Trump’s Pick for EPA Safety Chief Argues Children Are Less Sensitive to Toxins Than Adults
D-drain the swamp…
Dump petrochemicals into the swamp.
own those stupid fucking libs by poisoning the planet
My ten of my twenty children I have because abortion and birth control and condoms are banned have asthma, I'm suffering from liver disease, my wife has lung cancer, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
The libs were owned.
Fucking liberals clogging up the board.
Ever since I had my legless wonder child all the other diseased children I wouldn't have had if birth control existed, are extremely jealous. He gets more medical support because he's clinically dead.
At least we're all white as our neoplasm and straight as our scoliosis affected spines.
Look, if you're serious about really hurting the liberal establishment, you'd take that freeloading fuck off lifesupport.
Excuse me? Do you support abortion of children just because I drank alcohol pregnant?
I'd rather have no EPA, than a bad EPA.
Thank you retarded "leftists" for voting trump because daddy Zizek told you to. I hope you all die. Admitting to voting for Trump should be a permaban here.
Can we ban all Zizek posting first?
isn't accelerationism exactly the motive for voting for trump? how is this not explicitly a component of that?
If you want to accelerate the collapse you should try to instate reforms that take more of production for laborers and away from profits, furthering the fall of the rate of profit while also improving people's lives.
The sensible reasons to vote for Trump (which I didn't do) are that you expect him to be less bad than Hillary or you expect him to be more open for criticism. Hillary probably would have started some wars by now. She's a war hawk egomaniac who wants to militarily stamp her legacy everywhere. Trump doesn't give a fuck about that. He's content to put his name on buildings. Hillary would be shielded behind YASSS SLAY QUEEN and her critics would get slammed as sexists for talking shit about the first female president, even though she'd be doing similarly awful things to Trump that the same liberals who would defend Hillary are up in arms over. The idea that he's making things worse than Hillary would have is baseless, but he is fucking up the political theater and drawing the attention of the people to what the state apparatus has been doing for a long time.
so is the distinction between social revolution and political revolution no longer one anybody cares about anymore? the whole point of accelerationism in this particular instance is the increasing of suffering to raise consciousness of the material suffering people have illusions to guard themselves from (like religion, entertainment, drugs, etc) with the illusion being you're not suffering as much as you are
i am not arguing for accelerationism nor did i vote for Trump, but I think it's completely stupid to think there isn't a coherent line of reasoning here that is actually taken from Marx's early writings on Hegel
(note i'm not necessarily relating this to this particular issue - but rather the argument for voting for Trump as a whole)
That's not how I've seen people frame acceleration (outside that one clip of Susan Sarandon). How I've seen people talking about it is making capitalism collapse faster.
Soon the Oblongs will be real life.
that is, ultimately the goal. the proletariat can't realize itself in full when there is so many distractions in the western world to afford them just enough contentment to be complacent. here, from marx's early stuff pic related
I thought the idea of accelerationism was based on crisis - not to awaken the proles so to speak, but to cause as much structural damage so that a potentially revolutionary moment could be arrived at.
I don't see how those two don't mix well with each other.
Because Hillary would have been a champion of the environment.
This isn't how any of this works.
You're right about acceleration being about the falling rate of profit, but you misunderstand about how that works. You'd be putting more development into productive capital than giving it to the workers. Giving more to the workers actually slows the fall of the RoP by giving a larger amount to be taken through the exploitation of the market.
Okay, I take it all back, Hillary wouldn't have been the same shit as Trump. We have reached a point where Republicans are cartoon villains openly exposing their evil plans, and it's considered normal. They could change their platform to "fuck you, got mine" and no one would notice.
Xenoestrogen contamination in modern life styles is a serious issue. Environmentalism should not be a partisan issue and it's absolutely disgusting that it's become one in America. A true right wing man would care for the environment because he cares for his people, or at least his family.
They're both corrupt, both will say anything to gain power and then only do things to gain more political power, or because they were paid to do them. It's all garbage, and playing into their game and hating your fellow workers is exactly what they want.
If Gore had been elected, there would now be 1 million more alive Iraqis in the world.
My point is, there are degrees of inhumanity. Having to choose the lesser evil sucks shit, but while there's no alternative, I'll rather suck and little shit as possible.
At first I thought this was true, but then I realized Bush i just the face for the military industrial complex.
Gore's base was a different sect of porkies, which didn't include Halliburton and its ilk, the ones that actually stand to profit directly from war. Democrats then were mostly finance industry gimps. Gore would have done plenty of despicable shit, but invading Iraq out of nowhere isn't one of them.
Bump, I think this is important
Bitch please, the deep state has been attempting to exert hegemony over the entire Middle East region since the British Empire collapsed.
i hope so
I wish the Oblongs had been produced later. Much of the social commentary regarding inequality would be so relevant now. I'm sure it would have lasted far more if it had aired during the crisis.
Realest nigga in the thread
Honestly I'm not even sure about that. It's been a while, but IIRC, Gore actually promised an even bigger military buildup than Bush did during the 2000 campaign. Clinton ordered multiple bombing campaigns on Iraq during his term as well.
since i've been observing the US elections, a useful thought to go by is if a democrat candidate officially makes a worse policy statement than the republican candidate's practical policy, then it's correct to assume that the republican candidate is always going to pursue an even more accelerationist course of action. see george w. bush's presidency, which i doubt gore/kerry would have allowed the situation to escalate as much as it did.