SmilingSolaris

See, this is what I mean by "you don't know what these words mean."

To quote the Wikipedia page of (keyword neo) NEO-liberalism

"Scholars tended to associate it with the theories of economists working with the Mont Pelerin Society, including Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan."

You see, the word neo isn't just a funny haha shits and giggles addon. It's there for a reason. To be specific. Ronald Regan is not a liberal. He hated liberals. He's a neo liberal. Annoying? Yeah, but still, a purposeful distinction. Which you don't know about which makes talking to you "about" that specific topic very very hard. Cause you don't know the basic political vocabulary.

I'm not trying to be mean, it's really hard to say "you don't know what this word means" in a nice way to a stranger over the internet.

Can jordenlund be next?

Tell that to Ronald Regan

Buddy, if you can't see how Ronald Regan, creator of neo liberalism, led to fascism in America, you don't know what the words mean or their history. They ain't opposing. Ask Chuck Schumer how opposed he is.

Your right. It's bigger than America. No real human would support something like this.

That's not a natural outcome. That's an artificially created made up barrier. That does not justify capitalists. That shows how they have purposefully rigged the system to be reliant on them.

Britain didn't give it up out of the random whims of its government. India functionally became ungovernable. This isn't anywhere near the same thing.

It ultimately gave us the ideals that would go on to end monarchism in Europe. It killed the French monarchy legitimacy until it was ultimately destroyed.

Once again, only if you know nothing about the French revolution would you say that.

Only someone with no knowledge of pre revolution France would say this.

Brother in Christ, how many elections do the Dems need to lose before it's their fault for running the same status quo handbook? Do you actually give a shit about trying to fix anything, place blame on the decision makers who have a choice, or so you just want to grand stand on a vague general population and rage against human nature resulting in low voter turnout that literally nobody can solve? We can be mad together that people didn't come out to vote, but ultimately we can't change that. So what the fuck do you want?

Except the status quo loses. We can argue all day that status quo is better than the alternative but that doesn't win elections. There is no amount of pressure or bullying or arguing that makes that a winning election strategy.

At that point, it's the fault of the status quo party for not moving off that status quo. It's the fault of party leadership for not shifting to progressive change and instead saying "steady as she goes"