our infrastructure in the last 50 years.

Unlike basically any other country, for instance, our passenger rail has actually gone down in use as population and traffic grew. I suspect similar though less severe trends also affect bus and tram systems throughout the country. And leaving aside the size of the country, the US has become more urban, not less, in spite of which our (especially newer) cities have become sprawlier and shed much public transit of every kind. The most infamous example being LA's almost total lack of subway or elevated rail systems. Another unusual fault is our position as a wealthy country with numerous high-traffic inter-urban corridors, but basically no high-speed rail.

On a less material note, we also waste enormous amounts of money on uniquely low fuel/tire/etc taxes for road maintenance, while spending practically nothing on subsidies for rail and bus transport.

Polls are honestly pretty good/close. People like to argue that pollsters completely shit the bed in predicting the 2k16 US presidential election, but forget that HRC won by popular vote and was within the margin of error. Similiar story with Brexit, the poll results were within the margin of error if you only look at the polls close to the vote.

infrastructure developed like this because of capitalism and individual transport. Socialism could have necessary services more clustered.
people in rural areas would probably still micro-transport. the municipality could have rental cars or self-driving cars do pickups however.

That is a monumentally terrible comparison on multiple levels. Regarding Shillary, she wasn't campaigning for the popular vote, and pollsters weren't trying to predict the popular vote, the electoral college tally was the subject in question, and he flattened her there by over 25% (after clawing his way up from the bottom of the heap in the Republican primary), in large part due to her unwisely treating the rust belt as "safe states".

Brexit, on the other hand, actually was purely up to the popular vote.

Anyway, the other poster's point was primarily about how denialist to the point of absolute delusion the media and its apparatchiks were.

fuck this idiot

There's a marked difference between being anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory, user. Most of the anti-Corbyn types are terrified that his "extremism" will cost Labour the next election, but they certainly aren't advocating for a Tory win to "chastise" the extreme Left from ever supporting another Corbyn (like certain centrist Republican figures did re:Trump)

Fucking Bellevue. Man, what a wannabe city.