To shreds you say?
The democrats know all these things and don’t care. they’re just as much in service to the billionaires as the republicans.
They’d rather lose to Republicans than cross their “donors.”
The gravy train runs to both parties as long as they protect this sociopathic grift of an economy from the people it enslaves. The DNC would consider winning on a platform of ending oligarchy (which could only ever happen with a left wing populist that steals the party out from under them like Trump did to the GOP, solely to steal their grift machine in his case) a catastrophic defeat and national crisis on the level we wish they’d treat Trump like.
It’s why leaders like Nancy Pelosi make it their mission to sabotage spoiler members (because both parties promote on the basis of being a good bribe getter and taker) like AOC. She spent weeks before Trump was inaugurated making calls to prevent AOC’s committee leadership bid. There’s the DNC’s priorities.
Our whole captured government is a game of neoliberal/fascist-good cop/bad cop. Do you want to waste your life enriching sociopath would be pharoahs with affirmation ribbons or scapegoats? A con game we can’t stop playing as we’re exploited dry.
Liberals don’t care. Socialists / progressives do care. Bernie and AOC have consistently fought to expand class consciousness and to fight against the growing wealth disparity
The “liberals” you speak of are just conservatives larping as liberals
The word for a liberal that cares about class consciousness is “Error: undefined. Did you mean socialist?”
I’ll give Bernie a pass although he’s a milquetoast ineffectual social democrat. AOC is a fraud.
You know, I see people like you saying this stuff and I guess I don’t understand it. WHO are you advocating for to do the thing(s) you want? I would like specific names you would put forward.
I’m not politically educated enough to know who these others are that someone like you would recommend, but I do see a lot of complaining and not enough solutions being presented so that someone like me could learn about them.
Anarchism. I have zero faith in government and my beliefs have only gotten stronger and stronger as I’ve gotten older.
There’s no one in government I trust. AOC is neolib larping as a progressive/ social democrat. They’re all still liberals and don’t actually threaten capital.
Thank you.
I don’t personally think anarchism is the right thing based on the definition of anarchy but I get your line of thinking. A legit real, physical resistance is probably needed.
I have zero faith in our American government as well. They want to status quo and don’t want to give up their power.
There are many different kinds of anarchy, I can assure you the common definition of “chaos” is inaccurate.
And anarchy is achieved by complaining about all government options online?
And what is achieved by voting for democrats? Fascism?
It’s a small action to help less get fascism. It’s arguably more effective than manifesting anarchism
Isn’t AOC a Democrat?
Controlled opposition.
But still better than whatever is happening now. I can’t imagine a Nazi salute at Kamala’s inauguration.
True, liberals are the lesser evil compared to neocons and fascists.
But the top 100 richest billionaires grew their wealth by 63% under Biden so liberalism still inevitably leads to extreme wealth disparities that erode democracy until neo-feudalistic oligarchy is all that will remain
They’d never go after their donors but at least I don’t have to worry about a second Wannsee Conference.
The democrats know all these things and don’t care.
Kevin Phillips, the Republican architect of the "Southern Strategy, has a vastly different view. He essentially said, in his book, “American Dynasty”, that Republicans think of the working class as dirt to be used however they royally please, while Democrats at least acknowledged that the working class enabled them to be where they are and supported them.
BYTW, Kevin Phillips, who is very politically knowledgeable, is now extremely disillusioned with Republicans and generally hates both parties.Maybe that was true in 2004 when it was published but it is no longer true. Both see the working class as dirt.
Fortunately there’s other parties
As it stands, third-party will never win in the US.
Fortunately we can change the election system to be democratic. Maine did it years ago, for example
Good luck with that on a federal level. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans will risk losing an inch of power.
Luigi has entered the chat
That I voted for despite the fact they’ll never get an ounce of power
I generally avoid painting them all with a single brush like that.
Some absolutely are bought off like you describe. But an awful lot are not — the big problem we’ve had is that the contingent of the bought off Democrats plus the Republicans has been enough to block meaningful action, even when the Democrats have had a nominal majority.
I’m tired of the excuse making for them. It’s like sitting at a table of 10 Nazis. Guess what? It’s 11 Nazis.
I dislike this comparison because it invokes a circular reasoning / begging the question fallacy:
What we are debating is whether all billionaires are bad. Then you raise a comparison trying to prove they’re all bad by associating them with nazis.
But we haven’t yet established if the 10 billionaires around a table are all inherently evil or to the same degree to begin with.
Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are not as bad as Musk or the Waltons. At least the former believe they shouldn’t exist in the first place. So when fighting fascism we kind of need all the resources we can get.
Gee who’s funding the Nazis right now (and back then)? The billionaires.
I was using the saying because it’s appropriate, but the Nazi comparison is double appropriate.
All?
And do you think no comparative billionaires funded the allied war machine against Hitler, himself?
Moreover can you identify a specific policy compromise where in the absence of support from Tyler Perry, Bill Gates, or Mark Cuban for example, Harris would’ve performed better in the absence of their support and funding?
Can you please explain how Tyler Perry is as deplorable as Charles or David Koch?
The fallacy remains.
Removed by mod
That’s what I thought.
Problem with that view is that minority of the Democrats were bought off, like about 4%. And they had a hard time winning reelection as a result
Try 99% of them.
If so, it doesn’t show up in voting records or rhetoric.
Definitely the party leaders who consistently outperform the S and P
The last 3 elections have shown there are only two groups: Republicans and Republicans that get paid less.
I feel like they get paid just as much only put on a fucking costume and pretend to be something they aren’t.
But thank you for your sane comment in a world of complete fucking insanity and denial about what’s really going on.
True. Maybe “Republicans and JV Republicans” is more accurate?
Oooo good one.
Taking bets if there is a 2028 election (there won’t be) the democrats will run Liz Cheney.
Republican reich vs republican lite.
It’s not gonna get better until the people start to stir shit. Remember that.
Actually, that’s part of what he is aiming for. He wants mass protests so he can enact Martial Law. That was literally part of the plan on January 6th, 2020, to enact a State of Emergency. He’s just looking for excuses to put the hammer down on American citizens.
Not to say that’s a reason to not stir shit. They’re looking for excuses to ramp up the violence anyway, even if you try to keep your head down. Keeping our heads down won’t save us from it, so stir away.
He was pretty keen on using violence against his opponents last time, and BLM still stressed resources to the point where enforcement had to have pretty limited objectives. I think people overestimate just how actually powerful the police (and by extension the military trying to support the police) are in the face of popular uprisings. Every state, even the US with its giant military and police state, relies on individual fear to prevent uprisings.
The police were not authorized to use deadly force last time. I doubt Trump will be so lenient this time.
Spraying bullets into crowds with automatic weapons is a pretty effective way to stop an uprising.,
If that were true all the dictatorships in the Middle East would still be (the same) dictatorships. Soldiers aren’t killbots and massacres have a way of spawning more resistance.
Most dictatorships in the Middle East are still there or replaced with new dictatorships. Which one were you thinking of in specific?
And what makes you think all the MAGA members of the military and all the violent thug cops wouldn’t be fine spraying bullets at protesters? Especially the cops?
The multiple popular uprisings of the Arab Spring that did not end simply because there was a violent response. Syria just fell at the end of a protracted civil war spawned from a popular uprising. That’s not to say violence never quashes uprisings or that spawning a civil war is a desirable path, but if simply applying violence was a reliable solution to unrest we’d live in a much different world.
And what makes you think all the MAGA members of the military and all the violent thug cops wouldn’t be fine spraying bullets at protesters? Especially the cops?
Because being MAGA is a lot easier when it doesn’t also involve wholesale slaughter of Americans. Soldiers get fucked up killing foreigners of different religions propagandized to be months away from launching dirty bombs. It’s not that easy.
The Arab Spring was a total failure. How do you not know that? It literally resulted in new dictatorships.
Do you think the Nazis were reluctant to massacre people they didn’t like? Because they weren’t.
That’s weird, seeing as the playing field would be leveled a bit in that situation, and his rule would be threatened
I don’t think he’s clever enough to understand that. He didn’t understand that Hitler’s own Generals had plotted against him. He’s genuinely a dumb fucking prick. He just thinks “I’m a strongman and this is what strongmen do, MARTIAL LAW!” He’s like Captain fucking Murphy declaring “Martian Law.” He only barely understands these concepts.
According to Goldberg’s account of Baker and Glasser’s reporting, Kelly responded by explaining to Trump that the German generals “tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off,” but Trump reportedly was not swayed by the correction.
“No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” Trump said, according to Goldberg’s telling of Baker and Glasser’s reporting.
According to Goldberg’s account of Baker and Glasser’s reporting, Kelly responded by explaining to Trump that the German generals “tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off,” but Trump reportedly was not swayed by the correction.
Hitler “fended” off 23 assassination attempts. And with all his gutting of utterly everything, i highly doubt the Secret Service will be competent enough to actually fend off any serious attempts, let alone various other
thingsthreats.Specifically as a German, i can only tell you: Trump is as far away from Hitler as Washington from Berlin. Sure, Trumps clearly fascist, but at best he’s Temus Version of Hitler. Remember, Hitler was quite competent in various things and actually listened to his staff in the beginning. Not only that, Göring, the Gestapo and various other members were intelligent and had some serious education. There were many, many People you probably never heard of that helped Hitler in many ways. While some of us question the necessity of learning this stuff, it is still taught in schools and while i have to admit to have forgotten the Details, Himmler, Göring, Heidrich, Heß and Wiedemann are just 5 people in the spotlight. Trump’s MAGAts are dangerous no doubt and they are going to wreck basically everything. But let’s be honest…they aren’t competent, they don’t know shit except “destroying” stuff. But they will go down with the destruction.
Hitler actually did stuff for the People, that’s why most Germans did go along and you have to remember, Germany was basically on it’s knees and grasped for straws. The issue(s) in the U.S. right now are very different - but most people still do very well, especially since Biden did one hell of an impossible job. However, the gap between the “well off” and the “fucked” is going to grow wider and Trump and his incompetent bunch can still use it to basically tear down any and all civil rights because there are not enough people paying any attention. Germans did pay attention back then and they desperately wanted change. Not to mention, Hitler had a lot of help from inside the Weimarer Republic.
I don’t want to downplay this, but the parallels are currently still limited to politics and some unpleasant side effects that restrict the freedom of individuals, but do not have many effects on the whole. So if Trump declares Martial Law, i think he’s not going to last long after that - because by that point, things will have deteriorated far enough, that enough people will care and take action. Unfortunately this will have very ugly side effects for all of you and probably the rest of the world and may even be civilization ending…
Removed by mod
Doesn’t matter now. He’s rapidly destroying the regulatory infrastructure and sending his brown shirts out to sow fear and confusion. He is a fascist, the rest of the Republican party are his enablers, and things are going to get super mega shitty before they get better.
If they get better.
We talkin’ about President Elon or his dick sucker, Donald?
He’s rapidly destroying the regulatory infrastructure and sending his brown shirts out to sow fear and confusion.
It’s literally the playbook from Bush’s “Shock and Awe” campaign turned on US citizens (minus the indiscriminate bombing). It amounts to the same thing, though. It’s a blitz, do so much so fast it sets everybody off balance and puts them in a state of shock.
Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military strategy based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy’s perception of the battlefield and destroy their will to fight.
Project 2025 wants to shock people into obedience. The flurry of Executive Orders are part of this shock treatment, as are the deportations, and roadblocks suddenly thrown up in front of government agencies. They intend to shock us and cripple our ability to respond via governance.
EDIT: Turns out, Klein agrees.
Trump is a rolling shock machine, which a recipe for keeping us scattered and reactive to the latest shocking news. There will be moments when we need to react forcefully and meaningfully to protect one another.
Oh yeah, the violence will come. After they’ve sufficiently shocked everyone into submission. The violence is to perpetuate the submission since shock wears off.
His shock and awe may shock his violence prone brown headed Magas into pulling another 2nd amendment solution on him or his helpers - this time more successfully.
He is a fascist, the rest of the Republican party are his enablers
The rest of the Republican party are his sycophants and subordinates. It’s the “moderate” Democrats who are his enablers, through inaction.
The Republicans have the majority in both the House and Senate. To do something, you need power first.
Honest question: What should they have done, given the makeup of the House and Senate?
-
Biden should’ve appointed an AG four years ago who would’ve actually been motivated to prosecute Trump with a sense of urgency, rather than sitting on his ass for two years before finally appointing a special prosecutor precisely and deliberately after the last moment. (Remember, Merrick Garland was only nominated for SCOTUS in the first place because Obama thought he was so conservative that not even Mitch McConnell could find an excuse to object. That should’ve made it obvious that he was exactly the wrong choice for AG.)
-
Also four years ago (or two years ago, or six years ago, or any even-numbered years ago going back to at least before Bill Clinton’s “third way” nonsense, if not the end of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs or even the New Deal), the Democrats should’ve been running more economically-progressive candidates (e.g. Elizabeth Warran, AOC, etc.) instead of neoliberal pro-corporate toadies, so that they could have actually moved the needle on helping the working class instead of leaving them vulnerable to empty promises by fascist demagogues.
To be very clear, I’m not saying that being socially-progressive was a mistake. In fact I will directly refute that: mainstream Democrats trying to scapegoat being too “woke” as the reason they lost are not only wrong, but lying. What I am saying is that the economic aspects of progressivism, not the social ones, are what would’ve actually made the difference.
As for what they should do now as opposed to in the past, other than “obstruct” I don’t have a fucking clue because they’ve already comprehensively failed and it might very well be too late.
-
AP has a new poll out which asked whether people think it’s a good or bad thing that the President “relies on billionaires for advice about government policy.” When I first saw the results of this poll as “good” coming in at “+12” I thought they meant ‘net’ 12% and I thought, ‘eeeesh, the honeymoon phase is more intense than I thought!’ But no, 12%: as in, 12% of the public think it’s a good thing. 60% think it’s not. That’s US adults. The only outliers are Republicans, 20% of whom think this is a good thing. But even that is pretty feeble. To put it simply, these are terrible numbers.
In a strange way, this is reassuring. I’ve said a lot of times the most frustrating thing about all of this isn’t that the conservatives are too stupid to see the forest for the trees. No, they see a lot of the same shit we do, but their dedication to hierarchy is what undoes them every time. They could technically agree with me about an issue, but I’m not a person they consider an Authority Figure, and the only people they do respect as Authority Figures are, to put it fucking mildly, abusive bullies.
It’s also that misinformation has succeeded. What I assume is due to primarily a lack of quality education, but they seem incapable of understanding nuance. So they see that, say, the New York Times may not be trustworthy when discussing certain issues, just like I do. However, unlike myself, instead of reading it anyway with a skeptical eye while also digesting other sources about the same issue, they instead write off all mainstream media sources and then believe crazy shit online. They don’t know who to trust anymore, so they trust the most wild charlatans that exist. That’s not their fault, to be fair, our mainstream media has been failing us for decades. I worked in local news during the Iraq War and I remember how much the media juiced the war for the Bush Administration while asking few questions and the NYT even sat on the NSA wiretapping story for over a year to help Bush.
They’re not wrong to not entirely trust legacy media, but they end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the end, they also see how letting the most obscenely wealthy run the show isn’t such a hot idea. Which is strangely reassuring, as I said. They know something stinks, but they lack the education and tools to properly identify it, as well as their inability to break out from hierarchical thinking.
Very well put, great insight.
Don’t eat shit.
Mulch the rich.
Until enough maga cultist become casualties of Trump’s fascist state nothing will change.
It takes more than that — people just resort to conspiracy theories. What the mind-changing process actually looks like:
- distancing from ideological community
- desire to seek out new information
- and solidifying experiences of gradual or epiphanic realization
It’s so sad that cult deprogramming works so much like cult programming, just in reverse. The cult isolates you inside the cult community, and the only way to break it is to isolate a person from the cult community. It’s not really the same thing, because once they’re separated from the cult they should otherwise be allowed to freely associate with anyone, but it operates on the same principles.
I’m sure the feckless controlled opposition party will jump right on this, just you wait
