I am using my own knowledge, just using contemporary tools to shorten the drafting process.
I am very much satisfied with my life, thank you
I am using my own knowledge, just using contemporary tools to shorten the drafting process.
I am very much satisfied with my life, thank you
The cool ones died or retired
That's not true - a lot of them were also killed or incarcerated by the government through programs similar to Cointelpro. Especially those boomers who were people of color and were active in the Civil Rights Movement
Why do people currently give a shit about Taylor Swift's opinion if they used to be unaware of her?
The goal is the spread her influence and encourage more Americans to follow her. Particularly women, who are more likely to support Swift and Democrats anyway
I don't think any of this, if true, is bad btw. It's how "free and fair" elections have always worked in the United States, or at least for the past 60 years. And it's worth it if it means Trump does not win
Doesn't mean we should pretend that our government doesn't regularly do things like this though
Actually it's from chat gpt in response to a basic prompt asking it to summarize neoliberalism and explain how it has been used to deceive and harm the American public. Aka, political science 101 stuff. This is common knowledge, so I didn't think I needed to write it myself, just as I wouldn't need to write out other obvious and basic historical facts such as what the first president did or how the American government surveilled Martin Luther King and Malcolm X during Cointelpro. Such things are common knowledge and are useful uses of AI.
In response to your allegation of dog whistling, Jewish people have been used as a scapegoat throughout history, and neoliberalism again continues this evil trend by alleging that any criticism of global capital is actually a critique of Jewish people. You have used this hateful insinuation yourself, and your doing so spreads the American political establishments antisemitism. Our oligarchs are not Jewish. But our oligarchs are responsible for engaging in regulatory capture on a global level, and for buying our formerly strong social democratic institutions and using them for self-enrichment. This began with Nixon, escalated with Reagan and Clinton, and has cemented itself since then.
We do not live in a democracy or a republic - we live in a dictatorship of the billionaire class, and we did not used to. There are still free Western countries, such as Denmark and Norway and Sweden and in some respects Germany. But America is not free, and won't be so long as oligarchs control our country.
The people you're trying to reach are the people who would never hear about her wearing a shirt like that.
You need uneducated swing voters in swing states. Aka, people who perpetually have their head in the sand. Using the Super Bowl is one of the only ways to reach those people and is one of the only remaining artifacts of the monoculture
But it would look weird if she was there and heavily featured and the Chiefs weren't playing. This result makes it look much more "natural" which makes it easier for the public to accept and not question ("She's his gf, of course she's there! And if she just happened to endorse Biden/diminish Trump at or after being heavily featured on the most watched tv program of the year by far then that's just a coincidence!")
The point is that this introduces her to a mainstream American audience in the most "natural" way possible. Which then allows her to persuade the public throughout the rest of the year because we all will feel like we already "know" her. Plenty of people already "know" her, of course. But we don't need to reach those people. We need to reach the undecided and out of touch Americans in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona - and we do that by using the Super Bowl as a political branding opportunity with our cleancut and All-American characters of Taylor Swift and her classy bf Travis Kelce.
It's pretty simple marketing/branding/persuasion. Not even the most complicated marketing effort that she herself has been involved in.
Others will. Neoliberalism was an unknown term 15 years ago amongst the public. Today, people are waking up and are opposing it via progressive populism especially Gen Z and millenials. Hopefully this change can occur before neoliberals and finance capitalism finishes destroying the planet and impoverishing the working class and eroding our democracy
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the poster children of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emerged in the latter half of the 20th century. It advocates for free-market capitalism with minimal state intervention. Key tenets of neoliberalism include deregulation of industries, privatization of state-owned enterprises, reduction of government spending, particularly on social welfare, and the promotion of free trade.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, although nominally politically conservatives, implemented policies that strongly align with neoliberalism:
Market Liberalization: Both Reagan and Thatcher aggressively pursued market liberalization policies. They reduced government regulation in several key industries, believing that an unregulated market would be more efficient and beneficial for economic growth.
Privatization: Thatcher's government notably privatized several state-owned enterprises in the UK, including British Telecom and British Gas. Similarly, Reagan's administration promoted privatization in various sectors, shifting responsibilities from the government to private entities.
Tax Policy: Both leaders implemented significant tax reforms, reducing the tax burden, especially for businesses and higher-income individuals. This approach reflects a neoliberal belief in stimulating investment and economic growth through lower taxes.
Reduction in Social Welfare Spending: Both Thatcher and Reagan cut government spending on social welfare programs. This aligns with the neoliberal view that too much state provision can stifle individual initiative and market efficiency.
In the context of economic and political ideologies, "liberalism" can have different meanings. In the classical sense, it refers to a philosophy emphasizing individual freedoms, limited government, and free markets. This classical liberalism aligns with some aspects of neoliberalism, such as the emphasis on free markets. However, in modern American political discourse, "liberal" often denotes a preference for more government intervention in the economy, social welfare, and progressive social policies, which is somewhat at odds with both classical liberalism and neoliberalism.
Therefore, while Reagan and Thatcher were politically conservative, their economic policies were liberal in the classical sense and distinctly neoliberal. They emphasized free-market capitalism and reduced government intervention, aligning with the core principles of neoliberalism.
The officiating has been historically horrific this year. Multiple objectively wrong calls have been made or have been missed that have had game altering implications.
Players themselves don't need to be on the take. The officiating is all that needs to be altered to ensure games reach the desired outcome. And the NFLs officiating process is about as untransparent as it gets
At minimum, the league needs to be investigated for fixing games to enrich itself and its partners. But maybe a nonprosecution agreement was reached between the nfl and federal government wherein the nfl agreed to allow Taylor Swift and others to be used in certain ways to assist Biden and diminish Trump. If I was the Western Intelligence State that's exactly what I'd do - blackmail the most watched product in the United States into cooperating to protect the country from Trump.
This is more important than "the integrity of the NFL." This is about preventing the United States from being utterly dismantled by our adversaries, and utilizing any means necessary to achieve that result
Yes, because the alternative would be even worse
I fully agree that our current system is incredibly broken though. It's just that Trump, and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025, etc, would make things drastically worse than they already are
We aren't a meaningfully "free" country, at least not by any charitable definition. But that doesn't mean we can't get worse. We can, and we will if Trump wins
Not sure what you're upset about. Care to elaborate?