Donald Trump
- Thread starter Get2choppaaa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- public figures zionist
A sidenote: It is interesting how the guy asking the question insists on calling Zohran Mamdani a "communist".
It's an indication on how incredibly efficient the corporatist propaganda has been in the USA for the last several decades. Any reference to the massive and exponentially growing wealth inequality in the US is immediately branded as "communist". Any suggestion that multi-billionaires should pay more than 0 % tax is immediately branded as "communist".
Most Americans are nothing but serfs that think they are free. They work two jobs and can't even afford a house of their own or to raise a family, while the corporations that they work for pay out hundreds of millions in bonuses to the people in upper management. But still, to suggest that they should unionize so that they can collectively negotiate better terms is "communist".
Wait, is Zohran Mamdani not a communist then?
Of course he is. He wants to tax rich people.
He also refused to worship Israel, so that makes him an anti-semite as well.
Redditor go home!
There has been wealth inequality for as long as there has been socio-economic systems. Communists have their top 1% like all systems. It's the Pareto distribution and everything always seems to break down along those lines.
Who suggested billionaires should pay 0% tax? Wealth inequality has been discussed for as long as I have been alive and paying attention and nobody has been able to properly deal with it. Government take-over of supermarkets and the means of production to address income disparity is an old idea that is communist and never achieves that goal. It only exacerbates it. Further, I don't think communism was ever intended to address the plight of the 'have nots'. It was always an excuse to muster resentment by the masses as a vehicle to seize power for the few Godless, sociopathic, narcissists who are intent on destroying creation itself in utter rebellion against God.
Americans are serfs? Serfdom has been a reality for 99% of all human beings who have ever lived. Western capitalism certainly has its problems but it has created a better quality of life for more people than any other economic system in history.
Who suggested that collective bargaining through unions is communist? As a union member myself, I see collective bargaining as an effective tool to increase benefits and wages for large swaths of people.
People get this confused not because unionizing is communist, but because most Unions are communists.
Ok sure ....but is the guy a communist or not?
Forget the talking points, does this guy help promote serfdom or not?
We agree most Americans don't know shit from shinola. This guy's only gonna help the hand eaters and Muslims ye or nay???
I’m in New York City. Mandamis ideas and proposed laws are definitely communist
However, he strikes me more as a total scam artist rather than a true communist. He is suggesting “free, buses and trains“, “free childcare for all New York City, mothers,“ a freeze on all rent stabilized units. (Many land lords in New York City keep rent stabilized units vacant on purpose for tax purposes). He also wants to have government run supermarkets to make groceries cheaper for all New York City residents.
And to be fair, even our liberal Democrat governor Hochul he stated that none of these would pass the state assembly into law.
However, my instinct is that Mandami is saying all of these things to try to get elected and basically is like the middle school student running for a president with the idea of getting soda to come out of the drinking fountains.
Also, his plan to pay for all of these laws would be to drastically increase taxes on all New York City residents making over $1 million per year.
Also, he plans to defund the police of New York City
Edit, it’s unclear just how much or how little could be put into law. Lowering spending on Police is certainly possible.
But the rest? I’m inclined to say that none of those ideas would be passed into law, perhaps freezing the rent on stabilized units, but that could easily backfire, as I say many of those stabilized units are simply sitting empty.
Are there ideas that could work?
perhaps maybe. Like punishing landlords for keeping units vacant, especially considering we have such a housing shortage?
Last edited:
This chick is great, she survived communist China, and is now warning New Yorkers of communism
Last edited:
He's honestly the perfect modern "token" candidate that today's average retarded brainwashed liberally deranged NYCer eats up. He's appealing to all the extremist voters who are either so young, entitled, uneducated and out of touch or malicious rich people with a virtue signalling victim complex against their own skin color or a white hater.I’m in New York City. Mandamis ideas and proposed laws are definitely communist
However, he strikes me more as a total scam artist rather than a true communist. He is suggesting “free, buses and trains“, “free childcare for all New York City, mothers,“ a freeze on all rent stabilized units. (Many land lords in New York City keep rent stabilized units vacant on purpose for tax purposes). He also wants to have government run supermarkets to make groceries cheaper for all New York City residents.
And to be fair, even our liberal Democrat governor Hochul he stated that none of these would pass the state assembly into law.
However, my instinct is that Mandami is saying all of these things to try to get elected and basically is like the middle school student running for a president with the idea of getting soda to come out of the drinking fountains.
Also, his plan to pay for all of these laws would be to drastically increase taxes on all New York City residents making over $1 million per year.
Also, he plans to defund the police of New York City
Edit, it’s unclear just how much or how little could be put into law. Lowering spending on Police is certainly possible.
But the rest? I’m inclined to say that none of those ideas would be passed into law, perhaps freezing the rent on stabilized units, but that could easily backfire, as I say many of those stabilized units are simply sitting empty.
Are there ideas that could work?
How most of NYC evaluates him:
Not white (white == bad).
Brown skinned (but not too brown skinned to remind NYCers of Africans or black people who most of them are secretly prejudiced against anyway).
Indian (quirky, exotic [lol], a good leader because the media portrays many Indian CEOs now so it must be true [lol x2]).
Offers "free" goods in return for seemingly no effort on the part of the receiver. Given the lazy, entitled attitudes of today's youth, they eat this stuff up like candy. No critical thinking ability whatsoever. The kicker is that most probably come from well to do backgrounds but like pretending they are part of the struggling class, underdog complex.
Promises to target the rich and extract their resources (the sworn privileged "enemy" of these "poor" oppressed people whose very existence keeps them in the same sad state of living. Again, this is comical because most of these fantasy land revolutionaries come from rich families. They live such comfortable, stress free lives that they feel the need to invent and create fabricated adversity to feel accomplishment in their lives.)
He preys on the basic needs of people by offering surface level solutions that only sound good on paper but not practice. Saving people money on housing, nourishment, and making resources more available for all. In NYC, home of most of the greediest and most vain people on this planet. Good luck getting any landlord or establishment to lower their prices.
He's also young so the younger crowd feels as if they can relate to him and he has their best interest at heart.
He's basically a younger, sharper, legitimately dangerous DEI version of Bernie Sanders. The majority of the population especially in NYC, have become so castrated, so stupid, so indoctrinated. They look down on whites without being able to explain why, have lost all common sense and critical thinking, and expect results without effort. They stand no chance against battle hardened deceivers like him unified in their goal to take over the West.
India and Pakistan is one that isn't in dispute
Naturally aspirated v8s are back on the menu boys.
This might just save the US auto industry and car ownership as we know it.
Last edited:
^ CAFE standards are the reason why the roads are dominated by these bland, soulless crossovers today.
Left to their own devices, American automakers showed the ability to innovate and respond to market demands. After the first two oil shocks of the early 1970s, General Motors downsized their fullsize lineup with the '77 B-body cars (Caprice/Impala, Bonneville, Eighty-Eighty, LeSabre) that were 600lbs lighter, a foot shorter, and offered lower-displacement small block V8s and V6, yet were just as powerful, even more space efficient, and easier to handle than their '76 predecessors which had simply grown too large.
Sales skyrocketed.
Ford followed in '79 with the Panther cars (LTD/Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) and sales similarly skyrocketed.
CAFE had born into it this loophole for 'light trucks,' so as fuel economy standards became more stringent for passenger cars, automakers continued to make traditional fullsize models with big sixes and V8s...just on truck platforms as sport utilities and later crew cab pickups.
The most popular size crossover today has dimensions remarkably similar to a '77 Caprice or '79 Ford. In fact, most 'standard' American cars that sell well regardless of bodystyle follow the same general footprint between a large midsize front-drive sedan like an Impala or Taurus and a fullsize car like a Crown Victoria or DeVille.
There is this false trope that American automakers couldn't make a decent car and immediately 'fell' once Japanese cars hit US shores en masse. This is untrue. It took 30 years for the Japanese to truly rival US midsize models in sales. Yes, they do subcompacts and compacts better because a compact car like a Corolla or Civic is the 'global' average car side; USDM is a size above. Camry/Accord never gained dominance until they matched American midsizers like Taurus and Cutlass Supreme in overall size and packaging and - importantly - six-cylinder power which they finally did in the mid-90s.
Without CAFE eschewing market-based innovation for simply gaming regulatory standards, you would have an American fleet of domestic and imports with greater reliability today - more hybrids, more robust V6s and big 4s, less micro-displacement turbocharged engines running off premium that barely eek out 27MPG in real-world conditions (why does a cast iron block 3800 II V6 in a Grand Prix achieve 28-30MPG on the freeway while a 1.2l turbo on 91 octane manages 32MPG in a compact SUV?), less subpar electrics, etc...
Left to their own devices, American automakers showed the ability to innovate and respond to market demands. After the first two oil shocks of the early 1970s, General Motors downsized their fullsize lineup with the '77 B-body cars (Caprice/Impala, Bonneville, Eighty-Eighty, LeSabre) that were 600lbs lighter, a foot shorter, and offered lower-displacement small block V8s and V6, yet were just as powerful, even more space efficient, and easier to handle than their '76 predecessors which had simply grown too large.
Sales skyrocketed.
Ford followed in '79 with the Panther cars (LTD/Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) and sales similarly skyrocketed.
CAFE had born into it this loophole for 'light trucks,' so as fuel economy standards became more stringent for passenger cars, automakers continued to make traditional fullsize models with big sixes and V8s...just on truck platforms as sport utilities and later crew cab pickups.
The most popular size crossover today has dimensions remarkably similar to a '77 Caprice or '79 Ford. In fact, most 'standard' American cars that sell well regardless of bodystyle follow the same general footprint between a large midsize front-drive sedan like an Impala or Taurus and a fullsize car like a Crown Victoria or DeVille.
There is this false trope that American automakers couldn't make a decent car and immediately 'fell' once Japanese cars hit US shores en masse. This is untrue. It took 30 years for the Japanese to truly rival US midsize models in sales. Yes, they do subcompacts and compacts better because a compact car like a Corolla or Civic is the 'global' average car side; USDM is a size above. Camry/Accord never gained dominance until they matched American midsizers like Taurus and Cutlass Supreme in overall size and packaging and - importantly - six-cylinder power which they finally did in the mid-90s.
Without CAFE eschewing market-based innovation for simply gaming regulatory standards, you would have an American fleet of domestic and imports with greater reliability today - more hybrids, more robust V6s and big 4s, less micro-displacement turbocharged engines running off premium that barely eek out 27MPG in real-world conditions (why does a cast iron block 3800 II V6 in a Grand Prix achieve 28-30MPG on the freeway while a 1.2l turbo on 91 octane manages 32MPG in a compact SUV?), less subpar electrics, etc...
This is a good post, but I have to argue one point. I learned to drive on a GM '78 E-body, and powerful is not the word to describe those cars. It had a 302 engine, but it only made 155HP. That car was slow, and if you tried to give it a lot of gas off the line it would hesitate badly before it finally got rolling. Mind you, this car was almost new at the time, so that's the best they could do.
The smog controls on US cars in the 70s absolutely sapped all the power out of those engines.