cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.
You must log in or register to comment.
We got a Progressive Era out of it, maybe we’ll get another one?
Edit: To clarify, I’m talking about the New Deal and New Deal v2 Progressive Eras (and the era of Progressive Democratic supermajorities that dominated congress)
Germany got fascism out of the economic collapse.
👀
(fuck)
We got a Progressive Era out of it
-
Jim Crow
-
Japanese Internment
-
Religious revivalism
-
The Wars on Crime / Drugs / Terror / Immigration, leading to the highest incarceration rate in the world
-
Two major Red Scares and a collapse in union membership
-
Intercontinent Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads
Some progress.
Jim Crow
Before that was slavery. The Civil Rights act was the result of the Progressive Era.
The Wars on Crime / Drugs / Terror
War on Drug and War on Terror happened at the-end-of/after the New Deal Progressive Era
Two major Red Scares and a collapse in union membership
Xenophobia is nothing new. Again, the Red Scares were the backlash of Progressive policies, and marked the end of the Progressive Eras.
The oligarchs in power want to make you feel powerless, they want to make you accept defeat, but don’t surrender, you have more power than you think.
Progressiveism and Regressiveism is always in a tug-of-war, there will be constant progress and constant reactionary policies, but the general trend (across the world) is towards progress. Monarchies have fallen, eventually Oligarchies will fall. (Hopefully towards a stateless egalitarian future)
Before that was slavery.
Before Jim Crow was Reconstruction, which was the real Progressive Era for African Americans. The Freedman’s Bureau, elections overseen by the Union Army where black citizens were guaranteed a vote, mass migration out of southern plantations and into the industrialized north, and real (abet fleeting) economic progress for the millions of newly liberated peoples.
War on Drug and War on Terror happened at the-end-of/after the New Deal Progressive Era
The Federal War on Drugs began with the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909, squarely in the thick of the Roosevelt/Wilsonian Prohibitionist period. You could argue that prohibition wars were going on decades earlier, at the state level. Similarly, the War on Terror was an outgrowth of the War on Crime, which has its roots back to the post-Reconstruction South and the prison exclusion of the 13th Amendment.
Progressiveism and Regressiveism is always in a tug-of-war
The liberal/conservative tug-of-war over popular support for government is a tug-of-war. But the underlying policies have a strong through-line going back over a century. Policing, surveillance, and the administrative state bloat with each new administration, following different rhetorical lines but always moving towards the same effective end.
Monarchies have fallen, eventually Oligarchies will fall.
Monarchies rose and fell for thousands of years prior. They did not end, they only changed their form. Regional and sectoral dictatorships are alive and well in the modern era, from explicit Kingdoms in the Middle East to vertically integrated monopolies governed by tyrannical CEOs in the West.
The only exceptions are where popular movements have successfully revolutionized the government, democratized capital, and hedged out foreign financial parasites.
The United States is not one such place.
You really picked random negatives from a bunch of different decades?
removed by mod
Japanese Internment Two major Red Scares and a collapse in union membershipLegitimate criticisms
No they’re not. Those two things were caused by far greater international factors. Like, you know, the 2nd World War.
removed by mod
The comment you’re responding to really doesn’t seem to be condoning those things; the thing being argued here is whether there was a push in a progressive direction, you said these events are evidence against that, which they countered with the idea that war has a regressive influence, something your quote is supporting.
really doesn’t seem to be condoning those things
Exactly: total failure of reading comprehension. Acts like bro saying that bad thing doesn’t support a conclusion means bro now endorses bad thing. Wut?
removed by mod
Then criticizing those things would be legitimate. To disagree that there’s legitimate criticism regarding those issues is to condone them.
If what you meant by “legitimate criticisms” was to say that criticism of these policies themselves is legitimate, that’s an extremely confusing way to say it given the context (both previous comments and the first part of your own comment), it very much sounds like you were saying something entirely different. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that someone objecting to your statement is objecting to that meaning of it.
My apologies, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. My point was that it’s unfair to blame those things as results of progressive policies.
But hey, thanks for the gross mischaracterization of my perspective.
My point was that it’s unfair to blame those things as results of progressive policies.
Who said that? What I see is someone critiquing the progressive New Deal era for not fully living up to progressive ideals. Nobody’s claiming that New Deal policies caused Japanese internment.
It seems to me that you’re the one jumping to conclusions and making assumptions here. I’m just straightforwardly responding to the claim that criticism of internment is illegitimate, if you don’t want people to assume that you support internment, try not dismissing criticism of it.
Please allow me to clarify my perspective on this discussion.
This commenter associated a bunch of effects with the progressive era.
You then replied with a thoughtful response that questioned most of their points.
But then you wrote
Japanese Internment Two major Red Scares and a collapse in union membershipLegitimate criticisms.
At this point, I read that as you acknowledging those two points as legitimate criticisms against the progressive era. This is what I disputed. I think those are unfair criticisms, as far as I understood the words you wrote.
This is all I said. I’ve jumped to no other conclusions. I’ve said nothing against you or your character. I’ve made no other assumptions. I simply wrote a response based off the words you used.
I see you’ve further clarified your perspective as well, and understand that we’re of the same perspective on the matter. You have no need to be so defensive anymore, my dude.
Edit: the other commenter essentially proved that they were just baiting people into inflammatory discussion. They kept resorting to personal attacks and flip-flopped on their position solely to continue arguing. This behavior is not tolerated here. Please report such trolls in the future.
I mean yeah. That’s the cyclic nature of politics, we learn a lesson and get a bit better, forget that lesson, get away worse, only to overcorrect and end up better than the first. We move pretty consistently leftward politically globally but only as a reaction to incredible periodic swings to the right.
We move pretty consistently leftward politically globally but only as a reaction to incredible periodic swings to the right.
This is simply not true. We advance technologically and we often mistake the mass media that comes out of these advances as social progress. But what we have historically endured over the last two centuries has been liberal rhetoric whitewashing much more reactionary and authoritarian policy than what our ancestors endured.
The long march has not been towards progress, but towards progressive pastiche.
Tell me, do you think a Black person is safer living 100 years ago in the USA, than today’s USA?
Don’t get me wrong, innocent black people are still being murdered, but it’s nowhere as common as before. It was at least 100x worse 100 years ago.
Tell me, do you think a Black person is safer living 100 years ago in the USA, than today’s USA?
Thanks to modern technological innovations, sure. Clean air/water, safer public transit, vaccines, etc go a long way towards improving quality of life for everyone, including the bottom of the social hierarchy. But has a black person in 2025 enjoyed the same degree of prosperity as a white peer over the intervening years? Absolutely not, and for the same reasons. They’re more predisposed to experience tainted air/water, they are comparatively less safe traveling, they have diminished access to modern medicine like vaccines and prenatal care, etc, etc.
And this is a deliberate function of public policy. The sky-high arrest rate of African Americans (particularly while traveling) is the result of a Nixon Era campaign to over-police black and brown neighborhoods that every subsequent executive and governor seems to have endorsed. The higher rates of cancer, the higher rates of obesity and malnutrition, the higher rates of disease transmission and mortality from preventable illness or injury all stem from eugenics policies pioneered in the OG Progressive Era. Even some of the pseudoscientific theories around mental, physical, and social aptitudes have endured.
it’s no where was common as before
The arrest rates of black men peaked in the 90s, during the height of the Reagan War on Crime. They’ve fallen off somewhat in comparison to arrests and harassment of hispanics and east asians, but are nowhere close to comparable to white peers. This is downwind of the reactionary media hijacking progressive language and ideology and weaponizing it against a population that its leadership believes is subhuman.
What we have in the modern era is rationalization of reactionary policy in progressive terms. The propaganda we experience is caped in progressive language. But the goals are the exact opposite.
There is no legitimate argument that we haven’t moved leftward over the last thousand or so years.
So progress that only seems like progress but progress is progress boss. I’m not sure what exactly you’re arguing but so far it seems… Outlandish and removed from reality.
There is no legitimate argument that we haven’t moved leftward over the last thousand or so years.
The colonial era of the 1400s to 1900s resulted in an industrial scale enclosing, enslaving, and extermination of entire ethnic cohorts. This was not a leftist move by any definition. It was 500 years of settler colonialism which resulted in some of the most abysmal living conditions in recorded history.
We have not yet recovered from this massive global reconfiguration of human society. While we enjoy more advanced tools and industrial scale infrastructure, we remain both socially and physically less independent of our authoritarian oligarchs than we were prior to the European Imperialist Era.
So progress that only seems like progress but progress is progress boss.
We have a modern economic system that produces more homes than people, while guaranteeing a certain population will remain homeless their entire lives. We have a system that produces enormous surpluses of food, but guarantees a segment of the population will remain malnurished. We have a system that produces vast excesses of professional expertise, but guarantees only a fraction of the population can access professional services.
All of our shortages are manufactured. Trump’s latest tariff wave is the most blindingly obvious example of how these shortages are imposed - not even via some convoluted market mechanism, but through the whims of an authoritarian madman.
This is not progress in a social sense. It is a huge regression from our historical roots. We are prisoners of the state and of the economy, subject to arrest, torture, and execution at the whim of the local leadership. And the only reason you and I are not personally under a boot right now is because we haven’t been targeted yet.
we remain both socially and physically less independent of our authoritarian oligarchs than we were prior to the European Imperialist Era.
Horseshit opinion.
You described literal progress only to say it’s the illusion of progress. You aren’t even making logical sense.
You described literal progress only to say it’s the illusion of progress.
I’m describing the systematic roll-back of free travel, free trade, and freedom of individuals to co-mingle absent legal barriers.
We need paperwork to cross borders. We need documentation to legally accept offers for work. We need licenses from the state to formalize marriage. We can be arrested, detained indefinitely, and subject to physical and psychological abuse without so much as an official reason by state officials. We can be conscripted into war, extorted for our wages, and deprived of our homes and personal effects at the whims of state officials.
And to top it all off, we have an entire industrial education establishment that compels us to repeated the dogged lies that this is progress. We have state-sponsored celebrations intended to lionize our enslavers. We have parades of security service workers through the center of our townships, paid for with wealth looted from our own pockets, to drive home how occupied we all are.
How the fuck is that progress?
For what it is worth, Jim Crow predated and outlasted the Progressive Era in the US. I wouldn’t so much apply causation there.
But it also ended in the 20s. It mainly achieved Women’s suffrage in the US.
But it also ended in the 20s.
Okay, so you’re talking about the 1890s-1920s “Progressive” Era of Prohibition and Sufferage.
Not the 1930s-70s New Deal / Great Society period of progressivism that was great for middle class white people and maybe a little less great for African Americans, East Asians, and American Natives who had to claw their way into a post-industrial standard of living against all the best efforts of the settlers.
Again, I might suggest you look back at the history of the T.Roosevelt to Wilson administration and reconsider whether this is the benchmark for progress you’ve been sold on.
Okay, so you’re talking about the 1890s-1920s “Progressive” Era of Prohibition and Sufferage.
Yeah, as that’s what that time period is called: “Progressive Era”.
Not the 1930s-70s New Deal / Great Society period of progressivism
No, I am not referring to the period following Prohibition Era and the Great Depression which was an intermediate (1920s-1930s) before New Deal.
If you’re taking issue with the ‘Progressive Era’ being called ‘Progressive’ then sure. I get you then. It mostly just achived women’s suffrage as a meaningful milestone, as I said.
removed by mod
-
If you don’t want to read here’s a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7i-ievZZiQ&t=22s
Proof yet again that “business leaders” typically don’t know shit about shit.
They LOVE massive depressions. They buy up real estate and failing companies cheap with their massive cash reserves.
This guy is no business leader- he bankrupt his own casinos multiple times and just stiffs people on payment. He’s a grifter who happened to be born into money
It is all 1000% on purpose.
They intend to ride it out and profit from all of this, and we’ll let them due to cowardice and division.
The so called geniuses of business have a better batting average than the average person but they are still prone to the same fuck ups and emotionally driven foolishness as anyone else. I was reading about the Theranos scam and how many supposed brilliant corporate leaders all threw big money at it without taking the time to investigate it first.
If you have Hulu or sail the seven seas, check out “The Dropout” which is a mini-series about Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes.
The largest Senate loss in history yet
Those that don’t know history are destined to have a nice day.
This is why I suspect the fix is in on our elections. They won’t let go of power, even if they have to cheat to keep it. And they know what they are doing will be very unpopular.
Great depression, and 2/3rds drop in global trade resulted.
I present also 1828 dementia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations which started southern secessionist movements.
Unjustifiable trade attacks like all wars are bad for unity. If California or Texas has to pay $10k more per car so metal and auto workers elsewhere get high pay, national unity fractures. Everything being super expensive with no jobs because of global trade retaliations, means that Mexicans stop being a unifying problem, and those white Michigan and Pennsylvania blue collar workers cheering for Trump are the problem. Better cars elsewhere in the world become a bigger national unity factor the more protection $ is spent on inferior cars.
… Ford begins furiously colaborating with Lada.
something something people who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it
Funny thing the 1828 Tariff of Abomination, The Smoot Hawley Tariff and Donald’s Liquidation Day Tariff are all roughly a hundred years apart. Living memory of the consequences of such tariffs need to die out completely before a new generation tries this stupidity.
It’s the same with the nativist bullshit. Memory of the peak of Know Nothing, KKK and now MAGA bullshit has to die out before it is tried again.
My only hope is that this is viewed as the high water mark of the MAGA movement. MAGA incompetence is on full display.
As much as I disagreed with Sen. Chuck Shumers decision to roll over on the budget. Shutting down the government and giving MAGA any excuse to blame Democrats for this economic slowdown would have been a bad call. Donald and the Republicans now solely own this disaster.
For the MAGA faithful it won’t make a difference but for independents, moderates and low information voters this could be a huge turning point.
Attacking Russia stops being a bad idea every 100 years or so too. Occupying government of France leading the cheerleading a common factor.
They did not have computerized voting back then, it was paper ballots mostly. Until then I fully expect the same voting patterns as the last generation to continue; yes, democrats will win more at the mid terms. No, little will change. I fully expect democrats to win solid majorities in both houses in 2026.
Americans, as a group, should look at exit polls and understand them, and use paper ballots as the rule, not the exception. Until then, it’s just an oligarchy. And they don’t have our backs .
But I don’t think it will change any time soon
deleted by creator
You would be correct if the majority of USA states fairly counted the ballots. But if not, there is no reason to prevent a double chamber majority. In fact, it’s necessary then, because it derails paper ballot efforts.
This is a long game, so to speak. There will still be dem presidents later too.
What people who decry fascism tend to overlook is that the country has not been a democracy for a while. This is all theater on a grand scale, for decades, and we are the audience
deleted by creator
And that is why I am going to clean up on the betting markets. More seriously, anyone thinking of this exchange only need compare exit polls for all the states, in general and primaries.
I remember when exit polls used to be talked about a lot in the 1970s. But I think most people reading will be puzzled about why I harp on a type of polling.
Likewise I think finding exit poll results might be challenging these days in the USA. Which is a pity, indeed
I’ll just leave this here then: https://www.hiddendominion.com/sir-glubbs-250-year-hypothesis-on-the-duration-of-great-nations/
Yeah, but back then they still had elections.
Maybe it is a good idea to get rid of senate seats with new people. 50 years the same people might be a bit too long
How about making more then 2 political parties viable with no spoiler effect via state level electoral reform?
We need more options and should be similar to europe with 8 or 10. parties can come up and fail.
I’m good with lengthy term limits, even, but there needs to be something
It’s not really a term limit, but here in Norway you’re not allowed to work a government job after passing 70.
This also applies to elected officials, so hey at least we don’t have anyone over 70.
removed by mod
I like how we do governor in va. One term then you need to leave. You can come back later but theres no incumbent advantage.
We can’t afford to waste this chance…
There is zero reason to settle for “not trump” we need to use Republican Inaptitude to get a decent progressive in power , there’s zero reason to compromise with Republicans after this shit.
I don’t know that there’s a ‘we’ here, as the billionaires run the Democratic Party too and have sued for the privilege of holding undemocratic primaries.
With that said, the SHTA precipitating the historic Senate loss isn’t the only historical pattern working against Trump in 2026.
Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all entered office with control of Congress and lost control at the mid-terms, so it’s highly likely that will happen again.
, as the billionaires run the Democratic Party too
No, neoliberals have held the DNC chair for decades. And they did whatever billionaires said.
The current chair of the DNC is not a neoliberal. He used to be Minnesota’s state chair, and if he acts like he did then he’ll be the most progressive chair we’ve had in 30 years, arguably 50 years.
The fight over the party already happened and the neoliberals lost.
Don’t blame the new guy for what the old guy did
I will believe it matters when I see it, and I’m doubtful 40+ years of masquerading as progressives and ruling as conservatives is going to change anytime soon.
and I’m doubtful 40+ years of masquerading as progressives and ruling as conservatives is going to change anytime soon.
Then it sounds like you’re ignorant both of how the DNC works and Ken Martin’s history running Minnesota’s state party…
The DNC chair is a dictator, he calls all the shots and is accountable to no one. For all intents and purposes the DNC chair is the national party.
It’s been less than two months since Martin took over the DNC. Don’t blame him for what happened before he had total control.
But seriously, look into what Minnesota has been up to. Loads of progressives and turned a battleground into a solid blue state.
His main concern is winning elections, so he doesn’t fight progressives in primaries, because that’s what voters want.
This isn’t blind loyalty. If I didn’t have valid reasons to support the DNC I can assure you I wouldn’t be doing it
Really admire your optimism here, but I’m far too cynical on Dems to think this can work without a whole new party to replace them. The Democrat brand is so incredibly tarnished by corruption and disingenuousness.
While you’re right that the DNC chair does hold a lot of power in the party, I struggle to recall a single instance in my lifetime when any dem held real power and leveraged it effectively to benefit the working class.
instance in my lifetime
Because since Jimmy Carter the DNC chair has been further right than the Dem voters base…
And that stopped being true about two months ago
Did it ever occur to you why about two months ago suddenly mainstream media started being ok criticizing Dems?
The oligarchs want us to fail. Because we just won.
Stop doing what theyre manipulating you into doing
Don’t blame him for what happened before he had total control.
Don’t expect me to ignore 40+ years of history on the basis of mere promises, when broken Democratic promises paved the road to the fascism we’re having to fight today. Frankly, it’s unreasonable, and no one should expect Democrats to do what they say they’re going to do until they demonstrate it.
Watch Dems shoot themselves in the foot
Get ready for “we had to pass the $6T in tax cuts for the rich and corporations, simply nothing we could do!” 🤑
It is imminent.
They are robbing us absolutely blind here, and using the tariff chaos as cover.
AOC
Preferably someone who’s qualified.
Go to hell
Your suggestion then?
Pete
Hegseth? Davidson? Who are you referring to?
Guessing Buttigieg
No, the kid with the dragon
This guy called Pete down the pub is a pretty switched on guy. Maybe they mean him.
She is qualified. She is a citizen. She us over 35.
She has degrees in poli sci and economics so she even has the education too!
The current president is a fucking rapist felon traitor. And you’re lecturing people about “qualified”? Fuck off. You parasites are unworthy of the oxygen you draw.
People are going to say it shouldn’t be her for all the same reasons they said Obama couldn’t win…
AOC is popular enough to get the votes, and she’ll actually fight while in office.
I really hope she runs.
She’ll have the same problems Hilary Clinton had in that the right wing propaganda machines have been vilifying her for decades.
Who gives a shit?
We could run Dick Cheney and they’d say the same shit about him.
They’re going to say anyone with a D by their name is a fucking communist, it literally doesn’t matter what the fucking Republicans say, and there is no logical reason we should move to the right of our own voters because of what Republicans say.
Because, and I truly hate to break this to you:
Republicans fucking lie and Santa isn’t real.
The problem with Hillary wasn’t Republicans saying she sucked because they were “scared” she lost because no one fucking likes her or her policies.
The lesson couldn’t be clearer that we need someone genuine, someone full of piss and vinegar, someone fearless. It should have been Bernie. Well, she’s our Bernie now. Just quite a bit younger, which is a clear advantage.
You shut your mouth. This is America! We like our guns loud, our cars broken down, our food fried, and our presidents oooooold. If you didn’t grow up playing with one of these, you simply aren’t fit to be president in this country!
She’s why you’re seeing Gavin run further to the right and why Booker pulled off his little stunt. I imagine a few more liberals are going to try and make a big splash in either direction in order to get some camera time before she makes her announcement.
deleted by creator
No, Dem voters hate uncharismatic politicians with policy to the right of the Dem voting base.
And Hillary and Harris still almost won because Trump is so shit.
The part that needs to change is not the gender of the candidate
I hope you’re right. I feel this country’s rampant sexism is far worse than its rampant racism. Either way, AOC is facing both forms of bigotry
Hillary did win the popular vote. By a lot.
People aren’t remotely as sexiest as you think. It’s just that 2% is all it takes to lock in an election pretty wellIt’s not
Venn diagram of racism and sexism is pretty much a single circle. And they’d treat an old white straight catholic conservative male just as badly.
Don’t listen to the neoliberals who blame Hillary and Harris’ lose on sexism. They lost due to their conservative policies and almost conplete lack of charisma and authenticity.
AOC is essentially the complete opposite in those regards
Thank you for saying this. I’m a pretty aggressive feminist but I think this desire to paint the losses of Harris and Clinton on sexism alone is dangerously reductive. I strongly feel like until neoliberals categorize women losing as an individual losing and not an entire gender losing we won’t have real success there. Like, when McCain lost no one was like: WOE MEN CANT WIN it’s OVER for white men boohoo!!
I hate when they do this boohoo shit over women while running the least charismatic rat fucked campaigns. Wearing pink and holding a sign when they need people wearing red white and blue and open carrying the constitution with brimstone fire.
That being said, I genuinely in my heart think that AOC has a chance. As long as the controlled opposition doesn’t rat fuck her
Look into Ken Martin, there is zero reason for anyone to think he’d stand in front of progress.
And he has final say in the DNC till after the next presidential election.
Seriously, I wouldn’t be optimistic about the DNC if there wasn’t good reason to be.
Ken Martin is Zionist and torch bearer for Israel first rule (Dem candidate victory lower priority) over US. It’s the party’s proud tradition.
Ok I’ll go read about him. Thank for the tip.
I don’t feel very favorable about the DNC. I assume they will purposefully fail
Didn’t Obama basically have the same platform? If anything, Hillary ran on healthcare for all while Obama didn’t in 2008. He’s certainly more charismatic and had the image of “not a typical politician”, which helped him win that primary, plus but I think he benefited from W’s economic mess and McCain unwillingness to be an asshole on the campaign trail, unlike Trump with Hillary and Kamala
But honestly, I’m speaking anecdotally. It’s been extremely depressing how many people have told me that a woman can’t be president because being on her period will make her nuke china. But maybe people just think it’s okay to be sexist out loud more than racist these days.
Hillary lost because of a multi-decade campaign against her by the right wing propaganda machines.
Sexism played a role in Harris’ loss but overall her issue wasn’t focusing on economic populism.
AOC faces a similar level of hate from right wing media.
Hillary lost because of a multi-decade campaign against her by the right wing propaganda machines.
Hillary lost because the only voting demographic that hates her more than Republican voters, is Dem voters.
For valid reasons related to her unpopular policy and zero charisma.
It doesn’t matter how many comments you make denying it, people started paying attention to politics again.
Hot take: you’re both right.
Right-wing spin machine had been after Hillary for years. It severely damaged her campaign.
Hillary had no appeal to 60% of the Dem base. It severely damaged her campaign.
AOC faces the same threat from the right-wing spin machine, but she has good policies to sell to the base.
Sexism and racism will factor in, of course, but the strongest opposing force is the billionaire news outlets.
I’m racist against people who vote to prevent union strikes.
I think that’s called being a good person but don’t bother telling the republicans that
aaaaand youre wasting the chance
Aaaaaand you can fuck off and die.
you are likely the ones this will happen to instead
They are already trying to setup Kamala for 2028. I have zero faith that the Democrats are going to learn anything from their failure
I have zero faith in us having free and fair elections in 4 years but if we do then clearly the fascist threat has been vastly over blown and I’ll never cast a ballot for either major political party again.
They are already trying to setup Kamala for 2028.
Who is “they”?
We have a DNC chair that at worst will be impartial.
And Harris has zero chance of winning a fair primary.
The only way a neoliberal can win a primary is if the party hands it to them.
The only way a Republican becomes president, is if the only other choice is a neoliberals.
The only reason the Republicans have the house, is because of “victory fund” bankrupting stat parties.
We really didn’t need much, and we got it. Which is why we desperately need to capitalize and move the Overton window as far left as possible while we can
“Impartial” like when Bernie Sanders was winning, and every Democrat decided to fold for Biden.
Don’t you mean Hillary in 16’
Oh wait. They did it twice.
And the “Liberal MSM” started running “Bernie loves Castro” stories left and right. Hell one of the chucklefucks at “far left MSNBC” said that if Bernie won he’d put people like himself “against the wall” invoking an image of firing squad executions…
Ah Chris Matthews. He said they’d have public executions in times square if the reds won the cold war and heavily implied Bernie would cheer for it.
They made him retire for a couple years, and I see he came back as a commentator on good ole Morning Joe apparently.
At this point I’m not against renaming it red square and dusting that suggestion off
deleted by creator
The DNC chair is the DNC…
Martin has complete control for the next four years
Like, you just legitimately do not understand what you’re talking about
They don’t want to win. At least not with someone who would bring change. Why would they, they are all multimillionaires.
This is what I’ve been saying too. They made over a billion dollars and they happily lost taking that money to the DNC bank.
deleted by creator
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. So I’m sure they will do it.
Every day of my life is an economic crisis.
Right now we’re struggling to be able to pay for groceries tomorrow, after paying rent to a place that hates my family.
If the stock market crashes, what’s the real difference between my shit life with my family, and the shit life with my family if the stock market goes down? I’ll have 0.0001% less chance to become a billionaire?
Is this implying if you with paycheck to paycheck it doesn’t affect you? People playing with the stock market can afford to lose. This isn’t going to hurt them nearly as much as those who can’t afford to lose
No, it’s not saying people living paycheck-to-paycheck won’t be affected. I think the point is - scary threat isn’t scary, because such people already feel the constant threat of poverty every day. Being regularly pumped full of cortisol over worries of simply surviving, there are no fucks left to give when additional threats are piled on.
Tariff is a consumption tax. The poorest spends most of their income on consumption like groceries, clothing, car parts, etc. The price of all of that is going up.
Next stockmarket wipeout reduces wealth of middle class the most, who in turn reduces spending on services that employee working class people.
Poorest always gets hit the hardest in any negative economic event because they are poor.
To me it looks like it sides with the paycheck-to-paycheck people. But you’re getting a lot of upvotes so either I’m looking at it wrong or a lot of people are wearing the same anger glasses as you.
It looks like it has that intention without actually thinking about it
The reason that the stock market cratered in response to this was that regular consumers are about to get hit with a 25%+ price increase on literally everything they buy. If you don’t make 25% more paycheck, you’re going to be cutting your lifestyle by the difference. Companies know this and are anticipating major lost revenue because people won’t have money to spend on their products. The price increases are probably going to be in full swing in 2-3 months, but that’s an educated guess, only.
thanks, I know all that. Back to the cartoon, it looks to me like it’s acknowledging the situation of Everyman in the persona of SpongeBob. So the answer to, “Is this implying if you with paycheck to paycheck it doesn’t affect you?” would be no, it does not imply that. It’s saying people are already up to their necks in shit and oh well, this’ll make things worse but it’s just another log on the fire.
An even bigger factor to the stock market is that the largest companies get 50%-60% of their revenue from other countries. They are about to get shit kicked.
When I was struggling in college to eat and people talked about the market collapsing – pal, I was trying not to be homeless. I had a thousand other problems, from bad health issues, uncertainty over if I would sleep in a bed, where my next meal.
Its a awful take to rip into them for not caring that the Dow Jones lost 2000 points or whatever.
Ferris Bueller’s Day off was educational!
Voo doo…economics
I wish somebody was paying attention
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
Thats supposed to be cautionary, but to the MAGA Nazis, its a Game Plan.
Yes but only the racist parts. They don’t want to repeat the great depression, but are going to because they didn’t actually learn about history.
I have a feeling they learned, and then said “what a great idea to crash the economy. It’s so easy, let’s do it.”
hey asshole, trade wars are good, and easy to win!
i swear to god you can get in line behind our eternally healthy, young, sexy god-king or you can get ooooout
deleted by creator
Let’s not forget that the Republicans are an army of sycophants with zero capacity to think or act for themselves. Trump is a narcissistic pawn and absolute loser, but even at the highest level of power he’s only a problem because the Republican Party are either spineless cowards or deranged cultists.
And trump can easily have any gop primaries, if they oppose him
It’s almost always conservatives caused
