le vote for this guy he make a good speech

File: 1489022910369.gif (348KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 350x233px

>le
>>>/r/eddit

Germans do.

>>2563915
Says the cuck from >>>/r/thedonald

LMAO

the nazis never won a majority

>>2563933
>cuck
>>>/pol/

>>2563907
It's about the only thing you have to go by, OP.

Once in office, virtually no politicians have stuck to the specific public policy statements that they made during their campaigns.

>>2563942
Fuck off /leftypol/,
No one cares about your shit

File: 1490031578287.jpg (19KB, 500x319px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x319px

>>2563972
>not /pol/
>therefore /leftypol/

KYS dumb fucking /pol/tard go jerk off Hitler somewhere else. Your useless non-arguments are worn out and not even edgy humor anymore. Your insufferable weasel's den is irritable and illogical. GO AWAY.

>>2563907
>lmao, are the populace that dumb?
Yes, people are "that dumb"
You can only say you wouldn't have been swayed by it because of hindsight

>>2563995
>cuck
>therefore /pol/

You're no different. Go back to >>>/r/eddit

>>2563966
>Once in office, virtually no politicians have stuck to the specific public policy statements that they made during their campaigns.
This is simply untrue. It's a matter of how many of said promises gets fulfilled, not if any of them gets fulfilled at all.

>>2564041
Google "word cuck" and tell me it's not /pol/ related

>>2564059
cuckold goes back centuries, brainlet.

Language isn't restricted to a board, moron.

>>2564128
you are a /pol/tard very clearly though

>>2564128
The word "cuck", as opposed to cuckold, is slang created and appropriated by /pol/ and other parts of the Internet alt-right. I doubt you've read a book in the past year with the word cuckold regardless.

>>2564162
>>2564194
You do realise that the guy who told me to go back to /pol/ for using cuck was replying to a post of mine telling a donald trump poster to go back to ribbit, right?

Christ, you're all dumbasses.

>shit thread
>immediately derails into people calling each other /pol/
Every time

>>2563915
you just proved OP's post

>>2564041
only /pol/ accuses people of being lefty pol so
>>>/pol/

File: 694.png (3KB, 225x63px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 225x63px

Hey everyone, how about we all go to reddit?

yes, obviously

sometimes even if they give bad speeches.

the general population is already pretty dumb when they're trying to be thoughtful.

add to that that they're trying to do something as a mob and plenty of self-interest / emotion, it's a spectacular wonder anything gets done.

>>2563907

It's easy to *say* you shouldn't make people decisions based on charisma. But in practice, charisma is literally the concept of how well people are at persuading you to like them, so it's sort of a tautology to say people will tend to like charismatic people and pick them as their leader.

wew this thread went downhill fast

He's gay!

>>2563907
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAMgT8LuZaw

File: 1460980685551.png (41KB, 500x485px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x485px

>>2563907
If you want the voting population encapsulated perfectly, look at the 1992 election in Britain.
Labour's policies regularly polled as being far more popular than those of the Conservative party, the economy was in a mess and the Conservatives had been in power for 13 years. But in the end, they were re-elected because Labour's leader was a Welsh windbag while the Conservative leader was simply boring.

They call it the Kinnock effect. It literally does not matter what your policies are, so long as you're the less weird of the two candidates (and not discredited from things that happened when you were in power) you are going to win the election. This rule holds strong back to 1970 at the minimum.
In 1974, 1979, 1997 and 2010 the leader of the governing party was a credible leader but discredited, in 1983, 1987, 1992, 2001, 2005 and 2015 the leader of the opposition was a weirdo. Basically every single one of those elections could be called in advance using that simple heuristic. (Things get weird in 1970 and before because Harold Wilson and Edward Heath were both credible candidates - and Wilson would go on to win 1974 even after losing 1970.)

File: IMG_3940.png (724KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 640x1136px

I wonder if he was getting hard in here?!? If so, then he sure doesn't appear micro to me!

Why we even voting anyway when you can just be ruled by born monarch like Wilhelm.

File: IMG_3937.jpg (108KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x1067px

What if Hitler's cock was proportionally BIGGER than the one on the David? What if he could get an erection well over 6 inches long and 3 inches in circumference? What if his pee hole being towards the underside of his glans (head) didn't make him microscopic?

What if you learned that he had an erection during many of his speeches? Would that change your opinion of him for the better or the worse?

>>2566492
For better, only brave man can give killer speech while having erection at public.

File: IMG_3943.jpg (77KB, 553x700px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 553x700px

Do you think Hitler knew what an erection was, what caused it, and how to deal with it? And in what year do you think Young Adolf learned about this?

File: tornadoubles.png (14KB, 137x163px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 137x163px

>>2563907
you really think he made good speeches

the truth is people are just irresponsible

>>2563907
Yep they are
Now don't tell me you also wouldn't have been swayed either
The people look to radicals (Lenin, Hitler, Mao) during dire times

>>2566666

>>2566492
Could that be a side effect of drugs?

>>2566193
That is a very long winded way of saying British people are always retarded to vote against their interests desu.

File: hitler-wittgenstein-2-e1418363878479.jpg (34KB, 480x330px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x330px

>>2566500
>not using the picture with both Hitler and based Ludwig Wittgenstein
You should be ashamed, anon

>>2563907
That's why it's called propaganda, smartass.People have been using it for centuries.

>>2566702
>vote against their interests
Just because you agree with simple minded and meaningless aphorisms like

>help the poor
>make sure the rich aren't too powerful
>keep people safe

Doesn't mean their policies are "in your interest". Unless you're referring to the whole "Voting based on speeches and not policies" thing in which case yeah it's not just Britain, it's the whole fucking world.

>>2566738
It was already stated that the people agreed with Kinnock but voted otherwise. That is against their interests to do so.

>>2564203
Im dying too /his/ belongs in the /trash/ the posters here are either stormtards or all redditers and propaganda spewing leftists it's a joke. They think they're complete opposites but in reality they are 2 sides of the same coin

>>2566668
This. Anyone here who claims they would've 'resisted' Hitler, Stalin or Mao while living under them is lying.

>>2566895

I would have done.

>>2563966
Here in Ontario (province of Canada) we learned that this statement is a fallacy the hard way.

We elected a guy called Mike Harris, whose campaign platform was obviously awful to all but the most dogmatic, believing that once in office there he wouldn't do those crazy things.

He did them, and ontarians complain about him to this day.

>>2567000
And why the flying fuck would you people even vote in this moron?

>>2566193
>the leader of the governing party was a credible leader (in 2010)
>Gordon Brown was credible

Hola, Reddit.

>>2563937
They still won more than any other party.

>>2567227
>Forced a hung parliament situation
>Not at least partially credible.

>>2567393
that's not the same as a majority. in a thread about 'how can people be so stupid they elected hitler' doesnt make sense when you consider most people didnt even vote for the NSDAP and Hitler only became chancellor because of backroom deals by the conservative establishment, not because he was chosen by popular support.