Come January, the GOP will control every elected statewide office in Louisiana after Republicans swept three runoff races for attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer Saturday night.

The GOP success, in a state that has had a Democrat in the governor’s office for the past eight years, means that Republicans secured all of Louisiana’s statewide offices for the first time since 2015. In addition, the GOP holds a two-third supermajority in the House and Senate.

Liz Murrill was elected as attorney general, Nancy Landry as secretary of state and John Fleming as treasurer. The results also mean Louisiana will have its first female attorney general and first woman elected as secretary of state.

Saturday’s election completes the shaping of Louisiana’s executive branch, where most incumbents didn’t seek reelection and opened the door for new leadership in some of the most powerful positions.

  • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I disagree flat out. MAGA is fullblown neoliberal. They don’t want to regulate corporations, they don’t want to raise taxes, they want to cut, dismantle regulatory control and shutter the government, allowing those who can to loot unfettered and unimposed. There’s a phrase, it’s not a war crime if it’s the first time; that feels applicable here.

    What am I not seeing, how is MAGA not the trickledown zombie if Reagan corpse? Shit, Reagan used the phrase first.

    Whats been built in the past 40 years? In America. I don’t see any bullet trains, I see stroads. I see some new high rises, but none that push any limits, except maybe the millennium tower in SF, and I assumed we were good letting Pisa hold the leaning tower title, but maybe I assumed wrong.

    I’m wracking my head trying to think of a single American innovation that wasn’t A. Created by DARPA and the public got the militaries hand me downs (GPS, IBM, Internet, Hubble) or B. Heavily subsidized to fund research and contracts/ preordered by the government.

    Capitalists don’t innovate. They build systems for wealth extraction. Let’s look at the capitalist golden boy, Apple. There was and is no innovation with the iPhone. Phones already existed. So did cameras and MP3 players. Nothing new about a touchscreen or a GUI interface, the iPhone took all these elements and basic microcomputer parts, put it all together, renamed programs as ‘apps’, and charged $500 for it at a time when cell phones sold off at $200 high end. There is almost no change between models just stronger conponents, they just bricked old ones with updates and bloat forcing upgrading. Which is beyond fucked up. And since the 5c, at least, Apple has just purchased it’s components from Samsungs waste bin. For over a decade buying a new $1000 iPhone was the same as buying a 2 year old Samsung, just with lipstick on the pig.

    For a good sized segment an iPhone is a status thing. Those with one judge others and look down on them. It works both ways. Those who have an iPhone, I judge to be suckers and idiots. Because y’all got swindled by the greatest swindling modern history. Paying premium for bargain bin tech. Smh.

    What reseach wasn’t paid for with public money yet the dividends all end up privately gained? What a fucking shell game capitalists play. We’re all taken for fools. They don’t create jobs, they took over existing industries, lay offs for efficiency, repress competition, merge into monopolies, then it’s the enshitification <- where we are now, where user gets fucked, businesses get fucked, but it’s a monopoly so what can we all do? Amazon, Google, 2 textbook examples of get.fucked.inc.

    Ever wonder why all the billionaires scramble for government contracts? Seriously. All of them. Show me a rich person not on the teat of the fed. I’m going to go with that’s because there are no private contracts at that level. Not that there couldn’t be, but that would require innovation and risk, and, again, Capitalists don’t do that. Why would they? Perfect example. Take Shell, or Chevron. Why wouldn’t they, in the 80s start to pivot towards solar and wind? They were the leaders of the energy secter, positioning emerging technology is R+D mixed with ROI. Surely they had people to crunch those numbers. But instead, what does history show they did? Suppress the climate studies, hire the mercs with PhDs to muddy the waters, and extract extract extract. They already have all this infrastructure paid for by the public in tax breaks. They’re gonna use that earning potential until it costs more to operate than they can write off, or get tax breaks for.

    All the way until they’ve fucked the climate for everyone else.

    Not that they care. If capitalism has an underpinning catch all catch phrase it’s, without a doubt, “I got Mine, Fuck you” silhouetted over a picture of someone pulling a ladder up behind them.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There was and is no innovation with the iPhone. Phones already existed

      Lmao

      Needless to say

      I disagree flat out. MAGA is fullblown neoliberal

      You have no clue what you’re talking about

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        NeoLiberal refers to lassaiz-faire capitalism. Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, Marty Friedman and the Chicago school of economics. Ayn Rand.

        NeoLiberal has nothing to do with social policy. It doesn’t care who is sucking who’s dick at church or who’s marrying their first cousin in their backyard bud light lazy river.

        NeoLiberal = trickledown = Reaganomics

        In actuality it’s translated as corporatocracy.

        What part of Donald Trump is against ANY of that? It is entirely the NeoLiberal revolution of the 80s, and daddies money, that allowed Trump the opportunity to rise in NYC.

        Fill me in. Enlighten me. I’ll be waiting.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Neoliberalism is not laissez-faire. Neoliberalism absolutely contains an entire philosophy of social policy (Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal and was the first major US politician of the modern era to support healthcare reform).

          Neoliberalism is pro free trade, seeks market solutions but believes the government should work to address externalities, and is pro immigration and and anti-isolationist

          NeoLiberal = trickledown = Reaganomics

          There is nothing about Neoliberalism that requires Reagan’s tax/economic views. As neoliberalism is essentially the policy of “follow economic orthodoxy” it’s more accurate to say that Neoliberalism requires dissent from Reagan’s views.

          Donald Trump is explicitly a protectionist nativist who supports isolationism as a foreign policy. He is the opposite of a neoliberal.

          You can not like neoliberalism, that’s fine. But things you don’t like can be different things.

          • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Clinton huh? Obama…care…? Modelled off Romney(®)care? The ACA never happened? That was a pretty big deal. I don’t agree with it but none the less, you’re categorically, empirically wrong.

            Go to wiki. Reassess your knowledge base. Milton Friedman. You want to start there.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Clinton was pushing a series of policies derided as “Hillary Care” in 1993.

              Starting on September 28, 1993, Hillary Clinton appeared for several days of testimony before five congressional committees on health care.[13] Opponents of the bill organized against it before it was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993.[13] The bill was a complex proposal of more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees. The full text of the November 20 bill (the Health Security Act) is available online.[

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

              She then, in 2004, put forth the basis for her more comprehensive plan, which by 08 became her health care proposal in the 2008 primary.

              It’s neat what you learn when you’re born before the year 2000.

              • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Well shit, I was born in 81 whatdya know. I fucking graduated before 2000, you ain’t got any footing there. You wanna talk about Jnco’s? No Fear shirts? Matt Shepard being drug behind a truck and tied to a fence to die? What were you doin when news of Cobain came out? Shit my first concert was Rage Against the Machine in 96. Fucking good times.

                And I knew all that, but all of that means fuckall. She was First lady, then ran for senator of NY, then secretary of state in 2012. But soooo what. What power did she really have?

                Who gives a shit what HRC was trying to whip support of while first lady. She couldn’t get the support, but fuck her for trying right? I’m not even a democrat, or a fan of Democrats, but I won’t knock Americans for trying to help Americans. Even if I disagree with their direction. Motive is important, whole different kinds of laws come into play around it. I don’t think anyone ever questioned HRCs patriotism. Hard to argue with the optics of the zero dark thirty war room. She didn’t openly call for foreign aid attacking opponents in a political campaign, in and of itself is sedition. Was she a bitch? Probably. Given a choice of a leader who is a bitch vs say Mrs Butterworth, I’ll take the bitch, thanks. For fucks sake, you people are impossible. Move to the south and secede. I’ll stay in the NW and even vote to pay for your move.