Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Sweden got more socialist, economy now booming
Comments
-
Winners win.AZDuck said:
What rules did I change?salemcoog said:
Losers change the rules after they lose.AZDuck said:
That's dumb. Where was he going to get three million votes?Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
You've reached reddit status in this thread and I question your reasoning skills to be a Mall cop.
What did Sweden change last year that is going to bankrupt it? Can you cite to an authority besides your unwashed ass?
When did the US adopt socialism (democratic or otherwise) as its ruling principle? Can you cite to an authority besides your unwashed ass?
Donald Trump is not a very popular president. You have to go back to 2004 to find an election where Trump's vote total would have won the popular vote. Back then the US population was 32 million less than it was in 2016.
His ratings haven't been shooting up since he was inaugurated, either.
Trump did great with the system in place. But an election with low turnout, both parties' candidates historically unpopular, over a million write-in votes, that's no mandate, fren.
Losers make up excuses.
And it's clear you blew your load about a third of the way into the video if you have to ask what has changed in Sweden. So clean up and watch it again with your hands our of your shorts and pay attention. -
Four fucking pages about Sweden and not a single pic of a blonde with big tits.
Your* all fags. -
You're right that I didn't watch the video, I can't see them on internet explorer.salemcoog said:
Winners win.AZDuck said:
What rules did I change?salemcoog said:
Losers change the rules after they lose.AZDuck said:
That's dumb. Where was he going to get three million votes?Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
You've reached reddit status in this thread and I question your reasoning skills to be a Mall cop.
What did Sweden change last year that is going to bankrupt it? Can you cite to an authority besides your unwashed ass?
When did the US adopt socialism (democratic or otherwise) as its ruling principle? Can you cite to an authority besides your unwashed ass?
Donald Trump is not a very popular president. You have to go back to 2004 to find an election where Trump's vote total would have won the popular vote. Back then the US population was 32 million less than it was in 2016.
His ratings haven't been shooting up since he was inaugurated, either.
Trump did great with the system in place. But an election with low turnout, both parties' candidates historically unpopular, over a million write-in votes, that's no mandate, fren.
Losers make up excuses.
And it's clear you blew your load about a third of the way into the video if you have to ask what has changed in Sweden. So clean up and watch it again with your hands our of your shorts and pay attention.
That's why I went looking for some big change to Swedish government or policy on the interwebz. Finding nothing (the Social Democrats and the Greens control a "minority government") I asked you.
As for the rest, Sweden is demonstrably (1) democratic, (2) solvent, (3) successful.
So what's gunna change? -
What data are you using to draw the conclusion that republicans would rule politics if they were socially liberal/fiscally responsible? Is it that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America? Or that the majority of Americans support his economic policies?Doogles said:
Nothing wrong with that. It's truly the answer.AZDuck said:
#wokeUWhuskytskeet said:
You are an actual retarded person if you think Obama is a socialist. He'd be right wing in most European countries.salemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
Republicans will rule politics if they ever figure it out. The Bible belt that floats them needs to understand that God works in mysterious ways and people like to get high and abort babies.
Tax drugs = money
Abort unwanted children = population control/social service relief
No brainer, except God.
I'm not even convinced this is a real thing. Social and economic issues are intertwined. At some point you're going to have to choose between your social liberalism and you fiscal conservativeness and at that point you stop being whatever you didn't choose.
It just seems like something you say because you think it sounds smart. Like calling yourself agnostic. It sounds good, best of both worlds! But ultimately it's meaningless. -
I'm pretty apathetic so no real data to draw from. I just have good intuition and feel what I feel.allpurpleallgold said:
What data are you using to draw the conclusion that republicans would rule politics if they were socially liberal/fiscally responsible? Is it that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America? Or that the majority of Americans support his economic policies?Doogles said:
Nothing wrong with that. It's truly the answer.AZDuck said:
#wokeUWhuskytskeet said:
You are an actual retarded person if you think Obama is a socialist. He'd be right wing in most European countries.salemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
Republicans will rule politics if they ever figure it out. The Bible belt that floats them needs to understand that God works in mysterious ways and people like to get high and abort babies.
Tax drugs = money
Abort unwanted children = population control/social service relief
No brainer, except God.
I'm not even convinced this is a real thing. Social and economic issues are intertwined. At some point you're going to have to choose between your social liberalism and you fiscal conservativeness and at that point you stop being whatever you didn't choose.
It just seems like something you say because you think it sounds smart. Like calling yourself agnostic. It sounds good, best of both worlds! But ultimately it's meaningless.
Humans are innately violent and possessive, that greed will never change. So the compromise probably exists on capitalizing on the vices of humanity.
People will never like the idea of floating others, but they will adjust to the idea of modern conversation (abortion is ok, weed is a plant, etc.) -
Jesus fucking Christ.Doogles said:
I just have good intuition and feel what I feel.allpurpleallgold said:
What data are you using to draw the conclusion that republicans would rule politics if they were socially liberal/fiscally responsible? Is it that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America? Or that the majority of Americans support his economic policies?Doogles said:
Nothing wrong with that. It's truly the answer.AZDuck said:
#wokeUWhuskytskeet said:
You are an actual retarded person if you think Obama is a socialist. He'd be right wing in most European countries.salemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
Republicans will rule politics if they ever figure it out. The Bible belt that floats them needs to understand that God works in mysterious ways and people like to get high and abort babies.
Tax drugs = money
Abort unwanted children = population control/social service relief
No brainer, except God.
I'm not even convinced this is a real thing. Social and economic issues are intertwined. At some point you're going to have to choose between your social liberalism and you fiscal conservativeness and at that point you stop being whatever you didn't choose.
It just seems like something you say because you think it sounds smart. Like calling yourself agnostic. It sounds good, best of both worlds! But ultimately it's meaningless. -
What's wrong with that? Being fiscally responsible and socially liberal is a pretty safe bet.allpurpleallgold said:
Jesus fucking Christ.Doogles said:
I just have good intuition and feel what I feel.allpurpleallgold said:
What data are you using to draw the conclusion that republicans would rule politics if they were socially liberal/fiscally responsible? Is it that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America? Or that the majority of Americans support his economic policies?Doogles said:
Nothing wrong with that. It's truly the answer.AZDuck said:
#wokeUWhuskytskeet said:
You are an actual retarded person if you think Obama is a socialist. He'd be right wing in most European countries.salemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
Republicans will rule politics if they ever figure it out. The Bible belt that floats them needs to understand that God works in mysterious ways and people like to get high and abort babies.
Tax drugs = money
Abort unwanted children = population control/social service relief
No brainer, except God.
I'm not even convinced this is a real thing. Social and economic issues are intertwined. At some point you're going to have to choose between your social liberalism and you fiscal conservativeness and at that point you stop being whatever you didn't choose.
It just seems like something you say because you think it sounds smart. Like calling yourself agnostic. It sounds good, best of both worlds! But ultimately it's meaningless. -
AZDuck said:
You're right that I didn't watch the video, I can't see them on internet explorer.salemcoog said:
Winners win.AZDuck said:
What rules did I change?salemcoog said:
Losers change the rules after they lose.AZDuck said:
That's dumb. Where was he going to get three million votes?Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
You've reached reddit status in this thread and I question your reasoning skills to be a Mall cop.
What did Sweden change last year that is going to bankrupt it? Can you cite to an authority besides your unwashed ass?
When did the US adopt socialism (democratic or otherwise) as its ruling principle? Can you cite to an authority besides your unwashed ass?
Donald Trump is not a very popular president. You have to go back to 2004 to find an election where Trump's vote total would have won the popular vote. Back then the US population was 32 million less than it was in 2016.
His ratings haven't been shooting up since he was inaugurated, either.
Trump did great with the system in place. But an election with low turnout, both parties' candidates historically unpopular, over a million write-in votes, that's no mandate, fren.
Losers make up excuses.
And it's clear you blew your load about a third of the way into the video if you have to ask what has changed in Sweden. So clean up and watch it again with your hands our of your shorts and pay attention.
That's why I went looking for some big change to Swedish government or policy on the interwebz. Finding nothing (the Social Democrats and the Greens control a "minority government") I asked you.
As for the rest, Sweden is demonstrably (1) democratic, (2) solvent, (3) successful.
So what's gunna change?
-
I don't give a shit about abortion and I'm not religious.allpurpleallgold said:
What data are you using to draw the conclusion that republicans would rule politics if they were socially liberal/fiscally responsible? Is it that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America? Or that the majority of Americans support his economic policies?Doogles said:
Nothing wrong with that. It's truly the answer.AZDuck said:
#wokeUWhuskytskeet said:
You are an actual retarded person if you think Obama is a socialist. He'd be right wing in most European countries.salemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
Republicans will rule politics if they ever figure it out. The Bible belt that floats them needs to understand that God works in mysterious ways and people like to get high and abort babies.
Tax drugs = money
Abort unwanted children = population control/social service relief
No brainer, except God.
I'm not even convinced this is a real thing. Social and economic issues are intertwined. At some point you're going to have to choose between your social liberalism and you fiscal conservativeness and at that point you stop being whatever you didn't choose.
It just seems like something you say because you think it sounds smart. Like calling yourself agnostic. It sounds good, best of both worlds! But ultimately it's meaningless.
I also don't like leftist pansies and PC culture.
And islam -
I don't think ISIL is going to be running Stockholm next year, or even next century. Just a hunch, though.
