As a good rule of thumb: if they’re in high office/positions of power in the West (and they’re not getting ICE raided/coerced and harassed/shot), they’re on the side of profit. Why else would they be allowed to reach such a position, when we all know democracy in the US (and vassals to a large extent) is just a game they play to make themselves feel better?
I’d love for someone to coin a snappy name for this paradox. Can’t be a viable candidate unless you have establishment support. Progressive candidates can’t get establishment support because they are too progressive. But we’re supposed to believe establishment candidates can be swayed…to oppose the establishment?
As a good rule of thumb: if they’re in high office/positions of power in the West (and they’re not getting ICE raided/coerced and harassed/shot), they’re on the side of profit. Why else would they be allowed to reach such a position, when we all know democracy in the US (and vassals to a large extent) is just a game they play to make themselves feel better?
I’d love for someone to coin a snappy name for this paradox. Can’t be a viable candidate unless you have establishment support. Progressive candidates can’t get establishment support because they are too progressive. But we’re supposed to believe establishment candidates can be swayed…to oppose the establishment?
Make it make sense.
Best I can do is someone who pretends to be progressive, but immediately reverses course as soon as they are elected.
Schrödingers progressive
this is the measure i use to discern compatible leftists from anyone else and it’s been proven right many times in history.