The problem is these bozos think they are popular (honestly) because every time one of them spouts a regurgitated talking point 200 Russian bot accounts like the post and forward it on - resulting in a giant circle jerk of Ayn Rand jizz-cuzi.
4 Likes
What cheesey politics.
1 Like
neoliberalism is the abdication of governmental decision making authority to the free market.
Sometimes this is limited, predicated on the belief that the market can more efficiently solve a properly posed policy dilemma (e.g, “cap and trade”).
But more often, it’s designed to permanently limit a government’s power to solve problems.
3 Likes
You know, it’s quicker if you just say “Reddit.”
2 Likes
I score terribly on English and reading tests. Please use more science and math questions.
but seriously, I don’t know if I would have been able to vote if I were a Wisconsinite.
1 Like
Since it wasn’t made clear, that picture is from a test in Louisiana in the 60s, not anything that is used today.
1 Like
ITT people mistakenly conflate neoliberalism with liberals.
3 Likes
Or so Putin’s sockpuppets would have us believe.
That particular example has 2,000+ followers and 20,000+ tweets on record. You can buy bulk followers if you’ve got the cash, but the tweet history is harder to manufacture.
There are certainly trollies in action, however. Have been all along, and probably always will be. At the moment, a lot of them appear to be doing this sort of thing:
That style of trollery targeted at the #Resistance folks has been prominent for a few weeks now.
I’ve no idea if that one’s Russian or American Trumpist, but as you can see it isn’t terribly subtle. Most of the mainstream driving trollies is fairly crude; the more subtle stuff appears to be mostly within the radical activist communities.
This is what the Russian bots appear to be doing right now:
And over the last week:
1 Like
As someone whose comments have often been dismissed with the phrase “Putin’s sockpuppet”, i think its worth remembering the existence of “useful idiots” like me! I receive no payment for espousing my views.
Its even possible that a small minority of the population might not support neoliberal neoimperialist policies and might aplaud foreign attempts to promote a multipolar world. Fools that they are.
Yes, it is, and the sooner you types either die off, fuck off, or get with the program, we can start to work at getting universal healthcare, workers protections, and proper taxes on the 1%, the sooner real life can start to improve for a majority of Americans.
If you don’t want to work for those things out of some vague notion about “compromise” with a party that is gleefully destroying all possibility of them, go switch your voter card to Republican and stop fucking lying.
2 Likes
One of the first things that Obama did was put in the old Wall St. guys, such as Summers and Rubin -
and nobody from Wall St. or the banks went to jail.
But I would say, voter suppression did defnitely have an effect as some 2 million less people voted in Wisconsin compared to 2012.
At the same time, it is also true that the neo-liberal regimes (around the world) from the Market Revolution reset with Reagan and Thatcher in the 80s - that finally ended in 08 - had everything to do with the rise of Trumpism and populism around the world. Let me add that it is not just on the right - that’s what all the attention is focused on. But populist backlash is also on the left - with Bernie in the US, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and even the recent resurgence with Corbyn in the UK (which might really change when the millennials really start to vote everywhere - lately it’s mainly the old voters).
1 Like
Not so clear yet. Seems to me that the fight is still ongoing.
I consider myself a mainstream Democrat and support all of the above. Let’s add environmental protection, patent and trademark reform, more open immigration policies, and aggressive protection of abortion rights and you’ve got a platform. All of which will take at least the Presidency and control of congress to enact.
You’re not helping.
1 Like
There has been a long running debate on whether the left of left wing parties in the west needs to subordinate its objectives to ensure the elect-ability of the party. For what little my opinion is worth, I would ask you consider the following brief points.
- If I support the Dem party because it supports universal health care, what should I do when the right wing of the party fails to implement or even credibly support that goal.
- If I judge that the main block to the advance of universal health care is the established leaders of the Dem party, what should I do if I want to advance that goal.
- If I judge that the popular will is now receptive to universal health care but the Dem leadership for whatever reason does not think so, what should I do?
I came to the conclusion that the battle within the Dems is more important than the battle outside it.
The Dem leadership needs to stop taking 35% or more of its support for granted. I cant help but think of the term “sheep dog”. My vote is available to a politician that offers me Medicare for All. If they wont do that then they can piss off. Lesser evil my ass, as recent history has pretty much categorically demonstrated.
All of which is IMHO, of course. And no disrespect intended.
2 Likes
The bit of this that starts at 5:30 seems relevant:
1 Like
Objectively, the US was 5 house races and 1 senate race from universal healthcare in 2009. It was the single period where that was remotely possible since the 50s, and it won’t come again mathematically for at least a decade.
But no one gives a shit about facts in this matter, they would rather blame the Democrats for the GOP’s stonewalling on healthcare and colluding to sabotage the exchanges they agreed to with the compromise nationally.
EDIT
And healthcare is still well down the list on why people vote for anything in the United States. Good luck turning the tide on hot button issues of (Islamic) terrorism, gun control, illegal immigration, and voter IDs - all of which voters list as more important.
3 Likes
It’s long, but I’d recommend listening to at least the first ten minutes.
But the first ten minutes is full of factual errors…
We disagree on some of those basic facts, and I suspect that we’d also disagree on some points about the nature of Frank’s argument.
But I doubt that we’d have much luck in convincing each other, and I don’t like irritating you. Is there a particular point you wanted to contest, or should we just leave it for folks to make their own judgement?
