You're knee jerk response to seeing negative Bernie post
leans into mic... WRONG. I've been called a jerk but never a knee jerk...
Once again, I do not like Bernie in the slightest. Perhaps you should self-reflect and ask yourself: if someone doesn't like Bernie, why would they knee jerk react to a negative Bernie post? Give it a think, I'm rooting for you buddy!
Okay I'll spoon feed you. They don't, because I wasn't reacting to a negative Bernie post, just making fun of tards like you. Don't over thunk buddy you'll tire yourself out.
I am a socialist who is literally willing to die to implement socialism. I literally dream of the day that I will die of a bullet to the chest fighting fascism in the streets.
I have no other desire in the world other than to see the end of capitalism. I don't desire love, I don't care for material objects, I don't care for social status. My only desire is to fight and die for the cause.
At this point, I consider myself to be nothing more than an instrument of the socialist revolution. Nothing else matters to me. Death doesn't scare me. Prison doesn't scare me. Nothing scares me.
My life for socialism. My life for the revolution.
(Yeah, that was kind of dramatic, but I meant every word of it.)
I am a capitalist who is literally willing to die to implement socialism. I literally dream of the day that I will die of a bullet to the chest fighting communism in the streets.
I have no other desire in the world other than to see the end of communism. I don't desire love, I don't care for abstract concepts, I don't care for social status. My only desire is to fight and die for the cause.
At this point, I consider myself to be nothing more than an instrument of the capitalist revolution. Nothing else matters to me. Death doesn't scare me. Prison doesn't scare me. Nothing scares me.
My life for capitalism. My life for the revolution.
(Yeah, that was kind of dramatic, but I meant every word of it.)
I am a faggot who is literally willing to die to fuck bussy. I literally dream of the day that I will die of AIDS fucking bussy in the streets.
I have no other desire in the world other than to see my dick in bussy. I don't desire love, I don't care for material objects, I don't care for social status. My only desire is to fuck bussy.
At this point, I consider myself to be nothing more than an instrument of /r/drama. Nothing else matters to me. Death doesn't scare me. Prison doesn't scare me. Nothing scares me.
Neolib is opposed to all populism, left or right so Trump get criticised as much as Sanders. It's a meme sub for radical centrists and our ideology of peace.
And their influence in the Democratic Party is gaining rapidly. Dems used to be the party of FDR. They fought for the poor, disabled, working class, and elderly Americans. And what do these clowns stand for? Open borders so people come flooding in from across the world to change the culture and lower the bargaining power of American labor even further, defending the barbaric ideology of Islam just because most members are PoC, and other trivial social issues that nobody outside of coastal cities give a fuck about.
These idiots are why Republicans will control government of the next 50 years. Why vote for Republican-lite when you can just vote for Republicans?
ironically in the 1992 election the billionaire was the most financially liberal guy.
the democrats that were for the working class essentially died out once the hippies in the late 60s helped throw LBJ out of office because of Vietnam despite his huge social liberal polices at the time, the fact that we aren't even close to what he accomplished back then really shows you how much of an idiot those people were.
Carter was a nice attempt at trying to go back to that sort of liberalism, but despite one of the best backgrounds a US presidential candiate has had in recent history, (was a pretty good farmer and was governor of the 15th largest state at the time, plus was an officer in the armed forces in a highly specialized field, lived on social services) he pretty much had life experiences that would have helped him excel in all areas of the presidency and knowledge of the workings of most of the departments. He also had the most support in congress since LBJ and the most congressional support of a non-war time president since the 1920s.
Basically everything about him and the circumstances at the time meant he pretty much had the power to do anything. He could have made FDR look like Trump in terms of liberalism. And he failed completely. he was so bad at his job he destroyed liberalism in the country. And this was before corporate democrats controlled the party. Most were hugely supportive of social policies. And yet despite all that he got his ass handed to him by Reagan. to the point that it took 36 years before an actual working class democrat was able to get so much support in this country.
They fought for the poor, disabled, working class, and elderly Americans.
Um, the centre-left still does with welfare and healthcare spending. Did you miss all those years where Obama tried to get universal healthcare and it was Republicans who were basically saying to the public "healthcare is bad, right". Did you forget Democrats trying not to let the government shut-down and default?
The only difference between now and then is that the centre-left has realised two things; 1) the free market is good for generating wealth but shit at distributing it, so some redistribution is necessary. Markets are not an enemy to be vanquished, so long as they are properly regulated and there is some redistribution.
2) Hard left antics do not win elections in the West; Sanders, Corbyn, Melenchon in France, Die Linke in Germany, Greens parties, Dukakis, Mondale. Can't help anyone without power, can't get power without winning elections.
I mean in terms of votes, pretty alright. Had a Democrat in the Oval for eight years and won the popular vote for a bunch of presidential elections running. Votes sure aren't everything tho.
Dems have basically zero influence in 36 state legislatures because they only turn up every four or eight years to push shit neoliberal policy from their base in a couple cities.
Hell they fought against Obama who ran on what 90% of what Bernie was saying.
Now there's angry circlejerking against Bernie because he dared run against Hillary who lost to the biggest piece of shit anyway.
It's weird that I'm finding myself defending centrist crap that I don't even like but this comment is a pretty weird perversion of what's actually happening. I also wonder where we completely lost the actual meaning of the word "neoliberalism."
Basically the DNC has it's head shoved up it's own ass so far they actually viewed Hillary as the most progressive candidate and anything else was an existential threat.
Hillary's campaign and the DNC by extension would go on to say that she was almost against the TPP (which she wasn't) that health care costs were lower (they weren't) and that the economy was doing great (which most average voters aren't doing better than pre-recession levels, especially with the healthcare increases).
Then the campaign, the media, the corporate sponsors raged hard at anyone who disagreed. Bernie showed up and said most of the same things that Obama did, about how the government was corrupt, people's livelihood suck, and wanted to make it better. Sure he was a bad candidate-too old and few accomplishments and some of his things were a little too pie in the sky for a lot of people. But he spoke past the gated communities and the lifetime politicians who had zero clue how the American population felt after 2008.
Yeah here is actually where I agree with you. HRC was a garbage bullshit candidate and the Democratic party as an institution has absolutely failed whatever progressive ideals that are a part of its mission. I just see it as a dearth of ideas, inspiration, and leadership more than anything.
The way it's set up now, there will always be a struggle within a party between progressive/populist elements and a party establishment which favors its own security and consolidation over its ideals. It has been happening on the right too, for a while. Ultimately who wins out often reflects the quality of leadership, or at least how that leadership speaks to people.
The neoliberals refuse to let anyone touch their sacred cows of industry, the defense industry, banking, and education. I believe Sanders was wrong about college needing to be free- but that he didn't understand that it's nearly become useless and high school education has been extremely lacking.
But Hillary put zero effort into winning over the rust belt. It's pretty ironic to have anyone blame Bernie for anything really.
Anyway maybe it's cynical but I believe if you can't overcome tribalism, you're left with promoting your own tribe and trying to draw others into it. That's the trajectory Sanders represented IMO, and it's what others most resented about him.
Anyway maybe it's cynical but I believe if you can't overcome tribalism, you're left with
That why I saw Hillary as so bad. She flipped on so many issues and only ran on how bad Trump was. Sure she had pages of policy designed for years focus grouped to be the most popular only for her to ditch it. Hell Hillary supporters were still saying how great the TPP was and it didn't matter.
I recent decades? alright, Bill and Barack won two elections each and Gore and Hillary won the popular vote but lost the Presidency due to a system that favours collecting lots of rural states. 2004 being the only Electoral College and popular loss for a Democrat in recent times.
Better than the abysmal performances of the 70s and 80s. And better than the hard left 2016 candidates did (:
And in other Westerns nations it varies. Australia, France and Germany have a good chance of having a centre left leader in their next elections. Britain's centre-left party however is proving why doctrinaires don't win.
I never said the last election was good. Simply, that I seriously doubt that a guy who calls himself a socialist, has praised Latin American left wing dictatorships, who refuses to release his tax returns, wants to raise taxes, is a career politicians with little show for it and couldn't win most of his party would do any better.
Maybe I'm wrong. But looking at the electoral results of the past and seeing how close this one was, I think that the problem was simply Clinton was not a good candidate even if she would have been a good Pres.
Bill and Barack won two elections each and Gore and Hillary won the popular vote but lost the Presidency due to a system that favours collecting lots of rural states.
Bill and Barack managed to bring about massive congressional republican majorities, and Gore and Hillary winning at a game that doesn't count or matter doesn't make up for their inability to win at the game that was actually being played.
And Reagan and Bush 1 never had a full Republican congress all their Presidencies and Bush didn't have a red congress for 4 years. What's the point here?
And the vote means that the meme of the evil centre-left that no-one likes is wrong. Especially when Gore was 600 votes in one state away from winning. Considering the Greens drained a couple of million votes nationally, this is very relevant.
Blair was pretty good the support for the Iraq War is what destroyed Labour, and Corbyn and the far left has done so terribly that even celebrities like JK Rowling are telling people its ok to vote conservative. When you are so bad at being a politican that SJWs are saying they will vote Conservative, you know you fucked up
Obama never tried to get universal healthcare; he tried to get a shitty rube goldberg device of a Republican policy that helps some people at the cost of fucking over a lot more.
the centre-left has realised two things; 1) open markets are good for generating wealth but shit at distributing it, so some redistribution is necessary.
Congratulations to the center left on working out what the regular left knew in the 1940s.
the center left on sort-of working out what the regular left knew in the 1940s.
They didn't, as taxes and tariffs were more restrictive, trade was not as free and governments occupied a much larger position in the economy than in recent decades. Neoliberal economics has only been around since the 80s and 90s.
Once again denizens of the far left don't like information or anything that conflicts their "ebil (((bankers and capitalists))) eat children and destroy the world" mythology.
Must feel sad knowing that Third Way policy helps poor people more than Marxism/anarchism.
Wealthy capitalist nations are the most eco-friendly. And neoliberal capitalism has made possible various innovations in green tech; solar panels becoming cheaper, establishment of wind turbines, greener farming practises, carbon pricing.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other ideology, including the failed communist regimes and anarchist utopias that are impossible to implement beyond the commune.
I actually like eating food and not being thrown into gulags for wrongthink heresy against the Marxist party or criticising the Dear Leader.
Every capitalist nation has failed to solve the biodiversity problem. Capitalism's standards of ecofriendliness are so insufficient, theyre destroying the long-term carrying capacity of the Earth at an increasing clip.
It's no good to scream about North Korea when you're dooming the entirety of humanity's future generations to nonexistence.
Wrong. Fossil fuels being harmful for the climate wasn't common knowledge until the mid-lateish 20th century. How were people in the 1920s or 1870s supposed to know burning oil is eating away the Ozone layer? And it's not like Marxist regimes weren't building inefficient factories, urban sprawl and lower yield farmlands that need more land and water to keep up.
An exploding population due to poverty, lack of education/contraceptives, corruption and lack of civil society in most 3rd World countries* places further strain upon resources. Causes of this over-population are in part created and sustained by lesser forms of governance, be it feeble states with crude unregulated economies or Marxist/traditionalist/religious authoritarian states.
Blaming capitalism broadly for environmental degradation is silly and simplistic when nationalist dictators, communist one party states, religious fundamentalism and anarchist/voluntaryist ideologies have all failed to provide a workable economic and social alternative or a solution to climate change/ecological harm.
Say what you want, but it's market economies with some state guidance/intervention that have done the most for the environment. The only communist solution to climate change was reducing pollution via mass starvation and purges.
You people are functionally illiterate about everything but econ lmao, you're here to talk environmental science when you think burning oil destroys the ozone layer
You know what I mean, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases. This is not an academic piece so I can afford to be sloppy. Especially when talking to a ideologue.
Why would I talk to someone who gets the very basics wrong? What possible could you say that was informed or interesting? It's like talking math with someone who doesn't know their times tables.
Its a nice infographic to throw around, bit clearly just manipulating data to make it look like everything's hunky dory. Categorisation and definition of poverty for example, extreme poverty considered to be around 1.5 billion currently with half the words population overall living in poverty, clearly not reflected on your graph because goalposts have been shifted.
Who said anything about caring about the poor? Getting rid of these collectivist hive mind globalist faggots is the cause. The skies will be dark with helicopters.
Populism refers to a politics that divides society into the righteous pure public who are always right and a shadowy evil elite. No nuance. Populists tend to have simple impractical answers to complicated problems, like blaming Wall St or Mexicans for everything.
Not even just that, they're on the right side of history, because in history, the good guys always win and they're the good guys, so their victory is certain.
Did Clinton do that? or her followers. I see people acknowledging many factors in the defeat; Clinton's lack of charisma, being 4 more years of Obama, Electoral College, low vote turnout, third parties, lack of Clinton presence in the Mid-West, Comey letter, not reading the political zeitgeist and yeah, Sanders fuelling the idea that Clinton is a terrible candidate who wont help anyone.
Doesn't sound like a "this one thing destroyed everything and only I can save it".
Listening to the ESS crowd, you'd swear that Hillary would have been the clear winner had Bernie never entered the race; "Bernie failed to control his Bernie bros", "Hillary could have saved her campaign money fighting Trump instead of Bernie", and "all of the Bernie bros cast their votes for Trump". Demonizing Bernie at this point makes zero sense, especially multiple times per day. r/Neoliberalism is now less of a political sub and more of a circlejerk sub.
That's kind of the point of my top comment, ESS seems to have taken over r/Neoliberal. When there are multiple demonizing posts in a day, it should be obvious what direction a sub is heading. If you don't want that, I can only recommend to comment early in posts and be vocal; you might be down voted to hell, but your opinion is there.
Neo-libs love low skill immigration because uncontrolled it drives down wages and working conditions, which means more money for their rich sugardaddies to hide away in an offshore tax haven.
I was not aware that it was a campaign slogan officially used, but whatever.
Anyway, the point is that not everyone wants a narcissist con man who tricked coal miners into thinking he is their friend or a calcifying socialist who likes Venezuela.
Clinton was your candidate.
Wasn't my preference either, but if she is the only one who steps up who isn't the aforementioned choices, what can you do? Republicans weren't excited by Romney 2012 either.
No, but he calls himself that. As will the Republicans if he's ever the nominee. Americans hate the word socialist and most yanks legitimately think universal healthcare is socialism.
So because he misuses a word, you're going to go along with him and misuse the word? lol.
most legitimately think universal healthcare is socialism
And the reason this is true is because of people who are neoliberal who have been saying anything left of only private healthcare is socialist. So uh, good job?
And the reason this is true is because of people who are neoliberal who have been saying anything left of only private healthcare is socialist. So uh, good job?
I don't know what you'd call the Blue Dog democrats that fought against the public option in the ACA but I'd call them neoliberal.
Well, that's, like, your opinion man, but I have to point out that since you appear to discuss /r/neoliberal in particular and not some abstract neoliberals, a large number of guys tend to support not just socialized healthcare but also the Universal Basic Income. And those who don't, don't because they think that it wouldn't work all that well, not because fuck you got mine.
We support plenty of social democrats in Europe, Sanders' policies wouldn't fly with them, because they care about helping people, not tricking stupid white kids.
Hillary voters trying to shitpost. A juxtaposition for the ages. You'd think by now they'd have a semi understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.
They're a bunch of Hillary die-hards still trying to cope with the fact that their fully prepared, experienced, and competent savior lost to a brash, orange, senile, inexperienced, overweight, ineloquent, scandal-plagued, reality TV star.
Actually Hillary got 50 million more votes than Trump but the electoral college system (which was invented by slave holders) is rigged so that the Republicans always win
They share elements, but they also differ majorly, which isn't to say that in certain political environments neoliberals and neoconservatives couldn't be political allies. Reagan was a through and through neoconservative, the Clintons are somewhere between Progressives and neoliberals.
The traditional vs modern sense of the word "liberal" in it's entirety is confusing, I'm using neoliberal, in terms of the political ideology most commonly associated with the Clinton administration.
an economic ideology that seeks to reconcile the values of typically capitalist classical liberalism and usually socialist social liberalism through market regulation, while supporting free-market principles by default (c. 1930s as a self-ascribed term. fell out of common parlance after the 60s)
an extreme dedication to free-market economics (reminiscent of ancaps) and often liberal internationalism, though the latter component is sometimes omitted to further distinguish it from neoconservatism (c. 1980s, initially as a derogatory term, but much more common)
people use both to describe the Clintons oddly enough, the former more admiringly and the latter by the left derisively
and i realize that that Political Compass makes fascism and totalitarianism out to be synonyms, but that's where I first saw the term
It's definitely not pro-Democrat; some of the most popular presidential candidates from the folks there were Kasich, Jeb, Marco, and also Hillary.
The only thing it is really pro/for is "evidence based policy" and anti-retard.
I definitely think that's the problem that these, along with many people were facing. Being a moderate isn't exciting. "Build the Wall!", "Start winning trade-deals", and "Free College/Healthcare!" are super exciting, but they might not be logical nor feasible.
And then you've got Kasich over here just like, "Can't we all just get along? I eat ice cream with a fork lol". And, although compromise and "getting along" would make everyone happier, it's not exciting. You can't turn it into a fun sound bite. So the moderates are dying while the parties become more partisan and radicalized.
The def positive out of it all though, is that Trump is fucking hilarious. He's just a bad motherfucker who's also mentally handicapped and it's just hilarious watching people get upset and watching The Don lay down the law. And that, kids, is what it's all about. 8==========D~
His marriage is shady as shit too. I mean, when theres a wealth disparity THAT big, you know there's something going on. I bet he just went for President to prevent the government from investigating their business ties too closely.
It's all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there's been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people.Number one: In 1945 corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: In 1900 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it's about two percent.It's called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.The entire executive branch is hand-picked. Nineteen of the last twenty-three U.S. presidents have been members of the Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission is financed by the Rockefellers and the Rotschilds. That's why they call it the "secret government." You can't fight ideas with bullets. Ever wonder why big car corporations pay two percent tax and the guys on the assembly line pay forty? Corporations are so big, you don't even know who you're working for. That's terror. Terror built into the system. Do you ever ask what it's all for? The surveillance, the police. Is that freedom?
271 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-01
Cool story, bro
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a astraydoge 2017-05-01
n/a randomthrowawaiii 2017-05-01
n/a Stuntman119 2017-05-01
le drumpf 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-05-01
Dirty dumb newfag scum.
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
You might want to sit down for this one
Shillary
n/a explohd 2017-05-01
So r/Neoliberalism is ESS2: Electoral Boogaloo?
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
Was about to post this. They have all the smugness disguising their pent up rage but they've really missed the wave.
n/a jerry101246 2017-05-01
Wahhhh, I don't like it when people break the Sanders circlejerk on reddit!
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
That's all I or anyone sees when you post.
I don't care for Sanders in the slightest lol. Try again crybaby.
n/a jerry101246 2017-05-01
You're knee jerk response to seeing a negative bernie post is to bitch about smug ESS users. Perhaps some self-reflection is in order.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
leans into mic... WRONG. I've been called a jerk but never a knee jerk...
Once again, I do not like Bernie in the slightest. Perhaps you should self-reflect and ask yourself: if someone doesn't like Bernie, why would they knee jerk react to a negative Bernie post? Give it a think, I'm rooting for you buddy!
n/a jerry101246 2017-05-01
I dont fucking know, you tell me.
I don't know what mental diseases motivate your comments.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
Okay I'll spoon feed you. They don't, because I wasn't reacting to a negative Bernie post, just making fun of tards like you. Don't over thunk buddy you'll tire yourself out.
n/a jerry101246 2017-05-01
Funny insult coming from a big government proponent.
You should probably kill yourself along with all the other socialist retards in this thread.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
Funny coming from someone who's opening line was "wahhhh" I naturally assumed you needed spoon feeding.
n/a BANNED_FIVE_TIMES 2017-05-01
This is a right leaning sub btw
n/a jerry101246 2017-05-01
Conservatives for Bernie?
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
That's the problem, none of you retards actually think. you just regurgitate talking points and fight strawmen you make in your head.
n/a jerry101246 2017-05-01
Where did I regurgitate anything and what strawman did I bring up? Fucking delusional nigger.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
I'm saying faggots like you can't think. Your kind just post links and talking points that others have made for you.
n/a raps_caucasionally 2017-05-01
You disgusting ableist pig
n/a Thhueros 2017-05-01
I don't belong here?
I am a socialist who is literally willing to die to implement socialism. I literally dream of the day that I will die of a bullet to the chest fighting fascism in the streets.
I have no other desire in the world other than to see the end of capitalism. I don't desire love, I don't care for material objects, I don't care for social status. My only desire is to fight and die for the cause.
At this point, I consider myself to be nothing more than an instrument of the socialist revolution. Nothing else matters to me. Death doesn't scare me. Prison doesn't scare me. Nothing scares me.
My life for socialism. My life for the revolution.
(Yeah, that was kind of dramatic, but I meant every word of it.)
n/a _dunno_lol 2017-05-01
Well done. This is the cringiest thing I've read today.
n/a pigeondoubletake 2017-05-01
It's a pasta you boner
https://archive.is/mVOHK
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
Is this pasta?
n/a timb0nes 2017-05-01
Dang, that's pretty euphoric.
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
This but ironically
n/a GaBeRockKing 2017-05-01
I am a capitalist who is literally willing to die to implement socialism. I literally dream of the day that I will die of a bullet to the chest fighting communism in the streets.
I have no other desire in the world other than to see the end of communism. I don't desire love, I don't care for abstract concepts, I don't care for social status. My only desire is to fight and die for the cause.
At this point, I consider myself to be nothing more than an instrument of the capitalist revolution. Nothing else matters to me. Death doesn't scare me. Prison doesn't scare me. Nothing scares me.
My life for capitalism. My life for the revolution.
(Yeah, that was kind of dramatic, but I meant every word of it.)
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
why is a capitalist fighting communists to implement socialism
n/a GaBeRockKing 2017-05-01
PLEASE IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN
(I'll fix it, lol)
n/a AgentGotse 2017-05-01
I am a faggot who is literally willing to die to fuck bussy. I literally dream of the day that I will die of AIDS fucking bussy in the streets.
I have no other desire in the world other than to see my dick in bussy. I don't desire love, I don't care for material objects, I don't care for social status. My only desire is to fuck bussy.
At this point, I consider myself to be nothing more than an instrument of /r/drama. Nothing else matters to me. Death doesn't scare me. Prison doesn't scare me. Nothing scares me.
My life for bussy. My life for /r/drama.
(Yeah, that was kind of dramatic, but I meant every word of it.)
n/a PineappleExpress98 2017-05-01
Thus but unironically
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-05-01
Can you do everybody a favor then and just skip to the end stage of your plan then
n/a Thhueros 2017-05-01
>eating the pasta
death would be a mercy for you tbhqwymm
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-05-01
I thought you were the creator of the pasta. I've been bamboozled.
n/a Tzcar 2017-05-01
I came.
n/a janus423 2017-05-01
I'm glad you are willing to die for it.
n/a TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-05-01
the primary was like a year ago what the fuck is wrong with your dumbass ?
n/a IsADragon 2017-05-01
The only place I see Sanders on reddit anymore is in the hate jerk subs about him. Do you not think it's time to move on 🤔
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-05-01
Normal people think both Trump and Sanders are fucking idiots. How is this news?
n/a AHackFraud 2017-05-01
Sanders is the most popular politician in the US
tbf though americans aren't exactly normal people
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-01
Only because no one ever cared enough to bring out the opportunity research
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-05-01
... great?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Neolib is opposed to all populism, left or right so Trump get criticised as much as Sanders. It's a meme sub for radical centrists and our ideology of peace.
n/a Teresa_May 2017-05-01
FUNCTIONAL ECONOMIES OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
the only thing we have to lose is our borders!
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
Yay diversity is so great! 1 global culture is much better than 100s of regional cultures. Wait...
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
The four sacred freedoms:
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
You forgot one more.
Free helicopter rides.
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
anyway you want to mayocide is a good way, pinaboo
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Indeed. Start off with the aristocrat wannabes first. They are just the mindless puppets for the elite.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Being sincere in this belief.
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
What? My actual belief, or the sarcasm meant to point out the neolib hypocrisy? Or did you just not realize I was being sarcastic?
n/a xbettel 2017-05-01
This, by unironically.
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
this, but simultaneously pre and post ironically
n/a SWIMsfriend 2017-05-01
so its a site for aristocracy? an anti-democracy sub that for some reason allows people to upvote and downvote
n/a caffienatedjedi 2017-05-01
Wow, its just like the Anarchist subs with stringent rules and hierarchies. People can't even ideology right.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Bingo. A bunch of closet aristocrat wannabes who can't see they are next on the chopping block after the lower class is decimated.
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
And their influence in the Democratic Party is gaining rapidly. Dems used to be the party of FDR. They fought for the poor, disabled, working class, and elderly Americans. And what do these clowns stand for? Open borders so people come flooding in from across the world to change the culture and lower the bargaining power of American labor even further, defending the barbaric ideology of Islam just because most members are PoC, and other trivial social issues that nobody outside of coastal cities give a fuck about.
These idiots are why Republicans will control government of the next 50 years. Why vote for Republican-lite when you can just vote for Republicans?
n/a synodicgleam 2017-05-01
TBH I think they peaked with Bill. Bernie going the distance and millennials weird comfort with marxism will probably force them to go economic lefty.
n/a SWIMsfriend 2017-05-01
that was neo-liberalism. "third way democrats"
ironically in the 1992 election the billionaire was the most financially liberal guy.
the democrats that were for the working class essentially died out once the hippies in the late 60s helped throw LBJ out of office because of Vietnam despite his huge social liberal polices at the time, the fact that we aren't even close to what he accomplished back then really shows you how much of an idiot those people were.
Carter was a nice attempt at trying to go back to that sort of liberalism, but despite one of the best backgrounds a US presidential candiate has had in recent history, (was a pretty good farmer and was governor of the 15th largest state at the time, plus was an officer in the armed forces in a highly specialized field, lived on social services) he pretty much had life experiences that would have helped him excel in all areas of the presidency and knowledge of the workings of most of the departments. He also had the most support in congress since LBJ and the most congressional support of a non-war time president since the 1920s.
Basically everything about him and the circumstances at the time meant he pretty much had the power to do anything. He could have made FDR look like Trump in terms of liberalism. And he failed completely. he was so bad at his job he destroyed liberalism in the country. And this was before corporate democrats controlled the party. Most were hugely supportive of social policies. And yet despite all that he got his ass handed to him by Reagan. to the point that it took 36 years before an actual working class democrat was able to get so much support in this country.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Um, the centre-left still does with welfare and healthcare spending. Did you miss all those years where Obama tried to get universal healthcare and it was Republicans who were basically saying to the public "healthcare is bad, right". Did you forget Democrats trying not to let the government shut-down and default?
The only difference between now and then is that the centre-left has realised two things; 1) the free market is good for generating wealth but shit at distributing it, so some redistribution is necessary. Markets are not an enemy to be vanquished, so long as they are properly regulated and there is some redistribution.
2) Hard left antics do not win elections in the West; Sanders, Corbyn, Melenchon in France, Die Linke in Germany, Greens parties, Dukakis, Mondale. Can't help anyone without power, can't get power without winning elections.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
How have centrist antics been working for the Democrats? :^)
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
I mean in terms of votes, pretty alright. Had a Democrat in the Oval for eight years and won the popular vote for a bunch of presidential elections running. Votes sure aren't everything tho.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
.
Girl, what?
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
So, pretty terribly is your answer?
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
I'm not sure I'm ready to have this dumb of an argument
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
OK sweaty (:
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
I don't know what this is but I like it ok
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
And I like you 😘
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
Hooray
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Because it's several steps up from where you usually are?
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
C'mon that's like the basic bitch of insults, you're better than that.
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Not if I can help it
n/a telandrias 2017-05-01
Dems have basically zero influence in 36 state legislatures because they only turn up every four or eight years to push shit neoliberal policy from their base in a couple cities.
Hell they fought against Obama who ran on what 90% of what Bernie was saying.
Now there's angry circlejerking against Bernie because he dared run against Hillary who lost to the biggest piece of shit anyway.
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
It's weird that I'm finding myself defending centrist crap that I don't even like but this comment is a pretty weird perversion of what's actually happening. I also wonder where we completely lost the actual meaning of the word "neoliberalism."
n/a telandrias 2017-05-01
Basically the DNC has it's head shoved up it's own ass so far they actually viewed Hillary as the most progressive candidate and anything else was an existential threat.
Hillary's campaign and the DNC by extension would go on to say that she was almost against the TPP (which she wasn't) that health care costs were lower (they weren't) and that the economy was doing great (which most average voters aren't doing better than pre-recession levels, especially with the healthcare increases).
Then the campaign, the media, the corporate sponsors raged hard at anyone who disagreed. Bernie showed up and said most of the same things that Obama did, about how the government was corrupt, people's livelihood suck, and wanted to make it better. Sure he was a bad candidate-too old and few accomplishments and some of his things were a little too pie in the sky for a lot of people. But he spoke past the gated communities and the lifetime politicians who had zero clue how the American population felt after 2008.
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
Yeah here is actually where I agree with you. HRC was a garbage bullshit candidate and the Democratic party as an institution has absolutely failed whatever progressive ideals that are a part of its mission. I just see it as a dearth of ideas, inspiration, and leadership more than anything.
The way it's set up now, there will always be a struggle within a party between progressive/populist elements and a party establishment which favors its own security and consolidation over its ideals. It has been happening on the right too, for a while. Ultimately who wins out often reflects the quality of leadership, or at least how that leadership speaks to people.
n/a telandrias 2017-05-01
The neoliberals refuse to let anyone touch their sacred cows of industry, the defense industry, banking, and education. I believe Sanders was wrong about college needing to be free- but that he didn't understand that it's nearly become useless and high school education has been extremely lacking.
But Hillary put zero effort into winning over the rust belt. It's pretty ironic to have anyone blame Bernie for anything really.
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
You know those wounds won't lick themselves.
Anyway maybe it's cynical but I believe if you can't overcome tribalism, you're left with promoting your own tribe and trying to draw others into it. That's the trajectory Sanders represented IMO, and it's what others most resented about him.
n/a telandrias 2017-05-01
That why I saw Hillary as so bad. She flipped on so many issues and only ran on how bad Trump was. Sure she had pages of policy designed for years focus grouped to be the most popular only for her to ditch it. Hell Hillary supporters were still saying how great the TPP was and it didn't matter.
n/a Fucking_That_Chicken 2017-05-01
it's almost always been a nonsense word used to mean any of several mutually exclusive things
just like every other political concept that tried to base its name on its novelty rather than its substance
n/a WithoutAComma 2017-05-01
Well that's interesting. Thanks.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
I recent decades? alright, Bill and Barack won two elections each and Gore and Hillary won the popular vote but lost the Presidency due to a system that favours collecting lots of rural states. 2004 being the only Electoral College and popular loss for a Democrat in recent times.
Better than the abysmal performances of the 70s and 80s. And better than the hard left 2016 candidates did (:
And in other Westerns nations it varies. Australia, France and Germany have a good chance of having a centre left leader in their next elections. Britain's centre-left party however is proving why doctrinaires don't win.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
So what do the moderate Democrats plan on doing with all this power they've managed to procure?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
I never said the last election was good. Simply, that I seriously doubt that a guy who calls himself a socialist, has praised Latin American left wing dictatorships, who refuses to release his tax returns, wants to raise taxes, is a career politicians with little show for it and couldn't win most of his party would do any better.
Maybe I'm wrong. But looking at the electoral results of the past and seeing how close this one was, I think that the problem was simply Clinton was not a good candidate even if she would have been a good Pres.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Clinton won the popular vote and moderates have been competitive in recent decades.
Or are you actually suggesting that one election in one country requires a massive shift and ignore the political landscape.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-01
No, I think there are many more reasons for a massive shift.
n/a AHackFraud 2017-05-01
Wow no wonder Sander's favourability ratings are so shit
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Bill and Barack managed to bring about massive congressional republican majorities, and Gore and Hillary winning at a game that doesn't count or matter doesn't make up for their inability to win at the game that was actually being played.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
And Reagan and Bush 1 never had a full Republican congress all their Presidencies and Bush didn't have a red congress for 4 years. What's the point here?
And the vote means that the meme of the evil centre-left that no-one likes is wrong. Especially when Gore was 600 votes in one state away from winning. Considering the Greens drained a couple of million votes nationally, this is very relevant.
n/a SWIMsfriend 2017-05-01
Blair was pretty good the support for the Iraq War is what destroyed Labour, and Corbyn and the far left has done so terribly that even celebrities like JK Rowling are telling people its ok to vote conservative. When you are so bad at being a politican that SJWs are saying they will vote Conservative, you know you fucked up
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Obama never tried to get universal healthcare; he tried to get a shitty rube goldberg device of a Republican policy that helps some people at the cost of fucking over a lot more.
Congratulations to the center left on working out what the regular left knew in the 1940s.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
They didn't, as taxes and tariffs were more restrictive, trade was not as free and governments occupied a much larger position in the economy than in recent decades. Neoliberal economics has only been around since the 80s and 90s.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
The 80s is where everything began to go downhill, so thanks for that.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
If you say so mate.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-01
You guys literally only have two graphs you can spam, right?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Once again denizens of the far left don't like information or anything that conflicts their "ebil (((bankers and capitalists))) eat children and destroy the world" mythology.
Must feel sad knowing that Third Way policy helps poor people more than Marxism/anarchism.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-01
you're mixing up your shitposts, it's the trump people who think the evil of the world is jewish central bankers
u are bad at bantz
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Tomato, tamaydo. The end result is the same; poverty, authoritarianism, social decay, corruption, wars, mass death.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-01
these shitposts are legitimately worse than those from the regulars of this sub
i cannot impress upon you how sad that is
PS: capitalism has been unable to deal with the total collapse in global biodiversity, it is a failed system that needs to be replaced
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Wealthy capitalist nations are the most eco-friendly. And neoliberal capitalism has made possible various innovations in green tech; solar panels becoming cheaper, establishment of wind turbines, greener farming practises, carbon pricing.
And the communist regimes were not eco-friendly.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other ideology, including the failed communist regimes and anarchist utopias that are impossible to implement beyond the commune.
I actually like eating food and not being thrown into gulags for wrongthink heresy against the Marxist party or criticising the Dear Leader.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-01
Every capitalist nation has failed to solve the biodiversity problem. Capitalism's standards of ecofriendliness are so insufficient, theyre destroying the long-term carrying capacity of the Earth at an increasing clip.
It's no good to scream about North Korea when you're dooming the entirety of humanity's future generations to nonexistence.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Wrong. Fossil fuels being harmful for the climate wasn't common knowledge until the mid-lateish 20th century. How were people in the 1920s or 1870s supposed to know burning oil is eating away the Ozone layer? And it's not like Marxist regimes weren't building inefficient factories, urban sprawl and lower yield farmlands that need more land and water to keep up.
An exploding population due to poverty, lack of education/contraceptives, corruption and lack of civil society in most 3rd World countries* places further strain upon resources. Causes of this over-population are in part created and sustained by lesser forms of governance, be it feeble states with crude unregulated economies or Marxist/traditionalist/religious authoritarian states.
Blaming capitalism broadly for environmental degradation is silly and simplistic when nationalist dictators, communist one party states, religious fundamentalism and anarchist/voluntaryist ideologies have all failed to provide a workable economic and social alternative or a solution to climate change/ecological harm.
Say what you want, but it's market economies with some state guidance/intervention that have done the most for the environment. The only communist solution to climate change was reducing pollution via mass starvation and purges.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-01
You people are functionally illiterate about everything but econ lmao, you're here to talk environmental science when you think burning oil destroys the ozone layer
hahahah what a fucking idiot
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
You know what I mean, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases. This is not an academic piece so I can afford to be sloppy. Especially when talking to a ideologue.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-01
Why would I talk to someone who gets the very basics wrong? What possible could you say that was informed or interesting? It's like talking math with someone who doesn't know their times tables.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Neat.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
Its a nice infographic to throw around, bit clearly just manipulating data to make it look like everything's hunky dory. Categorisation and definition of poverty for example, extreme poverty considered to be around 1.5 billion currently with half the words population overall living in poverty, clearly not reflected on your graph because goalposts have been shifted.
n/a bernredditdown 2017-05-01
What? He started with a centrist plan with no single-payer and let the Blue Dog Dems/GOP/mother-fucking-Lieberman pull it to the right.
The corporate media hates the left. Of course they'll never win anything with this system.
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
We aristocrats do the chopping around here, not you commoners.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
You're mistaken of you think you are the aristocrat. Your kind is the ones that gets disposed of once you outlive your usefulness to the true powers.
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
Are you implying we don't have true powers?
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
You definitely don't.
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
Is that why you paid me money? =D
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Lol delusional
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
"Hah! Doesn't he know that everyone is poor like me?!"
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
"Hah! I make two dollars above min wage. I'm the captain of the industry, why doesn't he respect my position!"
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
"Come! We should all be poor like me!"
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
As long as you can finally admit it. Its sad watching the bootlicks play pretend master.
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
I love the defeatism of the middle-class.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Defeatist, in a time of rise of populism, resurgence of nationalistic right wing identity and fall of Hillary Clinton.
Lolololololololololol
Goddamn you people are out of touch with reality. Oh well,you better run along to your masters, their boots need a tongue cleaning.
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
The best part is America used to kill nationalist-socialist wholesale just 80 years ago.
Can't wait to actually bring back the guillotines on the populists again!
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Glad we are in agreement on something
n/a mozumder 2017-05-01
Oh well as long as I can send your job to Mexico or India or China I'm happy.
n/a ExtreemWeenie 2017-05-01
stop trying to convince people to care about poors, it's not going to happen
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Who said anything about caring about the poor? Getting rid of these collectivist hive mind globalist faggots is the cause. The skies will be dark with helicopters.
n/a ExtreemWeenie 2017-05-01
no they wont
n/a cumdong 2017-05-01
There is nothing about democracy that is inherently populist.
n/a AvailableUsername100 2017-05-01
Yes the opposite of populism is clearly aristocracy, you got it.
n/a xbettel 2017-05-01
Democracy =/= Populism
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-05-01
Is that what we call educated people now? I like it
n/a Chicup 2017-05-01
So they are unpopular?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Populism refers to a politics that divides society into the righteous pure public who are always right and a shadowy evil elite. No nuance. Populists tend to have simple impractical answers to complicated problems, like blaming Wall St or Mexicans for everything.
n/a Chicup 2017-05-01
So what you are saying is all political parties (who get elected) are populist?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Not really, I don't remember Obama indulging in Trump/Sanders rhetoric of conspiracies and an oppressive regime that seeks to destroy the nation.
n/a Chicup 2017-05-01
Google "obama blames" and see what comes up.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
As opposed to your politics, in which the elite are always right and the rest of us should either go along or we're bad. Very nuance.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
"b-b-but you do it too"
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
Getting mad at your hypocrisy being called out is very Trumpian.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Garbage arguments get garbage answers.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
I know you are but what am I?
n/a fizolof 2017-05-01
But it doesn't matter because WE'RE RIGHT
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-05-01
Not even just that, they're on the right side of history, because in history, the good guys always win and they're the good guys, so their victory is certain.
n/a fizolof 2017-05-01
How does it feel for sanders to be on the wrong side of history.
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-05-01
How does it feel for Hillary to be on the wrong side of history
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
how does it feel for Mussolini to be on the wrong side of history
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-05-01
Don't actually support fascists either.
n/a heavenlytoaster 2017-05-01
Goodman
n/a explohd 2017-05-01
Or Sanders for making Hillary lose the election?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Did Clinton do that? or her followers. I see people acknowledging many factors in the defeat; Clinton's lack of charisma, being 4 more years of Obama, Electoral College, low vote turnout, third parties, lack of Clinton presence in the Mid-West, Comey letter, not reading the political zeitgeist and yeah, Sanders fuelling the idea that Clinton is a terrible candidate who wont help anyone.
Doesn't sound like a "this one thing destroyed everything and only I can save it".
n/a explohd 2017-05-01
Listening to the ESS crowd, you'd swear that Hillary would have been the clear winner had Bernie never entered the race; "Bernie failed to control his Bernie bros", "Hillary could have saved her campaign money fighting Trump instead of Bernie", and "all of the Bernie bros cast their votes for Trump". Demonizing Bernie at this point makes zero sense, especially multiple times per day. r/Neoliberalism is now less of a political sub and more of a circlejerk sub.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Ah right, those guys. Yeah, that's too much malice for me and they just take it too far.
n/a explohd 2017-05-01
That's kind of the point of my top comment, ESS seems to have taken over r/Neoliberal. When there are multiple demonizing posts in a day, it should be obvious what direction a sub is heading. If you don't want that, I can only recommend to comment early in posts and be vocal; you might be down voted to hell, but your opinion is there.
n/a 0per 2017-05-01
You give us too much credit man lol
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
Neo-libs love low skill immigration because uncontrolled it drives down wages and working conditions, which means more money for their rich sugardaddies to hide away in an offshore tax haven.
n/a Minimum_T-Giraff 2017-05-01
Meh it's just a buzzword.
n/a pepperouchau 2017-05-01
But are they opposed to mayocide? You see, I'm a single-issue voter.
n/a Fucking_That_Chicken 2017-05-01
the bussy lobby won't be happy to hear that
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
This is like the fellowkids.jpg of trying to sound politically cool. No wonder Hillary "Pokemon Go to the Polls" Clinton was your candidate.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
I was not aware that it was a campaign slogan officially used, but whatever.
Anyway, the point is that not everyone wants a narcissist con man who tricked coal miners into thinking he is their friend or a calcifying socialist who likes Venezuela.
Wasn't my preference either, but if she is the only one who steps up who isn't the aforementioned choices, what can you do? Republicans weren't excited by Romney 2012 either.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
mfw you actually think a standard center-left european-style Social Democrat is "Socialist."
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
No, but he calls himself that. As will the Republicans if he's ever the nominee. Americans hate the word socialist and most yanks legitimately think universal healthcare is socialism.
And he's not running in Europe.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
So because he misuses a word, you're going to go along with him and misuse the word? lol.
And the reason this is true is because of people who are neoliberal who have been saying anything left of only private healthcare is socialist. So uh, good job?
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Sure, why not?
Fox, Breitbart and Limbaugh are neo-liberals?
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
I don't know what you'd call the Blue Dog democrats that fought against the public option in the ACA but I'd call them neoliberal.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-01
Well, that's, like, your opinion man, but I have to point out that since you appear to discuss /r/neoliberal in particular and not some abstract neoliberals, a large number of guys tend to support not just socialized healthcare but also the Universal Basic Income. And those who don't, don't because they think that it wouldn't work all that well, not because fuck you got mine.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
in common parlance, yeah. not breitbart tho
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-05-01
lmao is this supposed to be serious?
n/a AHackFraud 2017-05-01
No wonder Sander's favourability is so bad
n/a a_rory 2017-05-01
We support plenty of social democrats in Europe, Sanders' policies wouldn't fly with them, because they care about helping people, not tricking stupid white kids.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-01
Hillary really was divorced from reality. Part of her campaign was declaring a cartoon frog as a hate symbol.
n/a explohd 2017-05-01
Bernie Sanders campaign rally in Venezuela.
Lenin delivering the first May Day address in the red square, 1919 (Colorized)
Hates the Global Poor. UpGoolsbee this so that people see it when they Google "Hates the Global Poor".
Upboat this so that r/NeoLiberal is the top result when people Google "cognitive dissonance".
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
Compared to Venezuela, North Korea, the Islamic State or Russia? sure, absolutely.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
scandanavia tho
n/a _beekay 2017-05-01
scandinavia is super friggin' neoliberal though
n/a heavenlytoaster 2017-05-01
Literally peak neoliberalism
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-01
Yes, but we also plan to make everyone wealthy, and then it'll just be free handjobs
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
By gutting the middle class, great plan sport
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-01
Fuck white people, I'm just trying to give the global poor a wealth transfer
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Every neolib's favorite excuse for sucking off the wealthy.
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-01
Wait but how is stealing jobs from coal miners and giving them to the Vietnamese not good for the global poor
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
How are you able to type while jacking off richer cocks at the same time?
n/a forlackofabetterword 2017-05-01
Comparative advantage, idiot. I gave my job to an immigrant and exploited her for her labor.
n/a jvwoody 2017-05-01
More than that, they have a constructive agenda and define what they're for, not just by what they're against
n/a telandrias 2017-05-01
No Sanders is as equally as bad as Trump, Hitler, Gary Johnson, and that guy who sat two seconds too long at the green light.
n/a Pepperglue 2017-05-01
Whoa. You went too far there.
n/a Civilityisgolden 2017-05-01
Looks to be the the new protest sub of the week.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Day of the helicopter rides when?
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
pinaboo pls go
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-05-01
Why don't you take a seat on this helicopter friendo.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
Helicopter idles
n/a TheGreatRoh 2017-05-01
Pinochet was your doing. I really have to thank you and Kissinger. Why is Pinochet not 50 upvotes higher?
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
look we can all sit around pointing fingers about who overthrew whose democratically elected socialist government in a violent coup
or we can let bygones be bygones and just collectively agree that pinabooism is very not kawaii
n/a caffienatedjedi 2017-05-01
I knew I should have gotten my pilots license.
n/a Chicup 2017-05-01
Soon.... soon...
n/a Mexagon 2017-05-01
Not surprising Hillary voters are fucking retarded, but at least they have an idiot like Sanders to fall back on.
n/a GeneralRipper101 2017-05-01
Didn't your dad kill himself?
You should do the same thing.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-01
Hillary voters trying to shitpost. A juxtaposition for the ages. You'd think by now they'd have a semi understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
no they got the hang of it, just five months too late
which makes their shitposting worthless, like actual shitposts
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
Sanders probably would have won if he were 10 years younger and didn't look like a mental asylum escapee.
n/a GeneralRipper101 2017-05-01
And wasn't retarded
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
But Trump won tho.
n/a Blocked_ID 2017-05-01
Americans are fine with stupid, as long as it's Republican.
n/a TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-05-01
The key is to be stupid and PROUD OF IT.
n/a GeneralRipper101 2017-05-01
He is also retarded. There are many retards in this world.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-01
I normally really hate it whenever subs try to imitate The_Donald, but this .gif is pretty good.
That entire subreddit is still cancer, though.
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-05-01
I thought you liked /r/badeconomics? Neolib is a spin off of that sub, and is essentially the exact same userbase.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-01
I like it compared to other BadX subs.
I'm glad i left such a lasting and memorable impression on you, though.
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-05-01
When you leave a comment on almost every thread posted to this sub, you're bound to leave some sort of impression.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-01
True, true
n/a synodicgleam 2017-05-01
Ben Bernanke is a bad husbando.
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
You keep his sacred name out of your wretched mouth, friendo.
n/a synodicgleam 2017-05-01
Adam Smith fully hemispheric bodypillow or GTFO.
n/a without_name 2017-05-01
http://imgur.com/gallery/isH8H
n/a seoulsun 2017-05-01
people being neoliberal to be contrarian is so funny and pathetic
might as well shoot yourself in the face because dying is contrarian as fuck
n/a fizolof 2017-05-01
populists are contrarian, neoliberals are metacontrarian. like listening to taylor swift and katy perry, which is what i do.
n/a deaduntil 2017-05-01
Agreeing with the Establishment isn't contrarian.
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-01
On reddit, it is!
n/a AnneSullivan2020 2017-05-01
Truth.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-01
It's basically a sub of Milhouses trying to be contrarian and meme-y
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-05-01
except Milhouse isn't a meme
n/a AdvisorBestCharacter 2017-05-01
But milhouse isn't a meme is a meme.
n/a PineappleExpress98 2017-05-01
Is "Milhouse isn't a meme is a meme" a meme?
n/a randomthrowawaiii 2017-05-01
At least call them Berntards
n/a thelordchaosoflight2 2017-05-01
not exactly as catchy as hillaretards, but still pretty good.
n/a o_l0_0l_o 2017-05-01
I like Sandernistas, but a lot of people may not know of the Sandinistas.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
yeah I've been hearing "Sandernistas" for about a year and a half now and this is the first time I've seen the word Sandinista
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
If this is a troll sub to make people hate democrats even more it's very effective
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
They're a bunch of Hillary die-hards still trying to cope with the fact that their fully prepared, experienced, and competent savior lost to a brash, orange, senile, inexperienced, overweight, ineloquent, scandal-plagued, reality TV star.
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
Actually Hillary got 50 million more votes than Trump but the electoral college system (which was invented by slave holders) is rigged so that the Republicans always win
n/a zester90 2017-05-01
Well thank God for the slavers and Russians.
n/a Stuntman119 2017-05-01
Somone should free those slaves then.
n/a Thhueros 2017-05-01
Even though slavery conditions may not be ideal, life as a slave in America gives those poor Africans an opportunity for a better life.
/neoliberalism
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
Im sure the wealth will trickle down eventually
n/a Civilityisgolden 2017-05-01
(((50)))
n/a Blocked_ID 2017-05-01
basically we're mourning the death of intelligent thought in red state America.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
"waahh the poor we've been fucking over for the past 30 years voted for the wrong candidate"
n/a Blocked_ID 2017-05-01
Sorry, Ronald Reagan was the other party.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
> Implying Reagan wasn't the empitome of neo-liberalism
top kek
n/a Blocked_ID 2017-05-01
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are separate.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-01
they're not mutually exclusive either, as Thatcher and Reagan clearly demonstrate.
n/a Blocked_ID 2017-05-01
They share elements, but they also differ majorly, which isn't to say that in certain political environments neoliberals and neoconservatives couldn't be political allies. Reagan was a through and through neoconservative, the Clintons are somewhere between Progressives and neoliberals.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
"neoliberalism" is a component of neoconservatism, oddly
n/a Blocked_ID 2017-05-01
The traditional vs modern sense of the word "liberal" in it's entirety is confusing, I'm using neoliberal, in terms of the political ideology most commonly associated with the Clinton administration.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
i've heard neoliberal to mean two basic things:
an economic ideology that seeks to reconcile the values of typically capitalist classical liberalism and usually socialist social liberalism through market regulation, while supporting free-market principles by default (c. 1930s as a self-ascribed term. fell out of common parlance after the 60s)
an extreme dedication to free-market economics (reminiscent of ancaps) and often liberal internationalism, though the latter component is sometimes omitted to further distinguish it from neoconservatism (c. 1980s, initially as a derogatory term, but much more common)
people use both to describe the Clintons oddly enough, the former more admiringly and the latter by the left derisively
and i realize that that Political Compass makes fascism and totalitarianism out to be synonyms, but that's where I first saw the term
n/a happyorangejuce 2017-05-01
It's definitely not pro-Democrat; some of the most popular presidential candidates from the folks there were Kasich, Jeb, Marco, and also Hillary. The only thing it is really pro/for is "evidence based policy" and anti-retard.
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
If that were true they'd be neo-Keynesians like Obama
n/a happyorangejuce 2017-05-01
They generally like Obama a lot.
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
They aint even got Obam flair tho
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-01
Many of them are, undoubtedly.
n/a AHackFraud 2017-05-01
Imagine actually being proud of this
I M A G I N E
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
In an effort to thwart populism, they've assembled a pantheon of only the most laughably unlikeable politicians
n/a janus423 2017-05-01
Man, you know how we should only elect people you would like to have beer with to be president. Wouldn't that be a great idea?
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
To be fair, I wouldn't have a beer with you either
n/a janus423 2017-05-01
Your statement does not follow from my comment at all and is forced.
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-05-01
oh shit you got me
n/a happyorangejuce 2017-05-01
I definitely think that's the problem that these, along with many people were facing. Being a moderate isn't exciting. "Build the Wall!", "Start winning trade-deals", and "Free College/Healthcare!" are super exciting, but they might not be logical nor feasible.
And then you've got Kasich over here just like, "Can't we all just get along? I eat ice cream with a fork lol". And, although compromise and "getting along" would make everyone happier, it's not exciting. You can't turn it into a fun sound bite. So the moderates are dying while the parties become more partisan and radicalized.
The def positive out of it all though, is that Trump is fucking hilarious. He's just a bad motherfucker who's also mentally handicapped and it's just hilarious watching people get upset and watching The Don lay down the law. And that, kids, is what it's all about. 8==========D~
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
MARCO? what dingbats
n/a mr-strange 2017-05-01
This post seems to have triggered a lot of the normal /r/Drama-bots. LOL
n/a wabbit_1444 2017-05-01
Oh the irony
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Gotta love r/neoliberal-ites like u/_watching pretending to care about the GLOBAL POOR as their excuse for sucking off the wealthy
n/a _watching 2017-05-01
actually i prefer to get pegged by the wealthy tyvm
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Nobody cares what whores prefer.
n/a _watching 2017-05-01
sry figured u pinged me to talk kinks, i'll head out then
n/a nmx179 2017-05-01
Pinging people is my kink, by pinging you here i basically kinkraped you.
n/a _watching 2017-05-01
nice <3
n/a GaBeRockKing 2017-05-01
this but unironically.
n/a _watching 2017-05-01
n/a GaBeRockKing 2017-05-01
n/a _watching 2017-05-01
big if true
n/a Nomadlads 2017-05-01
You know our mods have a very high average net worth.
n/a BITCRUSHERRRR 2017-05-01
This is amazing. I voted Trump, but I do criticize him like anyone else. Seeing Reddit shit on Bernie though...is this real life?
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-05-01
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Orsonius 2017-05-01
Fucking liberals
n/a TheGreatRoh 2017-05-01
I'll take it if they shit on Bernie. Prevents a united Democrat Party.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-05-01
oh my god, sanders scum in /r/drama
n/a grungebot5000 2017-05-01
there it is. i've been waiting for these neolibs to piss me off like they did in the old days.
right after I subbed, too! it's like they knew
n/a qlube 2017-05-01
Holy shit, this thread is way more circlebroke-y than the SRD thread. WTF happened in here?
n/a jvwoody 2017-05-01
It's all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there's been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people.Number one: In 1945 corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: In 1900 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it's about two percent.It's called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.The entire executive branch is hand-picked. Nineteen of the last twenty-three U.S. presidents have been members of the Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission is financed by the Rockefellers and the Rotschilds. That's why they call it the "secret government." You can't fight ideas with bullets. Ever wonder why big car corporations pay two percent tax and the guys on the assembly line pay forty? Corporations are so big, you don't even know who you're working for. That's terror. Terror built into the system. Do you ever ask what it's all for? The surveillance, the police. Is that freedom?