Skeeter hates communism, but

Storm Shelter
1

just like Communist China

image
image720×241 29.7 KB

Of course, both GSC and Skeeter support Trump and his overall efforts to “reshore” jobs with tariffs or whatever. Yet, Trump is the President who went against what other Presidents have previously refused to do and sold US Steel (the first billion dollar American company which is the fruition of Carnegie Steel who literally built PA, where Skeeter lives) to Japan. Biden killed the deal he thought, until Trump resurrected it. Japan knew Trump would sell out the United States. Then, Trump saddles US auto makers with higher tariffs than Japan, of course.

Did Biden interfere with US markets? Nope. Trump regularly interferes with the “free market.”

Did Biden start a trade war and then have to subsidize and entire market with billions to keep them afloat, a direct redistribution of federal funds to selected industries? Nope. Trump did that in the first term with farmers.

Did Biden invoke the DPA to compel private companies to do his bidding? Nope, but Trump did. This is a classic example of temporary state control of industry.

It’s not communism they don’t like. GSC is the only individual in here who’s ever pushed for Government to take control of private industries. That’s literally the definition of communism. So what’s in Skeeter’s craw, so much? He cited a single sentence by Kamala Harris as an example of her favoring communism, but regularly tells us he literally doesn’t pay attention to what comes out of Trump’s mouth, over and over and over again. The hypocrisy is the feature, as we’ve shown before. So, communism was Skeeter’s problem with the likes of Harris, yet Harris never once even spoke about the government invading private industry.

When critics, like Skeeter, ignore Trump’s direct intervention in the economy but only focus on the redistribute or egalitarian aspects of left wing ideologies, it reveals quite a bit about their true priorities, values and fears. Many self-identified opponents of socialism aren’t truly opposing state control or economic interference, because they cheer it when it’s used for nationalist or culturally aligned purposes (e.g., tariffs, corporate pressure, subsidies). Instead, they often object to egalitarian goals like universal healthcare, free college, wealth taxes, even the acknowledgement that any form of racism exists in an infrastructure. So, the real opposition isn’t to government power or communism or socialism, but who benefits from that power. Skeeter’s not racist; he plays basketball with black people. Of course, anything that might give those same black people power of any kind, and he’s willing to ignore a rapist felon who’s hiding a long and sorted relationship with America’s most notorious child sex trafficker and go all in in his support. Skeeter’s not afraid of communism or socialism. Skeeter’s afraid of egalitarianism, of acknowledging basic history, and of supporting anything resembling a virtue.

Said it before…his entire life’s purpose is to show the rest of the world that shit stains, because he’s the shit that stains.

2

Bahahahahahaha. There it is folks!

Skimmed over it all in about 8 seconds… And found it!

Race-baiting little cunt just can’t help himself. And we all know it has taken on new levels when your little libtard pig wife called you a racist. You will go to any length to prove to that little cunt that you have changed your ways and now project and attack all of us in the name of anti-racism.

“he’s the shit that stains”. Yada yada… Ya that’s a real whopper…You talk shit like the dorky little cuck you are. Get some style and flair dipshit.

supporting anything resembling a virtue

And emotional little twats like you never met a virtue you can’t signal.

None of this deserves any further response. It’s a meltdown…you’ve been in meltdown mode since January…. It is entertaining though, so by all means keep melting down and amusing us.

3

Omg how stupid is Warden lol.

This has nothing to do with socialism or economics. It has to do with National Security.

This deal was made to restore American Steel for national security purposes…. You know, we need to be able to build ships and planes and tanks in case of war….

So in order to be certain that the operation remains here, the government is mandating they have a place at the table to make board decisions.

What the fuck does this have to do with socialism? Absolutely nothing. This guy is a complete idiot.

4

He’s just grasping now, fucking insane…They just can’t reel it in.

He acts as if this meltdown isn’t here for all us to see, every…single…week

Also…please note how he managed to fit in the ever-important, always versatile “racism” into the post as well…One of the best to ever do it.

5

Any major corporate acquisition involving international ownership is inherently about economics. It affects capital flows, ownership structures, market control and labor decisions. Saying it has nothing to do with economics is a dodge. If the US Government is intervening to place itself on a corporate board, that is absolutely a form of economic intervention, which critics of socialism label as government interference or state control.

The deal does not restore American Steel. It actually results in a Japanese owned company acquiring an iconic American steelmaker. That’s a shift away from American ownership, not restoration. If national security is the goal, why sell US Steel at all? Why not invest in a domestic alternative, use the Defense Production Act or provides subsidies like the CHIPS ACT?
Selling to a foreign company, regardless of allied status, puts long term control in another nation’s hands. Even with board oversight, it puts the strategic direction and profit motivation in foreign hands, not American. To pretend this somehow restores American Steel is a lie.

We already have the Defense Production Act and other laws to compel domestic manufacturing during wartime and crisis. If this was about national defensive readiness, we would keep the steel company domestically owned and operationally secured.

That’s government intervention in corporate governance. If you’re a critic of socialism, this is precisely the type of interference conservatives have been warning people like Obama would do for years. You can’t argue both that “government should stay out of business” and also “it’s good that the government is forcing its way into a corporate boardroom.” Forcing board seats is a tool of state controlled economies to maintain influence over private enterprise, 100% what conservatives have claimed was socialism for decades.

Once again, like clockwork, you abandon your stated principles of protecting American industry, American companies…in defending the Trump Administration selling a fundamental corporation and industry player in our national defense to a foreign entity and injecting themselves into its corporate board structure. From American First to Socialism, you betray and undermine your previously stated goals. In the end, you’ve shown America First doesn’t mean a thing to you in any way. You’re nothing more than a sycophant who’d defend anything for Trump. It was never about economics in any way for you; the cruelty, hypocrisy, abandonment of virtue of any kind is the only thing that matters to you and always have.

6

It actually results in a Japanese owned company acquiring an iconic American steelmaker.

What the fuck does “iconic” do for anyone today?

To pretend this somehow restores American Steel is a lie

Lol, no one’s worried about restoring American steel, it’s been dead…Ask the Mon Valley, ask Aliquippa, ask Youngstown, OH etc

7

If no one realizes it yet- Warden uses ChatGPT for all complicated responses and then sells it as his own analysis and voice.

It’s ok to use gpt but at least disclose it you loser.

8

The reason for the mandated board position is to allow the US Government to remain in control over decisions for the organization. And their main objective is to keep American supply lines here in the US.

Just because there is a component of economics here doesn’t indicate that this is a financial intention. It’s clearly an intention of control for national security purposes.

Couple of issues here. Firstly- Nippon’s offer was more attractive than any US offers for Us Steel. US steals board has a fiduciary and legal obligation to get the best financial deal for their stockholders.

Second, a US to US steel deal would have probably resulted in an antitrust suit. Unfortunately, we have regulations that would have prevented such a merger because it would’ve been seen as monopolistic.

Allowing Nippon to acquire US steel under certain conditions and giving US government control was obviously the fastest and easiest path from a practical standpoint

9

You know this how? His responses are always that long. You think that you are the smartest guy in the room, and you’re not. When you don’t have a proper rebuttal, you accuse people of using Google or other AI tools. The deflection is strong in this one.

10

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

To the rescue…Little dick riding cheerleader.

11

While you try and frame control as separate from economics, you’re full of shit. Control over corporate decisions is economic in nature because corporate boards make decisions about budgets, investments, etc.

Rhetorical dodge. You’re trying to pretend that economics and national security are mutually exclusive, which is horseshit. Your reply tries to dodge the point of the post entirely by focusing on the motive instead of the nature of the action (direct government control of corporate decisions). This is very definition of government control of private enterprise conservatives like you normally call socialism.

You’ve admitted

This is a corporate acquisition
It involves capital flows, ownership and market competition
The US government placed itself into corporate decision making as a part of the deal

So, you’re trying to sidestep the original position and responding to a question that was never asked. You’ve admitted this is an economic transaction with direct state involvement

Could be. I didn’t see the deals. But, that presence of a better offer doesn’t erase the fact that the government inserted itself into private enterprise

Fiduciary responsibility applies to the corporation, not to the US Government. Once the government secures a permanent board seat, the balance of decision making changes from shareholder driven capitalism to a state influenced hybrid model and once again proves my point.

“…because own own laws prevented a market based outcome, we allowed a foreign buyout with conditions of government control.” That’s an open admission of government choosing the outcome rather than letting the market decide

Pragmatism doesn’t change the fact that its STILL DIRECT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN OWNERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE.

The hypocrisy, well, is rather typical of you, actually. You’re defending the allowance of a foreign company to acquire a major US steel producer, inserting the US government directly into the corporate board, and trying to justify it as practical despite national security or patriotic motives…all while screaming “Buy American!” and cheering tariffs, then hand a US company to a foreign buyer with a government puppet on the board. Congrats, that’s socialism with a patriotic mask. Once again, you show you have no real economic principles. It is and has always been purely about the lack of any moral virtues that draws you to Trump.

12

It might be if it was a corporation. It’s not when it’s a government that is concerned with national security. Different intention.

13

Your response is a weak attempt at a dodge, yet again.

Corporate boards are corporate boards, no matter who sits on them. If a government inserts itself into a corporate board, its participating in the same decision making processes that control budgets, investments, supply chains and market strategy which are all market levers.

Your claim is changing the motive, not the nature of the act. National security doesn’t magically erase the fact that its still state involvement in corporate governance.

You’re still trying to separate economic from security by intention, but its still not how economic classification works. You can have an economic action with a non-economic motive. Installing government control into a private business is still government control, regardless of why its done.

What you’re attempting to do yet again is refusing to engage in the core point by pretending “national security” is a completely different category from economics. But, by your logic if the government took over half of the private sector and called it “security” that it would some now be state control. Motive doesn’t erase the fact that its still government control of private enterprise, and in this case, we didn’t just control it, we handed it to a foreign nation.

Your defense betrays every America First claim, every tariff claim you’ve ever made. Again, you show that you have zero economic principles.

14

image
image747×381 14.9 KB

image
image706×393 50.7 KB

But, but…Kamala said something about equity and so that’s communism, right?