Neoliberalism: The Movement That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Kaleredar]

Baby cheeses. Mindlessly defending american democracy must be tiring.

Like you're desperately trying to clear water from your sinking ship while two chuds take turns scamming you.

To defend either of those parties is just so fucking dumb at this point.

I guess people are happier when the person fucking them over has a smile whole they do it.

Blah blah blah both sides.

Until the EU is ready to pull on its big boy pants and take some responsibility in leading the world rather than just raising its eyebrows in complicit objection, the US is the best country to do so.

Yeah, let that sink in. For as corrupt and incompetent as you think the US is... they're still the ones most poised to lead the world. That no country could offer up a better helm of leadership than an administration under the human dumpster fire that is Donald fucking Trump.

Because boy if you want to be 'outraged' about "parties fleecing their people while fighting tooth and nail to maintain an outward image that all is well," then you'd best exercise some pretty prudent judiciousness in which countries you think don't fall into that category.

[Felya]

Baby cheeses. Mindlessly defending american democracy must be tiring.

Like you're desperately trying to clear water from your sinking ship while two chuds take turns scamming you.

To defend either of those parties is just so fucking dumb at this point.

I guess people are happier when the person fucking them over has a smile whole they do it.

It’s mindless to not see the difference...

[Shalcker]

It calls out republicans on what?

On being co-opted by neo-liberals.

I am pointing out that this is the result of conservative power. We don’t have kings and despite the premise the OP likes to put up, DNC is far more diverse ideologically than the GOP. Making whole sale changes, without compromise, impossible.

It's different front that keeps promoting largely same agenda as Republicans. Like Prop 22 in Democrat California.

If both sides agree on certain things then no change to those things is possible period. It isn't really compromise if both sides already agree, even if it is framed that way.

Which is completely untrue, when you looks at how much shit Trump gets away with. How can you both, recognize the power of wealth and the sort of shit you can get away with as a result, while thinking that a billionaire will be exposed? I wager that they will blame liberals regardless of Trump’s faults. I wager that more than 70 million people will do that...

Which is completely true. We have entire mega-thread exposing everything Trump and his administration did; we didn't have that in Obama's era.

By your own estimate, how much did you resist Obama's actions vs Trump's actions? Was it more or less?

Please tell me... who calls Obama soft on immigration and claims he wants open borders? While, who named Obama Deporter In Chief? Is Trump an Obama supporter now, downplaying his record?

The point is judging people by their results, not by their rhetoric. And by results Obama deported more over the years.

[Howel]

You are confusing what the article is saying. It isn't making the case that the market is dominated, or even that the "market" exists except as an abstraction. It draws on the historical evidence that Neo-Liberalism view is that "Markets" must be made, and for them to be made a powerful force must mold people into market subjects.

As opposed to say the Classical Liberals (Not Youtubers but the thing that existed in the 1940's) which argued that actually no powerful force was needed because the market in their ideology served people. You are seemingly insistent on missing that point.

But that's fundamentally not correct. Neo-liberalism, was born out of the idea that government needed to take an interest and oversight in how the economy functioned. That idea was spurred on, because more and more instabilities were seen, and what happened when it was going freely on its own, particularly the 1929 crash, where government had done nothing prior, nothing during, and only reacted to the disastrous outcome, that cracked the spine of several nations stability. It was never touted as a fundamental government control over the market to ensure its continued existence be it for good or bad, nor did it ever come close to touting that it had to shape the citizenry into market subjects, but instead that government should take an active role in trying to prepare and educate its population, so that they could partake and survive in a changing world, and not end up with parts of the country becoming neglected and backwards

And classic liberalism, was a status quo, that stood its ground, unwilling to address a changing world. It is why it didn't survive as an ideological component.

The deficit is only a problem when its helping normal people, when its bombing countries into subservience, then the deficit isn't even real. Or ensuring financial institutions weather the latest cataclysm.

Yes, war does indeed change perspective on the deficit, that's what war requires, an abandonment of normality. I think you'll also find yourself hard pressed to find economists cheering for warmongering, seeing as that's a not a school of economy; it can only be addressed as it is and its impacts.
But even then, there is a budget that does get balanced, because it isn't unlimited spending.

Malice implies personal hatred. Crime and poverty are linked, and people not useful to the Market are basically worthless under that ideological framework.

I am not gonna address this, until you give aanswer to the other things that I pointed towards. Unless they were somehow brainwashed, and that those things were self imposed lies spurred on by neo-liberalism, and if so, prove it.

It has a lot to do with it, but you insist on not reading the OP but instead picking parts of it out, I think you skimmed this at best, so, to restate, what makes Neo-Liberals particular is that despite the rhetoric they believe in large state power, the State exists to forge people into market subjects, all State action is to shepherd and cultivate and empower the Market and make people serve it.

I kind of have to pick out parts. It is an 8000 word article, that goes over a lot of topics, across almost a century; if I was to address this is in full, not only would my word count vastly exceed 8000 words, because there are statements based on the full works of economic scholars, that themselves would require 8000 words just to point out in full as why such an interpretation is questionable. It would take days of work to go through this entire thing. Which is a little beyond my time scope for internet shitposting.
And again, the interpretation that neo-liberalism was to make government a full tool to fuel the market, regulatory, monetarily and combing a citizenry into serving it as well, is highly questionable.

Neo-Liberalism is discussed in other countries context in the Article. Actually; there has been cases for not doing the bail outs, and given the long history of this school of thought, and that we've only needed these vast bailouts within the time frame of its existence. Yeah no.

They exist in that timeframe because of the globalization, and expansion of venture capitalism; said existence and size is what made it a reality. Equally so, prior to it, there existed only downfalls and economic depression. Neo-liberalism exists, as a economic philosophical answer to a problem that was becoming more urgent by the year.

Neo-Liberal is what they described their own movement in their own terms in the 1940s. Also you have a curious view of economics. Like it is the most objective of sciences, possibly more objective than physics. Also their books are windows into what they considered to be valid political thought. So what? We cannot go by what they themselves said, or what they themselves called themselves?

I don't view it as an objective science at all, it is one of the most capable of interpretation. But reading Hayek's works, and especially Law, Legislation and Liberty, and coming to the conclusion that said work is meant as guidebook, is really beyond me. It is abstract hypotheticals, to try and provoke deeper questions on the mechanics of society and the role that economics plays in that. How that can gets interpreted as Hayek's solution, is what I question very much so; because that's the first time I've seen it addressed as such.
And you can absolutely call them neo-liberalists, but I'd argue certainly not with this interpretation, nor this easily defined. Neo-liberalism is also not easily placed, because implementations by governments are not assured to be rooted in neo-liberalism, but can spawn from completely different needs and human behaviour. And even at that point, it is not necessarily a followed doctrine, but more so that they were capable of interpretations that forsaw what the economic systems that were being build, would result in.

Or, he is pointing out that people who follow this ideological framework are quick to deny they do so. Alla a pervious poster citing the Koch Brothers foundation to claim its not even a thing. Which is a bit like asking Ted Kaczynski if in Ted's opinion everything he did was justified, surprisingly Ted agrees that Ted was right.

It is possible, but the problem is that it is broadly definable as mentioned above; and equally so intention is something one should rarely touch upon without direct evidence of such (especially if you are an economist). It is a bit like denying postmodernism views (throw in Marxism there, to make it even more fun to try and pin point); it is so broadly definable from the philosophical identification that it has been attributed, the very act of denial is attributable to the philosophy itself. Which this somewhat parallels, the notion that denial thereof, is a fundamental mechanic; meaning trying to repute is an act covering up/hiding. It is circular logic, basically.

[zealo]

Classic liberals are fascist. It’s a term made up by the altright, to make them seem centrist. As an example, Gulliani made a reference to 1930s liberals being like Trump, just a couple of days ago.

Neoliberalism is a reaction to the nature of liberals being... uhm... very altruistic... when it comes to compromising liberal values, yet getting nothing from conservatives. It has been used by the altright, to blame democrats for Iraq war, patriot act, NAFTA and all the other shit that was pushed by GOP, but passed with DNC signatures.

Both terms are used to muddy the water...

Guiliani calling Trump a classical liberal has no bearing on when classical liberalism came into existence as a political ideological basis. Classical Liberalism predates fascism by over a century, and the modern alt-right even more so.

[Felya]

Guiliani calling Trump a classical liberal has no bearing on when classical liberalism came into existence as a political ideological basis. Classical Liberalism predates fascism by over a century, and the modern alt-right even more so.

Are you suggesting classic liberalism, was called classic before fascism? How about you spend a few seconds thinking about it... Modern altright created the term to muddy the waters in making fascism seem centrist.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is one is more open about who they deem desirable and the other hides behind tokenism.

Really? Do you honestly think the ruling about COVID restrictions from SCoTuS would be any different, if Barrett’s seat was replaced by this equally bad tokenism? When Roe v Wade lands on the Supreme Court, will it be the fault of 4 judges voting in support, that are equally to blame?

Life got worse for a lot of people under obama, biden basically campaigned on more of that so.

Life will get worse for everyone... welcome to entropy... what Obama policy are you referring to?

Like there is a difference but it's like asking which flavour of cyanide I want to drink and maybe one killing me a bit quicker.

Yeah, like 5 or 6 SCOTUS voting for cyanide and the remaining voting against it, are the same? It was democrats talking about injecting bleach? Isn’t it funny when your hyperbole is actually reality, but you miss it, because ‘both sides’ is an argument that requires 0 thought?

Good you got rid of your orange man, now fix your broken democracy so the rest of the world can suffer less.

You can’t downplay what Orange Man is doing, while calling to fix democracy. Let me guess, everyone launches frivolous lawsuits to over turn votes? That’s what everyone does?

- - - Updated - - -

On being co-opted by neo-liberals.

This is absurd... this is just a way to blame GOP failures on democrats.

It's different front that keeps promoting largely same agenda as Republicans. Like Prop 22 in Democrat California.

How has it been co-opted by neoliberals and neoliberals keep promoting GOP? That’s blatantly illogical... that’s just blaming everything GOP does on democrats. It’s why Trump didn’t run on his record...

If both sides agree on certain things then no change to those things is possible period. It isn't really compromise if both sides already agree, even if it is framed that way.

What if they don’t agree, but one side is forced to compromise, because things like gerrymandering, has made prospects of down ballot support, extremely unlikely. US government isn’t kings, with Trump’s volume of executive orders being unprecedented. Unprecedented, as in, democrats never did that shit.

Which is completely true. We have entire mega-thread exposing everything Trump and his administration did; we didn't have that in Obama's era.

Because all the horrible shit Trump has done and all the social media use. There were hundreds of threads created about Obama, while Trump’s was moved to a new forum, had mods change its name from shit show and every other Trump thread gets locked.

Obama didn’t get impeached... Obama didn’t have DOJ replace Trump as a dependent in a rape trial. Obama didn’t pay off a porn star he cheated with. Obama didn’t have his children and former oil executives fill his cabinet.

Imagine that... a president that wasn’t posting people screaming “white power” and currently going on rants about winning the election in a landslide... got less scrutiny than the one that does. Shocker... now imagine if Trump was so bad, that all of the media is deserved.

By your own estimate, how much did you resist Obama's actions vs Trump's actions? Was it more or less?

Far more resistance to Trump, because Trump has done more horrible shit in 4 years, than Obama in 8. Can you list all the Trump shit I should ignore, to be fair and balanced? Why didn’t Trump run on his record?

The point is judging people by their results, not by their rhetoric. And by results Obama deported more over the years.

Okay... How many refugees did Obama take in versus Trump? How is it possible that Trump both deported less and took in less? Are you giving Trump credit for the drop in immigration that started in 2008? Or the fact that they started counting being turned away at the border, as deported, while Obama was in Office? How Trump is holding 600 kids in cages that Obama built, but Obama didn’t use in this scope, while dealing with far more illegals?

Also, who claims Obama wanted more immigrants and open borders? Since you think Obama’s deportations were under reported, despite MSM dubbing him deporter in Chief... who was it that downplayed Obama’s immigration record? MSM or Fox News and Trump? Who campaigned on Obama being soft on immigration, Trump or Clinton?

[zealo]

Are you suggesting classic liberalism, was called classic before fascism? How about you spend a few seconds thinking about it... Modern altright created the term to muddy the waters in making fascism seem centrist.

No, I am not. I am well aware of that the name of "classical" as such originated in the 20th century, well before the emergence of the "alt-right", at that, but the actual school of thought it refers to shouldn't be equated to fascism so readily as you do.

Fascism is not so ill-defined that it should be equated to the 18th and 19th century school of liberalism that easily.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Alright let me sum this all up and keep it simple.

There is Left Liberal, Central, and Right Conservative when it comes to political ideology full stop.


Classic Liberal = Is someone Conservative typically, trying to be edgy who considers themselves fiscally conservative, but fiscally liberal. Which is BS

Neo Liberal= Anyone who is a capitalist and not a socialist or communist who someone who is actually Alt-Right, that doesn't think someone who is left and liberal enough, is left and liberal enough.


Classic Liberal and Neo Liberal are fucking made up nonsense. In this day and age

But of course might go,but but but but Is there such a thing as Classical Liberal or Neo Liberal?


The answer is: NO not really


Classical Liberal has been around a long time but the term now often gets misapplied BECAUSE most people kind of fail to really understand or appreciate what liberal or conservative means.

Just as Political Party's for an example.

There has been nuance in all forms ideology, but that doesn't suddenly mean Classical Liberal really means conservative or some shit, it's just an over all fundamental misunderstanding of what that term means or how it is applied.

Conservative or Alt-Right IS NOT Classic Liberal


Just as Neo Liberal, Neo Conservative hell even NEO Nazi really isn't a thing, THEY COULD BE, but more often than not if you listen to the arguments of those using those terms OFTEN time there is no distinctions realistically between the former and the latter.


The main problem generally stems from a complete lack of understanding or a stupidity to malign an ideology with a GROUP and monolithic thinking, which are almost mutually exclusive.


For example National Socialist = Nazis ARE Socialist, however that term in the reference places has nothing to do with most general understandings of either Nazi's or Socialist. Nazi's are a Group, Nazi's can be Socialist, or Capitalist.


However being one doesn't exclude one from another, because not all Ideologies are the same or are applied to the same issue.


Capitalism, Communism or Socialism are Economic ideologies. Which aren't always far removed from philosophical ideologies.


Which is why as strange as it is, you Could be an Animal Rights, Feminist, Environmentalist, and Nazi all at the same time. A human being likely wouldn't be all of those things in general because of historic practice, but not every kind of ideology conflicts.


Which is why we have GROUPS as possessed to Ideology. For Example in Canada The Liberal party, which is a Party however often acts more Center Right in some peoples views, especially those who consider themselves more to the left.


Democrats are a Party, who are NOT Exclusively Liberal, or Conservative, and the Party has gone from Far Right, to Center to left of Center.


This is why it is important to make distinctions, but it's silly and stupid to make up new ones when most barely fucking understand the distinctions that already exist.


There is no fucking such thing as Classical Liberal right now, it is a fucking meaningless term and what meaning it does have is applies as I stated.


Lastly Liberal vs Conservative have a great deal with what the issues is one is often liberal or conservative about.


Meaning you can be Liberal and against Defunding the Police.

Just as you can be Conservative and For Social Safety Nets and Regulations.

As for Left and Right it simply has to do with the scale in social view some ideologies are left, some ideologies are right, but not all ideologies mean the same thing or are applied the same way.


An economic ideology might be a good clue as to being left or right socially or politically as it were, but not always. However it doesn't require making up new terms or resurrecting old terms and misapplying them.

[Felya]

No, I am not. I am well aware of that the name of "classical" as such originated in the 20th century, well before the emergence of the "alt-right", at that, but the actual school of thought it refers to shouldn't be equated to fascism so readily as you do.

Fascism is not so ill-defined that it should be equated to the 18th and 19th century school of liberalism that easily.

Yes, and Nazis shouldn’t be called socialist, just because it’s in their name... Classic Liberal is a self proclaimed term, used by the altright. It’s different than liberals from XXXX year... that it shouldn’t be referred to it as such, is true... but, that’s the point of altright using it. They are not doing it in good faith...

- - - Updated - - -

I think I got it...

Can we agree that the left and right is defined by control of production? With the farther left you go, the more control the proletariat has. While further right you go, the more you shift control of production to the bourgeoisie.

Can we then pose, that in order for the right to appeal as working class or populist, they must create an impression of being left, without sacrificing their ideology. Terms like classic liberal, when used by the right, is intended to create an impression of property owned by the proletariat, as being at stake. Muddying the waters, by conflating the property rights of the proletariat being compensation and the property rights defined in controlling means of production.

Edit: Even fundamentally... Is there any other instance, where irking for how it was a hundred years ago, is progressive and not conserve? Why does defining the old days as liberals, in ones demand for originalism, make it progressive? Just because the past you aim to conserve, was defined as liberal, doesn’t make you any less conservative.

[PC2]

Neo Liberal= Anyone who is a capitalist and not a socialist or communist who someone who is actually Alt-Right, that doesn't think someone who is left and liberal enough, is left and liberal enough.

How are neoliberals alt-right though? Which neoliberal policy is alt-right? The neoliberals I come across usually just promote international trade and travel and they complain about NIMBy-ism.

[Theodarzna]

Guiliani calling Trump a classical liberal has no bearing on when classical liberalism came into existence as a political ideological basis. Classical Liberalism predates fascism by over a century, and the modern alt-right even more so.

I think this person has spent too much absorbing Online Drama as politics. Nothing in my OP talks about you know any of that stuff or really anything prior to 2016.

I think way too many people have no actually read the OP. "Classical Liberal" was invented by the Altright? What drug fueled trip is this?

- - - Updated - - -

So is this just another faux-outrage thread admonishing liberals for not being liberal enough while being completely silent about the conservative bastions in the country actually propping up the systems the OP is ostensibly aggrieved with?

Bonus points if "big science" is somehow behind it all, too.

Did you actually read the OP or just skim it to try and piece together this post in hopes you get some pats on the back from the clique? Do you guys have like a rewards program for making takes without even reading what you are responding to?

[DingDongKing]

2500 odd words of bait. What a wonderful and novel concept. Oh wait, it's the same damn person who does it everytime...

[Doctor Amadeus]

How are neoliberals alt-right though? Which neoliberal policy is alt-right? The neoliberals I come across usually just promote international trade and travel and they complain about NIMBYism.

Again it’s a meaningless label co-opted by right leaning conservatives who just don’t want to be called conservatives so they call themselves Classical Liberals or Alt-Right.

Alt-Right however is completely invented mostly white supremacist which is more of a cultural ideology.

Many of whom used to be Ayn Rand Libertarians.

Hell even I’ve been called Neo-Liberal by those that think I wasn’t left or liberal enough.

Again it’s essentially a meaningless term. Not because it couldn’t ever be accurate. But because it’s almost always misapplied and unnecessary.

Just like Neo Conservative or Neo Nazi again essentially meaningless.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this person has spent too much absorbing Online Drama as politics. Nothing in my OP talks about you know any of that stuff or really anything prior to 2016.

I think way too many people have no actually read the OP. "Classical Liberal" was invented by the Altright? What drug fueled trip is this?

- - - Updated - - -



Did you actually read the OP or just skim it to try and piece together this post in hopes you get some pats on the back from the clique? Do you guys have like a rewards program for making takes without even reading what you are responding to?

No because it’s the same garbage. The only one here that thinks it’s deep is you.

2500 word essay of intellectual masturbation. It’s not thoughtful and it’s not new. It’s tired Alt-Right bullshit copy pasted by you.

Someone who’s always engaging in pretentious dishonesty.

[Theodarzna]

No because it’s the same garbage. The only one here that thinks it’s deep is you.

2500 word essay of intellectual masturbation. It’s not thoughtful and it’s not new. It’s tired Alt-Right bullshit copy pasted by you.

Someone who’s always engaging in pretentious dishonesty.

Can we maybe get into what any of this has to do with the OP? Your obsession with petty online drama is impressive but not relevant to the thread? Perhaps you might try the Trump mega-thread for this?

Nowhere in the essay is the DNC mentioned, the author isn't a member of the "Altright", it doesn't talk about anything that happened in the Trump era even and mostly discusses stuff from many decades ago. Are you on drugs or something?

- - - Updated - - -

2500 odd words of bait. What a wonderful and novel concept. Oh wait, it's the same damn person who does it everytime...

If you didn't read the OP why even respond? A lot of people are making themselves very foolish by commenting on an OP, sure of what its about, without actually reading it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Can we maybe get into what any of this has to do with the OP? Your obsession with petty online drama is impressive but not relevant to the thread? Perhaps you might try the Trump mega-thread for this?

Nowhere in the essay is the DNC mentioned, the author isn't a member of the "Altright", it doesn't talk about anything that happened in the Trump era even and mostly discusses stuff from many decades ago. Are you on drugs or something?

- - - Updated - - -



If you didn't read the OP why even respond? A lot of people are making themselves very foolish by commenting on an OP, sure of what its about, without actually reading it.

I didn’t bring up Trump at all YOU did. Which pretty much says exactly where you’re mind is at.

My response was directly related to your copy paste. Which proves either you didn’t read it or you again have no idea what you’re argument is. You just posted this because you skimmed it and figured why not try to get a reaction.

[Theodarzna]

I didn’t bring up Trump at all YOU did. Which pretty much says exactly where you’re mind is at.

My response was directly related to your copy paste. Which proves either you didn’t read it or you again have no idea what you’re argument is. You just posted this because you skimmed it and figured why not try to get a reaction.

lol, you are bringing up all this petty internet stuff; I suggested a thread more to your liking. Either be on topic or leave the thread.

[Doctor Amadeus]

lol, you are bringing up all this petty internet stuff; I suggested a thread more to your liking. Either be on topic or leave the thread.

I’m on topic and specifically calling the content of your copy paste BS.

Specifically concerning shit like labels such as Neo Liberal.

[Theodarzna]

I’m on topic and specifically calling the content of your copy paste BS.

Specifically concerning shit like labels such as Neo Liberal.

.... Copy Paste BS? What? I cannot copy the text of the article into a post for the sake of discussion without triggering you people?

Second, clearly neither You nor some other choice people know what you are even talking about.

Third, Do I punch your rewards card for the group? What are you fishing for with this nonsense?

[Felya]

You've replaced one evil with another though.

I don’t believe in evil... I’m not religious. Unless you can summon Buffy, this sort of crap is why nothing progressive gets done.

Sure one side doesn't spout anti scientific bullshit but that's a fucking low bar, if you guys are going to pull yourselves up after trump you cant be complacent with biden because be is sure as hell going to be using the slack left behind.

This is strange... You are equating those that can clear the low bars, as the same as those that can’t... because the bar is low? What’s the point of those bars?

Pretty disgusting that youd defend late stage capitalism by claiming entropy. It's also pretty funny to think the only thing that tainted Obama's administration was entropy.

Your interpretation of a fundamental science fact of entropy’s relationship with decay or ‘things getting worse’... is kinda funny... you can’t clear that bar either. It has nothing to do with capitalism, outside of not recognizing it, literally being the definition of conservatives. If you think entropy excuses capitalism, please explain justification for Medicare for all... without indirectly referring to entropy. Even better... do it with social security...

The supreme court justices were voting on the flavor in my metaphor, you still get the cyanide because the system is fucked.

What? No, I was referring to the ruling from last week, where limitations on gatherings at churches due to covid, was ruled unconstitutional. Are disagreeing judges, the same as those that confirmed the ruling? They pretty much ruled super spreader events being protected by the constitution. Yet... you want to talk cyanide... because made up shit is much easier...

Also care to explain why neoliberalism is such an upsetting word for you?

I didn’t realize it was upsetting to me... Is this an updated version of the Joker ‘why so serious’ meme? You put me in a predicament of explaining your assumption. A more prudent question is... what in my posting did you interpret as ‘upset’? If anything, the only legitimate criticism of my posting style, is that I’m obviously punching down.

Pretty much every country outside of the US recognizes the democrats as neo liberals, they would have socialized medicine (or anything) decades ago if they had any socialist tendencies. And yeah the "American public " wont let them, but their actions are what define their politics in a country where lies are currency.

What defines them? That they are not all drones... that democrats from Georgia would be more conservative than those from NYC? Maybe it’s just a way to generalize AOC as being the same as Doug Jones? Do you think AOC could have won Doug Jones seat? Democrats got ACA during full control of government, while republicans gave the largest corporate tax cut in history. If not laziness, what justification can you possibly have for such huge disparity in your generalizations?

Edit: Hint... Accelerationism...

[Felya]

Lmao bitch please. Accelerationism because I demand some actual change instead of achieving very little every 4 years? ACA lasted how many republican governments before being gutted btw?

No, Accelerationism because you seem to ignore that republicans fucked over ACA, when blaming democrats for not doing enough. If it was about actual change, why do you think my question was prefaced with comparing AOC to Doug Jones?

Yes republicans are worse but they're not selling false hope, they're just giving the greedy what they want.

What do you call trickle down, if not false hope? What are you talking about, when Trump was a populist candidate? False hope is all GOP has, without it they have to admit that that benefitting corporations will have no effect on the working class. It’s hope that drives this rhetoric...

Republicans are two faced in their own way but they dont exactly hide their true intentions very deeply. Democrats hide behind a thin veil of progressive ideals but essentially do nothing to reign in imperialism or the widening wealth gap. They seem to exist only as a foil to republicans so the republicans can push things further right while the democrats dont make any ground at all.

Trump ran as a populist twice and you are telling me they don’t hide their true intentions? You think when you call call out the fascist, the fascist turning to a random conservative to say... they are talking to you... is being transparent?

No, what you mean to say is that what republicans are doing is obvious to you. To the point you think it’s more prudent to attack liberals. Despite the fact that 70+ or the second most people in history, voted for Trump. You refuse to understand that liberals are already on your side, but there is an impediment beyond their control. The whole point of the US system is gridlock and GOP is far better at getting electoral votes.

I’m more of a Stacy Abrams fan... instead of pushing people away, I prefer to bring them in...

Anyway blame me for the fact American democracy is so broken. You literally have the choice between 2 Republicans and are still pulling the rest of the world down with you. Fucking recognize it, things are not okay hoping the democrats will save you is futile, we need change because we are accelerating towards an even darker dystopia and democrats campaigned on not really changing anything except maybe curbing covid a little bit, but they're even flip flopping on whether they do that.

A democrat was pushing climate change in the 90s... he lost. A democrat ran as an anti war, to the point of tossing his Medal of Honor in the Lincoln memorial, during a protest with Fonda... he lost. You know what people like you said both times? They are all the same... Gore was the same as Bush, despite being progressive on the environment. Kerry was the same, despite putting his reputation on the line against wars. Now Biden is the same, despite never advocating for the largest tax cut in history for corporations, but instead promoting a tax cut on over 400k, to pay for the public option and loan forgiveness.

I’m not blaming you... I am very clearly blaming republicans... why would you think I am blaming you?

You think I'm some edgelord, but honestly the Overton window in the us is beyond fucked up at this point that suggesting that electing people who actually give a fuck and fixing a broken system is accelerationism.

No, I think you are misguided... and read way too much into what I say, instead of taking it at face value.

You hold Democrats to a fucking low standard and they happily under deliver on your low expectations. Good job. The world is safe once again.

No, the only thing I expect democrats to be, is better than republicans. That’s all that is required in our two party system.