A Lot of Americans Are Googling 'What Is Oligarchy?' After Biden's Farewell Speech
gizmodo.com
The outgoing president warned of the growing dominance of a small, monied elite.

Summary

In his farewell speech, President Joe Biden warned of a growing “oligarchy” in the U.S., where extreme wealth and power threaten democracy.

Comparing modern elites to 19th-century robber barons, he called for reforms to hold the wealthy accountable, as done in the past.

Biden also criticized a “tech-industrial complex” concentrating power and spreading disinformation, weakening democracy.

His remarks sparked a surge in Google searches for “oligarchy.”

The speech comes amid rising concerns about policies favoring billionaires, like Trump’s tax cuts and potential cuts to social safety programs.

  • @witten
    0•7 hours ago

    Not to mention these idiots could live in a state that’s blue but not solidly blue and that state could possibly flip red because they assumed blue was safe in their state.

    That’s why I used the word “solidly.”

    Do you think non-voters and 3rd party presidential voters are smart enough to keep an eye on that kind of thing?

    Some of them? Sure. Maybe not all of them. But it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion. I was just making the claim that your math was including some voters that had no possible effect on Trump getting elected. And I still think that’s the case whether or not a number of people in purple states decided not to vote because Harris didn’t really speak to the economic realities they face everyday. Now we’re just quibbling over how wrong your math is.

    To your broader point about the popular vote: I agree that people not voting or voting 3rd party impacts the popular vote, and the popular vote is indeed often used as a proxy for a national mandate. But Trump didn’t even break 50% on the popular vote—hardly a Reagan-style sweeping mandate despite initial reports to the contrary. So in this particular election, your point doesn’t even come into play. You’re calling people idiots for how they voted because of a theoretical outcome that didn’t occur.

    Yes, voting in the U.S. is basically harm reduction. But what’s the point of voting to reduce harm if it doesn’t actually have much chance of doing that in your state? To be clear, I’m not advocating not voting. I’m advocating giving people a little grace if, via their vote, they didn’t materially contribute to the rise of fascism or whatever. In fact, you could say that someone voting third party in a solidly blue state has just as much impact on the election as someone voting blue in a solidly red one. It’s just numbers.