comment: >
  
  Even when Democrats are doing well, they will get the "Dems in disarray" trope from even good media sources.
context: “Infighting”…discussion of ideas, representation of varied interests, providing the best outcomes for citizens, regions and industries.
  Vs blindly worshiping one guy whose bigoted rantings can only be opposed at risk of excommunication.
  I’ll take the infighting.
  Fucking media. >
  
  Fox News says something stupid: fuck Fox News. 
  NPR says something stupid: fuck the media. 
  NPR is subject to bias just like any news outlet. It’s disappointing when they fall prey to right wing tropes like this. >
  
  NPR is a neoliberal mouthpiece and any veneer it has of being “left” is purely marketing. >
  
  I keep seeing people misuse this word, neoliberal doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
  It’s an economic/ international development term coined ~70 years ago. From the wiki:
  
  Neoliberalism is a term used to signify the late 20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism after it fell into decline following the Second World War.[2]: 7 [3] A prominent factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them,[4][5] it is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.
  
  (or you’re muddying the waters on purpose, I’m assuming you just didn’t know) >
  
  Neo-conservative is my go to for those using the guise of progressive policy to enforce conservative structures. I'm not sure if that's still the appropriate term here. >
  
  Right, and socio/politically we don’t need made up gradations of “good” liberals and “bad” liberals, the Democratic Party is inherently a coalition. We agree on ~99%, that’s what matters
  TL;DR - ‘neoliberal’ is economics, not politics. Beware anyone confidently calling democrat ‘X’ a neoliberal, they’re either a narc or a fool >
  
  I think one of the real issues we have is just this kind of thing. Most conservatives probably think of the denotative definition being reserved, not understanding that it's political meaning is more along the lines of "autocratic" or "fiefdom". >
  
  This post is not making sense to me. 
  
  Most conservatives probably think of the denotative definition being reserved
  
  Come again? >
  
  The word conservative is usually self referencial and used to denote "responsible" or "slow". As is the English meaning. But politically, the word conservative comes from the French aristocracy trying to use the new free markets to create a new kind of feudalism. The current conservative parties of UK/US/AUS are all direct philosophical descendants of the French aristocracy. This creates a common kind of difficulty when speaking where someone who is a self proclaimed conservative might not know the actual intentions of their political representation. 
  This obviously also impacts anyone discussing it. 
  TLDR words are hard. >
  
  I mean okay gotcha, just confused bc it’s not terribly germaine to bring up such an allegory
  anyway for the people in the back, yah neoliberalism refers to reforms in economic markets that are typically associated with Reagan era consevatives who believed in laissez faire capitalism and ‘free markets’ aka unregulated capitalism . 
  The ‘liberalism’ in question is Keynesian liberalism. 
  So ‘Liberalized’ states/economies like in the US enmesh and manage both the public sector (the state) and the private sector (I.e. the Fed setting interest rates for private lending). It’s both socialism and capitalism, enmeshed, to varying degrees. In Europe they hew more toward the public sector, in America the private sector. This all happens because we live in a society/culture of pluralism
  
  Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles.[1] While not all political pluralists advocate for a pluralist democracy, this is most common as democracy is often viewed as the most fair and effective way to moderate between the discrete values.[2] As put by arch-pluralist Isaiah Berlin, "let us have the courage of our admitted ignorance, of our doubts and uncertainties. At least we can try to discover what others ... require, by ... making it possible for ourselves to know men as they truly are, by listening to them carefully and sympathetically, and understanding them and their lives and their needs... ."[3] Pluralism thus tries to encourage members of society to accommodate their differences by avoiding extremism (adhering solely to one value, or at the very least refusing to recognize others as legitimate) and engaging in good faith dialogue. Pluralists also seek the construction or reform of social institutions in order to reflect and balance competing principles.
  
  In short, our world is largely a ”Liberal Pluralist“ society 
  Words are indeed hard. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk >
  
  Shit headline and narrative by NPR...more like..."Despite Republicans blocking every piece of legislation designed to help out most Americans, Democrats made some progress" >
  
  NPR is still trying to maintain a veneer of non-partisanship, and it’s less divisive and more interesting to talk about how Democrats struggled but succeeded in getting out of their own way than to talk about what everyone knows already: Republicans want to sabotage government to prove it can’t work. >
  
  Nprs donation list from charities includes a bunch of corporate sponsorship (AmazonSmile) pretending to be charities. It's gross. Npr is a corpo shill now. This is coming from a listener of years and years, hours and hours. I wouldn't be surprised if corporate underwriting was involved in every single one of their pieces. >
  
  I stopped listening to my local NPR back during the mass teacher strikes a few years ago. 
  I tuned in to hear their coverage while on a long drive and it consisted entirely of a few local Republican reps spewing every cliche anti union talking point available then the segment just..... ended. No teacher or union rep there to rebut, no critical questions, nothing. 
  NPR's famed neutrality on display. >
  
  There's no such thing as local NPR, it's a national service - that would be your local public radio station and their coverage (actually hell in Massachusetts you have two!)...