xyzzy

The framing is really gross as well. Facing a future without Social Security? Try saving for retirement with Moneywise...

They just don't say the company directly in the calls to action because it's likely intended mainly to boost their search engine rankings. Hence the number of links...

Moneywise. There are like 5 or 6 links to it in the text, starting from halfway down the "article," and it starts to get really blatant when it starts talking directly to you, the reader. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire thing was written by AI.

This is an ad.

Destroying a car hurts a company's bottom line. The other stuff you suggested hurts workers and regular people.

It would take a 5-10 year depression for enough of them to reach the point that it would make a meaningful difference. Seriously.

Look at how it went last time. FDR and then his vice president created a 20-year presidential legacy following Hoover's complete mismanagement of the Great Depression. After that came the 5-star general who defeated Hitler (who ran as a Republican in order to block an isolationist candidate farther on the right), then back to Democrats for another eight years—until giving black people equal rights was a bridge too far for Southern Democrats.

Basically, Trump would need to destroy this country economically, and have that ruination take hold for many years, before real charge can happen.

He still lives in the 1970s. Ford, Chevy, Cadillac, GMC, Buick... they're some of the least American cars on the road.

I agree, but FWIW those crumbling roads are entirely due to state governments. There's a reason Oklahoma's roads are so terrible. You literally feel the difference in governmental priorities at the state line.

States elect the president; they put him on the ballot. If he tries to do something unconstitutional, he won't be on the ballot in many states. And the Democrats may control the House. The Senate (or all of Congress) can try to discount returns from those states, but at that point we're looking at a Supreme Court case, and everyone involved will know that if that's ruled poorly, there's a good chance it'll result in the dissolution of the republic, and war.

In other words, it's very unlikely. But a lot can happen in four years.

Don't be a soft target. Buy a gun. Learn how to use it.

And they would vote for him again.

The Democratic Party is not a serious party. Both the party elite and the die-hard supporters need to wake the fuck up.

Days after President Donald Trump took office for the second time, a boatload of candidates vying to lead the Democratic National Committee crammed into a Washington auditorium plastered with MSNBC logos.

This was their last big forum before the vote to make the case that they had what it took to rescue their party from irrelevance.

The moderators called on a little-known contender, Quintessa Hathaway, to deliver the first opening statement. “I just want to give you all a little bit of something that’s been on my heart,” she told the audience.

Then, suddenly, unexpectedly, she broke into song. “When your government is doing you wrong,” she belted out, “you fight on, oh-oh, you fight on.”

It had only taken four minutes for the battle over the future of the Democratic Party to devolve into what critics likened to a scene from Portlandia, a comedy satirizing ultra-liberals — and it was a punchline that was clipped and replayed across social media in the days ahead. Things only got more surreal, and viral, from there. [...]

“How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris’ defeat?” asked MSNBC anchor Jonathan Capehart. Every candidate raised their hand. “That’s good,” he added. “You all pass.” Later, a DNC member asked, in reference to party positions: “Will you pledge to appoint more than one transgender person to an at-large seat?” Only one of eight contenders kept their hand down. [...]

In multiple surveys since the election, a plurality of Democratic voters has said that Harris should be the 2028 presidential nominee. [...]

Progressives calling for a more leftward tack on economics haven’t gotten a much better reception. Faiz Shakir, the former campaign manager for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid, has said that Democrats should adopt a muscular economic populist agenda to win back working-class voters. When he ran for DNC chair on that platform, he only won two votes. [...]

David Shor, an influential liberal pollster, has been circulating a presentation to Democrats dissecting the 2024 election. Slide after slide paints a dire picture for the party: Young voters have become more Republican. Trump likely won foreign-born voters. The electorate trusts the GOP more than Democrats on Social Security. Higher turnout wouldn’t have saved Harris; in fact, it would have made Trump win by a larger margin. [...]

But intraparty critics said Democrats’ near-certain belief that they are going to take back the House in the midterms is also enabling them to continue avoiding hard conversations and perhaps obscuring the need to have a reckoning. There’s still a pervasive sense among some in the party that they don’t need to bother with all that — the pendulum will swing their way regardless.

Spend some time in the NY Times comment section and you'll find these voters. They are convinced that "centrist" policies are the way to win elections and they detest Bernie Sanders and anyone who voted for him. They still blame "Bernie bros" for Trump's win in 2016. They think the only thing wrong with Harris's campaign was that she didn't have enough time to get her message out. They basically want some of the same goals as Republicans around immigration and anti-"woke," they just want them done in a nicer way that doesn't hurt any feelings. No one will admit it, but I suspect most of them voted for Reagan.

I dare say I'm beginning to suspect this Trump fellow may not be as competent as he claims