Those aren’t exclusionary statements
Trump is a symptom of the wider rot that the establishment Democrats are a part of
Bullshit, he is literally part of the disease.
Bullshit, without the disease he could never, ever have taken office. No functioning Republic would allow it
Just to be clear: symptoms are part of a disease.
Trump is a symptom and also part of the disease. Is there more to the disease than just trump? yes. There are kind of a lot of parts of this disease and they include effectively all of the current Cabinet, House, Senate and Judiciary. Some of those symptoms are democratic and, while I consider many of these democrats to be personally accountable for the issues we face, I also hold that the system is the real problem.
The existing system is the disease and, while we made it over 200 years, I think about the phrase ‘a more perfect union’ in that a perfect union is a goal, but was not a guarantee and bad actors will find loopholes and vulnerabilities.
We tried to get rid of kings; and did for a time, but eventually replaced them with technocrats.
There’s only a handful of them, and a LOT of us. Let’s aim for the next more perfect union and ditch these modern kings.
Yes. The pedodent is supported by the billionaire class and in turn funnels even more taxpayer dollars to then and his own family. The billionaires in turn help manufacture of amplify the conflicts he feeds upon.
But it could be more honest. Dems suck because they’re all bark and part of the problem themselves. Pelosi built a fortune on insider trading, but they keep acting like they’re innocent and “helping” the avg citizen. They sure as hell not with posts like this.
Lets concider the context:
House democrats represent the old wave democrats, whereas Nina Turner is part of the Bernie wave. The old wave is dependent on super PACs for getting elected which means they need to lick as many billionaire boots as possible. The Bernie wave is much more credible in that they rely on grass root donations instead of super PACs.
So when House democrats are saying that Trump is the issue, they are implying that if democrats are governing, then housing prices will improve. But swapping bootlickers with other bootlickers are not going to change anything.
Change require that we give the middle finger to the billionaires.
The biggest tour de force of the century so far is the billionaires who built/bought the social media’s and diverted the attention from the class war (member 2008?) to an ideology war.
They won their bet
The dummies followed and even fought for them
We should probably stop calling them a class and just say billionaires. Calling them a class gives them validation. They are just greedy shitty people
I think i disagree. ‘Bilionaires’ makes it seem seem like a nebulous group of individuals, like
‘oh <insert random billionaire who hadnt been in the news lately for something evil> just happens to have a ton of money, you can’t hold that against them without evaluating their actions as an individual’
The problem is that they are a class, or rather that the class exists as a class and that they are use their power, act as and are catered to, as a class.
If there were 100 individuals around the word who just happened to have assets valuing 1,000,000,000$ or more, even if they owned shitty companies companies and were all assholes, that would be one thing.
Assuming they not associate with each other, conspire together to warp society and governments to their shared wills etc, it would be a far different world.
If they were seen as just rare individuals, governments would not bend to their whims; one billionaire threatens to offshore his buisness unless he gets favorable laws, to ignore taxes etc, the country threatens to nationalism his buisness, or just locks his ass up. I one guy is found to be bribing one or countless politicians, thats a treasonous scandal.
When a couple dozen are making these threats in lockstep, they are holding the country’s economy hostage. And when between them they are bribing all the politicians, that becomes the staus quo.
its when they act as a class that its a real problem.
I like the Epstein class because it’s not just billionaires that are the problem, it’s all the people who break or circumvent the law to enrich themselves or gain power.
The burnings will continue untill we get representation that actually aligns with the will of the people.
To be clear, i won’t be me burning, nor anyone on this site; just the regular Joe who has been pushed too far. We don’t even have to encourage it. The more our leaders don’t listen and ultra rich greed continues the more they will happen. It is the same as: the less it rains (justice) the dryer and more flammable the ground will get. Not a threat, but the nature of humanity and society.
Nothing will improve until the US moves away from the two party system. It’s an inherently flawed system, because it leaves no room for nuance. You either have to vote for the red guys or the blue guys and if both the red guys and the blue guys are crap then you have to vote for the least worst option, which is often hard to identify.
There’s nothing written down that actually requires people to be the representative of one party or another, it’s just how things have worked out.
The US also needs to seriously get a grip on religion in politics, it can be there up to a point but there has to be a limit. In any other western country a politician stating that a war is just and required entirely on the basis of religion alone would rightfully get them sectioned.
No third party has risen up high enough to compete. You are right, but no third option has made its way to the forefront. As for religion and politics, that will be extreamly difficult untill the aforementioned 3rd party comes to being. And even then, the cults of America will make it where life is hard if you are not part of thier groups. Even if we make it illigal to do so: see civil rights movement in the 60’s.
No third option has been allowed to rise. The Rs and Ds have rigged the system to keep out third parties.
I only disagree with this because I know far too well that infighting is more destructive than anything either side could do.
Majority take all voting needs to go, it doesn’t allow nuanced representation either.
“Here we go again, same old shit again.”
He is a symptom of the disease, and both must be dealt with as such.
i find it funny that there are more balanced takes on politics here then in any of the canada political pages on here
Trump is the worst president in American history.
“Yeah people with no power, how did you let them be that way?”
We didn’t start the fire~ but we love pouring some gasoline on it, oh yeah.~
Both. Both is true.
Yes, specifically: The billionaires class hired Trump to do this. They may have gotten more than they bargained for, or they may not care since it’s not yet affecting most of them.
Or they may be even affected positively based on what industry they own, since they can jack prices higher than needed during a time of crisis.
Some of them are actively working with Trump towards a future where prison labor in their factories fuels their wealth in perpetuity. It is as simple as incarceration of millions of slave laborers and becoming a government contractor.
Footage of private prison executives celebrating the Trump reelection leaked when it happened. Some immigration camps are already creating labor.
It’s wild because these supposed geniuses have clearly not thought about who the fuck is going to buy all the shit produced by prison labor when EVERYONE IS PRISON LABOR! They’re addicted to making money and will happily squeeze all the money out of everyone till we’re all dead. It’s like if you have a cow and take all the milk and leave nothing for the calves; someday you’ll be left with nothing.
It’s completely possible for only the wealthy elite to prosper even if everyone else dives into extreme poverty. That’s the way it worked for thousands of years.
Yes, of course it’s both, but I think people are upset with the statement because Democrats (with a few exceptions) traditionally bend over backwards trying to ignore the fact that the billionaire class is a HUGE part of the problem.
Yeah, but Trump will go away, and the billionaires will still be there. Probably having other politicians do something for them.
Two things can be true
Somehow this is the most ignored fact ever known, for internet people. No, you just simply cannot acknowledge two compatible facts. One is worthless garbage (your fact) while the other is profound wisdom (my fact). For example, here, somehow Donald Trump being a billionaire with the largest amount of power on earth is lost on this person, basically because it helps them burn the Democrats. Really kind of an idiotic response if you ask me. A billionaire acting the most like a billionaire is the “wrong” culprit here. And they think they’re such a big brain for this.
One of those things is just a subset of a much larger group, but both are only products of a systemic failure that democrats refuse to acknowledge - which makes them seem inauthentic to most people experiencing the problem.
Libs will pretend that this is not a problem.
Libs
Kinda says it all.
If it looks and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Personally I think putting people into boxes based on almost nothing is toxic but maybe that’s just me being a sHiTlIb
I havent put anyone into a box, i just labled the box and put it on the shelf. It’s not my problem if people decide to climb into it themselves.
Unless you’re upset with my associating liberals with the tendency to ignore the systemic problems of capitalist democracy in favor of directing anger toward just the ‘bad’ capitalists? I think that’s pretty self evident but I’d be happy to argue the merits.
The boxes shouldn’t exist, unless they were to define people as they relate to specific issues. I have been raged at for being a “liberal” because users assume I subscribe to many views which I definitely do not. They even go as far to tell me I’m wrong about what I believe because “you’re a liberal!!” Which I’m not, insofar as how they mean it. And that’s the problem.
To continue the analogy. You say you’re putting boxes on the shelf and people climb into them. I’d compare it more to people looking at the box labels and then you’re shoving them into the boxes just for that. It’s all oversimplified and kills conversations and progress. The fact that I strongly want an end to many social problems which could be addressed by universal healthcare and regulating capitalism means nothing to most of these label-oriented users. The only people who aren’t evil capitalist pigs are those who fit their same label. It’s actually sick, disgusting, and counterproductive. It’s exactly what you’d want if you’re a billionaire. People who want mostly the same things hating and icing each other out.
Yep sure is
“This person”
Literally a progressive who co-chaired Bernie’s 2020 run and has consistently fought for progressive policies.
I think she deserves to speak the truth to power.
Also, literally a Democrat.
Okay. Even heroes can be testy know it alls at times.
I got a good one for you
Me: Trump won because people didn’t vote for Kamala. She got 10 million less votes than Biden.
Tankies: No it’s because she ran a bad campaign. It’s not because of the voters at all.
Exactly. As if those are competing ideas. For those to be competing ideas, voters have no agency. Which they do not hesitate to imply if it makes them feel correct.
I’m gonna be honest: voters are dumb, and that’s the biggest reason why they don’t have agency. Forget voter ID and banning mail-ins, the biggest form of voter suppression is propaganda. Billionaires invest tons of money into making sure voters stay dumb. Politicians actually have a ton of control over voters, because they’re so easy to manipulate. So the tankies do have a point.
HOWEVER, if voters weren’t so dumb, they’d have agency! And the tankies who didn’t vote because they’re scared of lesser evilism? Well yeah, there’s your voter suppression through propaganda. The dumb voting is coming from inside the house.
Ew, I didn’t order any boots. Try Jack’s table instead.
This isn’t 2 things; Trump is a part of the billionaire class. They’re just not being specific enough, mostly because many of them work for the billionaire class.
One of those things is more true than the other.
They’re both completely true, minus turner’s bs about lessons, so no.
It’s not “billionaire class”. It’s owning class.
It ain’t that they have a lot of money, it’s how they came to acquire that money as an effect of the system of ownership we currently live under incentivising rampant exploitative practices as the most efficient methods of personal enrichment.
Billionaires are just the best at being exploitative; they aren’t the only ones though.
Most billionaires get their money by exploiting loopholes in the government. For example, they pay no taxes, yet the government will still prosecute people who kill them.
yet the government will still prosecute people who kill them.
They actually spend money to keep anyone from even trying.
The owning class are the ones who control and dictate our government structure. Of course they are going to create avenues for advancement of their interests. The system was built by them, for them.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
Upton Sinclair, 1934
What neo-liberals and their apologizing masses don’t understand is we don’t see a difference anymore. They’re both conservative parties that only care about their payout ultimately. Advancing billionaire objectives and ignoring us. I really wish they’d understand and stop trying to fucking argue against this.
You think taxing the rich, removing money from politics, and giving everyone food and healthcare is conservative?
Those are progressive ideals, not neo-liberal ones, and neo-liberals are currently the ones controlling the Democratic party unfortunately.
That’s not to say that neo-liberals and conservatives/the MAGA party are the same, or that the Democratic party and the Republican party are the same, but it’s important to recognize that neo-liberals explicitly do not want to tax the rich, remove money from politics, or give everyone food.
Those are literally the DNC written platform. It’s on their website in downloadable PDF form. It’s how they have always voted.
What do you mean that’s how they’ve always voted?
jfc
So as it turns out the entire congressional record including every bill introduced, voted on, passed in either chamber, and signed into law is publicly available.
Although I could mention about 56 years ago they voted differently, so not “always”.
So if you’ve looked at that record, you’d see where Democrats have recently voted against taxing the rich, against food assistance, and against keeping dark money out of politics, and you’d see the absurdity of a sweeping claim like “that’s how they’ve always voted”.
Also you realize there are more Democratic politicians than the ones who serve in Congress, right?
Link it
you haven’t been paying attention.
The “both sides are same duh” idiots still can’t connect these dots
Democrats don’t want those. At least at the leadership level. Their voters do, but the leaders don’t care.
Conservatives aren’t working towards those things, no.
That’s the point
They should be core conservative policies on account of them being the cheapest options in the long run.
conservatives vote for small government, big business. and by small government they mean gutting social programs, and giving money to billionaires.
these social programs were to fix problems with huge expenses over the long run more so then some bleeding heart reasons.
they literally save a dime now to have you pay a dollar later.
conservatives are so short sighted they can’t see their own d$(&
Conservative means “maintaining the old ways” in politics.
It means maintaining constants through change. So it can be applied way more broadly, actually. The ‘old ways’ or ‘traditional’ ways are agnostic to whether those ways are progressive or not.
‘Progressive conservatism’ exists. Many consider the form (or a prominent one) that it takes to be ‘neoliberalism’. Neoliberalism isn’t specifically used as a defined term political science.
So these terms have a whole lot of room tp be used and misused as needed.
Hard disagree on this one.
