The Republicans have been caught entirely funding the green party in multiple swing states.
They absolutely use their money to sabotage the democrats
If the obscenely wealthy benefit most from having Republicans in power; and collectively they have disproportionate control over the economy; wouldn't they use that power to sabotage Democrats?
Submitted 1 month ago by Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 month ago
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Either sabotage Democrats or make them pursue more right wing policies, which is why there was so much Reagan praise at the DNC when everyone under 40 hates his guts.
Pronell@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m 50 and I hate that piece of shit.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The obscenely wealthy donate to both parties. Both parties protect the interests of the wealthy.
Hell, there have been two Democratic administrations that had total congressional control over the last sixteen years. The minimum wage is still seven bucks an hour.
stoneparchment@possumpat.io 1 month ago
WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
and all that
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Whatever you may think, rich people do donate to the democrats too †
Given that the orange clown may not win the election, they need to bribe democrats into doing their bidding. This is what lobbies do.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
It’s called gerrymandering.
Been going on my entire life so far
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
You think they don’t? See
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s why they trot out Jill Stein every four years to try and split the vote.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes, and they do.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
They sometimes do, just look at what Musk is doing. They also
bribedonate to the democrats in an effort to influence them (this is lobbying).Why do anything illegal, when you can bribe and defame in the media you own? It looks a lot less suspicious and is a lot more sustainable.
Unless something changes, the rich have basically sabotaged the democratic party into being a center-right party. That’s why it won’t be a left-wing party in the foreseeable future.
If you don’t believe me, just look up why the Democrats tolerate the Manchins and the Sinemas within their ranks.
DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
They play both sides where possible because they can afford to
swordgeek@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
They would, and they do.
But because they’re rich and determined to play both sides of the fight, they also pour some (less) money towards the Democrats to have some leverage.
paddirn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I think choice and/or the illusion of choice needs to be there for either side’s fringe elements to have a safe outlet for their frustrations. There needs to be a viable left-leaning party to control potential socialist or communist agitators. If they just completely shut down the Democratic party, then there’s the potential that somebody outside of the control of the aristocratic classes comes to power. Having the Democratic party around gives them a chance to funnel those people through the system and subtly bend them and make them more agreeable to the system. So maybe somebody would’ve been a bomb-throwing anarchist advocating for blowing up the status quo and beheading all the billionaires, but when processed through the Democratic party, maybe they turn into somebody like AOC or Bernie Sanders or something, still willing to work within the system and less likely to advocate revolution.
I’m still not sure about Trump, he still seems like an abnormality or a glitch in the system. I don’t know if he went AWOL and the aristocracy doesn’t want to move against their own, or if he’s just part of “the plan” to move the country to the Right and having a crazy man-child as president gives them cover to push through all their extreme right-wing policies while everyone else fixates on the latest dumb thing that Trump tweeted. Or maybe it’s all just anarchy and there is no conspiracy of the aristocracy, I don’t know. Trump’s existence just seems like one of those things the TVA would’ve come in and destroyed this whole timeline over.
OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
…there are a ton of billionaire Democrat backers.
crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Can you describe their “power over the economy”?
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Uhm. They control the price of things. They control wages. They control different markets, like the housing market. They control land development and energy. You know, things the economy relies on.
crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 month ago
How do they “control the price of things”? Or wages?
palebluethought@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Are you under the impression that they don’t?
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
As an example… fox news.
TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
And the Sinclair Media Group.
To answer OP’s question succinctly, yes, and they do.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The general consensus seems to be which ever party is in power has the most control over the economy.
njm1314@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I think that’s only a consensus among people who don’t understand the economy very well. The truth is politicians have very little control over the economy particularly in the short term. At most politics is able to nudge the economy very slightly like the rudder on a massive ship that takes years to turn.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s pretty difficult to control a lot of the economy still, especially where international concerns like the OPEC price setting cartel is concerned, yet oil prices are often blamed on leadership.
palebluethought@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?