I particularly love that we are currently in a war of literal negotiation right now, where the exact traits of the Art-of-the-Deal Master Negotiator himself, the reason we just had to have him in foreign policy because he just such the dealmaker is not only flopping at dealmaking when there's real actual stakes on the line, he doesn't appear to be leading the negotiations.
Obviously that's why the U.S. hasn't succeeded with negotiations: Trump is too busy with important matters like redecorating the White House and he doesn't have time for pettiness like negotiating a deal to end the war that he started. I'm beginning to think Trump would prefer to be the First Lady rather than the President. He loves the power and prestige that come with the office, but when it comes to the work itself he'd rather delegate that out to whomever will get the job done while kissing his ass, which leaves him more time to work on vanity projects.
Yup, seems about right.
The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds
Oh, that is fucking hilarious. History is consistent when it comes to being ruled by elites who are this fucking tonedeaf. Do they not fear the Mario Bros.?
Did that happen when Trump 1.0 ended?
No, and this is why supporters of Trump's behavior aren't worried about the consequences of these expansions of power. They see liberals' reticence for engaging in the same behavior as a weakness that can be exploited since they don't have to worry about the expansion of power being used against them. I'm not arguing that liberals should abuse these expansions of power - I'm simply explaining why Trump's supporters don't fear the effects of those powers coming back to bite them in times of liberal leadership.
There's nothing wrong with, you know, not marginalizing groups of people.
As a left-winger who dabbles in consuming some right-wing content, most of the objections I hear to the messages against marginalization are not due to them being in favor of marginalization. Instead, the objections regard the way the messages are being delivered. And as someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s, I can kind of understand why they feel that way. In those times, messages against marginalization were framed as "we're a flawed species but we're capable of coming together and doing better and this is how great it can work out if we try harder to achieve that." Today, the message is much closer to "we, the writers and producers, know better than you and if you don't fall in line with all of our core beliefs, then you're an evil person who gets what you deserve." The modern message is steeped in pompousness, tribalism, and self-righteousness which turns off a lot of viewers. The goal should be to draw in the viewer and make them want to be a part of the lore, not weaponize ideologies and beat your viewers over the head with them.
Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.