xtsho
Well-known member
Did he plug his Truth Social stock or his Chinese sneakers? He should have given his buddy rudy a shout out for his coffee brand. He could use some promotion to increase sales.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
2024 US Presidential Election
Did he plug his Truth Social stock or his Chinese sneakers? He should have given his buddy rudy a shout out for his coffee brand. He could use some promotion to increase sales.
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
In my opinion, this is much more complex, due to the multiple Marxist interpretations-schools-ways...
For example, there are currents in which homes and land belong to the State: that is, you cannot have or buy a home of your own... but "the trick" is that the State is obliged to give you a decent home for life.
That home could not be inherited by your relatives, since it was not yours...; but again and in exchange, the State is obliged to guarantee decent housing for everyone: your children do not have the right to inherit the home you live in; but they have the right to have another home from the moment they become emancipated.
Likewise and as an example of other currents "at the opposite Marxist pole of the previous one": those that do accept and guarantee private property, not only of tangible goods, but even totally private business property. Of course: in strategic areas such as Energy, Food, Housing, Education, Health..., although private business activity may (or may not) be permitted, the State will ensure that it can intervene and have "the last word" (or by owning more than half of those companies, or by other types of interventions).
The same differences between Marxist currents, I believe, also extend to non-private companies: A collectivized company controlled by its workers is not the same as a state public company.
¡Salud!
Last edited:
xtsho
Well-known member
greyfader
Well-known member
one could only imagine the kind of monster the unholy spawn of these two would be!
moose eater
Well-known member
Glenn Greenwald is far more concise and less redundant in his writing than in his speaking, but....
greyfader
Well-known member
they're both pro-israel candidates, it's just a matter of degree. someone needs to stand up to israel and bluntly threaten to cut off all aid to them, military or otherwise, unless they immediately and unilaterally cease hostilities and get the fuck out of gaza!
but there's no way this is going to happen until after the election because it would alienate large blocs of potential voters.
greyfader
Well-known member
that just what trump needs right now, more crazy!
moose eater
Well-known member
At this juncture AIPAC and related extortionist foreign election-interference-generating asshats have financial power but have been losing support among the population in the US for a while, and with good cause.
They control a lot of lobbying funds and potential campaign contributions.
Trump gave his blessing to Israel moving their capitol to Jerusalem.
The World Court has ruled that the West Bank settlements are illegal and has given 6 months for Israel to remove their 780,000 criminals, the militant Zionist murdering squatters, the lot of them. That means those governments that support the continuation of their presence there are complicit in criminal actions... yet again.
I'm no Trumper, not by a LONG shot, but we also know what Trump MIGHT do, while knowing exactly the criminal actions that Biden HAS done, violating both US and International laws by continuing to arm Israel despite their criminal actions and violations of human rights. (*though apparently it took 76 years for someone in a seat of authority to acknowledge those crimes, mostly due to the US' unilateral veto authority at the UN, though Obama ONCE, before departing office, refused to use that authority to clear the record for Netanyahu, and let a critical resolution stand; would've loved to have seen Netty's tantrum on film that day, with audio).
But there's enough information available now to embarrass -either- candidate if they even start to look like they're further capitulating to AIPAC's and Netty's crimes and extortionist bullshit.
The only reason we keep getting these scumbags in seats of supposed representation is because people keep voting for them, and the only reason people really keep voting for them is because of outrageous amounts of disinformation, lockstep partisanism, limited vision, and fear of their neighbors as manipulated by the 2 primary political parties and their national orgs.... again.
Last edited:
