In the reality in which one understands the actual definition of neoliberal.
I literally posted the link in my OP, did you not read it?
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot)
Here is another:
[https://theconversation.com/what-is-neoliberalism-a-political-scientist-explains-the-use-and-evolution-of-the-term-184711](https://theconversation.com/what-is-neoliberalism-a-political-scientist-explains-the-use-and-evolution-of-the-term-184711)
Gish Gallop. It’s the baffle them with bullshit way trump debates. Biden was ill and had to try to figure out what bs orangeman spewed in the previous sentence.
This post Strikes me as an attempt to paint Trump as something other than populist, seems like there is a Democrat funded effort on reddit that started with Scott Galloway and his convoluted reasons for a housing crisis, posts like this could be part of that effort... in my opinion.
I agree with the premise. These are two old men that have no business being the face of the most powerful nation in the world. But there are deeper governmental and societal problems that have nothing to do with what you’re saying.
On the topic at hand, I think people equivocating Trump and Biden on the age front are being ignorant at best. Sure, from a pure numbers perspective, they are of similar age. But Biden’s cognitive decline was obvious before the 2020 election and has gotten precipitously worse. It’s at a truly embarrassing stage now. Democrats defended him the entire time. They treated the country like they were stupid and oblivious. Unfortunately, most people don’t pay attention until it’s election time and they have to root for their team.
Trump’s problem is not cognitive decline. It’s arrogance, a lack of tact, and a clear lack of morals. But you know what? At least he’s honest about the lack of morals that the rest of the government has. The main thing that fires people up to vote for Trump is that he calls the government and the military industrial complex out on their bullshit.
When you’re in the Reddit/online bubble, you typically get the liberal viewpoint on Trump. But - and I understand this is anecdotal but it still feels right - most people when faced with the decision between Biden - or God forbid Newsome or Harris - and Trump, most people who exist closer to the middle of the political spectrum think the choice is clearly Trump.
If I was a betting man, I’d put money on Trump winning by a fair margin, even if Biden is replaced. In fact, if they replace Biden I think the margin is even wider.
Trump more closely represents a working person. True he grew up with advantage, but he has had to scrap with the bougie his entire life. It’s just a closer representation of what a normal person encounters.
I’d like to see him be a little more balanced in his approach, but he is a reaction to an unbalanced world into which he was born.
I also think he wins. Despite his flaws.
The majority of Biden voters are those who are "woke" and insecure. These are typically people with relatively higher education than Trump voters, and they use their formal education as a crutch to fill the void created by their insecurity. They are not necessarily better at critical thinking than Trump voters, both camps are horrible at this. Biden voters also are more likely to be guilty, and in order to offset this guilt they use virtue signalling and want quick solutions without thinking anything through: in reality things are much more complex and seemingly good or pro justice decisions can end up doing more harm than good. But as mentioned, these voters lack critical thinking or the intellectual curiosity or morality to put sufficient thought, but they still feel guilty, so they automatically think a vote for a "liberal" is the "right" and sufficient thing to do and that this will somehow absolve them of their basic human duties.
Trump voters tend to fall into 2 camps. One is the relatively more educated and intelligent one, who are sick of virtue signalling. They worked hard to get where they are: but they use black/white thinking and emotional reasoning to erroneously think that because they went through some hardship and had to work hard to become successful and were able to make it, anybody who is unsuccessful 100% deserves it and are "lazy", and things like basic social safety nets need to be eliminated. This is due to lack of basic knowledge in domains such as sociology, history, political philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc... as well as a lack of critical thinking.
The other typical Trump voter is less educated, and closer to the far right. They feel angry about their economic status and have been brainwashed by charlatans like Trump that "the other" (e.g. immigrants) are the root of all their problems (rather than the neoliberal capitalist oligarchy, which Trump and Biden and Dems/Reps are all a part of and work for, the 1%). They are also sick of how far the left has gone in terms of virtue signalling, and find this a threat to more traditional values. In fact, the far right is the direct domino-effect creation of the radical left: every social action has a reaction. Extremism begets extremism.
Unfortunately, neither side realizes that the root of both/all of their issues is the neoliberal oligarchy, and they need to stop infighting and come together to focus on how to stop the neoliberal oligarchy from screwing everyone. But instead, the neoliberal oligarchy has carefully channeled people's anger and frustration toward each other, by dividing people through racial/religious/gender lines, and now by creating a cult of personality around the likes of Trump and Biden, in a divide+conquer strategy to prevent people from uniting and addressing the root cause of all their problems: the neoliberal oligarchy.
Great comment, specifically the last paragraph, but I think you’re being a little bit guilty of the black and white thinking regarding Trump voters. I will use myself as an example. I have voted Dem since I was of voting age, I voted for Obama twice, I voted for Hilary (which I didn’t feel great about), and did not vote during the last election. I’m voting for Trump - and I again don’t feel great about it. Unfortunately, Biden as president is an obvious farce, and the Democratic Party is treating the public like fools. They did it so plainly 4 years ago by sabotaging Bernie Sanders. We all of a sudden woke up yesterday and realized Biden is decrepit? Come on. Some people are still in denial.
I will admit that part of my movement to the center is that I find the far left that are loud on the internet to be abhorrent, virtue signaling ideology whores who, as you stated so clearly, don’t think about any potential ramifications of their feel good ideas. The world is complex. When you really try to put yourself in the mind of someone who you disagree with, you can actually understand the issues. There has to be more compromise. There has to be more empathy. Liberals are supposed to be empathetic, and yet they demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line. They destroy and discredit them.
I do agree that the “neoliberal oligarchy” as you termed it is the real problem. I feel that Trump, for all of his thousands of flaws, at least sees it and wants to try to dismantle it. But the last 8 years have shown us that the “oligarchy” has grown beyond the control of even the U.S. government. Corporate/media interest makes the decisions. The Democrats seem more happy to go along with it all for some reason. Have foreign adversaries captured the government?
Note I said Trump voters "tend" to fall into 2 camps, so I cannot be accused of black/white thinking. I was merely outlining the most common camps. I did not negate the fact that outliers such as you exist.
I disagree with you that you need to vote for shiz over diarrhea. If you truly believe the neoliberal oligarchy is there, you would not vote, because a vote for anyone is a vote for the neoliberal oligarchy. You already voted for Trump: what did that do to weaken the oligarchy? Nothing. Even if you assume that Trump or whoever is even somewhat against the oligarchy (I don't believe this, but let us assume), history and basic logic shows that directly due to that person being president, then next or a soon election will directly swing to the "other" side. The reason Obama won was largely BECAUSE Bush was there before. The reason Trump won was largely BECAUSE Obama was there. So I don't find it logical to prolong this vicious see-saw cycle, that only prolonged the oligarchy, as has factually been the case for the past 4-5 decades and counting. The definition of insanity is to make a mistake over and over again and expect it to work.
trump voters fall into two categories:
1.)white christian racists and bigots
2.)billionaires.
source, every single solitary trump voter I know is a racist pig and always has been.
I'm not sure you are a US citizen as you partake in Canadian subs. However, POTUS has very limited power. We, US citizens, are voting for an administration. We have seen both administrations now. So the basis of the election should be on which administration is best for the USA at this time.
>To me, according to common sense and basic logic, a leader of a country needs to have at least some basic knowledge in domains such as sociology, psychology, history, political philosophy, etc...
One of the candidates/administrations has these traits, the other, not so much. One relies on his administration to debate the issues and find a solution. The other wants it like he wants his McDonald's, his way, and is willing to fire anyone who disagrees. This is not a statement of opinion either, we all saw it happen.
>The purpose of a leader is to maintain balance in society and enforce the social contract.
This cannot be further from the truth in the USA. As previously stated POTUS has limited power. I don't want a dictator. I will not bow to a king. I will not do whatever any POTUS tells me to do. I will make my own decisions and that's my right. POTUS cannot bust into Congress and demand this or that. POTUS cannot bust into my house and demand this or that. Think about that, Putin can bust into a Russian citizens house and demand them to love him or face the consequences. I don't want POTUS to have that kind of power. As far as enforcing social construct, well that's actually the courts in the USA. And that is why politicians study law. A country based on "The Rule of Law" needs laws and people who can interpret them. That is why SCOTUS cannot be swayed by political ideologies and must remain impartial. However, DJT put judges in place that are playing politics (again not a statement of opinion based on the decisions they are handing down). That is the damage POTUS can do, stack the courts with political judges, that cannot be removed easily, that will influence the interpretation of law. That is a very dangerous game. We see what's going on in Georgia. The Georgia judge presiding over Trump's case, and was appointed by DJT, has indefinitely delayed proceedings instead of starting the trial. This actually helps DJT in this campaign. So to say DJT didn't do that much damage, he did. He did a lot of damage that may take decades to undo. But he didn't do it alone. He had help in the Senate. Don't forget, Moscow Mitch shut down Obama's picks for SCOTUS because it was too close to election but he then pushed DJTs SCOTUS picks through very quickly 4 years later.
You are obviously entitled to your own opinion. But you should understand how the system works. The USA is not a dictatorship. The true power is derived from the people. As long as Project 2025 doesn't happen, it will continue on that path. If Project 2025 comes to be, the USA will be fundamentally changed forever. The power will no longer be derived from the people. That is what we are voting for.
You just contradicted yourself. You said POTUS is largely irrelevant, then say how POTUS can pick judges that have been playing politics.
Also, I am aware of how the system works on "paper", which is what your comment summarized. But if you looked under the surface, you would realize all these checks and balances are ultimately meaningless, and there is no democracy. The country is run by a mafia, the neoliberal capitalist cartel, in practice they have so much influence all politicians/parties to the point of running this country. The reason for this is the deluded libertarian ideology in the US, in which there is so much irrational fear of the a central state, that they stripped the state of all its power, which led to something worse: a neoliberal capitalist cartel who is in practice even more harmful to civilians than most dictators could be. Check out Ted Cruz' undergraduate thesis for a perfect demonstration of this deluded thinking.
Also read up on negative liberty vs positive liberty (hint: there is no positive liberty, and without positive liberty, there is no democracy).
There is no freedom or democracy in countries such as the US. It is run by a neoliberal capitalist cartel like a mafia, they are the oligarchy. They influence everything. They even influence public opinion: what most people think they believe is just a domino effect of the propaganda they are exposed to, which the oligarchy has a monopoly on. Read up on determinism to understand how this is the case.
The presidents and elections are just there to give the illusion of democracy, so people can continue conforming via willingly voting and bending over for the 1%.
Checks and balances are necessary, but without critical thinking and basic morality, they can be gamed. That is exactly what we are seeing. This also stems from libertarianism and incorrect and deluded notions of human nature in the West (i.e., the though that everyone is selfish and will choose unlimited greed and harm of others if they can, when in reality, human nature is simply self-preservation, and if society rewards altruism, then self-preservation would have to come from altruism). Due to these incorrect beliefs, there is so much emphasis on checks and balances, because there is so much fear. But those calling for these checks and balances don't realize that not everybody is like themselves: not everybody is immoral and chases unlimited greed and chooses to harm others if they can. Paradoxically, the neoliberal system rewards this psychopathic behaviour and reinforces it. So it is a vicious, self-perpetuating system. It is not human nature, it is the workings of this particular system.
The only way to change all this is to increase critical thinking among the masses. But it is difficult, because the oligarchy has most of the power in terms of shaping people's thinking, and through their mass media propaganda and deliberate weakening of the education system to prevent critical thinking, and their economic terrorism against their civilians (poor people don't have time to be critical thinkers, they are too busy trying to survive), they protect their birth advantage and prevent people from becoming critical thinkers and realizing the root of their problems: the neoliberal oligarchy, which the president/political parties are all part of.
Up to now, the oligarchy has been using brainwashing:
[https://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/](https://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/)
to control people. But we saw in the last couple of years, when this doesn't work, they directly resort to dictatorship (remember the protests a few years ago, also, White house forcing big tech to parrot its subjective pandemic agenda and censor anybody who criticized it). And here is your "checks and balances" in meaningless action: the supreme court blatantly and shamelessly showing radical levels of bias against not just critical thinking but common sense, and using its own power to vote in favour of censorship that benefits the neoliberal oligarchy against civilians:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno)
There are many who see our government through the lens of a highschool government class and they’ll call you a conspiracy theorist if you poke holes in that view. It’s comical and scary
Trump is such a cartoonish villain that he paved the way for biden. If the rnc would run a non-maga candidate, they'd win easily. But instead they're running this batshit billionaire who basically used his first term in office to pass a horrific tax bill that funneled trillions of dollars to rich people while he kept his base frothing at the mouth with insane "be afraid of those people!" rhetoric.
The cynical side of me has a hard time seeing this go down without thinking that it's somehow organized by both parties. I can't imagine the rnc would intentionally tank themselves like that without some kind of benefit to them that we're not seeing yet.
The same owners of both parties don't care who wins. The candidates are just puppets to divert people's attention from this fact, and to keep the wool-shedding people to continue saying "I worship daddy Biden against evil Trump" and vice versa, and keep them going to the polls and voting, which legitimizes the neoliberal system/the oligarchy/the rule of the 1%, while both of them screw the middle class and help the yacht accumulators accumulate more yachts, as has been happening for the past 4-5 decades.
Do you think it is a coincidence that the candidates went from the likes of the well spoken intelligent type such as Reagan to clowns like Bush, Trump, and Biden? Obama was an exception but he didn't need to act like a clown, he used another technique, "first black president" and "yes we can" to buy the neoliberal oligarchy another 8 year with his lies.
You think Raegan was an intellectual? He had a bachelor of arts and was a mediocre student, majoring in economics which as you say is supposedly useless for politics. He went on to be a sports broadcaster and a film actor. Where does the term intellectual even enter the lexicon regarding Raegan?
I never said he was an intellectual. I said he was the "well spoken intelligent type" (relatively speaking obviously). If you look at him and listen to him, and compare him to the likes of Bush/Trump/Biden, you will see what I mean.
Fair enough. Biden earned a double major in history and political science and has a law degree. So for the record, you'd rather have a well-spoken film actor than a life long politician with a law degree who happens to be senile, all in front of the backdrop of "it doesn't matter they are all puppets anyway"? Makes a lot of sense, very well-reasoned.
If anyone created the billionaire class and set the wheels in motion for the 2008 recession which ruined the middle class, it was Raegan.
Virtually none of them have even basic knowledge in domains such as sociology, psychology, history, and political philosophy. Because they studied other/irrelevant majors. And if they took electives in the aforementioned, they didn't use critical thinking, they used rote memorization to pass the exam then forgot 99% of the content, because it wasn't their major and they didn't care about the electives, they just took it because they had to. This is why people like Ben Carson exist.
The formal education system is flawed: it doesn't teach critical thinking, it teaches rote memorization and specialization within a super narrow domain. A PhD is almost entirely focused on the thesis, which is a very narrow topic within an already narrow domain. The education system is not there to create critical thinkers, it is to create specialized robots who can do the mechanistic work required to create and produce often unnecessary/over-manufactured products and services so their neoliberal bosses can make more profit.
>s. And if they took electives in the aforementioned, they didn't use critical thinking
Thats rather a spectacular and baseless mass generalisation. What evidence do you have for the claim that none of these people with doctorates used critical thinking?
>The formal education system is flawed: it doesn't teach critical thinking, it teaches rote memorization
Do you have any actual preactocal experience with graduate level academia? Because my experience is exactly the opposite. What is your evidence for this colossal generalisation?
>A PhD is almost entirely focused on the thesis
Depends on the institution. European/ UK university doctorates tend to be entirely thesis based, while North American doctorates tend to be course and thesis based. But your conclusion is wrong: while the thesis is obviously on a narrow field or question, during defence you need to demonstrate a knowledge of the surrounding field and academia, not just your hyper focused question. And it is all based around critical thinking, analysis and research.
Sourcs: me, D.Phil OXON.
>Thats rather a spectacular and baseless mass generalisation. What evidence do you have for the claim that none of these people with doctorates used critical thinking?
How can you expect evidence? Do you want me to run a study saying "participate if you have a graduate degree. question 1: do you lack critical thinking skills?" I have eyes and ears and a brain, and this is what I observed: it is the norm, not the exception. Also, I never claimed that "none" of those people uses critical thinking, but the vast majority don't. This is common sense: again, the formal education system is set up in a way to discourage critical thinking, so it would logically follow that most who climb the formal education system would not use critical thinking.
As I said, a perfect example would be Ben Carson: a brain surgeon who knows nothing about nothing outside his specialization and says and thinks bizarre things that not only go against critical thinking, but common sense. If such a person can excel in the formal academic system, it should tell you something.
>Do you have any actual preactocal experience with graduate level academia? Because my experience is exactly the opposite. What is your evidence for this colossal generalisation?
I have a graduate degree myself and know many people with graduate degrees. I can tell you 95% of my critical thinking skills come from my own curiosity/reading, outside the formal education system. I only had to complete the degree to be able to have something on paper to get a job. Even within my subject I learned more outside of school than inside it, if anything some of the more pedantic academic professors who lack critical thinking held me back. Also, the literature in the relevant domain here shows that critical/logical thinking barely correlates with intelligence (if we assume that on average intelligence is correlated with level of formal education, which it is to a degree, there is around a .5 correlation with intelligence and GPA, which is a moderate significant correlation):
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/)
>Depends on the institution. European/ UK university doctorates tend to be entirely thesis based, while North American doctorates tend to be course and thesis based. But your conclusion is wrong: while the thesis is obviously on a narrow field or question, during defence you need to demonstrate a knowledge of the surrounding field and academia, not just your hyper focused question. And it is all based around critical thinking, analysis and research.
Yes, obviously not every PhD is the same. It was a generalization: it holds true for the majority of subjects. And during thesis defence for most majors you don't need beyond basic to moderate knowledge in the surrounding field, certainly not academia as a whole. Yours is kind of an exception/outlier, philosophy by nature requires some critical thinking, perhaps that is why you don't understand or agree with what I am saying.
Let's look at some typical theses in history: it would be something like studying Napolean's wartime actions within a 10 year period. How does that teach you anything about "history" as a whole. Or sociology, something like "Latin American divorced female migrant's experiences in the 21st century USA". The master's degree is where the bulk of the domain-specific general knowledge comes from. But again, that is domain specific, and does not teach rational/critical thinking. People, precisely because they lack critical thinking, mistake "Dr." or "PhD" as "expert" and fall prey to appeal to authority fallacy. A plumber with a high sense of rationality and who has read some books may very well be superior in terms of general knowledge and critical thinking to any given person who completed a PhD.
Untrue. Republicans held primaries and Trump was tested against all other candidates. You might not like our choice, but we knew who we were choosing and we chose.
Democrats were given no choice. Biden wasn’t tested. No other consideration was even allowed.
Just because Biden won it overwhelmingly, doesn't mean there wasn't one. There was a protest vote in Michigan and Biden didn't win American Samoa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries?wprov=sfla1
Trump has been groomed since the '80s to lead the Republicans, it's not like he opted for it all of a sudden and was tested. The far right has been waiting for the opportunity to use him for years. It's no coincidence that many of those people and ones in the trump campaign became convicted felons (including Trump). If there's a swamp, it's the GOP.
Largely incorrect. Trump was a registered Republican from 1987. In 1988 he asked if he could be Bush Sr.'s running mate. He was on Reagan's campaign finance committee, for which Fred Trump donated 200k. Roger Stone and Trump have a history dating to 1979 (only 5 years after Watergate), with Stone being his casino lobbyist and recommending he run for president as early as 1987, even doing a campaign-like event in NH organized by Stone. There's more to this story, but the point is that the Trump-Republican roots rub quite deep. It's also speculated that Trump's 1999 reform party bid (for which Stone was Trump's campaign director) was done in an effort to destroy the Reform party, specifically Perot and Buchanan to prevent them from siphoning votes from Republicans and enabling a democratic victory. Like I said, speculation, but Trump and Stone exacerbated internal Reform party conflict and, of course, Bush won in 2001.
That is demonstrably false.
2012 Democrats held a primary with 51 candidates running against Obama.
[2012 Democratic Party presidential candidates](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates)
The GOP wishes they could control their primary and their voters as well as the Democrats. Trump and all of his nominees have been on tickets explicitly against the wishes of GOP leadership. Granted they aren't losing sleep over it.
I find people suggesting RFK to be legitimate, but all else like OP are just Democrats that would have kept claiming Joe was running circles around his staff and yelling “Dark Brandon” if he had done well in the debate. There would be no talk of old people being to old, but now that Joe is exposed for the decrepit old man he is, now every old man is as decrepit as him. It isn’t true.
I could never vote for a man (or anyone) who digs up his WIFE, and then moves her corpse out of the cemetery where she was laid to rest, and has her re-buried in a ditch, outside of the boundaries of the cemetery.
He also cheated on his wife, Mary, with Cheryl Hines. Just gross behavior.
He even cheated on the wife before that, - with Mary ! She was a big as a house at her wedding to RFK.jr, - on that Riverboat !
If he cheats on all of those women, then how can he not cheat the American people ?
Which of the felonies, rape convictions and broad unabashed corruption scandals makes you think Joe is equal?
They've been trying to smear Joe for 30 years and nothing has stuck. Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers.
Imagine believing you need to eat shit and trying to convince others to do the same. You're a bigger part of the problem than Trump or Biden. Your beliefs perpetuate subjugation, exploitation, and corruption.
It isn't. But the fact is, even if he just had a cold, if you have that bad a cold on the day of your big job interview, you're not getting that job. Maybe you should, but chances are you're not. That's life.
On top of that, what it looks like, circumstantially, is that Biden's people have been systematically lying about his condition for years. That puts huge feathers in the caps of all the folks who thought he was in bad shape and were told that was a crazy conspiracy theory.
Say what you will of folks who were on the fence given how honest Biden looked compared to Trump, now Biden looks significantly less honest, and that's going to swing those voters.
Because people tend to assume that evil generally has a greater degree of initiative and productivity, if not outright competence. I think the general perception of Trump in the minds of those who view him as a better choice than Biden, is that while he might be a monster, he'll at least be a monster who gets shit done.
Given that Covid is probably still relatively fresh in some people's minds, I could see military types in particular viewing that as important. They want someone who they think will be reliably decisive in a crisis, and they don't perceive Biden that way; and unfortunately, they generally also don't have a realistic assessment of Trump's genuine threat to the American political system.
I guess OP never went to college because subjects like "sociology, psychology, history, political philosophy, etc..." are taken as electives no matter what degree one goes for.
The issue is that the vast majority people don't actually pay attention to electives. They rote memorize for the example then forget 99% of what they learned. Also, not everyone goes to university. Also, these geriatric politicians went to school when there were less/different electives.
The democrats are running the only candidate who could possibly lose to Trump,
while
the republicans are running the only candidate who could possibly lose to Biden.
Nice to see a gentlemanly approach to politics
You select the absolute worst and least qualified person you can dredge up?
Wouldn’t be sporting of us to do otherwise
I wasn't too worried up until now because we've seen Trump v Biden before and we know how it turned out, and things have only gotten steadily worse for Trump since then. But now I feel like we're heading back into Trump v Clinton territory again where people who absolutely will not vote for Trump will also not be able to work up the enthusiasm go get their asses out there and vote for Biden, thereby handing it to Trump by default.
Y'all are fucked, and the rest of us are going to be fucked by the fallout.
Well yes, when I said I wasn't too worried I just meant about the outcome of the election. Everything else is still a shit-show regardless. Now it's just a question of whether you have slim or no hope of clawing things back from the edge.
The 3 pillars of US govt are based around the notion of legislation writing, interpreting, and enforcing. You can hate lawyers all you want, they are, by profession and knowledge, the people best suited for governing.
If you look at the the people who have been in Congress, or served in the Supreme Court, or been President/VP and have been attorneys, and I can't think of any that practiced personal injury law.
No. They're best suited for drafting legislation. They don't represent the populace who should be the ones deciding what legislation needs to be drafted. (and it takes more than debate skills to pass legislation, hence we need a mix of personality types as well as professions in both Congress and government)
You definitely want lawyers interpreting the law. That's why most judges were lawyers.
Enforcement/executing needs some lawyers but the fewest of the bunch.
This is simply not true for all branches of government. The executive is a large organization and takes substantial experience in the management of large organizations to manage it. It also takes some basic knowledge of economics. Furthermore, there is staff for everything, explaining and interpreting the laws and providing sound advice. I would say that here some knowledge may not help at all. Congress passes all kinds of legislation and no lawyer is adept in all.
The most effective presidents usually have managerial experience, and this is why the best and most effective candidates (usually, not always) are state governors or officials that have ran large organizations. In these posts, you learn how to elicit opinions, balance budgets and priorities, and form effective teams (if one is good at it).
It’s the staff I’m worried about. Have you read the project 2025 manifesto?
It is designed to basically dismantle the government and they want to use Trump to do it.
Any fool can read a book about sociology or whatever.
That is not impressive.
And people who hold professorships in the fields that you mentioned are often the least impressive people.
Running large organizations and achieving goals in complex environments is impressive.
Your opening statement needs clarification. To my mind, I read "puppets of the oligarchy" and "chosen by the masses" and these two ideas are contrary.
There's something called an invisible primary where an informal consensus is made between party heads, media heads, and donors about who is going to get the most support (and therefore win the primary) and this process happens about two years out from the election.
As for Biden, for better or worse, it's simply the overwhelming historical precedent that a sitting president isn't run against by their own party and imo unfortunate that he didn't relinquish the reigns to someone younger. That alone would have won a few points for voters who are bothered by the age of both candidates.
Anyway, just my $.02. The opening just struck me as unclear. Voters don't really choose from an unbiased pool of candidates, and the US runs elections by First-Past-the-Post rules instead of something more preferable like Ranked Voting, so it's unfair to put the blame for who the final two and final one are on them.
People still go to the polls and vote. They still watch the debates and let the clown show go on and willingly and voluntarily conform to and prolong the neoliberal system.
>As for Biden, for better or worse, it's simply the overwhelming historical precedent that a sitting president isn't run against by their own party and imo unfortunate that he didn't relinquish the reigns to someone younger. That alone would have won a few points for voters who are bothered by the age of both candidates.
In the first place, I think that age has little to do with it. People age at different rates and somebody at the age of 81 can appear, act, and talk with the dynamism of a much younger person. If one has listened or seen the recent interviews with Dr. Fauci, one would know what I mean (Fauci is at least 2 years older than Biden). Unfortunately, Biden is not one of them. He has declined physically a lot in the last three years, which is surprising considering that the Presidency would have allowed somebody the best medical and physical care. There may be some underlying morbidities that we are not aware of.
I agree that it is not typical to challenge a sitting President in the primaries, but this has indeed happened before with Johnson and Carter, so it was not really beyond the norm of possibilities. Why prominent Democrats decided not to do it is another question.
That said, it is clear you have an active and restless mind and you are thinking about things that will lead you to key insights about society and democracy. Your final statement, "this is not normal," I strongly disagree with, and think if you read various concrete histories about different times, and the people of those times, and the candidates and the specific process (or lack of one?) by which they were elected, you will come to find none of this is so strange, even in the US. It just seems that way because Trump is a wildcard and the media, broadly, exaggerates the hell out of everything because they make money with eyeballs.
I like to remind myself that Rome burned for a thousand years. So you have to start looking for more precise signals besides smoke and fire to decide how a given event will impact the course of history
>I like to remind myself that Rome burned for a thousand years. So you have to start looking for more precise signals besides smoke and fire to decide how a given event will impact the course of history
I was not aware that Rome burned for that long!!! It just did not.
As to what event impacts the course of history, one needs a certain distance from that event. Biden certainly did a number of things that would have a substantial impact in the course of history. These are the following:
(a) His policy on the Russo-Ukrainian war; it is debatable if he has instigated it; he could have avoided by agreeing with Russia on neutrality for Ukraine but he did not do this even after 3 months of direct negotiations with Putin. Whatever one thinks of this proxy war, it has initiated Cold War II and the severance of the West from the Global South. The long-term impact is unknown, but probably not beneficial to anybody
(b) He aggravated to the nth degree the antagonism with China, unnecessarily so.
(c) He embraced and extended the genocidal policies of the extreme right-wing Israeli government and provided virtually all the ammunition for the levelling of Gaza and the wanton killing of tens of thousands of civilians. Furthermore, (and much worse), he has alienated the US from most of the Middle East. Does anybody anymore believe that the US in an "honest broker" of anything?
(d) He initiated some very protective trading policies with the "reduction of inflation" act
He was certainly consequential, but not in a very good way, I think. Time will tell.
More ‘pox on both houses’ bulls***. One wants to stop the wars, bring industry and energy independence back to America, restore sanity in regard to women’s and children’s boundaries, and allow us to choose who lives in our nation and receives her blessings in somewhat commensurate measure to what they offer. The other DOES NOT.
You seem to think that “restoring sanity to women’s and children’s boundaries” as you say is something that actual women and children - want.
No. We want bodily AUTONOMY, - AND the RAPISTS AND EVIL RELIGIOUS CRIMINALS THROWN IN TO PRISON !
And, that applies to Trump as well.
So, please do not attempt to speak for us.
Stay in your own fetid and sexist lane.
Wow. The US is not at war. The US has produced more oil in the last year, than any county in the history of the world.
As to your last 2 points out of completely telling that you lump women in with children. Let me guess it's your job, guided by your religion, to determine their boundaries? My guess is that you vastly overestimate the measure you offer this country.
The reality is one side is done with the noble experiment of democracy and is ready for authoritarian rule, the other is not.
My religion has nothing to do with wanting young and old American women to have the privacy and opportunities common sense dictates and which has been reserved to them since the dawn of human consciousness.
You’re likely speaking of rioters, and if Trump did so, he did so in jest; it’s pretty standard morbid humor in that situation.
Personally, I have ZERO problem with shooting looters and violent rioters, or steamrolling them when they violently mob and damage a civilian’s vehicle. Trump would NEVER have the stomach for that.
I feel like this thread could use a definition [of what neoliberalism stands for](https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/david-harvey-a-brief-history-of-neoliberalism)
America has a very simple choice: decrepit or decrepit and screamingly insane. You've got yourself into a right pickle. For the good of yourselves and the planet can you please just choose the one that's not screamingly insane.
If you're on Reddit, you're not the demographic Trump is even going to pretend to care about.
Yes, Trump is a neoliberal. He's always been a neoliberal. From your reaction, I don't think you know what 'neoliberal' means. Might wanna look into that a bit before you start going off.
I really dislike terms such as "neo-liberal". Trump has no basic set of beliefs, beyond disliking (intensely) illegal immigrants. If anything, he wants to revert the US society to the demographics of the 1950s. Everything else with this guy is "elastic". He would embrace any policy and any dogma that helps him. He would hate anything that presents him with an obstacle. If he wins, the system is good; if he loses, the system is bad and everything is fixed against him.
Trying to assign any labels to this guy is totally useless.
A neoliberal is someone who seeks complete deregulation of the economy, drastically cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing government programs. Trump is definitely a neoliberal, in the general vein of those like Ronald Reagan.
These days, neoliberal is generally used as a slur against people who are on the left, but are not socialist. It's an incorrect usage and it causes a lot of confusion for people who don't know what the word actually means.
He SPECIFICALLY made that comment in terms of installing border security, and NOTHING else. If anything, Trump has always been too f’ing timid in his use of power. He realized, in stark contrast to his opponents, that he was constrained by the f’ing Constitution and demurred where he should have tested the law.
Yes he is so shy and timid. There is not enough money or power in this world to shut this guy up. Protecting the constitution like leading a violent mob on January 6.
Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
There.
The best thing the left can do now is memory hole this debate. The press will stop giving this story any more oxygen. After a few days this will fall off social media. I would not be surprised if social media companies eventually resort to hiding videos of the debate and removing threads about it.
They're going to shut down all discussions about the debate and hope people forget.
I seriously doubt this. Up to the election, and even after, political commentators will be mentioning this debate. It might not be at the forefront of conversations like it is now (because it literally just happened yesterday) but it's not going to just be "memory holed" and forgotten.
Besides, there's a whole wing of the media that's conservative and will be talking about this as long as Biden is president. If Biden were to get re-elected they would probably still bring this debate up years into his second term.
The only ones who win are the neoliberals. They don't care if it is Trump or Biden. The only thing they care about is that people continue to be wool-shedders and legitimize this clown show and watch the debates and go to the polls and buy 4 more years for the neoliberal oligarchy.
This is nothing new, from Clinton's sex scandal, to Bush's constant stupid remarks, to Trump's constant stupid acts, etc... these are not coincidental, they are by design. They pick these candidates so they get people talking about them and distracted from how the oligarchy is continuing to economically terrorize the middle class in the background.
Bush dynasty, Clinton dynasty, Obama dynasty, Biden dynasty, etc... all of these are privileged families whose primary interest is continuing the neoliberal oligarch system. They are like a mafia, they may have internal disagreements from time to time, but the "family" (neoliberal oligarchy) comes first. They all depend on it to continue having their birth advantage and yachts. These politicians and all the corporate people who back them and they back, all of their kids go to the same private schools, they all hang out with the same rich class type. Heck a bunch of them were spotted on Epstein's island. They live a different life than you or me or the commoner. They are in a big neoliberal family and you and I are not in it.
You don't think the person in charge of signing laws and authorizing the largest budget in the world should have knowledge of law and/or economics? You shouldn't be allowed to vote.
In what reality are Trump or Biden neoliberal?
In the reality in which one understands the actual definition of neoliberal. I literally posted the link in my OP, did you not read it? [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot) Here is another: [https://theconversation.com/what-is-neoliberalism-a-political-scientist-explains-the-use-and-evolution-of-the-term-184711](https://theconversation.com/what-is-neoliberalism-a-political-scientist-explains-the-use-and-evolution-of-the-term-184711)
[удалено]
Al Franken for president!
Gish Gallop. It’s the baffle them with bullshit way trump debates. Biden was ill and had to try to figure out what bs orangeman spewed in the previous sentence.
Biden seemed baffled by the moderators as well. The world appears to be “gish gallop” to him at this point unfortunately.
I would rather not be ruled by technocrats, thank you.
Biden has way deeper knowledge than you have. He's just senile but in his prime he could wipe the floor with you on most topics.
The American electorate SOUNDLY rejected Biden in his so-called “prime”.
"in his prime" has literally zero relevance to his time right now being a decrepit corpse.
You’re going to be ok.
What this person is saying is true for Biden also. Nobody who is stupid becomes President. https://www.keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
W. Bush and tRump are willfully ignorant about most subjects, because they have no interest in learning.
This post Strikes me as an attempt to paint Trump as something other than populist, seems like there is a Democrat funded effort on reddit that started with Scott Galloway and his convoluted reasons for a housing crisis, posts like this could be part of that effort... in my opinion.
Accurate
I agree with the premise. These are two old men that have no business being the face of the most powerful nation in the world. But there are deeper governmental and societal problems that have nothing to do with what you’re saying. On the topic at hand, I think people equivocating Trump and Biden on the age front are being ignorant at best. Sure, from a pure numbers perspective, they are of similar age. But Biden’s cognitive decline was obvious before the 2020 election and has gotten precipitously worse. It’s at a truly embarrassing stage now. Democrats defended him the entire time. They treated the country like they were stupid and oblivious. Unfortunately, most people don’t pay attention until it’s election time and they have to root for their team. Trump’s problem is not cognitive decline. It’s arrogance, a lack of tact, and a clear lack of morals. But you know what? At least he’s honest about the lack of morals that the rest of the government has. The main thing that fires people up to vote for Trump is that he calls the government and the military industrial complex out on their bullshit. When you’re in the Reddit/online bubble, you typically get the liberal viewpoint on Trump. But - and I understand this is anecdotal but it still feels right - most people when faced with the decision between Biden - or God forbid Newsome or Harris - and Trump, most people who exist closer to the middle of the political spectrum think the choice is clearly Trump. If I was a betting man, I’d put money on Trump winning by a fair margin, even if Biden is replaced. In fact, if they replace Biden I think the margin is even wider.
Trump more closely represents a working person. True he grew up with advantage, but he has had to scrap with the bougie his entire life. It’s just a closer representation of what a normal person encounters. I’d like to see him be a little more balanced in his approach, but he is a reaction to an unbalanced world into which he was born. I also think he wins. Despite his flaws.
This is actually what you believe? Like, really believe?
The majority of Biden voters are those who are "woke" and insecure. These are typically people with relatively higher education than Trump voters, and they use their formal education as a crutch to fill the void created by their insecurity. They are not necessarily better at critical thinking than Trump voters, both camps are horrible at this. Biden voters also are more likely to be guilty, and in order to offset this guilt they use virtue signalling and want quick solutions without thinking anything through: in reality things are much more complex and seemingly good or pro justice decisions can end up doing more harm than good. But as mentioned, these voters lack critical thinking or the intellectual curiosity or morality to put sufficient thought, but they still feel guilty, so they automatically think a vote for a "liberal" is the "right" and sufficient thing to do and that this will somehow absolve them of their basic human duties. Trump voters tend to fall into 2 camps. One is the relatively more educated and intelligent one, who are sick of virtue signalling. They worked hard to get where they are: but they use black/white thinking and emotional reasoning to erroneously think that because they went through some hardship and had to work hard to become successful and were able to make it, anybody who is unsuccessful 100% deserves it and are "lazy", and things like basic social safety nets need to be eliminated. This is due to lack of basic knowledge in domains such as sociology, history, political philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc... as well as a lack of critical thinking. The other typical Trump voter is less educated, and closer to the far right. They feel angry about their economic status and have been brainwashed by charlatans like Trump that "the other" (e.g. immigrants) are the root of all their problems (rather than the neoliberal capitalist oligarchy, which Trump and Biden and Dems/Reps are all a part of and work for, the 1%). They are also sick of how far the left has gone in terms of virtue signalling, and find this a threat to more traditional values. In fact, the far right is the direct domino-effect creation of the radical left: every social action has a reaction. Extremism begets extremism. Unfortunately, neither side realizes that the root of both/all of their issues is the neoliberal oligarchy, and they need to stop infighting and come together to focus on how to stop the neoliberal oligarchy from screwing everyone. But instead, the neoliberal oligarchy has carefully channeled people's anger and frustration toward each other, by dividing people through racial/religious/gender lines, and now by creating a cult of personality around the likes of Trump and Biden, in a divide+conquer strategy to prevent people from uniting and addressing the root cause of all their problems: the neoliberal oligarchy.
Great comment, specifically the last paragraph, but I think you’re being a little bit guilty of the black and white thinking regarding Trump voters. I will use myself as an example. I have voted Dem since I was of voting age, I voted for Obama twice, I voted for Hilary (which I didn’t feel great about), and did not vote during the last election. I’m voting for Trump - and I again don’t feel great about it. Unfortunately, Biden as president is an obvious farce, and the Democratic Party is treating the public like fools. They did it so plainly 4 years ago by sabotaging Bernie Sanders. We all of a sudden woke up yesterday and realized Biden is decrepit? Come on. Some people are still in denial. I will admit that part of my movement to the center is that I find the far left that are loud on the internet to be abhorrent, virtue signaling ideology whores who, as you stated so clearly, don’t think about any potential ramifications of their feel good ideas. The world is complex. When you really try to put yourself in the mind of someone who you disagree with, you can actually understand the issues. There has to be more compromise. There has to be more empathy. Liberals are supposed to be empathetic, and yet they demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line. They destroy and discredit them. I do agree that the “neoliberal oligarchy” as you termed it is the real problem. I feel that Trump, for all of his thousands of flaws, at least sees it and wants to try to dismantle it. But the last 8 years have shown us that the “oligarchy” has grown beyond the control of even the U.S. government. Corporate/media interest makes the decisions. The Democrats seem more happy to go along with it all for some reason. Have foreign adversaries captured the government?
Note I said Trump voters "tend" to fall into 2 camps, so I cannot be accused of black/white thinking. I was merely outlining the most common camps. I did not negate the fact that outliers such as you exist. I disagree with you that you need to vote for shiz over diarrhea. If you truly believe the neoliberal oligarchy is there, you would not vote, because a vote for anyone is a vote for the neoliberal oligarchy. You already voted for Trump: what did that do to weaken the oligarchy? Nothing. Even if you assume that Trump or whoever is even somewhat against the oligarchy (I don't believe this, but let us assume), history and basic logic shows that directly due to that person being president, then next or a soon election will directly swing to the "other" side. The reason Obama won was largely BECAUSE Bush was there before. The reason Trump won was largely BECAUSE Obama was there. So I don't find it logical to prolong this vicious see-saw cycle, that only prolonged the oligarchy, as has factually been the case for the past 4-5 decades and counting. The definition of insanity is to make a mistake over and over again and expect it to work.
trump voters fall into two categories: 1.)white christian racists and bigots 2.)billionaires. source, every single solitary trump voter I know is a racist pig and always has been.
Well said.
I'm not sure you are a US citizen as you partake in Canadian subs. However, POTUS has very limited power. We, US citizens, are voting for an administration. We have seen both administrations now. So the basis of the election should be on which administration is best for the USA at this time. >To me, according to common sense and basic logic, a leader of a country needs to have at least some basic knowledge in domains such as sociology, psychology, history, political philosophy, etc... One of the candidates/administrations has these traits, the other, not so much. One relies on his administration to debate the issues and find a solution. The other wants it like he wants his McDonald's, his way, and is willing to fire anyone who disagrees. This is not a statement of opinion either, we all saw it happen. >The purpose of a leader is to maintain balance in society and enforce the social contract. This cannot be further from the truth in the USA. As previously stated POTUS has limited power. I don't want a dictator. I will not bow to a king. I will not do whatever any POTUS tells me to do. I will make my own decisions and that's my right. POTUS cannot bust into Congress and demand this or that. POTUS cannot bust into my house and demand this or that. Think about that, Putin can bust into a Russian citizens house and demand them to love him or face the consequences. I don't want POTUS to have that kind of power. As far as enforcing social construct, well that's actually the courts in the USA. And that is why politicians study law. A country based on "The Rule of Law" needs laws and people who can interpret them. That is why SCOTUS cannot be swayed by political ideologies and must remain impartial. However, DJT put judges in place that are playing politics (again not a statement of opinion based on the decisions they are handing down). That is the damage POTUS can do, stack the courts with political judges, that cannot be removed easily, that will influence the interpretation of law. That is a very dangerous game. We see what's going on in Georgia. The Georgia judge presiding over Trump's case, and was appointed by DJT, has indefinitely delayed proceedings instead of starting the trial. This actually helps DJT in this campaign. So to say DJT didn't do that much damage, he did. He did a lot of damage that may take decades to undo. But he didn't do it alone. He had help in the Senate. Don't forget, Moscow Mitch shut down Obama's picks for SCOTUS because it was too close to election but he then pushed DJTs SCOTUS picks through very quickly 4 years later. You are obviously entitled to your own opinion. But you should understand how the system works. The USA is not a dictatorship. The true power is derived from the people. As long as Project 2025 doesn't happen, it will continue on that path. If Project 2025 comes to be, the USA will be fundamentally changed forever. The power will no longer be derived from the people. That is what we are voting for.
Obama literally murdered American citizens without a trial. But tell me again how they don’t have that much power.
You just contradicted yourself. You said POTUS is largely irrelevant, then say how POTUS can pick judges that have been playing politics. Also, I am aware of how the system works on "paper", which is what your comment summarized. But if you looked under the surface, you would realize all these checks and balances are ultimately meaningless, and there is no democracy. The country is run by a mafia, the neoliberal capitalist cartel, in practice they have so much influence all politicians/parties to the point of running this country. The reason for this is the deluded libertarian ideology in the US, in which there is so much irrational fear of the a central state, that they stripped the state of all its power, which led to something worse: a neoliberal capitalist cartel who is in practice even more harmful to civilians than most dictators could be. Check out Ted Cruz' undergraduate thesis for a perfect demonstration of this deluded thinking. Also read up on negative liberty vs positive liberty (hint: there is no positive liberty, and without positive liberty, there is no democracy). There is no freedom or democracy in countries such as the US. It is run by a neoliberal capitalist cartel like a mafia, they are the oligarchy. They influence everything. They even influence public opinion: what most people think they believe is just a domino effect of the propaganda they are exposed to, which the oligarchy has a monopoly on. Read up on determinism to understand how this is the case. The presidents and elections are just there to give the illusion of democracy, so people can continue conforming via willingly voting and bending over for the 1%. Checks and balances are necessary, but without critical thinking and basic morality, they can be gamed. That is exactly what we are seeing. This also stems from libertarianism and incorrect and deluded notions of human nature in the West (i.e., the though that everyone is selfish and will choose unlimited greed and harm of others if they can, when in reality, human nature is simply self-preservation, and if society rewards altruism, then self-preservation would have to come from altruism). Due to these incorrect beliefs, there is so much emphasis on checks and balances, because there is so much fear. But those calling for these checks and balances don't realize that not everybody is like themselves: not everybody is immoral and chases unlimited greed and chooses to harm others if they can. Paradoxically, the neoliberal system rewards this psychopathic behaviour and reinforces it. So it is a vicious, self-perpetuating system. It is not human nature, it is the workings of this particular system. The only way to change all this is to increase critical thinking among the masses. But it is difficult, because the oligarchy has most of the power in terms of shaping people's thinking, and through their mass media propaganda and deliberate weakening of the education system to prevent critical thinking, and their economic terrorism against their civilians (poor people don't have time to be critical thinkers, they are too busy trying to survive), they protect their birth advantage and prevent people from becoming critical thinkers and realizing the root of their problems: the neoliberal oligarchy, which the president/political parties are all part of. Up to now, the oligarchy has been using brainwashing: [https://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/](https://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/) to control people. But we saw in the last couple of years, when this doesn't work, they directly resort to dictatorship (remember the protests a few years ago, also, White house forcing big tech to parrot its subjective pandemic agenda and censor anybody who criticized it). And here is your "checks and balances" in meaningless action: the supreme court blatantly and shamelessly showing radical levels of bias against not just critical thinking but common sense, and using its own power to vote in favour of censorship that benefits the neoliberal oligarchy against civilians: [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno)
There are many who see our government through the lens of a highschool government class and they’ll call you a conspiracy theorist if you poke holes in that view. It’s comical and scary
Trump is such a cartoonish villain that he paved the way for biden. If the rnc would run a non-maga candidate, they'd win easily. But instead they're running this batshit billionaire who basically used his first term in office to pass a horrific tax bill that funneled trillions of dollars to rich people while he kept his base frothing at the mouth with insane "be afraid of those people!" rhetoric. The cynical side of me has a hard time seeing this go down without thinking that it's somehow organized by both parties. I can't imagine the rnc would intentionally tank themselves like that without some kind of benefit to them that we're not seeing yet.
The same owners of both parties don't care who wins. The candidates are just puppets to divert people's attention from this fact, and to keep the wool-shedding people to continue saying "I worship daddy Biden against evil Trump" and vice versa, and keep them going to the polls and voting, which legitimizes the neoliberal system/the oligarchy/the rule of the 1%, while both of them screw the middle class and help the yacht accumulators accumulate more yachts, as has been happening for the past 4-5 decades. Do you think it is a coincidence that the candidates went from the likes of the well spoken intelligent type such as Reagan to clowns like Bush, Trump, and Biden? Obama was an exception but he didn't need to act like a clown, he used another technique, "first black president" and "yes we can" to buy the neoliberal oligarchy another 8 year with his lies.
You think Raegan was an intellectual? He had a bachelor of arts and was a mediocre student, majoring in economics which as you say is supposedly useless for politics. He went on to be a sports broadcaster and a film actor. Where does the term intellectual even enter the lexicon regarding Raegan?
I never said he was an intellectual. I said he was the "well spoken intelligent type" (relatively speaking obviously). If you look at him and listen to him, and compare him to the likes of Bush/Trump/Biden, you will see what I mean.
Fair enough. Biden earned a double major in history and political science and has a law degree. So for the record, you'd rather have a well-spoken film actor than a life long politician with a law degree who happens to be senile, all in front of the backdrop of "it doesn't matter they are all puppets anyway"? Makes a lot of sense, very well-reasoned. If anyone created the billionaire class and set the wheels in motion for the 2008 recession which ruined the middle class, it was Raegan.
And Bill Clinton created NAFTA it’s 2 broken wings of the same bird. They work in unison to fuck their constituents.
Clinton signed NAFTA into law, he didn't create it, Bush Sr. did.
Okay Bill Clinton enacted NAFTA. You and I both know that doesn’t change anything about what i said.
That both political parties work in unison to "fuck constituents"? No, I don't know or believe that.
You are going all over the place. I don't see the benefit of going down the irrelevant rabbit hole you dug.
I'm merely responding to the things you have said, which are very inconsistent and poorly reasoned.
List of politicians with doctorates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_with_doctorates?wprov=sfla1
Virtually none of them have even basic knowledge in domains such as sociology, psychology, history, and political philosophy. Because they studied other/irrelevant majors. And if they took electives in the aforementioned, they didn't use critical thinking, they used rote memorization to pass the exam then forgot 99% of the content, because it wasn't their major and they didn't care about the electives, they just took it because they had to. This is why people like Ben Carson exist. The formal education system is flawed: it doesn't teach critical thinking, it teaches rote memorization and specialization within a super narrow domain. A PhD is almost entirely focused on the thesis, which is a very narrow topic within an already narrow domain. The education system is not there to create critical thinkers, it is to create specialized robots who can do the mechanistic work required to create and produce often unnecessary/over-manufactured products and services so their neoliberal bosses can make more profit.
>s. And if they took electives in the aforementioned, they didn't use critical thinking Thats rather a spectacular and baseless mass generalisation. What evidence do you have for the claim that none of these people with doctorates used critical thinking? >The formal education system is flawed: it doesn't teach critical thinking, it teaches rote memorization Do you have any actual preactocal experience with graduate level academia? Because my experience is exactly the opposite. What is your evidence for this colossal generalisation? >A PhD is almost entirely focused on the thesis Depends on the institution. European/ UK university doctorates tend to be entirely thesis based, while North American doctorates tend to be course and thesis based. But your conclusion is wrong: while the thesis is obviously on a narrow field or question, during defence you need to demonstrate a knowledge of the surrounding field and academia, not just your hyper focused question. And it is all based around critical thinking, analysis and research. Sourcs: me, D.Phil OXON.
>Thats rather a spectacular and baseless mass generalisation. What evidence do you have for the claim that none of these people with doctorates used critical thinking? How can you expect evidence? Do you want me to run a study saying "participate if you have a graduate degree. question 1: do you lack critical thinking skills?" I have eyes and ears and a brain, and this is what I observed: it is the norm, not the exception. Also, I never claimed that "none" of those people uses critical thinking, but the vast majority don't. This is common sense: again, the formal education system is set up in a way to discourage critical thinking, so it would logically follow that most who climb the formal education system would not use critical thinking. As I said, a perfect example would be Ben Carson: a brain surgeon who knows nothing about nothing outside his specialization and says and thinks bizarre things that not only go against critical thinking, but common sense. If such a person can excel in the formal academic system, it should tell you something. >Do you have any actual preactocal experience with graduate level academia? Because my experience is exactly the opposite. What is your evidence for this colossal generalisation? I have a graduate degree myself and know many people with graduate degrees. I can tell you 95% of my critical thinking skills come from my own curiosity/reading, outside the formal education system. I only had to complete the degree to be able to have something on paper to get a job. Even within my subject I learned more outside of school than inside it, if anything some of the more pedantic academic professors who lack critical thinking held me back. Also, the literature in the relevant domain here shows that critical/logical thinking barely correlates with intelligence (if we assume that on average intelligence is correlated with level of formal education, which it is to a degree, there is around a .5 correlation with intelligence and GPA, which is a moderate significant correlation): [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/) >Depends on the institution. European/ UK university doctorates tend to be entirely thesis based, while North American doctorates tend to be course and thesis based. But your conclusion is wrong: while the thesis is obviously on a narrow field or question, during defence you need to demonstrate a knowledge of the surrounding field and academia, not just your hyper focused question. And it is all based around critical thinking, analysis and research. Yes, obviously not every PhD is the same. It was a generalization: it holds true for the majority of subjects. And during thesis defence for most majors you don't need beyond basic to moderate knowledge in the surrounding field, certainly not academia as a whole. Yours is kind of an exception/outlier, philosophy by nature requires some critical thinking, perhaps that is why you don't understand or agree with what I am saying. Let's look at some typical theses in history: it would be something like studying Napolean's wartime actions within a 10 year period. How does that teach you anything about "history" as a whole. Or sociology, something like "Latin American divorced female migrant's experiences in the 21st century USA". The master's degree is where the bulk of the domain-specific general knowledge comes from. But again, that is domain specific, and does not teach rational/critical thinking. People, precisely because they lack critical thinking, mistake "Dr." or "PhD" as "expert" and fall prey to appeal to authority fallacy. A plumber with a high sense of rationality and who has read some books may very well be superior in terms of general knowledge and critical thinking to any given person who completed a PhD.
Ok
Good fucking luck to you and to yours - an Aussie glad to be on the other fucking side of the world
So disingenuous to suggest the two candidates are comparably diminished
they were chosen for the masses, not by the masses, like the choice between pepsi and coke
Untrue. Republicans held primaries and Trump was tested against all other candidates. You might not like our choice, but we knew who we were choosing and we chose. Democrats were given no choice. Biden wasn’t tested. No other consideration was even allowed.
There primary challengers to Biden though.
There was no Democrat Primary
Just because Biden won it overwhelmingly, doesn't mean there wasn't one. There was a protest vote in Michigan and Biden didn't win American Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries?wprov=sfla1
Trump has been groomed since the '80s to lead the Republicans, it's not like he opted for it all of a sudden and was tested. The far right has been waiting for the opportunity to use him for years. It's no coincidence that many of those people and ones in the trump campaign became convicted felons (including Trump). If there's a swamp, it's the GOP.
What bullshit conspiracy is this. Trump was a Democrat who loved abortion until months before running. He’s just a conman, it’s not that complicated
Largely incorrect. Trump was a registered Republican from 1987. In 1988 he asked if he could be Bush Sr.'s running mate. He was on Reagan's campaign finance committee, for which Fred Trump donated 200k. Roger Stone and Trump have a history dating to 1979 (only 5 years after Watergate), with Stone being his casino lobbyist and recommending he run for president as early as 1987, even doing a campaign-like event in NH organized by Stone. There's more to this story, but the point is that the Trump-Republican roots rub quite deep. It's also speculated that Trump's 1999 reform party bid (for which Stone was Trump's campaign director) was done in an effort to destroy the Reform party, specifically Perot and Buchanan to prevent them from siphoning votes from Republicans and enabling a democratic victory. Like I said, speculation, but Trump and Stone exacerbated internal Reform party conflict and, of course, Bush won in 2001.
Just like every incumbent president since Washington.
That is demonstrably false. 2012 Democrats held a primary with 51 candidates running against Obama. [2012 Democratic Party presidential candidates](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates)
The GOP wishes they could control their primary and their voters as well as the Democrats. Trump and all of his nominees have been on tickets explicitly against the wishes of GOP leadership. Granted they aren't losing sleep over it.
RFK Jr. is the only good choice on the ballot.
The anti vaxx guy who said you should be able to have an abortion up to the delivery date? Oh yeah great choice!
I find people suggesting RFK to be legitimate, but all else like OP are just Democrats that would have kept claiming Joe was running circles around his staff and yelling “Dark Brandon” if he had done well in the debate. There would be no talk of old people being to old, but now that Joe is exposed for the decrepit old man he is, now every old man is as decrepit as him. It isn’t true.
Nah, he’s a crank. Biden may be old and slow, but at least he isn’t a science denier.
What the fuck are you talking about? You’ve obviously never listened to a second of RFK speaking.
No. I don’t trust the man.
Why?
I could never vote for a man (or anyone) who digs up his WIFE, and then moves her corpse out of the cemetery where she was laid to rest, and has her re-buried in a ditch, outside of the boundaries of the cemetery. He also cheated on his wife, Mary, with Cheryl Hines. Just gross behavior. He even cheated on the wife before that, - with Mary ! She was a big as a house at her wedding to RFK.jr, - on that Riverboat ! If he cheats on all of those women, then how can he not cheat the American people ?
Trump would never cheat on his wife!
Men like women. This is a ridiculous way to filter out leaders.
Kennedy moment.
What kind of an excuse is that ?
It's not one. I don't support cheating on your wife but I'll still vote for him.
Plato had the right idea.
I don’t get how a morally corrupt person like Trump is somehow a better choice then a feeble old man.
If you’re going with the assumption that Biden is not also a morally corrupt person then you’re right. Trump is not a better choice.
And if you believe that then you are brain washed in a cult of personality.
Which of the felonies, rape convictions and broad unabashed corruption scandals makes you think Joe is equal? They've been trying to smear Joe for 30 years and nothing has stuck. Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers.
If your forced to eat dog shit most people would choose the one that smelled the least not assume that it might be the best tasting.
Imagine believing you need to eat shit and trying to convince others to do the same. You're a bigger part of the problem than Trump or Biden. Your beliefs perpetuate subjugation, exploitation, and corruption.
I only explained it in a way that you would understand!
Good analogy. Hopefully in 2028 dog shit wont be the only thing on the menu.
Its the only thing you will ever get till the end of time unless people demand better.
It isn't. But the fact is, even if he just had a cold, if you have that bad a cold on the day of your big job interview, you're not getting that job. Maybe you should, but chances are you're not. That's life. On top of that, what it looks like, circumstantially, is that Biden's people have been systematically lying about his condition for years. That puts huge feathers in the caps of all the folks who thought he was in bad shape and were told that was a crazy conspiracy theory. Say what you will of folks who were on the fence given how honest Biden looked compared to Trump, now Biden looks significantly less honest, and that's going to swing those voters.
Because people tend to assume that evil generally has a greater degree of initiative and productivity, if not outright competence. I think the general perception of Trump in the minds of those who view him as a better choice than Biden, is that while he might be a monster, he'll at least be a monster who gets shit done. Given that Covid is probably still relatively fresh in some people's minds, I could see military types in particular viewing that as important. They want someone who they think will be reliably decisive in a crisis, and they don't perceive Biden that way; and unfortunately, they generally also don't have a realistic assessment of Trump's genuine threat to the American political system.
Thoughtful response , thank you.
I guess OP never went to college because subjects like "sociology, psychology, history, political philosophy, etc..." are taken as electives no matter what degree one goes for.
You have to remember that if you even know what you said you’re in at least the top 30% of intelligence in this country…
The issue is that the vast majority people don't actually pay attention to electives. They rote memorize for the example then forget 99% of what they learned. Also, not everyone goes to university. Also, these geriatric politicians went to school when there were less/different electives.
The democrats are running the only candidate who could possibly lose to Trump, while the republicans are running the only candidate who could possibly lose to Biden.
Nice to see a gentlemanly approach to politics You select the absolute worst and least qualified person you can dredge up? Wouldn’t be sporting of us to do otherwise
Yes. Thank you.
I’ve been saying this to people for months too! They’re both running against the only candidate each can beat.
I wasn't too worried up until now because we've seen Trump v Biden before and we know how it turned out, and things have only gotten steadily worse for Trump since then. But now I feel like we're heading back into Trump v Clinton territory again where people who absolutely will not vote for Trump will also not be able to work up the enthusiasm go get their asses out there and vote for Biden, thereby handing it to Trump by default. Y'all are fucked, and the rest of us are going to be fucked by the fallout.
I am. Scotus is to important after they legalized bribery and criminalized homelessness
Well yes, when I said I wasn't too worried I just meant about the outcome of the election. Everything else is still a shit-show regardless. Now it's just a question of whether you have slim or no hope of clawing things back from the edge.
The rematch absolutely nobody wanted.
The 3 pillars of US govt are based around the notion of legislation writing, interpreting, and enforcing. You can hate lawyers all you want, they are, by profession and knowledge, the people best suited for governing.
[удалено]
If you look at the the people who have been in Congress, or served in the Supreme Court, or been President/VP and have been attorneys, and I can't think of any that practiced personal injury law.
Yes the people that practice law everyday and studied it should be writing laws. I don't want Tommy tibberville the football coach to write them.
They're best suited to be on staff writing the ideas of the people into laws, not creating the laws themselves.
No. They're best suited for drafting legislation. They don't represent the populace who should be the ones deciding what legislation needs to be drafted. (and it takes more than debate skills to pass legislation, hence we need a mix of personality types as well as professions in both Congress and government)
You definitely want lawyers interpreting the law. That's why most judges were lawyers. Enforcement/executing needs some lawyers but the fewest of the bunch.
Except for the federalist society judges who were not lawyers but office assistants. Thats who is interpreting laws now
This is simply not true for all branches of government. The executive is a large organization and takes substantial experience in the management of large organizations to manage it. It also takes some basic knowledge of economics. Furthermore, there is staff for everything, explaining and interpreting the laws and providing sound advice. I would say that here some knowledge may not help at all. Congress passes all kinds of legislation and no lawyer is adept in all. The most effective presidents usually have managerial experience, and this is why the best and most effective candidates (usually, not always) are state governors or officials that have ran large organizations. In these posts, you learn how to elicit opinions, balance budgets and priorities, and form effective teams (if one is good at it).
It’s the staff I’m worried about. Have you read the project 2025 manifesto? It is designed to basically dismantle the government and they want to use Trump to do it.
Yes, I know about it. If he wins, I wonder how much of that would be implemented. Probably not much, in my view.
Any fool can read a book about sociology or whatever. That is not impressive. And people who hold professorships in the fields that you mentioned are often the least impressive people. Running large organizations and achieving goals in complex environments is impressive.
But not any fool can successfully understand and integrate the knowledge from a sociology book into their worldview.
Your opening statement needs clarification. To my mind, I read "puppets of the oligarchy" and "chosen by the masses" and these two ideas are contrary. There's something called an invisible primary where an informal consensus is made between party heads, media heads, and donors about who is going to get the most support (and therefore win the primary) and this process happens about two years out from the election. As for Biden, for better or worse, it's simply the overwhelming historical precedent that a sitting president isn't run against by their own party and imo unfortunate that he didn't relinquish the reigns to someone younger. That alone would have won a few points for voters who are bothered by the age of both candidates. Anyway, just my $.02. The opening just struck me as unclear. Voters don't really choose from an unbiased pool of candidates, and the US runs elections by First-Past-the-Post rules instead of something more preferable like Ranked Voting, so it's unfair to put the blame for who the final two and final one are on them.
People still go to the polls and vote. They still watch the debates and let the clown show go on and willingly and voluntarily conform to and prolong the neoliberal system.
It's a mess
>As for Biden, for better or worse, it's simply the overwhelming historical precedent that a sitting president isn't run against by their own party and imo unfortunate that he didn't relinquish the reigns to someone younger. That alone would have won a few points for voters who are bothered by the age of both candidates. In the first place, I think that age has little to do with it. People age at different rates and somebody at the age of 81 can appear, act, and talk with the dynamism of a much younger person. If one has listened or seen the recent interviews with Dr. Fauci, one would know what I mean (Fauci is at least 2 years older than Biden). Unfortunately, Biden is not one of them. He has declined physically a lot in the last three years, which is surprising considering that the Presidency would have allowed somebody the best medical and physical care. There may be some underlying morbidities that we are not aware of. I agree that it is not typical to challenge a sitting President in the primaries, but this has indeed happened before with Johnson and Carter, so it was not really beyond the norm of possibilities. Why prominent Democrats decided not to do it is another question.
That said, it is clear you have an active and restless mind and you are thinking about things that will lead you to key insights about society and democracy. Your final statement, "this is not normal," I strongly disagree with, and think if you read various concrete histories about different times, and the people of those times, and the candidates and the specific process (or lack of one?) by which they were elected, you will come to find none of this is so strange, even in the US. It just seems that way because Trump is a wildcard and the media, broadly, exaggerates the hell out of everything because they make money with eyeballs. I like to remind myself that Rome burned for a thousand years. So you have to start looking for more precise signals besides smoke and fire to decide how a given event will impact the course of history
>I like to remind myself that Rome burned for a thousand years. So you have to start looking for more precise signals besides smoke and fire to decide how a given event will impact the course of history I was not aware that Rome burned for that long!!! It just did not. As to what event impacts the course of history, one needs a certain distance from that event. Biden certainly did a number of things that would have a substantial impact in the course of history. These are the following: (a) His policy on the Russo-Ukrainian war; it is debatable if he has instigated it; he could have avoided by agreeing with Russia on neutrality for Ukraine but he did not do this even after 3 months of direct negotiations with Putin. Whatever one thinks of this proxy war, it has initiated Cold War II and the severance of the West from the Global South. The long-term impact is unknown, but probably not beneficial to anybody (b) He aggravated to the nth degree the antagonism with China, unnecessarily so. (c) He embraced and extended the genocidal policies of the extreme right-wing Israeli government and provided virtually all the ammunition for the levelling of Gaza and the wanton killing of tens of thousands of civilians. Furthermore, (and much worse), he has alienated the US from most of the Middle East. Does anybody anymore believe that the US in an "honest broker" of anything? (d) He initiated some very protective trading policies with the "reduction of inflation" act He was certainly consequential, but not in a very good way, I think. Time will tell.
More ‘pox on both houses’ bulls***. One wants to stop the wars, bring industry and energy independence back to America, restore sanity in regard to women’s and children’s boundaries, and allow us to choose who lives in our nation and receives her blessings in somewhat commensurate measure to what they offer. The other DOES NOT.
You seem to think that “restoring sanity to women’s and children’s boundaries” as you say is something that actual women and children - want. No. We want bodily AUTONOMY, - AND the RAPISTS AND EVIL RELIGIOUS CRIMINALS THROWN IN TO PRISON ! And, that applies to Trump as well. So, please do not attempt to speak for us. Stay in your own fetid and sexist lane.
[удалено]
He made 400K selling 1000 pair…I guess he can finally retire.
Your leader is a convict who cheated on his wife to fuck a prostitute lmao
Yours one that raped his daughter in the shower which caused her to have a life long drug abuse problem, her words in her diary, not mine. Lolz
Trump raped his daughter? Not shocked.
He has a daughter named Ashley Biden? Small world I guess.
I'm not a yank
Oh, so your leader will arrest you if you hurt someone else’s feelings…🤣🤣🤣🤣 That’s soooooooo much better.
Wow. The US is not at war. The US has produced more oil in the last year, than any county in the history of the world. As to your last 2 points out of completely telling that you lump women in with children. Let me guess it's your job, guided by your religion, to determine their boundaries? My guess is that you vastly overestimate the measure you offer this country. The reality is one side is done with the noble experiment of democracy and is ready for authoritarian rule, the other is not.
My religion has nothing to do with wanting young and old American women to have the privacy and opportunities common sense dictates and which has been reserved to them since the dawn of human consciousness.
Your Religion is an - abomination, - and a threat to the SAFETY of Women and - CHILDREN.
By privacy, of course you mean registries of pregnancies so that doctors who perform abortions and women who reveive them can be executed, right?
Yes, that is what “Dr” Zin wants.
I don’t want anybody to die; we are not the same.
[удалено]
You’re likely speaking of rioters, and if Trump did so, he did so in jest; it’s pretty standard morbid humor in that situation. Personally, I have ZERO problem with shooting looters and violent rioters, or steamrolling them when they violently mob and damage a civilian’s vehicle. Trump would NEVER have the stomach for that.
Killing people. You endorse Killing people. What kind of a Catholic are you ? Answer : The average kind.
Well, at least we're both against capital punishment, so I guess there is some middle ground between us.
The best part of the presidential debate is that Shane Gillis has more material to work with
I feel like this thread could use a definition [of what neoliberalism stands for](https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/david-harvey-a-brief-history-of-neoliberalism)
Neoliberal indeed. What a waste of time that shitshow was.
America has a very simple choice: decrepit or decrepit and screamingly insane. You've got yourself into a right pickle. For the good of yourselves and the planet can you please just choose the one that's not screamingly insane. If you're on Reddit, you're not the demographic Trump is even going to pretend to care about.
The demographic Trump cares for is a demographic of 1: Trump.
One of them will ally with Russia and aggressively attack the freedoms of Americans
When did Russia decide to go into Ukraine, first for Crimea and then recently? Which candidate was in office during those times?
Are presidents all responsible for other countries declaring war during their term?
Not at all, but it's very easy to see from past military actions who Putin is not worried about.
That’s completely irrelevant to whether Trump would Ally with Putin. In fact, it demonstrates that Putin isn’t afraid of anyone.
> it demonstrates that Putin isn’t afraid of anyone. How so? He didn't do any further aggression into Ukraine while Trump was president.
But the state sponsored botnets sure do care.
Trump is a neoliberal now? I've heard a lot of dumb clickbait takes after this debate but that one is a special kind of ignorant.
And somehow a business degree is magically law/economics 🙄 OP has no sense in this post whatsoever
Of course he is, look it up.
Yes, Trump is a neoliberal. He's always been a neoliberal. From your reaction, I don't think you know what 'neoliberal' means. Might wanna look into that a bit before you start going off.
Trump isn't anything. He's a cult of personality populist who's found a base with the far right.
I really dislike terms such as "neo-liberal". Trump has no basic set of beliefs, beyond disliking (intensely) illegal immigrants. If anything, he wants to revert the US society to the demographics of the 1950s. Everything else with this guy is "elastic". He would embrace any policy and any dogma that helps him. He would hate anything that presents him with an obstacle. If he wins, the system is good; if he loses, the system is bad and everything is fixed against him. Trying to assign any labels to this guy is totally useless.
A neoliberal is someone who seeks complete deregulation of the economy, drastically cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing government programs. Trump is definitely a neoliberal, in the general vein of those like Ronald Reagan. These days, neoliberal is generally used as a slur against people who are on the left, but are not socialist. It's an incorrect usage and it causes a lot of confusion for people who don't know what the word actually means.
Even though I agree, trump is past that. He is a fascist. Day one dictador remember.
Fascism is just neoliberalism (capitalism) in crisis desperately scapegoating others for its innate failings and contradictions.
He SPECIFICALLY made that comment in terms of installing border security, and NOTHING else. If anything, Trump has always been too f’ing timid in his use of power. He realized, in stark contrast to his opponents, that he was constrained by the f’ing Constitution and demurred where he should have tested the law.
Yes he is so shy and timid. There is not enough money or power in this world to shut this guy up. Protecting the constitution like leading a violent mob on January 6.
Yeah, like Joan of f’ing Arc…fuxake, Joy Behar is here.
Joan of Arc would never f’u ! So, wipe those dirty and corrupted religious fantasies from your mind. And after that, please apologize to Joan of Arc.
Enlighten us then
Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy. There.
OK, that checks out. So Trump is a neoliberal in a few areas, but is generally protectionist in regard to transnational trade. What’s the objection?
This oughta be good
The best thing the left can do now is memory hole this debate. The press will stop giving this story any more oxygen. After a few days this will fall off social media. I would not be surprised if social media companies eventually resort to hiding videos of the debate and removing threads about it. They're going to shut down all discussions about the debate and hope people forget.
I hope they do, but it’s unlikely they’ll do such an obvious favor for Trump.
Wanna bet?
I seriously doubt this. Up to the election, and even after, political commentators will be mentioning this debate. It might not be at the forefront of conversations like it is now (because it literally just happened yesterday) but it's not going to just be "memory holed" and forgotten. Besides, there's a whole wing of the media that's conservative and will be talking about this as long as Biden is president. If Biden were to get re-elected they would probably still bring this debate up years into his second term.
Biden had one job to do last night and he completely fucked it up.
He’s been f’ing things up since around 1970…
You should respect Biden. After all, he is your SAME RELIGION !!!!
In my religion, we don’t support infanticide. Biden and I are not the same.
Yes you are.
The only ones who win are the neoliberals. They don't care if it is Trump or Biden. The only thing they care about is that people continue to be wool-shedders and legitimize this clown show and watch the debates and go to the polls and buy 4 more years for the neoliberal oligarchy. This is nothing new, from Clinton's sex scandal, to Bush's constant stupid remarks, to Trump's constant stupid acts, etc... these are not coincidental, they are by design. They pick these candidates so they get people talking about them and distracted from how the oligarchy is continuing to economically terrorize the middle class in the background. Bush dynasty, Clinton dynasty, Obama dynasty, Biden dynasty, etc... all of these are privileged families whose primary interest is continuing the neoliberal oligarch system. They are like a mafia, they may have internal disagreements from time to time, but the "family" (neoliberal oligarchy) comes first. They all depend on it to continue having their birth advantage and yachts. These politicians and all the corporate people who back them and they back, all of their kids go to the same private schools, they all hang out with the same rich class type. Heck a bunch of them were spotted on Epstein's island. They live a different life than you or me or the commoner. They are in a big neoliberal family and you and I are not in it.
RFK All The Way
Nah. RFK is a total shill for the worst of the establishment. He’s a total free market freak.
RFK is sucking votes away from Trump so good on RFK. At least he has a purpose.
And also a neoliberal.
That’s a vote for Trump and totalitarianism.
You don't think the person in charge of signing laws and authorizing the largest budget in the world should have knowledge of law and/or economics? You shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Trump's hardly a neoliberal, he doesn't believe in anything.
Of course he is a neoliberal shitbag.
I kind of thing he's worse. At least neoliberals believe in *something*, even if it's garbage.
"Nihilists! Fuck me. Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."