I think i disagree. 'Bilionaires' makes it seem seem like a nebulous group of individuals, like

'oh just happens to have a ton of money, you can't hold that against them without evaluating their actions as an individual'

The problem is that they are a class, or rather that the class exists as a class and that they are use their power, act as and are catered to, as a class.

If there were 100 individuals around the word who just happened to have assets valuing 1,000,000,000$ or more, even if they owned shitty companies companies and were all assholes, that would be one thing.

Assuming they not associate with each other, conspire together to warp society and governments to their shared wills etc, it would be a far different world.

If they were seen as just rare individuals, governments would not bend to their whims; one billionaire threatens to offshore his buisness unless he gets favorable laws, to ignore taxes etc, the country threatens to nationalism his buisness, or just locks his ass up. I one guy is found to be bribing one or countless politicians, thats a treasonous scandal.

When a couple dozen are making these threats in lockstep, they are holding the country's economy hostage. And when between them they are bribing all the politicians, that becomes the staus quo.

its when they act as a class that its a real problem.

Trump is a symptom of the wider rot that the establishment Democrats are a part of

Yes. The pedodent is supported by the billionaire class and in turn funnels even more taxpayer dollars to then and his own family. The billionaires in turn help manufacture of amplify the conflicts he feeds upon.

But it could be more honest. Dems suck because they're all bark and part of the problem themselves. Pelosi built a fortune on insider trading, but they keep acting like they're innocent and "helping" the avg citizen. They sure as hell not with posts like this.

Nothing will improve until the US moves away from the two party system. It's an inherently flawed system, because it leaves no room for nuance. You either have to vote for the red guys or the blue guys and if both the red guys and the blue guys are crap then you have to vote for the least worst option, which is often hard to identify.

There's nothing written down that actually requires people to be the representative of one party or another, it's just how things have worked out.

The US also needs to seriously get a grip on religion in politics, it can be there up to a point but there has to be a limit. In any other western country a politician stating that a war is just and required entirely on the basis of religion alone would rightfully get them sectioned.

Nobody needs to infiltrate the left to get them not to vote for the center-right Democratic Party. The elected Democrats do that quite well with no help whatsoever.

During a structure fire, the fire department has to start spraying water somewhere to battle the blaze.

Im not sure thats a real thing.

Possibly a divide and muddle attempt.

As an "independant" non fascist, non billionaire type i use Republicans/Democrats more than i use the full Party names because its less to type.

The one I see more often is "Democrat Party". I don't know if they're insinuating that the party isn't actually democratic, but in any case it's weird and always seemed like another way to manipulate speech and signal who is in the in-group vs. the out-group.