The Donald vs Big Tech

[astfgyl]

I think he'll keep them onside and I also wouldn't put it past him in his second term to try find a way to run for a third but I still don't see any policies he enacted to pander to the evangelists while accepting that he did pander to them for votes

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Not an easy question to answer, and getting more complicated... and I'm not bothered enough to go through it all. But the most lasting change he effected in favour of hardline Christians during his mandate is his three Supreme Court appointments, lifetime appointments. He declared before appointing some of them, above all for the benefit of his Evangelical supporters, that they would overturn Roe-Wade (federal abortion rights). And they did, allowing him to brag afterward about being the person who got that done. But (this is where it's getting more complicated) that may already be backfiring, especially since he's now campaigning against a woman, and it seems he may be trying to distance himself from that greatest ever presidential champion of pro-life identity: turns out a slight majority of young (i.e. child-bearing age) Republican women are more into full bodily autonomy than MAGA had banked on.

There was also the whole religious liberty executive order thing which favoured practicing Christians, due to them being a majority among practicing religious folk, as compared to any of the minority religions and/or lifestyles (LGBTQ, etc.), but I'm not arsed getting into the nitty gritty of that. You can also see all across the so-called "alternative media" how moral views that are a very small step away from conservative christianity are being promoted to young men especially, which includes cocks like Tate (what is this "body count" bollocks if not moral puritanism?) and cocks like Musk who amplify cocks like Tate. They're all pro-Trump and Trump is only too happy to have Musk, who has recently discovered himself a "cultural christian", to endorse him. And so on and so on.

[son of the Morrigan]

Evangelists are Christian Zionists.
Trump is a Zionist.
Harris is a Zionist.

Either way Zionism wins.

As with any organisation there is in-fighting and differing opinions within the Zionist movement.
Some believe the time is right to impose a total Marxist regime, see Harris.
Others think the Zionist controlled, fiat currency based, capitalist system has not yet run its course, see Trump.

Either way Zionism wins.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

This notion that Harris is a Marxist or a Communist is genuinely absurd. Harris is a pure-blood neoliberal, not even socialist. Not even Bernie Sanders, a social democrat, is a Marxist. I'll pass on the details of Zionism, suffice to say that Gaza is a great money spinner for various US industries, minus the inconvenience of having to send in any troops of their own. Here's a run down of some of that profiteering from an actually Marxist-leaning source 
https://jacobin.com/2024/03/gaza-profits-bds-weapons-corporations

[son of the Morrigan]

Lad, Harris is big on price control, which is about as non-neoliberal as one can get, neoliberalism being a hands off approach by government with regard to economic matters.
I fail to see how that article about Zionist owned (see State street, Vanguard, Blackrock)  weapons corps. profiting from the current conflict reenforces your argument in any way, in fact it weakens it.
Good job on neatly side-stepping addressing the main point of my post, which is that both parties are Zionist.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

You're confusing neoliberalism with classical laissez-faire liberalism, a genuinely easy mistake to make, but they're not the same: one is hands-off government and the free market will take care of everything itself. That didn't work out so well. The other, neoliberalism, is hands-on government but to the primary benefit of the markets.

Marxism, at an absolute minimum, would involve workers getting profit share from their employers, small business and corporate. And if you think that's on the cards for the DNC, I've plenty other tales I can sell you. Such as Jews controlling the world. Incidentally, none of those three corporations are mentioned in the article I shared, so it's no wonder you failed to see the point it was making.

[son of the Morrigan]

You are confusing post neoliberalism with neoliberalism, an easy mistake to make.
Neoliberalism is very much in line with laissez-faireism, which of course resulted in the Irish genocide OF THE 1840s.
You are also confusing economic Marxism with Marxist idealism.
We can argue the definition of these isms all day and It'll get us nowhere.
Naturally none of the corporations I named are mentioned in the article, but given that it's a fact that they are major shareholders in the weapons manufacturing industry, what, in your view, is the point of the article?

Apart from all that red herringism  , do you or do you not agree that both parties are Zionist?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

The word neoliberalism was coined for the first time at the 1938 Walter Lippmann Colloquium in Paris, and the failure of laissez-faire capitalism the participants had in mind in discussing new economic models was the Great Depression, rather than anything that happened in Ireland a century earlier. It's that Lippmann sense that I use neoliberalism in because that's the one that is compatible with very contra-laissez-faire things such as bank bailouts. Hayek's "neoliberalism" (as experimented by such luminaries as Pinochet and Thatcher) is closer to what you described. The terms are confusing. I don't think that's an accident. What matters is that if economic policies are primarily aimed at benefiting the market, then they can never be Marxist.

You pointed to price control as evidence for Marxism. Price control is economics not idealism, right? So, actual Marxist economics is, at base, about workers getting a share in the profits their labour creates, rather than selling their labour at a loss (the existence of employer profit implies that workers sell their labour at less than its worth, with this rationale being the absolute foundation of Marxist economics). Harris' proposed economic policies have nothing to do with Marxism. That's why it's blatantly obvious that Trump and Musk, etc., talking about Harris being "literally communist" or a harbinger of "total Marxism" is such very obvious propaganda. You can lift yourself out of the target audience for that propaganda, and I recommend you do. 

In the real world, you don't have to be a Zionist to be a profiteering opportunist. You almost seem to believe that all profiteering opportunism is evidence of Zionist control. That is simplistic propaganda as well, not useful for navigating the complexities of the real world. There are Zionists in both parties. I don't believe both parties are fundamentally Zionist in the sense you appear to mean it, since even MAGA is neck deep in Christian Zionism, which is a very different beast to Jewish Zionism. Notably, the former prophecies the ultimate defeat of the latter. Both parties are controlled by and riddled with profiteering opportunists. Some but not all, I would say not even a majority, of those are (Jewish) Zionists.

The point of the article was to show that profiteering opportunism/universally occurring selfish human greed, manifest in multiple ways, is more than sufficient to explain the DNC's continued support for the war on Palestine. But if it's easier for you to believe it's just the Jews behind it all, knock yourself out. Kev has some "history" videos you might be interested in.

[astfgyl]

Are the weapons manufacturers owned by Jews? That's an angle I haven't seen so probably not. I think of Jews as having like an old boys club a la Blackrock or Eton more than anything else and because of that, most world leaders are in thrall to those who run the banks which happen to be Jews mostly. Otherwise I just enjoy Curb Your Enthusiasm most of the time

[Ollkiller]

Again, I don't know where you get your news, but Trump, even by his own standards, has been projectile vomiting bullshit ever since Biden dropped out of the race. Side by side, Harris (who to my eyes is just a run-of-the-mill Democrat, no more no less, warts and all) very much looks like the more competent candidate. All the more so with Walz next to her compared to Vance next to Donald. And we can expect his puerile behavior to get worse if and when the polls start looking grim for him.

Ah no you're hopelessly biased

I'll bite. In what way is trump better than harris. Policy wise. Or maybe human wise, as in trumps a bit of a rapist or sexual abuser. What's the bar?

He's convicted of rape now is he?

Link https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/breaking-down-the-verdict-as-jury-finds-trump-liable-for-sexual-assault-and-defamation

So yeah do I believe he's raped women. His ex wife accused him of it to. In the very first pages of this thread I posted a case file where he raped a girl that epstien provided to him. He's a rapey piece of shit.

[Ollkiller]

And the girl was underage too. As was epsteins way.

[astfgyl]

That doesn't say he's convicted of rape. Fact check it yourself it's easy to type in and read.

[son of the Morrigan]

The word neoliberalism was coined for the first time at the 1938 Walter Lippmann Colloquium in Paris, and the failure of laissez-faire capitalism the participants had in mind in discussing new economic models was the Great Depression, rather than anything that happened in Ireland a century earlier. It's that Lippmann sense that I use neoliberalism in because that's the one that is compatible with very contra-laissez-faire things such as bank bailouts. Hayek's "neoliberalism" (as experimented by such luminaries as Pinochet and Thatcher) is closer to what you described. The terms are confusing. I don't think that's an accident. What matters is that if economic policies are primarily aimed at benefiting the market, then they can never be Marxist.

You pointed to price control as evidence for Marxism. Price control is economics not idealism, right? So, actual Marxist economics is, at base, about workers getting a share in the profits their labour creates, rather than selling their labour at a loss (the existence of employer profit implies that workers sell their labour at less than its worth, with this rationale being the absolute foundation of Marxist economics). Harris' proposed economic policies have nothing to do with Marxism. That's why it's blatantly obvious that Trump and Musk, etc., talking about Harris being "literally communist" or a harbinger of "total Marxism" is such very obvious propaganda. You can lift yourself out of the target audience for that propaganda, and I recommend you do. 

In the real world, you don't have to be a Zionist to be a profiteering opportunist. You almost seem to believe that all profiteering opportunism is evidence of Zionist control. That is simplistic propaganda as well, not useful for navigating the complexities of the real world. There are Zionists in both parties. I don't believe both parties are fundamentally Zionist in the sense you appear to mean it, since even MAGA is neck deep in Christian Zionism, which is a very different beast to Jewish Zionism. Notably, the former prophecies the ultimate defeat of the latter. Both parties are controlled by and riddled with profiteering opportunists. Some but not all, I would say not even a majority, of those are (Jewish) Zionists.

The point of the article was to show that profiteering opportunism/universally occurring selfish human greed, manifest in multiple ways, is more than sufficient to explain the DNC's continued support for the war on Palestine. But if it's easier for you to believe it's just the Jews behind it all, knock yourself out. Kev has some "history" videos you might be interested in.

Some food for thought there man, even if you are misrepresenting what I said.
I think you are massively underestimating the power of the Zionist lobby and the extent to which the Zionist donor class have infiltrated and bought the American political system.
Anyway, its good auld craic having an auld argument with ya every now and again.

[Ollkiller]

That doesn't say he's convicted of rape. Fact check it yourself it's easy to type in and read.

Never said it did. He was convicted of sexual assault. Is he a rapey piece of shit. I believe he is. Do you think he's a rapey piece of shit? Or an upstanding guy?

[astfgyl]

That doesn't say he's convicted of rape. Fact check it yourself it's easy to type in and read.

Never said it did. He was convicted of sexual assault. Is he a rapey piece of shit. I believe he is. Do you think he's a rapey piece of shit? Or an upstanding guy?

You must be under the mistaken opinion that I actually like Donald trump or anything he represents but with his money I doubt he ever had to rape anyone. Read the judgement and see he wasn't convicted of sexual assault either. As much as many would like it to be true, it simply isn't