• jfrnz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Yea but opposing ‘kings’ isn’t even close to the problem of ‘oligarchs’

    I don’t disagree, but for the sake of elections, they’re effectively equivalent. I agree the billionaires are most of the problem, but their names aren’t on the ballot. It’s the guy who is trying to play king.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      but their names aren’t on the ballot.

      Theres a lot more to fighting the oligarchy than voting.

      • jfrnz@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Sure, but I would say it’s a good thing to focus on for a minority political party.

    • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It’s the guy who is trying to play king

      yea… except he’s just the end result of a far broader problem

      This is exactly the concern with hand-wringing over semantics- the democrats aren’t losing because they aren’t being vocal enough about their opposition to Trump, they’re losing because they’re actively avoiding the root problem.

      Pick another word for oligarchs if you want, so long as the attention is being drawn to the root problem of wealth inequality and the billionare class. Don’t just abandon the issue because you’re afraid it looks like you might be critiquing our economic model when that’s absolutely what we’re doing