• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    Absolute coincidence that this was the rise of neoliberism…

    /s

    Seriously tho, it’s concerning they don’t mention this is when Dems started trying to compromise with Republicans on fiscal policy which drove republicans further right to differentiate.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        What he said was exactly right, though. Third-Way Democrats like Clinton started adopting conservative views on austerity and taxes to try and emulate Regan’s success. In order to keep distinguishing themselves from their Democratic rivals, Republicans kept adopting further right economic and social policies. The end result of that rightward lurch is Trump.

        “Waaaaaaaa someone gave me some additional historical context that contradicted my worldview!”

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        If someone told you smoking 50 packs a cigarette a day could lead to lung cancer…

        Would you say they’re trying to defend cancer?

        Or do you think they’re stating a simple case of cause and effect?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Not expecting a real answer, but wanted to try:

              In America there’s two parties, but three groups of voters.

              Parties:

              1. Democratic

              2. Republican.

              Groups:

              1. Conservative
              2. Moderate
              3. Progressive

              For the groups, 1 and 2 always shit on 3.

              2 and 3 shit on 1.

              But if anyone from 3 says anything that isn’t unadulterated praise of 2…

              2 complains about “bOtH sIdES”.

              And when 1 shits on 2, 2 apologizes and acts more like 1

              Why?

              Why are moderates not allowed to be criticized from the left? But when the right does it, they compromise with conservatives?

              Do you honestly think group three is only allowed to criticize group one? If so why?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Like, read the article again (for the first time) and tell me what the article says is the cause.

            They don’t.

            They just talk about how bad cancer is.

    • Maeve@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, I thought the article was about that and ideas for correcting neoliberalism and how to root it out, effectively. I was sorely disappointed.

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      As intended by the Dem elites.

      It’s not an oopsie. They think we are too dumb to see through their chicanery.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s always been their modis operandi, push right-wing legislation. Then when they get busted they claim they were short-sighted.