I would consider myself fairly apolitical, or at the very least

This is what I get for trying to actually have a discussion.

You're a faggot OP

>>133062197
cool beans

>>133060240
We are violent apes who are meant to live in tribes who accidentally a technological civilization

>>133060240
i'll bump your shitty thread, don't worry
>sick child denied healthcare due to the circumstances of their birth
Why should our system be taxed by the countless defective children?


Anyways, what's your opinion on the creation of an ethnostate? Should the white man HAVE to pay for the black man's welfare and healthcare?

>>133060240
Fuck off retard

>>133063292
I don't know why you're putting up a racial barrier between rich and poor. Having been to almost every state, I can't speak objectively of course, but I can say from my experience that MOST of the country, at least from my own person lens, is a bunch of moderately poor white people who don't know they're as poor as they are.

If you want my honest long-term opinion, assuming we don't blow ourselves up, we'll reach a point of automation that will necessitate some form of universal income. There will simply be such an astounding lack of jobs that there'll be no other choice.

I recognize the fear of supporting other family's children instead of your own, and while I might very well be wrong, I think a majority of that fear comes from the ever-shrinking middle class who thinks THEY'LL be taxed because they're "rich", when in reality they make in a month what some folks make in an hour.

>The idea of denying a sick child help due to the circumstances of their birth is sickening to me.

Nice sentiment, but should American tax dollars pay for non-American children just because they were not born here? If so, we will go bankrupt paying the health bills of the entire planet. If not, we will be "denying a sick child help due to the circumstances of their birth".

I unironically believe in national socialism, in that I support a strong safety net, but I think it requires a strong border, because the more free stuff you give away, the more people will show up.

File: exactly the right message.jpg (58KB, 716x606px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 716x606px

>>133064512
>racial barrier
Race is real and it matters. One of the greatest burdens on the middle class (which is predominantly white, and is shrinking) is paying for black America's entitlements.
>automation and universal income
The problem with universal income is that the state will inevitably come up with numerous extra "requirements" for it, just like how most black Americans are "required" to vote Democrat in order to keep their free shit flowing. Even if there is "enough to go around for everyone," the elites will make sure their slice of the pie is the biggest... disproportionately so in fact. Universal income is largely just a meme, and we should hope it stays that way. Even with increased automation, new fields will open up and there will always be a job for someone. I doubt we as a species will EVER require a universal income, and should that day come, we will have to be extremely careful about who is in charge of its distribution.
>shrinking middle class who thinks THEY'LL be taxed because they're "rich",
The middle class is taxed very unfairly, and it is my belief that they should have the lowest percentage taxes of all. You might say "that will discourage them from contributing too much, because there is less incentive to become super rich!" but my counter-point is that a healthy middle class is what ultimately sustains civilization. Too many rich people will just result in too many comparatively poor people, which is NEVER a good thing no matter how you view economics.

>>133066784
>The middle class is taxed very unfairly, and it is my belief that they should have the lowest percentage taxes of all. You might say "that will discourage them from contributing too much, because there is less incentive to become super rich!" but my counter-point is that a healthy middle class is what ultimately sustains civilization. Too many rich people will just result in too many comparatively poor people, which is NEVER a good thing no matter how you view economics.

I completely agree with this. You basically said what I said, but a bit more eloquently.

File: perfect.png (479KB, 503x445px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 503x445px

>>133067164
That's awesome, I'm glad we view economics in a similar manner. You just need to understand race realism and you're all set in the correct direction.

>>133067420
That still doesn't answer my OP question about all the Presidential dicksucking. I just don't understand how anyone on either "side" can be so jaded as to outright dismiss anything brought to the table by someone with the wrong colored tie.

Trump being in office has made me a lot of money, and for that I am very happy. But I still disagree with him on many topics, and, as a person, I find him.. Well, I don't suppose personality matters, since I'll never meet him anyway. My point remains.

>>133060240
>>133068940
>How come if the President does something, it is, no matter what, the greatest most epic decision ever? But if someone with a blue-colored tie did it, they're a stupid le cuck?

What are you talking about, newfriend? everyone here either distanced themselves from trump -at some level or another-, or outright stopped supporting trump after the tomahawks hit syria.

Your point doesn't remain because you don't have a point. Some people happen to do things in a certain ideological line, this results in a majority of /pol/ liking them, same with people of an opposite line of action.

I think your perception might be at fault, you don't go to trump generals to accurately assess the average opinion on the board.

>>133070090
Fair enough. Although now I wonder why it was the syria shit in particular that made y'all back up from the President? And not all the other stuff?

Not to say he's all bad. Again, I appreciate all the extra money I now have. But I'm just curious- I'd have thought /pol/ would love to bomb another sand country.

>>133070349
>Fair enough. Although now I wonder why it was the syria shit in particular that made y'all back up from the President? And not all the other stuff?

It was a concrete, tangible action. Most, not all, but most of the 'bad stuff' about trump was either irrelevant or outright slander coming from the other camp. Say whatever you want about this board, but we do check, double check and cross check sources. You'd have to be more specific about what "other stuff" you're talking about. As it is, i'm thinking of irrelevant stuff like pussy grabbing and morally dubious things like using legal loopholes to pay less taxes.

Attacking Syria was in complete contradiction with what we thought he stood for, and it came directly from him, therefore, he got flack for it on this board, simple as that.

>>133070830
Makes sense. To me, the tax stuff was a huge red flag and really pissed me off. I also disagreed with him from Day 1 about the environment and coal as a resource going forward, and his outrageous statements about some chinese conspiracy did not help my opinion of him either.

>>133071266
That is understandable. But i'm almost certain the bulk of this board would see those as fringe issues, especially considering the alternative was compromised through heavy lobbying and whatnot.
Based on this very simple but important fact, we saw an opposition to the powers that usually dictate what politicians do no matter what they say they'll do. This is perhaps why we'd be forgiving about minor things like those, even if it didn't line up with us.
It's a matter of scope.

>>133072665
But I guess that kind of sums up my whole point: I too, at least early on, saw him as a kind of rogue element who might stir up the pot from the usual bullshit terrible choice vs. horseshit terrible choice.

But I feel like I was wrong in that? And that ever since his election he's continually let me down by doing the same old bullshit song and dance? Do y'all not feel like that? As much as I disagreed with the rushed nature of the "muslim ban", at least that was interesting. I know that's dumb to say, but I just expected more change, good or bad.

>>133064512
They are the rich according to leftist ideology. We're dealing with people who fundamentally want to put an end to Western civilization. It's an attack on white people, not the rich, and so it includes the middle class. The middle class does pay for illegals to attend public school, among other things.