always amuses me when the right wing, which passionately licks corporate boot all day, tries to pretends like anti-capitalist concerns and rhetoric are somehow unpopular or even dead within the left. you know two things can exist at the same time, right?

Incredible. What was the increase about 1,800% the first week after occupy wall street?

This is so overlooked when you look at the race thing in the us. I brought this up twice so far in the past month and I am apparently an alt-right qanon guy for noticing the smokescreen.

not in that pedophile clique

It's not fuckin' 2004. It's the Democrats who bend over for corporations now. The energy in the right wing is in anti-corporate populism. You've got a lot of work to do to keep up, son.

the likes of bernie and aoc are actively pushing to reign in corporate control, for universal healthcare, campaign financing reform to destroy the donor class' monopoly on lawmaking, they are critical of late stage capitalism, pro-union and working class. the measures they propose are incredibly popular on the left.

which right wing lawmakers do you think are "anti-corporate" in anything but rhetoric? which policies do they push to reign in corporate control of america? the only time right-wingers get mad with corporations is to protect racist speech, lol.

And no, that shit is not made up, it's real:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/11/29/bidens-presidency-boring-and-thats-ok/8660272002/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/11/29/biden-refuses-centrist-leadership/8674705002/


Alright then....

Are you telling me different authors can have different opinions at the same paper?

No, thats impossible. The media is a Liberal monolith. Trump assured me.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 2 2021 03:13am

It's just funny to see two different authors working for the same publication come to such vastly different opinions on the same day. Disagreement on nuances , judgement calls or matters of opinion are normal. Disagreement on fundamental aspects, to the point that one of the two articles must necessarily be wrong, is not normal.

You can have competing op-eds arguing, for example, "the fed should hike interest rates to spur economic growth" versus "the fed should decrease interest rates to spur economic growth" and there can be merit to both lines of reasoning. The same is not true when you have articles stating "one of Biden's core traits is his competence" versus "Biden is failing all the time".

peak right wing idiocy to judge two opinion pieces exclusively by their headlines, simply declare that one must necessarily be wrong, and then act like that somehow proves... well, what exactly? what even is your point here? media bad something something? you obviously haven't even done enough reading to determine which author would be wrong in your opinion, so given your history of signaling support for simplistic right wing narratives this is clearly about discrediting media that doesn't belong to your bubble, correct?

there's low effort, and then there's no effort...

Corporate boots? Like the twitter boot you lick? Like the coca-cola boot you lick? Them and countless more. All of them hiring diversity and inclusion officers. You lick the corporate boot pushing your agenda and then pretend your tongue is still in your mouth. Your tongue is very very dry corporate bootlicker.