“I’m not getting bought by your anti-leopard face shields! Long live leopards!”

I mean, presumably the car not working anymore? I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask them.

Like I have aforementioned, appealing to people’s fears and prejudices isn’t something new or special.

It’s not, but establishment politicians on the right stuck to certain limits to keep their image as respectable moderates. Trump doesn’t give a shit about that, so he could say things like “they’re sending us rapists and drug dealers” and promise nonsense like a Muslim ban. The idea nothing new, but he’s a clear escalation on that feont.

MY point and my question to American voters is why they feel that putting a man in a position that he is completely not educated or competent in would be beneficial for anyone?

And my answer is that the people who are educated and competent have done fuckall to make things better, so people who want change now have decisively shifted towards Trump.

We already saw this type of behavior with Hitler. Appealing to people’s fears and prejudices.

Exactly. Hitler appealed to people’s fears and prejudices, yes, but he also appealed to their economic uncertainties.

even though he basically flat out lied to his supporters faces, they still support him. Why?

Because he’s hurting the people they hate, just like Hitler did. It’s the classic fascist playbook; appewl to people’s prejudice and economic uncertainty, then keep playing up the former to distract from the latter.

So you are telling me that Donald Trump is a credible attempt to take a sledgehammer to the status quo because he is politically retarded and the left doesn’t have someone who is politically retarded so that increases the right-wing pull?

The political retardation isn’t necessarily viewed as a bad thing, but that’s not the point. Trump is actively, uncompromisingly picking a fight with “them”. Draining the swamp, taking on the “deep state,” “telling it like it is,” et cetera, these things signal change to Trump voters; Trump gives his base the impression of someone who acknowledges that things are bad, promises to fix them and is willing to pick fights with people they despise to make good on that promise. Due to the American Left’s parasocial relationship with neoliberals, all major leftwing figures in America hilariously fail number three. Bernie’s fight oligarchy rallies that were apparently so significant they kept making national news? To Trump that’s just Tuesday. Because apparently that needed repeating: Yes trump is retarded, but that’s not the point.

Trying to justify their bajillion-dollar AI investment I see.

Because the clowns running the show weren’t willing to even entertain the thought of fixing the deeply broken status quo. When Trump, a political outsider, came and promised to take a sledgehammer to the system he was welcomed with open arms by many of the people who were most hurt by it. Of course Trump is, if anything, an escalation of the worst excesses of the system, but he was still a perfectly positioned straw to people who had nothing to hope for from the status quo. There’s simply no equivalent sledgehammer coming from the left, so even people who would be predisposed to progressive politics flock to the only credible attempt to take down the system. What’s going to replace it? They don’t fucking care; nobody is out there selling the communist utopia so they’re flocking to the all-white ethnostate.

PS: To anyone who feels the need to say “but Trump is bad!!!”, yes but that’s not the point.

Fight Oligarchy tour, The Limits to Growth (haven’t actually read it), quicksort, La Marseilles and Borzoi (is it worth it?).

Labor productivity has grown faster than real wages

And this is supposed to be a good thing?

Okay I don’t like talking like this, but what part of “to a much lesser extent” do you not understand?

Which is why I said “to a much lesser extent.” Mass shootings are on the rise in multiple European countries, as are homicides and hate crimes. I mean hell, France is looking to restrict knives over this stuff. Having a non-broken society contributes a lot more than what murder weapons are available, and now that European societies are generally fraying at the seams murder rates are unsurprisingly rising.

I mean we’re seeing this in Europe with mass shootins and such, though to a much lesser extent than America.

“Vote blue no matter who” was blatant hypocrisy, how fucking surprising.

You’ve probably heard this a million times, but why not learn a trade?

(“Want to hang out tonight after school?” - 授業後今晩遊ぼう？

Minor nitpick: 今晩 is a pretty formal term; 今夜 is used instead in everyday conversation. Also in Japanese you’d only specify the moreimportant of the two timeframes, either “tonight” (今夜/夕方) or “after school” (授業終(が)終わったら), not both

I mean something tells me that’s one topic that wouldn’t be appropriately covered in schools, but that’s just my guess.

I mean that’s hopeful, but remember that the New Deal also came against the backdrop of the height of socialism in the West and the labor rights movement. Modern Americans don’t have the organizational strength to make such a compromise attractive in the eye of the ruling class, and they don’t seem intent on ever having it.

They’re not talking about a new deal as in a new status quo after this whole mess; they’re talking about the New Deal and are hoping for more of that.

TL;DR for the article: Pretty much all federal social welfare programs and worker rights in America were established as part of the New Deal. Think if Bernie became president with a cooperative Congress.

Time for @FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone.

I mean it’s probably not the only reason, but like this is actually a thing. Flights are being canceled over this.

That’s not what that means. Separation of church and state simply means that the law doesn’t favor one religion over another. What you’re thinking of is the French formulation, known as laicite, which—you guessed it—is a French thing. It’s also based on some pretty problematic ideas that lead and have led to some pretty problematic results, so yeah.

For a non-French example, he’s the Australian constitution on the topic:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Nothing at all about lawmakers publicly adhering to a religion.