The French public would have a called a general strike at minimum while the AmeriKans take it in the ass.
Because these two countries are otherwise identical in every way. Good thing you have an easy solution that still works in spite of the existence of assault rifles and wire taps
Not exactly.
The American political system turned into a gaggle of Mafias some time ago, France isn’t quite there yet.
did you know that protesting is not legal in many places in the US and also the police like to just murder people randomly
Then, they should have protested when protesting was made illegal. Now, they’re paying the price for that mistake, unfortunately.
That was around 9/11 and when Americans decided that racism was more important than civil rights.
And yet we get banned for talking about the solution.
Senseless killing is a superficial solution. Organization is the sustainable, but less glamurous one.
That won’t ever work in the US.
Not with that attitude. Seems like MAGA succeeded in organizing sufficiently.
What are you gonna do? Kill all CEOs? And then? Kill all politicians? And then? Police? Military? Dissidents? Do you just keep killing? How do you handle the resulting societal trauma?
How exactly do you think any of that can achieve sustainable, progressive change?
Whatever it takes, and peaceful solutions have proven ineffective for decades.
So what do you propose? What are the logistics of it? How do you organize to take out enough systems to take over? What do you do afterwards?
Life isn’t some fantastical action story, it’s the incredibly complex reality we all live in where a single person cannot fathom all the variables therein. You are not trying to understand, you are not trying to be effective, you’re just circle jerking in your fantasy world. And as long as many people keep doing that, living in some kind of hyper-real abstraction of reality, the people actually smart enough to organize and get into power will be able to do whatever they want. You’re just another enabler.
All you have is “organize” or “awareness.” Your action plan is as circle jerky as ours. My guess is you like the direction the country is going in.
My personal solution is to get out of the house and watch it burn from the neighbor’s yard.
I don’t live in your fash country and no, I absolutely despise the way your country is going in and pulling the rest of the world into hell :)
What I have is political activism in a leftist party where I am helping get new members and organizing various events teaching about democracy and its tools, amongst other things, as well as supporting other groups and bettering the local community.
What you have is fear and a desire to feel good about yourself whilst doing and achieving nothing. You’d rather fuck off than pull through on your mighty words - that’s also called cowardice.
Of course, this is going to affect the working class first and worst. But stay with me here.
My wife and I are what you’d call upper middle class. Thanks to our college education, union jobs in public agencies, and mostly being smart with money, our assets are not meager.
Are you like me? Don’t think you’re exempt. They’re coming for our assets too. They want all of us living paycheck to paycheck, begging our employers to not fire us.
What I’m saying is, the class struggle is everyone’s struggle. If you’re not a billionaire, you’re at risk. Act like it.
Again lol. U guys have not realized that two party system does not work …
Many of us realize that it’s broken, but voting doesn’t seem to fix it…
Yep voted for a long long time and tried to be progressive. At this moment I just want this to be over, so whatever the worse is.
The French solution
Trickles down on the rich.
Guess I’ll give up on everything, not have any kids and shoot myself at age 60,… unironically. I have the gun already.
I have given up on the idea of retirement or security/safety in my lifetime a loooong time back. We live in the worst possible type of dystopia, a world where “evil” won long ago, and has had ample time and opportunity to sink its claws into every aspect of our lives, forever.
And the worst part is that most people won’t even believe it. In fact, almost a majority seem to relish it somehow. Like they want the world to be as terrible as it can possibly be, even for themselves.
And their kids. I couldn’t imagine setting them up for life like this. Then again perhaps they dont really care about them beyond having the “reproduce” achievement unlocked.
My personal take is that the super-elite know there’s no saving our biosphere in our lifetimes so they’re just robbing what they can while they still can.
Hey, yanks, until your centre right party (the Democrats) is willing to go all in and run candidates at all levels of government on the slogan of “The Largest Downward Transfer of Wealth in American History”, your far right party (the Republicans) will keep repeating this. But if it makes you feel better, go back to blaming Muslims in Michigan or whatever.
The swing voters in the US is dumb as a brick.
They care a lot more about “culture war” issues.
So make “tax the rich” a culture war thing. Left populism is a winning strategy too.
How? The largest campaign that ever occurred for taxing the rich was occuring by AOC and Bernie around the U.S. The media will air something about Trump taking a green shit after drinking a blue slupee far more. It doesn’t matter until they switch the notion to something that threatens the media and their families lives more than likely. They own the media.
Don’t ask me, a random guy on the internet. Ask your elected representatives, your intellectuals, your think tanks. Your civil society, man, not some random Canadian online.
And it’s behind a paywall. Chef’s kiss.
The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History
House Republicans voted to advance a bill that would offer lavish tax cuts for the rich while slashing benefits for the poor. By Jonathan Chait House Speaker Mike Johnson Kevin Dietsch / Getty May 22, 2025, 9:21 AM ET
House Republicans worked through the night to advance a massive piece of legislation that might, if enacted, carry out the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.
That is not a side effect of the legislation, but its central purpose. The “big, beautiful bill” would pair huge cuts to food assistance and health insurance for low-income Americans with even larger tax cuts for affluent ones.
Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, warned that the bill’s passage, by a 215–214 margin, would mark the moment the Republicans ensured the loss of their majority in the midterm elections. That may be so. But the Republicans have not pursued this bill for political reasons. They are employing a majority that they suspect is temporary to enact deep changes to the social compact.
The minority party always complains that the majority is “jamming through” major legislation, however deliberate the process may be. (During the year-long debate over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans farcically bemoaned the “rushed” process that consumed months of public hearings.) In this case, however, the indictment is undeniable. The House cemented the bill’s majority support with a series of last-minute changes whose effects have not been digested. The Congressional Budget Office has not even had time to calculate how many millions of Americans would lose health insurance, nor by how many trillions of dollars the deficit would increase.
The heedlessness of the process is an indication of its underlying fanaticism. The members of the Republican majority are behaving not like traditional conservatives but like revolutionaries who, having seized power, believe they must smash up the old order as quickly as possible before the country recognizes what is happening.
House Republicans are fully aware of the political and economic risks of this endeavor. Cutting taxes for the affluent is unpopular, and cutting Medicaid is even more so. That is why, instead of proudly proclaiming what the bill will accomplish, they are pretending it will do neither. House Republicans spent months warning of the political dangers of cutting Medicaid, a program that many of their own constituents rely on. The party’s response is to fall back on wordplay, pretending that their scheme of imposing complex work requirements, which are designed to cull eligible recipients who cannot navigate the paperwork burden, will not throw people off the program—when that is precisely the effect they are counting on to produce the necessary savings.
The less predictable dangers of their plan are macroeconomic. The bill spikes the deficit, largely because it devotes more money to lining the pockets of lawyers and CEOs than it saves by immiserating fast-food employees and ride-share drivers. Massive deficit spending is not always bad, and in some circumstances (emergencies, or recessions) it can be smart and responsible. In the middle of an economic expansion, with a large structural deficit already built into the budget, it is deeply irresponsible.
In recent years, deficit spending has been a political free ride. With interest rates high and rising, the situation has changed. Higher deficits oblige Washington to borrow more money, which can force it to pay investors higher interest rates to take on its debt, which in turn increases the deficit even more, as interest payments (now approaching $1 trillion a year) swell. The market could absorb a new equilibrium with a higher deficit, but that resolution is hardly assured. The compounding effect of higher debt leading to higher interest rates leading to higher debt can spin out of control.
House Republicans have made clear they are aware of both the political and the economic dangers of their plan, because in the recent past, they have repeatedly warned about both. Their willingness to take them on is a measure of their profound commitment.
And while the content of their beliefs can be questioned, the seriousness of their purpose cannot. Congressional Republicans are willing to endanger their hold on power to enact policy changes they believe in. And what they believe—what has been the party’s core moral foundation for decades—is that the government takes too much from the rich, and gives too much to the poor.
