The ultra rich are the problem.
Conservatives are the problem, the ultra rich conservstives exacerbate the problem.
Note that the opposite of ultra rich conservatives is Jimmy Carter who still built wealth but didn’t go for ultra wealth because he actually cares about people. The ultra wealthy are a symptom.
I wouldn’t put these 2 in the conservative category, they are fascist groupies. They were both born into wealth, and then did everything possible to constantly grow their wealth while exploiting labor and everyone around them. They both have a real disdain for rules/laws for them, but love to try and use the legal system against those they see as an enemy.
They both have a real disdain for rules/laws for them, but love to try and use the legal system against those they see as an enemy.
So, conservatives. Modern conservatives are fascists, it is the same thing.
Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, and agency the prerogative of the elite.
The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump
Even if they weren’t straight-up fascist in the past (highly debatable), conservatism is a blight on liberty. The only potential difference is degree, not kind.
If you wanted to separate it out then fascists are those with power and “conservativism” is the ideology they peddle to the working class to make what they’re doing seem ok.
They’re the same thing, really.
Conservatives are simply fascists with masks on.
Totally agree. I’m starting to think that taxing the rich is one of the government’s most important functions.
I think it might be worth it for them to do so even if they set the collected money on fire afterwards.
Otherwise your politics become this: billionaires “interviewing” billionaires.
It’s literally regulation and that can be a good tool. It’s what a government should ideally do. It can be weaponised of course, in both directions, like we are experiencing now.
Trump is actually second-gen on his mother’s side and third-gen on his father’s side. Not that it really changes the message, but there’s no reason to get the facts wrong in this.
Two of Trumps wives are immigrants and his kids are anchor babies.
deleted by creator
She was a Scottish immigrant and her son is first-generation Scottish-American on her side.
I think the person above you is using the US Census Bureau definition of generations, which is that the first gen is the immigrant themselves, second gen their children. That’s how I’ve always understood it.
deleted by creator
Yeah, that’s the only definition I ever knew.
Weirdly there are two. Both are correct. Regional difference.
For the non-US context, one might as well add “born in the country” after the “first generation”.
Til
I am from a non-US context, the first generation is the first that came to the country here.
Well yeah, I didn’t mean “all non-US context of immigrants”, but the article especially mentions the US definition being so.
But that doesn’t mean others can’t also utilise that definition.
Honestly, I’m not sure who exactly does use the other one, but I know it’s used enough to be acceptable in certain contexts somewhere
Trump was adopted from Russia.
I’d be all for the Harris administration labeling Elmo a threat to our democracy, have all of his assets seized, and deported.
That would really give his persecution complex a reason to exist.
Something similar was discussed recently.
Some immigration. You know what kind.
deleted by creator
to be fair, im all for deporting african immigrants worth more then 100 billion $
Let’s drop the zeros and call it a law.
They will return with bribery, something most people can’t do.
deleted by creator
Rules for thee, not for me
Well when you put it like that – that immigrants are like Musk and Trump’s family – they’re not wrong!
Potato-face.
