I mean… there’s a lot to this but tbf he did tell it more so than Hillary did. She was all like “everything is fine”, and black people were all like “wtf!?”. Yeah, there were some people who legit voted for him, but the largest majority were those who voted against her. If the entire DNC had not rallied behind her, he never would have made it into office.
Because it is not a question of being “soft” on crime. The way that the system is setup right now, someone with money (see Trump), can stall and weasel out of many crimes because he can pay for the best lawyers.
Poor people are already poor to start with, and the system is built to make their life even worst. They get fucked over and over while the rich do whatever the fuck they want with no consequence.
The only time a rich person get what’s coming for them is when they fuck over other rich people.
Lets be real here, Obama did not fix the economy, he gave 443.5 billion directly to the 1 percent and started the cycle of corporate welfare that has lead to where we are today.
Also, Clinton “balanced the budget” by gutting welfare programs at the behest of a Republican Congress. Between that and his telecom deregulation, he was a massive piece of shit and hugely responsible for the dumpster fire hellworld we’re all stuck in now.
I was really pretty oblivious to politics until 9/11 kicked my adolescent brain into political awareness overdrive.
I was a fervent liberal Democrat until about a year into Trump's term (and with hindsight I'm a little ashamed it lasted that long, the DNC shift from liberal culture to Hilary-Progressive culture and all).
Now I fervently hate Republicans, and I am completely fed up with Democrats.
I am 100% independent.
Both parties are trash, always have been, and a with each passing year it is harder for me to see an actual substantive difference between the 2.
We need a third party/independent person in the White House. This year.
We don’t just need a third party in the White House, we need complete reform at the state and federal levels to allow a third party to be a realistic option
Yes, but as long as the Reds and the Blues maintain their stranglehold and keep the "there is no other choice muahahahaha" rhetoric in party member mouths, the only thing we can do is turn out and vote for someone who is not affiliated with a fascist movement.
lol you’re late-30s and still falling for the 3rd party trap? I went through that phase during Ron Paul.
The only way alternative parties succeed is through campaign finance / election reform. And the only way that happens is by either a policy transformation of a party (eg, progressives slowly overtaking the Democrats), or a party going the way of the Whigs (ideally, the GOP).
Voting 3rd party or not voting just supports the worst poison every election and guarantees you’re further from your goal.
No, I have reached my mid-30s and have stopped falling for the 2 party fallacy, like I did when I was a kid.
I'm sorry you supported... lol, Ron Paul (your only political focus was on marijuana legalization, wasn't it?), but that doesn't invalidate the dire need to ebb the 2 increasingly unhinged fascist movements in America and find a new way.
A choice between civil war and genocide domestically vs world war and genocide abroad demands a third choice.
But the third choice isn’t real so pick one of those. I too hail from '87 and it’s kinda you’re damned if you do damned if you don’t. My goals are to set up a commune and disappear from society and hopefully fall off the grid with people I care about. Until then, though, kinda stuck with what we got.
I think the flaw in one’s reasoning is revealed in your dichotomy. What do you mean by civil war and genocide domestically? What do you mean by world War? For all intents, Trump is guaranteed to be worse in universally every aspect, foreign and domestic.
And you’ve yet to elucidate exactly how that third choice occurs when it’s mathematically a given that a 3rd choice simply promotes the greater of two evils.
And nah, I was young and naive. Never liked pot. While I’ve always been supportive of legalization for criminal justice reform, I fell for the bullshit Libertarian idea of fiscal conservatism / social liberalism. I’m ashamed to say I read Atlas Shrugged, too.
We need a third party/independent person in the White House. This year.
I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no good reason whatsoever to believe that’s possible at this point, and a Republican administration will be tangibly worse than a Democratic one, even under the present circumstances.
Also, it’s worth noting that shitty neoliberal Democratic party members don’t just disappear when Democratic candidates lose elections. Actually, it only makes them stronger and louder because they’ll start their “Progressive voters never show up, this is why we need to appeal to wealthier and more conservative voters with even crappier policies” routine. It’s a lot better for progressives in the party if Dem candidates are winning races, because then the campaign consultants who run things will start worrying about primary challenges and feel compelled to have slightly more progressive policies.
You’re parroting right wing propaganda, advocating reduced voter turnout. That benefits Republicans. So yes, you’re a shill, either wittingly or unwittingly
Morons always drift to the right. They are incapable of blocking out right wing propaganda.
The major give away is how similar their arguments are and how angry they get when challenged on it.
Notice how we are stupid for not understanding what is obvious to them. That indicates they did not form a chain of logic to move to their political position. If they had used logic, they would lean on their logical process and share it with us. Instead it’s raw negative emotion.
One party wants to deny me access to healthcare: they want to make it illegal for me to continue taking the testosterone I have taken for almost a decade. They would force me to carry a pregnancy to term, even if it was deformed and could kill me. They are making it illegal for teachers to even refer to a kid by the name they prefer. They are attacking things like free school lunches and even the department of education itself. Their figurehead has repeatedly flouted the rule of law and has told us loud and clear that he would like to be a dictator.
Yeah, Dems fucking suck. The ACA was garbage, the Clinton’s crime bill was garbage. The Democratic Party fucks over actual leftists all the time.
But there is most certainly a substantive difference between the 2.
If the common sentiment that we’re more divided than ever is accurate, how could this possibly be true? Wouldn’t the differences grow? Can you name policy positions that are identical between parties? If I look at healthcare, taxation, infrastructure, education, foreign policy, welfare, business regulation, environmental policy, social issues etc. it is pretty clear cut to me. How do you justify your both-side-ism?
Here’s a possible example. While Bernie Sanders has proposed pegging minimum wage to inflation, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats support this. My belief is that it is more important to have something to fight about than to win. If minimum wage just quietly tracks inflation, then there is nothing for Democrats to claim victory over when it does go up.
This kind of apparent unending struggle without progress is shit, but it suits the status quo on both sides, even in the face of eternal media telling us how we are more divided.
Now, it is possible to fuck this up, as with abortion. The Republicans forgot that they weren’t actually supposed to win, and they have been rightly punished. The Democrats share some blame for not doing much to ensure abortion rights, since they naively thought that the Republicans understood the game.
Thanks this is a good example! however I think the conspiracy about Democrats wanting a big win instead of what’s good for the people is probably not true, especially absent of evidence.
The min wage is ticking up in more places (and it is not at the behest of republicans…), and the Biden admin increased wages in the places they could (fed workers) via executive order.
It totally makes sense to be annoyed at the glacial pace of progress in the United States, but we can’t possibly pretend that there is an equivalence between the two choices that we are presented with.
Weren’t the bailouts all paid back? It wasn’t just giving them money. I get that it still wasn’t ideal, and there are legitimate problems with the bailouts, but it’s disingenuous to say that he “gave” the money to them.
Saying the bailouts were paid back is like that joke about the captain was sober today (which you should read if you don’t know it cause it is funny). It is technically true but it highly misleading.
The bailouts were paid back but the excessive reserve funding was not. The reserve funding was multiple times the size of the bailouts
There was an inflationary spike during the time so even with interest the amount paid back bought less.
Due to stressing testing the entire midsize banking sector was shutdown by the US government. Effectively eliminating the competition for Goldman and other receivers. The stress testing also allowed AIG to not pay out. The last point is important. AIG was supposed to be insurance and the government allowed them to not do the one thing insurance is supposed to do. Even today there are less banking companies in the US compared to 2007 and the population has gone up by about 30 million. A 10% increase of customers in a market that has much less competition
The bailout of GM and the airlines gets buddled in with the Banking bailout. GM of course never paid back the 45 billion dollar stock swap but did pay back the small loan. The airlines didn’t even do that much. As part of the GM bailout they were able to get sweet deals like not having to deal with lawsuits from problems with Saturns for example, despite federal requirements.
The banks took advantage of the destroyed competition by the US government. That’s why if you had an account during those years chances are it was sold to one of the big players. Did you get the free checking and overdraft protection carried over? No of course not. In violation of established law the banking regulators allowed sold accounts to be treated like new accounts.
The banks totally misrepresented their situation. Yeah yeah Barnes. I don’t care. The last year of operation the CEO received 750 million dollars in bonuses alone. This does not even come close to what he received by other means and what the C suite got as a whole. Bankruptcy for a bank is not the same as real bankruptcy. Me or you we go bankrupt we eat ramen for the next 5 years. Corporate bankruptcy is “I think I could shutdown shop and make more money that way instead of continuing”. There was zero danger of you going to your bank account and they couldn’t give you your money. FDIC stood ready to inject 100s of billions in cold hard cash. If any of the big banks suddenly went over it would have sucked for the average person for a single weekend. Most of the toxic assets has already been moved on to pension funds anyhow.
TL:DR imagine I gave you Delaware and 5 dollars, you paid me back 6 dollars and never shut the fuck up about how you paid your debt.
Because people don’t understand how fucked we were and the complete implications of the total economic collapse that was about to happen. It was a very good deal for the US economy.
So Obama pushes through tarp. 443.5 billion dollars are moved from the public trust to 1%er CEOs. The CEOs promise trickle down. The CEOs don't deliver trickle down. As a show of gratitude, they SLOW THE INCREASE of profit margins, they do not LOWER PROFIT MARGINS in an act of trickle down. They pocket the 443.5 billion real dollars that were collected from common people via taxes.
Obama then asks for the 443.5 to be repaid, but sure as shit, those 443.5 billion dollars are not leaving 1%er pockets.
The CEOs go to big banks and say "I owe Obama 100 billion dollars. Would you value my company at 100 billion dollars, create an unsecured equity security (the oxymoron, unsecured security, amirite?) and give me 100 billion dollars to give to Obama."
The bank CEO says "Absolutely. I will take 100 billion real dollars that people have put into this bank as savings and give those dollars to you, so you can give them to Obama, and in exchange, I will have this abstract imaginary unsecured equity that says you owe me 100 billion dollars, and I will let you do that because IF I ever enforce repayment, in theory, you can sell your company for 100 billion dollars. I don't plan to ever enforce repayment (favors among 1%s and all), and if I did, you could file bankruptcy and since the equity is unsecured, it would probably be discharged, in which case the 100 billion fake dollars I 'have' disappear into smoke, so if there comes a day that all of the people at my bank want to withdraw their savings, that money simply will not exist anymore and they will be told 'tough shit' while I jump on a private jet to Aruba Enron style."
So to simplify it: Americans paid for the money to be given to the CEOs through public trust, then Americans paid for money to be given to the Federal government through private banking institutions.
It was all a giant money laundering scheme that enriched the 1%ers, kept the Federal Government at the same level, and cost the American people 887 billion dollars. Interest rates go up, everyone gets bled more aggressively by their debt, banks and CEOs get ballsier about how hard they can fuck the American people with impunity.
Add comment