5 ms·

True. I would expect a big reversal at some point, with confiscatory tax rises. The Democratic base is angrier than I've ever seen it.

by adamc 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago
We have to fail to succeed again.
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  Yes, if history has taught us anything it's that the pendulum will swing back. Sometimes it takes a decade, sometimes it takes 500 years, but it always comes back. Hopefully we'll be alive to see it!
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The problem we've consistently had is that when Democrats run they say they're going to do something about these megacorps and then when they get in years pass and the corporations have only swallowed even more of each other up. Then Republicans say they're going to lower taxes and streamline regulations and they get in and government revenue as a percent of GDP never really goes down and the number of pages of legislation keeps going up. It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do.
    - Henchman21 2y ago
      There are pretty big differences between the parties but one thing they both do incredibly well is bold-faced lying the to public. Its all a game to these clowns who have been in power for 40+ years. Chuck Schumer & Mitch McConnell are different sides of the same coin and that coin ain’t in our pockets. That coin belongs to the multinational billionaire class.
      - onemoresoop 2y ago
        When things become really bad lying won’t help anymore. The more delayed the response the more violent it will become
        threecheese 2y ago
        The lies are indistinguishable from facts these days, which doesn’t change your assertion of violence IMO - just that it’s unlikely to be targeted at the actual problem
        onemoresoop 2y ago
        No, the lies are so bad, self contradictory and illogical that they stand out quite easily. They are very easy to expose as lies. The problem is that there are so many of them that it makes focusing harder on the problem at hand. But we don’t need to be stupid and start laboriously fact checking everything, we could be much smarter than that. We could localize the sources where these lies originate.
    - leptons 2y ago
      >It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do. It would be nice if voters voted. It would be nice if voters actually gave the Democrats enough power in Congress (and POTUS) to enact the legislation they want instead of being obstructed by Republicans at every single turn. Mitch McConnel famously obstructed Obama and prevented him from seating a SCOTUS judge because "it's too close to an election" that was a year away. So when you call out Democrats as doing nothing, please realize it isn't for lack of trying, it's for lack of power that the people didn't give them.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The US has had antitrust laws on the books for more than a century. Obama was President for 8 years and Biden for 4. How many megacorps were broken up? Why are Visa and Mastercard still a thing? Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Republicans filibuster things that Republican constituencies have strong objections to, but they're not going to put up a strong defense of Hollywood or Facebook etc., so why didn't they go after the villains in their own house? Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? There are reasonable things Republicans want that it's the Democrats who strongly oppose, like school choice, or loser-pays for civil court cases against non-megacorps. If you're not willing to give any of that stuff up and you want them to give up things that their constituents oppose, of course they fight you tooth and nail. But if you could find a way to be objective for a moment, some of the things your side wants are bad or at least not great and you only want them because their interest groups are in your tent. Instead of finding a compromise where the public gets screwed to benefit the interest groups on both sides, you could find a compromise where the interest groups on both sides get screwed to benefit the public. Yet they don't.
        leptons 2y ago
        >Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. So don't act like he had completely free reign for 8 years, or that he didn't get anything done. >Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. Obama let Manning off pretty easily because she came to justice, and he said if Snowden wanted to face justice, he'd likely be free in the U.S. right now. >Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. No, both sides are not the same. >There are reasonable things Republicans want Like what? Ending birthright citizenship? Ending gay marriage? Ending a lot of things vulnerable people depend on? The damage Repulbicans are doing is a very long list. No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list. I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless.
righthand 2y ago
The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. This will all be a huge blow back very soon but it also means the angry people will look to revenge. And revenge means a D Potus coming in and doing things like firing every Republican they can, attempting to redirect funds. A lot of flip floppers often quote “both sides” talking points but both-sides-arguments only really apply in the context of what has happened historically and lack of willingness to set new precedents (I need all the flaws to also win mentality). Those arguments aren’t helpful in the actual solution to the problem. Even though the arguer isn’t exactly incorrect. IMO, the only revenge that will work is by making laws forcing both sides to legislate. Idk what that looks like but not legislating has led to interpreting the law as acceptable behavior for the team to win, not interpreting the law as applied against the acting individual. However something like a legislation quota sounds messy and easily abused in a country of lobbyists. The only other solution is getting non-term limited people to agree to term limits.
- righthand 2y ago
  A political comment is about to be the fuel that shoots me over 1k karma. Apply your down-votes here to help keep me grounded.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  The best solution would be a reform of the voting system. It has become clear over the last decades that a two-party system slowly radicalizes both sides. It is also very problematic in the face of single-issue voters. But the two-party system exists just because first-past-the-post voting makes it a strategically bad choice to vote for anyone but the two dominant parties, and makes party-internal reform hard by making it a nonstarter to split a party, no matter how severe the disagreement. Now first-past-the-post made some sense in the 1700s, but with the vastly improved communication of the 1900s and 2000s it's just a bad voting system. Basically anything else is better.
  - onemoresoop 2y ago
    Someone has to do those reforms in the first place.

True. I would expect a big reversal at some point, with confiscatory tax rises. The Democratic base is angrier than I've ever seen it.

by adamc 2y ago

True. I would expect a big reversal at some point, with confiscatory tax rises. The Democratic base is angrier than I've ever seen it.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

We have to fail to succeed again.

idiotsecant 2y ago
Yes, if history has taught us anything it's that the pendulum will swing back. Sometimes it takes a decade, sometimes it takes 500 years, but it always comes back. Hopefully we'll be alive to see it!
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The problem we've consistently had is that when Democrats run they say they're going to do something about these megacorps and then when they get in years pass and the corporations have only swallowed even more of each other up. Then Republicans say they're going to lower taxes and streamline regulations and they get in and government revenue as a percent of GDP never really goes down and the number of pages of legislation keeps going up. It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do.
  - Henchman21 2y ago
    There are pretty big differences between the parties but one thing they both do incredibly well is bold-faced lying the to public. Its all a game to these clowns who have been in power for 40+ years. Chuck Schumer & Mitch McConnell are different sides of the same coin and that coin ain’t in our pockets. That coin belongs to the multinational billionaire class.
    - onemoresoop 2y ago
      When things become really bad lying won’t help anymore. The more delayed the response the more violent it will become
      - threecheese 2y ago
        The lies are indistinguishable from facts these days, which doesn’t change your assertion of violence IMO - just that it’s unlikely to be targeted at the actual problem
        onemoresoop 2y ago
        No, the lies are so bad, self contradictory and illogical that they stand out quite easily. They are very easy to expose as lies. The problem is that there are so many of them that it makes focusing harder on the problem at hand. But we don’t need to be stupid and start laboriously fact checking everything, we could be much smarter than that. We could localize the sources where these lies originate.
  - leptons 2y ago
    >It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do. It would be nice if voters voted. It would be nice if voters actually gave the Democrats enough power in Congress (and POTUS) to enact the legislation they want instead of being obstructed by Republicans at every single turn. Mitch McConnel famously obstructed Obama and prevented him from seating a SCOTUS judge because "it's too close to an election" that was a year away. So when you call out Democrats as doing nothing, please realize it isn't for lack of trying, it's for lack of power that the people didn't give them.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The US has had antitrust laws on the books for more than a century. Obama was President for 8 years and Biden for 4. How many megacorps were broken up? Why are Visa and Mastercard still a thing? Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Republicans filibuster things that Republican constituencies have strong objections to, but they're not going to put up a strong defense of Hollywood or Facebook etc., so why didn't they go after the villains in their own house? Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? There are reasonable things Republicans want that it's the Democrats who strongly oppose, like school choice, or loser-pays for civil court cases against non-megacorps. If you're not willing to give any of that stuff up and you want them to give up things that their constituents oppose, of course they fight you tooth and nail. But if you could find a way to be objective for a moment, some of the things your side wants are bad or at least not great and you only want them because their interest groups are in your tent. Instead of finding a compromise where the public gets screwed to benefit the interest groups on both sides, you could find a compromise where the interest groups on both sides get screwed to benefit the public. Yet they don't.
      - leptons 2y ago
        >Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. So don't act like he had completely free reign for 8 years, or that he didn't get anything done. >Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. Obama let Manning off pretty easily because she came to justice, and he said if Snowden wanted to face justice, he'd likely be free in the U.S. right now. >Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. No, both sides are not the same. >There are reasonable things Republicans want Like what? Ending birthright citizenship? Ending gay marriage? Ending a lot of things vulnerable people depend on? The damage Repulbicans are doing is a very long list. No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list. I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless.

righthand 2y ago

The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. This will all be a huge blow back very soon but it also means the angry people will look to revenge. And revenge means a D Potus coming in and doing things like firing every Republican they can, attempting to redirect funds. A lot of flip floppers often quote “both sides” talking points but both-sides-arguments only really apply in the context of what has happened historically and lack of willingness to set new precedents (I need all the flaws to also win mentality). Those arguments aren’t helpful in the actual solution to the problem. Even though the arguer isn’t exactly incorrect. IMO, the only revenge that will work is by making laws forcing both sides to legislate. Idk what that looks like but not legislating has led to interpreting the law as acceptable behavior for the team to win, not interpreting the law as applied against the acting individual. However something like a legislation quota sounds messy and easily abused in a country of lobbyists. The only other solution is getting non-term limited people to agree to term limits.

righthand 2y ago
A political comment is about to be the fuel that shoots me over 1k karma. Apply your down-votes here to help keep me grounded.
wongarsu 2y ago
The best solution would be a reform of the voting system. It has become clear over the last decades that a two-party system slowly radicalizes both sides. It is also very problematic in the face of single-issue voters. But the two-party system exists just because first-past-the-post voting makes it a strategically bad choice to vote for anyone but the two dominant parties, and makes party-internal reform hard by making it a nonstarter to split a party, no matter how severe the disagreement. Now first-past-the-post made some sense in the 1700s, but with the vastly improved communication of the 1900s and 2000s it's just a bad voting system. Basically anything else is better.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  Someone has to do those reforms in the first place.