• JasSmith
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No, you’re right. Between 2009 and 2011, both the left and the right had their popular class movements with Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. The risk of both sides coming together to attack the rich was too dangerous. Shortly after that we had Obama and other business and political leaders talking about “systemic racial discrimination.” Boy has that divided us. An incredibly effective tool to convince us idiots that race has ANYTHING to do with our differences. Poor people have far more in common with each other than they do with the rich. The trans issue has been injected to stoke the fires more, and everyone has been quick to jump on board.

    You know what? If we’re too stupid to see through this obvious charade, maybe this is what we deserve.

    • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Holy fuck you are so dense. Bringing up the tea party as a way of class solidarity? You are either lying or ignorant.

      Please, learn about the shit you spew if you actually care, but I assume you don’t since here you are spewing nonsense.

      • DaDaDrood@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not OP, but I don’t think they mean that the Tea Party was part of class solidarity, but more that it was a movement that was unorchestrated by the powers that be and could, if left unanswered, lead to threatening the status quo, aka super wealthy.

      • JasSmith
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know what you mean by “class solidarity,” but it was born in the fires of the 2008/2009 bank bailouts in which millions of ordinary people were wiped out financially while the financial institutions were given trillions of dollars. There was a lot of anger at the perception of crony capitalism and elites. The movement itself was grassroots and clearly feared by the powerful. You might not like the goals of the movement, but their anger was palpable, and at one point, something like 10% of the country identified with the movement. There was no way the rich and powerful could let ordinary citizens form such a powerful voting bloc.

        • jaywalker@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The tea party movement wasn’t grassroots at that point as it was being funded almost entirely by billionaires and groups like Americans for Prosperity. What you’re saying here is almost the exact opposite of reality.