3 ms·
Presumably you mean Republicans? But then why did the Democrats bail out the top 1% 10 years ago? This is just plain stupid divide-and-conquer. They're playing
by tomp 6y ago
Presumably you mean Republicans? But then why did the Democrats bail out the top 1% 10 years ago?
This is just plain stupid divide-and-conquer. They're playing you on social issues (abortion, social justice, ...) while looting the 99%.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoIf both are looting, then how is someone being "played" on social issues? I'd rather at least have my freedoms while being looted than not.
- tomp 6y ago> If both are looting, then how is someone being "played" on social issues? Look up "divide and conquer". The basic idea is, to avoid facing your enemies all at once, you seed division between them (splitting them in different groups) so they fight among themselves, leaving you alone. That's what the top 1% (or rather top 0.001%) is doing to the rest - all around the world, just particularly obvious (and important) in the US.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoBeing played means being fooled. If I know both parties are looting from me, but one is also aiming to restrict my civil rights, then going with the less bad option is not being played. Ranked choice voting is the only way to fix this (and getting rid of electoral college, increasing number of reps in house, and getting rid of gerrymandered districts), but that's all a pipe dream. I have to play with the cards I'm given.
- Splendor 6y agoNeither party is perfect, but there's no contest if we're going to add up the cumulative negative effects of each party on public institutions (especially those that are most useful to lower income citizens).