It’s to keep the American dream alive.

You know, the dream of one day being filthy rich so you can shit on people beneath you.

He kept nodding his head during the debate like he was agreeing with Harris.

My thought was he was listening to a coach in his ear.

Colonial capitalism working as intended.

He’s a rich fascist and a threat to life on this planet.

I don’t care to analyze more deeply than that.

It’s federal. If it had been state charges he would have sat in county.

Hillary couldn’t shut Trump down without appearing elitist and smug (because she’s both).

Harris isn’t Hillary.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/

She’s ahead in all listed polls in WI conducted after this one. And was tied in this one, which is the oldest of all polls listed.

These debates aren’t about policy anyway, they’re about optics.

Trump will lose his shit and prove how old and weird he is. Harris will I’m speaking him when he interrupts. The libs will gush. The left will moan. Harris’s campaign will have sound bites for advertising.

It’s not Trump/Clinton. Trump running three times now gives the Harris campaign a lot of info on what to expect out of him. And Harris can shut Trump down without looking elitist.

Sounds like a Ukrainian plot to dilute the GOP vote.

‘Perhaps a bit to much.’ was the tip off for me. Perhaps vga is astroturfing for the GOP. I don’t really know. Just asking questions.

Yes, but the term is oligopoly. And it requires different tactics than breaking up monopolies because they’re not a monopoly.

I made a longer post explaining here. Sorry if I’m coming off as pedantic but I find the distinction in this instance between oligopoly and monopoly important.

https://lemm.ee/post/39694050/14065675

Increasing competition is good but my point is that because this situation is an oligopoly rather than a monopoly, aggressive price/profit regulations for people’s basic needs and enforcement will get us further faster and have more staying power than trying to break up a half dozen mega corporations (especially with how involved they are in politics).

Preventing further market concentration, such as Albertsons/Kroger, is definitely needed. And breaking Amazon and Whole Foods up would be good. But it’s hard to argue that a monopoly is a monopoly when there’s three other oligopoly corporations nearby. Which will make breaking them up difficult.

Subsidizing small grocers and food suppliers while aggressively taxing megacorps would also create market incentives that would move us towards more competition.

I’m for preventing monopolies and breaking them up.

My point wasn’t that that’s a bad thing. But that this is more of an oligopoly situation rather than a monopoly.

My town has Walmart, Kroger, Target, and a Co-OP within five minutes of my house. They’re all gouging prices and have been since the pandemic.

This isn’t a situation where breaking up monopolies is the cure. Though preventing the Kroger/Albertsons merger will certainly keep things from getting worse.

You sound like Tucker Carlson just asking questions with your Perhaps a bit to much and your refusal to present any evidence as to why you would think it’s perhaps a bit to much.

Dog whistling 101.

That’s true. My point wasn’t a strong ftc is bad but that near monopolies aren’t the issue. There’s collusion happening and breaking up monopolies isn’t going to fix that.

And you have no examples of this happening in regards to transrights. So what was the point of your posts other than posting dog whistles in trans friendly spaces?

This is transphobic dog whistling.

I live in a large enough city to have choices and everyone is price gouging.

So, I don’t see how this would really help much tbh.

I pulled context from the article. He called her dumb.

We need smart people, and people that have the ability to lead. She doesn’t have that ability. Can you imagine her with chairman Xi [Jinpin, President of the People’s Republic of China]

He then goes on about her looks.

I saw a picture of her on Time Magazine today. She looks like the most beautiful actress ever to live.

Essentially arguing that she faked her way into her position, coasting on her looks. This is a misogynistic view point.

Here he’s drawing contrast, of course they’re beautiful in there own way. But considering his history of racism and his racist base, this comes off as a dog whistle. She’s beautiful but not white woman beautiful.

She looked very much like our great first lady, Melania,” Trump gushed as Musk met his comment with an awkward chuckle and a reserved, “yeah…”

She didn’t look like Camilla,” Trump said, purposely butchering Harris’ name. “Of course, she’s a beautiful woman and we’ll leave it at that.”

Leave it at that I interpret as, of course she’s beautiful for a black woman. He leaves it at that as a dog whistle as he’s realizing overt racism isn’t helping him atm.

Yeah, there was a lot of subtle negging happening.