I completely agree with you that the results (monopolies and oligopolies) are undesirable, and you’re doing a great job of explaining why the results are undesirable. But you’re not explaining why you think monopolies and oligopolies are not the natural outcome of a free market. The free market is not a good thing.
What are you talking about, this is the natural conclusion of a free market.
This is reason.com, famously a libertarian propaganda mill. Safe to completely ignore.
Oh won’t someone please think of the poor nazis?
Liberals and fascists, name a more iconic duo
And you’ll be the bad guy for not wanting to vote for a right wing party.
Not probably. “Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children.” says the head of their air force.
I guess the point you’re making is that this essentially shows that Israel is targeting any palestinian, not just hamas. That’s genocide.
The definition of genocide according to the UN genocide convention consists of two parts. The first part is action which is subdivided into five subcategories:
Ticking one of these boxes is enough to qualify for the action part. Certainly, Israel ticks the first box, probably the second, and if Yoav Gallant’s words are anything to go by, also the third:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed, we are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly"
This quote is actually a nice segue into the second part of the definition of genocide, which is intent. Performing the actions outlined above only counts as genocide if it is done with the intention of destroying (in whole or in part) an ethnic, a religious, or national group. This is usually a bit harder to show. Not in this case though!
"“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved. It’s absolutely not true. … and we will fight until we break their backbone.”
““there is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza”
“The people should be told that they have two choices; to stay and to starve, or to leave”
These are all quotes from high placed Israeli officials (one of them is even president), all said in the context of justifying and directing the current attacks on Gaza. There’s many, many more, each more overt and disgusting than the last, outlined in South Africa’s 80 page document accusing Israel of genocide.
Back in december 2023 it was already indisputable that Israel is committing genocide. Even more so now. One more for good measure:
“Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children.”
Ok sorry “electorate”. Debatelord semantics aside, the point remains the same.
Don’t forget trans people. On MSNBC Joe Scarborough was already priming his audience for going after them next election.
Here’s an example of a deeply red state passing very left wing policies by ballot measure. Left wing ideas enjoy broad popular support, the democrats would do well adopting some of them. I strongly suggest you look at some reputable polling sources to test your views regarding the American electorate.
Ah nice, you’re getting a head start on the “blame the voter” strategy for the next election. Good job!
I literally see voters saying the Democrats were too left leaning
Could you elaborate on this? I’m confused as to what those voters mean. Polling suggests that actual left wing ideas (universal health cares, higher minimum wage, etc etc) enjoy broad popular support. For example, Missouri (a deeply red state) passed a higher minimum wage and paid sick leave by ballot measure. Are these voters unaware of what “left wing” means, or are they unaware of public opinion?
I’ve seen a couple of things in this direction as well. Joe Scarborough was complaining that the democrats are too woke, and that that’s why they lost the election. He was clearly advocating for throwing trans people under the bus next cycle. I’ve also heard a liberal buddy of mine say that democrats are moving with the American public, i.e., their right wing policies are a reflection of what the American public wants.
Here on lemmy.world I see it more indirectly. The predominant sentiment is to blame the voters (“you didn’t show up”, “oh you just had to care about the genocide”, “look what you’ve done”). This operates on the false assumption that if the party changes their position to be more left wing (pro-peace, pro-healthcare, whatever) to woo the lost voters, they’d lose even more votes because the American public is so right wing.
Where are you seeing it?
I feel like you have a misconception about how democracy works. When there’s position that enjoys broad popular support (such as universal health care, or a cessation of the genocide in Gaza), it isn’t on the democrats to take that position so the electorate will vote for them, it’s on the electorate to either change their mind on the issue, or vote for the democrats regardless.
It’s important to internalize this lesson. Next cycle you’ll likely get to practice it with trans rights, if the talking heads on MSNBC who are blaming wokeness for the democrats losing the election are any indication. The idea that politicians and their policies are responsible for losing/winning elections is silly. You’re here for them, not the other way around.
Quality journalism
You must realize that you have kind of an inconsistent view of the efficacy of the oval office. When the republicans are in power, or are about to be, this is something to be feared, and they’ll turn the country into a banana republic, and they’ll curtail all civil rights. But when a democratic is in power, the presidency becomes this meaningless ceremonial role that can’t really do anything because of those darned republicans, and so you can’t really blame them for not making any meaningful change. This is clearly internally inconsistent. One of these two opinions is false. Either the presidency can be used to effect meaningful change, or it cannot. You can’t believe both.
I think the republicans show that the former is true. Whether you like it or not (I certainly don’t), whenever the republicans are in power they’re able to enact massive impactful changes (the changes which eventually led to the overturning of Roe v Wade are a good example). The reasons as to why the democrats do not enact such changes is up for debate, but the idea that they don’t because they can’t is demonstrably false.
The same way regardless of whether the democrats or the republicans are in power.
not making abortion illegal nation wide
Didn’t we just have a four year democratic regime? What happened? Did they just forget? On Jan 6th, will Biden go “oh shoot! We were supposed to do something about abortion rights! Ah well, next presidency.”
If only someone had warned us in 1867, 1885, and 1894!