She had some major medical issues, an ongoing court case, and a custody battle with her ex, so there was a lot of sadness in her life recently on top of all the abuse she'd experienced growing up. Maybe that was cover for an assassination, but there's a much more mundane story to explain events.
The whole board and major investors condoned this. Fuck the whole brand. Now and forever. They don't need to be redeemed if they do the right thing, we'll be fine without them. The smart people that actually make things happen will go work for better companies.
And from personal experience, even if you find common ground and get them to recognize something is bad, they'll sit back down in front of Fox News and revert to the norm before any of it matters. I had a "law and order, national security" type conservative acquaintance who right after the Trump classified documents story broke said Trump should go to prison for it (he also had to add that Hillary Clinton should go too). I'm certain he voted for Trump this time around. And he's had nary a peep about the multiple war plans chats. They aren't gettable if you just find the right issue or use the right words. If they're going to change it's going to happen on their own and over a long time.
I dunno, we also just get bored and angry when our national cock is publicly embarrassed for a long time. We didn't sour on Afghanistan because of too many deaths, we soured because it should have been over already and nothing we were doing seemed to be actually progressing toward a incontrovertible win. It was an ongoing demonstration of our limitations.
Also we literally only know his thoughts on the matter because they released excerpts of his journal. If he was trying to rally political and social opposition, you'd think he would have published a manifesto himself.
Funny that she's used the word "oligarchs" plenty for Putin's bunch, but now thinks it's too "coastal" when applied to American oligarchs. She's never been concerned about people getting it before, but the moment it might describe America she's very concerned. Not that they'll misunderstand it, but that they will.
I'm not sure I can remember a single time a progressive politician put out a navel-gazing messaging statement into the media. It's almost exclusively done by the centrists who want to pretend they're just helping out while using it to try to derail progressive campaigns that are gaining attention. And it's the last thing you should do publicly if one of the aesthetics you're chasing is "being alpha".
It's not even an uncomfortable topic among the people. You can go into a bar of any political persuasion anywhere and loudly complain about those goddamned rich assholes running everything into the ground and screwing over regular folk and all you'll get is hearty agreement. It's only an uncomfortable topic among the wealthy and their political lapdogs.
What's more "alpha" than backing down from a bully and adhering to their chosen framing of an issue?
You know what would actually be "alpha" (ugh)? Not trying to figure out the ideal terminology for whatever state she thinks the populace is inclined to right now and actually driving the conversation to bring people to our viewpoint. Like having a national tour highlighting wealth inequality and corruption by literal mustache twirling villains. Because if you say it enough and talk about the problem that's right there fucking everything up right now and LEAD, they'll adopt whatever goddamned term you feel like.
Fuck conservatives. They don't need to be educated, they need to be beaten. There are more people left of center than right, we just need to prove we're actually going to fight for them. All of them. Not 80% and then we'll start to strategize on how many "urban" voters we can lose to pick up white suburbanite conservatives.
Yeah, talking about "alpha energy" definitely doesn't make the speaker look sad and weak. /s
Even if pandering to the manosphere wasn't itself incredibly cringe, she's years out of date on their terminology. Truly this is a demonstration of how she's got her finger on the pulse of the people.
And "kings" is very much not a synonym for "oligarchy" and she's definitely purposefully choosing that rather than something that would continue to offend the uber-wealthy.
And would you consider either of them to represent the anti-woke strain of the Democratic party?
Anti-oligarchy and "identity politics" are not two camps in the Democratic party. The same people who are against focus on the oligarchy are the ones who are against focusing on "identity politics".
Who do you think are the voices who are really strong against billionaires? And who are the voices who are the strongest in support of this "identity politics" bogeyman? Because it's pretty much the same people. This idea that the Democrats running interference for the rich are using wokeness to do it is just bullshit. The same people saying stop wokeness are the ones who also don't want to talk about wealth inequality.
There's no secret plot to distract with identity politics, just rich centrists chasing the golden age of Clintonism and white people thinking the only policies that should really matter are the ones that affect them.
Not just that, but even if you're looking for a major realignment, the Republicans were at one point the party of civil rights and the Dems were the bastion of white supremacy. You have to go past all these major party changes to actually get to the death of a party.
It's so much easier to force a realignment than to, during a time of active fascism, destroy the opposition party in hope that in a decade a completely fresh party can emerge from the ashes.
She had some major medical issues, an ongoing court case, and a custody battle with her ex, so there was a lot of sadness in her life recently on top of all the abuse she'd experienced growing up. Maybe that was cover for an assassination, but there's a much more mundane story to explain events.