🗽UNITED STATES POLITICS 🦅
<"Coming To America" EditionThread for the hellish discussion related to
the scourge of the earth, the destroyer of nations, the father of fascism, the enabler of ethnostates, the treatlerite tyrant, the protector of pedophiles, the exporter of ecocide, the captain of capitalism, the king of coups, the sultan of sanctions, the emir of the embargo, the autocrat of austerity, the doge of deregulation, the baron of busting unions, the prince of privatization, the lord of loan sharks, the patron-saint of proxy wars, the sponsor of settlers, the guarantor of genocides, the Divided $nakkkes of Amerikkka™
🏈 💵 🌭 🍔
🛠️ Strike Tracker ⚒️https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/🇺🇸 Deeds of the Burger Reich 🇺🇸https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md📺 Live News 📺(sponsored by USAID)
• CNN:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/cnn-news-usa.html• MSNBC:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/msnbc.html• FOX:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/fox-news-channel.html• Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/live/us✊Live Protest Streams✊https://woke.net/Epstein's Client List DOES NOT EXISThttps://epsteinsblackbook.com/Track Zionazishttps://www.trackaipac.com/Previous Thread:
>>2414736 548 posts and 133 image replies omitted.President Donald Trump told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that planned tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. could eventually reach up to 250%, the highest rate he has threatened so far.
He said he will initially impose a “small tariff” on pharmaceuticals, but then in one year to a year and a half “maximum” he will raise that rate to 150% and then 250%.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/05/trump-says-pharma-tariffs-could-eventually-reach-up-to-250percent.htmlLmao
>>2418028>From this point of view, 40 years ago Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan, and therefore the plan which would soonest bring capitalist society to that deadlock. But if Marx declared in favor of Free Trade on that ground, is that not a reason for every supporter of the present order of society to declare against Free Trade? If Free Trade is stated to be revolutionary, must not all good citizens vote for Protection as a conservative plan?
>If a country nowadays accepts Free Trade, it will certainly not do so to please the socialists. It will do so because Free trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of socialism in the least. Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other.
>The wage laborer everywhere follows in the footsteps of the manufacturer; he is like the "gloomy care" of Horace, that sits behind the rider, and that he cannot shake off wherever he go. You cannot escape fate; in other words, you cannot escape the necessary consequences of your own actions. A system of production based upon the exploitation of wage labor, in which wealth increases in proportion to the number of laborers employed and exploited, such a system is bound to increase the class of wage laborers, that is to say, the class which is fated one day to destroy the system itself. In the meantime, there is no help for it: you must go on developing the capitalist system, you must accelerate the production, accumulation, and centralization of capitalist wealth, and, along with it, the production of a revolutionary class of laborers. Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/ >>2418061>somewhat good endingall the old boomers die off and they get replaced with a surge of social democrat youth like zohran and aoc……..who just end up being disappointments in their own special way
>bad endingyou guys hear about abundance liberalism
>>2418163I said a while ago that there was an interview where he was talking about Anita Sarkeesian and you could kind of see the gears turning: "Wait, she's doing this better than me."
No big shock about this.
Unique IPs: 21