• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Democrats trying to unseat each other IV

California's votes are gradually being counted.

In the governor's race, with 72% counted, Xavier Becerra (D) 27.2%, Steve Hilton (R) 25.9%, Tom Steyer (D) 21.5% -- TS might still pull ahead of SH.

For Los Angeles,
Mayor Karen Bass is facing two main challengers from opposite ends of the political spectrum: Nithya Raman, a liberal City Council member and former ally of the mayor, and Spencer Pratt, a Republican reality television star whose house burned in the Palisades fire.
With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.

For CA-07, SE Sacramento, incumbent Doris Matsui (D) is being challenged by Mai Vang (D) and Zachariah Wooden (R). MV is a descendant of Hmong immigrants from Laos.

For a little bit, ZW was a bit ahead of MV, but MV is now ahead again. At 66% counted, DM 30.3%, MV 28.2%, ZW 22.8%, others 15.9%, 2.0%, 0.8%.
 
Because you didn't seem the least bit outraged about what JB wanted.
But it's a completely random anecdote about a shipbuilder applying for a permit to temporarily dismantle part of a bridge with no connection with the issue of student loan forgiveness for the rich, which would be paid for by taxpayers like you and I.
Nothing like "If he can afford a superyacht as big as a big sailing ship, then he can afford to remove its masts and then reinstall them later."
Isn't that what happened in the end? And if he (or rather the company he hired to constuct the boat) had paid Rotterdam enough to make it worth their while to fiddle with the bridge, then so what? Note, this did not even happen in the US, making it even less relevant.
Now, let's forget about Bezos' nautical adventures and get back to the issue student loan forgiveness for professionals who make at least $200k/a after residency and can make a million or more if they (co)own a busy private practice.
Another reason why your whataboutism will not hunt is that Bezos is one of a handful people, while there are over a million active physicians. Add to that the also over a million lawyers whose law school loans should not be forgiven either.
Killing many more civilians than Hamas did in its big attack.
Starting wars has consequences.
Civilian deaths are inevitable in urban warfare, especially when the enemy does not seek to protect their own civilians, but cherishes their "martyrdom" because it helps them with their propaganda. This cartoon from the beginning of the war sums it up well:
Hamascartoon.jpg

Like snipers killing children and deciding on which body parts of these children to shoot each day.
Iff that happened, those responsible should be court martialed.
But you can't just assume it happened just because Hamas, or pro-Hamas sources, claim it.
Would you say that about Israeli civilians? That it's OK if many of them die because they are human shields for the IDF?
IDF does not operate from hospitals.
Israel says Hamas Gaza chief Sinwar's body identified
BBC said:
The Israeli military has said it has located and identified the body of Mohammed Sinwar, the military leader of Palestinian armed group Hamas in Gaza.
His body was discovered in a tunnel underneath the European Hospital in the southern city of Khan Younis, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on Sunday.
[...]
"This is another example of the cynical use by Hamas, using civilians as human shields, using civilian infrastructure, hospitals, again and again," he said.
Hamas does. No matter the lies of Hamawy and others.
Israel has had much more success in killing civilians than Hamas militiamen.
Israel has great success in killing Hamas and other terrorists. But pro-Palestinian media and propaganda aimed at useful idiots in the West pretends that killed terrorists are just innocent bridegrooms and such, as in the example of Muhannad Farwana I mentioned above.
This is the reality:
IDF strike kills three senior Islamic Jihad terrorists in Gaza Strip, military confirms
Or is it necessary to break eggs to make an omelet?
Have you found a way to do it otherwise? Can you tell me how Israel could have prosecuted this war without danger to civilians? Especially given dense urban areas and Hamas' tactics of deliberately operating from civilian areas. I wrote about this, including posting footage showing a rocket launcher amidst tents, in the main thread. It is wilful ignorance to pretend that this does not happen.
Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are very nice, but Israel's leaders and armed forces are acting MUCH worse than them.
I think you have been poisoned by the Palestinian propaganda rife on the Internet.
I think that Israel's leaders ought to share prison cells with Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.
While current Israeli leaders are far from perfect, that's like comparing the imperfections of a Churchill with the utter evil of a Hitler.
 
Last edited:
In the governor's race, with 72% counted, Xavier Becerra (D) 27.2%, Steve Hilton (R) 25.9%, Tom Steyer (D) 21.5% -- TS might still pull ahead of SH.
I really hope not.
But why is California counting so slowly? At this rate, Peru will finish counting before them, and they just voted yesterday!
With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.
Why does LA have such horrible options for mayor? I wouldn't trust either of these three to be in charge of an office birthday party, much less of the 2nd largest city in the country. And whoever wins will be in charge during the Olympics. Angelinos are definitely cooked, and they have noone to blame but themselves.
 
In the governor's race, with 72% counted, Xavier Becerra (D) 27.2%, Steve Hilton (R) 25.9%, Tom Steyer (D) 21.5% -- TS might still pull ahead of SH.
I really hope not.
But why is California counting so slowly? At this rate, Peru will finish counting before them, and they just voted yesterday!
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.

With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.
Why does LA have such horrible options for mayor? I wouldn't trust either of these three to be in charge of an office birthday party, much less of the 2nd largest city in the country. And whoever wins will be in charge during the Olympics. Angelinos are definitely cooked, and they have noone to blame but themselves.
Why is it with you always declaring all the Dem candidates to be really horrible people and never saying shit about the Republicans? It gets really old after a while.
 
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.
And what makes these people counting ballots qualified to match signatures? Even experts in forgery analysis can make mistakes trying to decide legit signatures from faked.
 
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.
And what makes these people counting ballots qualified to match signatures? Even experts in forgery analysis can make mistakes trying to decide legit signatures from faked.
No, it's not a perfect science, especially considering peoples signatures change over time. I cannot imagine the poll workers not getting trained on how to do it. But it really doesn't have to be perfect. No one would be able to forge enough signatures to make even a small dent in the results of an election.
 
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.
Still, it's been a week. And maybe this is a good the reason mail voting should be restricted to exceptional cases. How hard is it to show up at the precinct?

With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.
Why does LA have such horrible options for mayor? I wouldn't trust either of these three to be in charge of an office birthday party, much less of the 2nd largest city in the country. And whoever wins will be in charge during the Olympics. Angelinos are definitely cooked, and they have noone to blame but themselves.
Why is it with you always declaring all the Dem candidates to be really horrible people and never saying shit about the Republicans? It gets really old after a while.
I never said anything about "Democrats", and one of the top three mentioned by name by lpetrich is a Republican. Your lack of reading comprehension is what's getting really old. Try reading what I was replying to and my reply again. You won't find me restricting my statement to Dem candidates only.
 
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.
And what makes these people counting ballots qualified to match signatures? Even experts in forgery analysis can make mistakes trying to decide legit signatures from faked.
No, it's not a perfect science, especially considering peoples signatures change over time. I cannot imagine the poll workers not getting trained on how to do it. But it really doesn't have to be perfect. No one would be able to forge enough signatures to make even a small dent in the results of an election.
Right, not likely in a big election, but at the local level in a close race it could easily make a difference.
 
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.
Still, it's been a week. And maybe this is a good the reason mail voting should be restricted to exceptional cases. How hard is it to show up at the precinct?
Signatures are not validated at the precinct level. It would make no difference. And who made you boss to declare it should be easy for everyone.

 
I've been reluctant to post on the recent primary elections, because I wanted to wait until nearly all of the votes were counted.

From the NYT about the California governor, "Gov. Gavin Newsom cannot run again because of term limits. The leading Democrats trying to succeed him are Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general; and Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager. Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, is the top Republican."

At 94% counted, Xavier Becerra 28.0%, Steve Hilton 24.8%, Tom Steyer 22.6%, others (58 candidates)


From the NYT about the Los Angeles mayor, "Mayor Karen Bass is facing two main challengers from opposite ends of the political spectrum: Nithya Raman, a liberal City Council member and former ally of the mayor, and Spencer Pratt, a Republican reality television star whose house burned in the Palisades fire."

At >95% counted, Karen Bass 34.3%, Nithya Raman 28.5%, Spencer Pratt 25.8%, others 3.6%, 2.9%, 1.5%, 0.8%, 0.7%, 0.5%, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2%, 0.1%, 0.1%

During the count, SP was ahead of NR for a while, and later dropped behind, an effect that some people call the "red mirage". Republicans tending to get counted first, because they tend to vote in-person, with Democrats tending to get counted later, because they tend to vote by mail. But some Republicans prefer to scream "Fraud!!!"
 
Two progressive challengers made it into the general election:

In CA-07, with >95% counted, it's Mai Vang (D) 30.8%, incumbent Doris Matsui (D) 29.1%, Zechariah Wooden (R) 22.1%, others 15.2%, 2.0%, 0.8%.

In CA-34, with >95% counted, incumbent Jimmy Gomez (D) 46.0%, Angela Gonzales-Torres (D) 30.7%, Calvin Lee (R) 13.7%, others 5.1%, 3.4%, 1.1%.

Over in Maine, in the Democratic Senate Primary, with 94% counted, Graham Platner 72.0%, Janet Mills 19.3%, others 8.3%, 0.4%. Even though a month and a half ago, this happened: Mills drops out of Maine Senate race, setting up Platner to face Collins - POLITICO JM is the governor of Maine, and
Her exit from the race is a major loss for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who recruited Mills and saw her as the most viable option to defeat Collins. On Thursday, Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) released a statement bashing Collins and promising to support Platner.
 
In the governor's race, with 72% counted, Xavier Becerra (D) 27.2%, Steve Hilton (R) 25.9%, Tom Steyer (D) 21.5% -- TS might still pull ahead of SH.
I really hope not.
But why is California counting so slowly? At this rate, Peru will finish counting before them, and they just voted yesterday!
There's almost 7 million ballots that have to have the signatures matched to the registration record by human eye.

With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.
Why does LA have such horrible options for mayor? I wouldn't trust either of these three to be in charge of an office birthday party, much less of the 2nd largest city in the country. And whoever wins will be in charge during the Olympics. Angelinos are definitely cooked, and they have noone to blame but themselves.
Why is it with you always declaring all the Dem candidates to be really horrible people and never saying shit about the Republicans? It gets really old after a while.
Because he is biased and operating in bad faith.

We have asked this question nearly every month, if not every week, since I started reading these forums and a long time before that, from reading the archives.

It is a common response now that I point out, usually after one of his posts, that it is a classic sign of fascism to cry "BOTH SIDES" and fail to put the statistics on a balance.

This is because he doesn't really care who is a horrible person as long as they are horrible in all the same ways he is.
 
California 11th Congressional District Primary 2026: Live Election Results - The New York Times - "In the San Francisco contest to replace Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker who is retiring, State Senator Scott Wiener is the front-runner. But he faces challengers from his left, most notably Saikat Chakrabarti, a former chief of staff for Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Connie Chan, a member of the city’s Board of Supervisors."

At >95% counted, Scott Wiener 41.0%, Connie Chan 29.8%, Saikat Chakrabarti 17.6%, others 4.0%, 4.0%, 1.8%, 0.8%, 0.4%, 0.3%, 0.2%, 0.2%. All of them are Democrats except for Republicans #5 and #6, and Independent #9.

I'm disappointed by the loss of Saikat Chakrabarti. He has IMO a lot of good positions, and he has demonstrated his support of them over the last decade. Saikat Chakrabarti - Wikipedia He is the son of some Bengali Hindu immigrants, and he worked in several Silicon Valley companies, including as an engineer in payments processor Stripe. He how has at least $50 million in equity from Stripe.

After that success, he asked himself how much he was doing on a broader level, and in 2015, he joined Bernie Sanders's Presidential campaign and he helped develop some software for helping BS's campaigners contact each other and be in touch with each other. He, Alexandra Rojas, and Corbin Trent helped stage campaign events, and sccording to SC, BS's campaigners got "people would say, 'How's he going to get anything done? We just saw what Congress did to Obama for the last eight years, they’re gonna do the same thing to Bernie.'" So in the spring of 2016, as BS's campaign was winding down, SC, AR, and CT founded Brand New Congress, with the ambitious goal of challenging every Congressional seat. Though acting like a third party, BNC's candidates would run as Democrats or Republicans as appropriate. However, BNC was not nearly as successful. In 2017, SC, BS campaign executive Zack Exley, and podcasters Cenk Uygur and Zack Exley founded Justice Democrats, which would work in the Democratic Party, and SC, AR, and CT became leaders of JD.

BNC and JD had one big success in 2018: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who unseated longtime incumbent and "corporate Democrat" Joe Crowley. SC became AOC's chief of staff, and he helped organize the writing of AOC's Green New Deal resolution. "it wasn't originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." and about the Presidency and Senate Republicans, "Don't expect them to back down . . . Another thing to really do over the next two years is to basically show the American people what will be possible if the Democrats win the House, the Senate and the presidency in 2020, and that means putting our best foot forward. It means putting the most ambitious, the boldest, the biggest things we can, and then just build a movement around that."

But he caused a lot of controversy by saying that the more conservative sort of Democrats were like Southern segregationists, and his explicitly naming a Congressmember as being one of them. He resigned, and to this day, AOC does not want to talk about him, even though SC mentioned his association with AOC in his campaign.

He then joined the think tank New Consensus to further develop a Green New Deal, and more recently, a "Mission for America". It has a lot:

Clean-energy electrical grid, electric vehicles, hydrogen production for renewable-energy steel production and shipping and aviation fuels, electrifying heating and cooking in buildings, geothermal energy, nuclear reactors in military bases to avoid civilian red tape, R&D for the more difficult problems like CO2 removal, high-speed trains, injecting aerosols into the stratosphere for temporary cooling, ocean conservation and restoration, and winding down the use of fossil fuels.
 
Opinion | The Cautionary Tale of Saikat Chakrabarti | Common Dreams - "The campaign did not turn out as hoped for the individual who helped catapult Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into Congress and co-founded Justice Democrats."
As those active in the field will often say, politics is a tough business – it ain’t for everyone. Saikat Chakrabarti, would-be successor to retiring San Francisco Representative and past Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is a recent case in point: a candidate who seemed a perfect fit for the city’s political scene, yet failed to win one of the two slots in the November final. What is unusual about the Chakrabarti story is while we’re all too familiar with political figures who have mastered the art of winning and holding office at the expense of developing a clear vision of why they’re doing it, his problem has largely been the reverse.
Seems like social natural selection.

In October 2025, SC entered the race for House seat CA-11, which Nancy Pelosi was then in. State Senator Scott Wiener then followed, likely from wanting to succeed NP. But NP did not support him, because she was still in the race. She later dropped out, however, and I'm sure that she will enjoy her ice cream and her stock trades.
To one unfamiliar with the details of San Francisco politics the Chakrabarti candidacy would likely have seemed a welcome development for the a left that has long been frustrated by city’s domination by what they considered the corporate-oriented wing of the Democratic Party – here was a big picture candidate with the capacity to run a high budget campaign. (Chakrabarti put in something like $10 million of his own money over the course of the campaign.) And he even seemed to recognize the fundamental truth that the wealthy will generally deny to their dying days – that all value comes from labor, telling supporters at his kick-off rally, “I ended up making a lot of money, and that was a profoundly weird and radicalizing experience,” but “I did not work harder than my teacher or a nurse or the people cleaning our offices ...I just won the startup lottery.”
What went wrong?
Well, for one thing it wasn’t that his potential base refused to vote for a wealthy candidate who appeared to be trying to buy the office. Billionaire gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, who spent over $200 million on his race, carried San Francisco by a 38-25 percent margin over statewide frontrunner Xavier Becerra, the voters apparently deciding that he been putting his ill-gotten gains to good use.
A San Francisco Chronicle post mortem (paywalled) "maintained that Chakrabarti’s problem was that he didn’t meet the right people." The CommonDreams article continued with describing SC's odd involvements in San Francisco politics. I find it hard to summarize that drama llama.
 
With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.
Why does LA have such horrible options for mayor? I wouldn't trust either of these three to be in charge of an office birthday party, much less of the 2nd largest city in the country. And whoever wins will be in charge during the Olympics. Angelinos are definitely cooked, and they have noone to blame but themselves.
Why is it with you always declaring all the Dem candidates to be really horrible people and never saying shit about the Republicans? It gets really old after a while.
Because he is biased and operating in bad faith.
Bullshit. Apparently neither you nor Zipr can read worth a damn. As I have already explained to Zipr, I never mentioned "Democrats" in my statement, and lpetrich's list of the three top LA mayoral candidates, to which I was responding, has two Democrats and one Republican.
We have asked this question nearly every month, if not every week, since I started reading these forums and a long time before that, from reading the archives.
I am far less biased than you, Zipr and many other posters here. I at least acknowledge that there are faults on both sides. You call people "fascist" for noticing that.
 
With 83% counted, Karen Bass (D) 34.7%, Nithya Raman (D) 27.1%, Spencer Pratt (R) 26.7%, others much less.
Why does LA have such horrible options for mayor? I wouldn't trust either of these three to be in charge of an office birthday party, much less of the 2nd largest city in the country. And whoever wins will be in charge during the Olympics. Angelinos are definitely cooked, and they have noone to blame but themselves.
Why is it with you always declaring all the Dem candidates to be really horrible people and never saying shit about the Republicans? It gets really old after a while.
Because he is biased and operating in bad faith.
Bullshit. Apparently neither you nor Zipr can read worth a damn. As I have already explained to Zipr, I never mentioned "Democrats" in my statement, and lpetrich's list of the three top LA mayoral candidates, to which I was responding, has two Democrats and one Republican.
We have asked this question nearly every month, if not every week, since I started reading these forums and a long time before that, from reading the archives.
I am far less biased than you, Zipr and many other posters here. I at least acknowledge that there are faults on both sides. You call people "fascist" for noticing that.
There is definitely a big difference between noticing faults on both sides--side note: there are ALWAYS faults on both sides because we are all people, flawed human beings--and fascism.

Fascism tends to be neat and tidy, black/white with very little gray or room outside of the lines, unless totally out of sight which is one of the many flaws of fascism. Anti-fascists are more...amorphous, fuzzy I think or at least with many fewer absolutes, the big absolute being: no fascism. Having come of age during the latter days of the hippy era, I can say with great authority that a lot of people who are absolute control freaks definitely came into power during the whole free love/power to the people thing and that everyone on every side was very very flawed but only some were high on power trips. Not all tripped and fell flat as they should have done.

Democracies are messy and imperfect and very much a case of trying and trying and trying again to get (most)things right which is hard even when most people agree on what 'right' is about most things.

I think that there is less granular criticism of republicans these days on this board because, for better or worse, most of us agree that the GOP is a bunch of real life fascists, not just wannabe fascists.

You and I do not agree on many things, Derec, but it has come to me that in part, you are very much an idealist and like all idealists, are doomed to be constantly disappointed in reality. It's a late welcome to the club by a departing member here, but I feel like I see that part of you--which you may actually disagree with. And I'm less pure idealist and more realist/pragmatist that I truly hope is built upon an idealist ideal of the very real world we live in. We are imperfect as a species and as a nation and as a democracy and as a republic. The past 10 years or so have highlighted just how easy it is for us to go off the rails by placing too much faith/worshipping ....in this case, tech bros/billionaires, whose fortes have absolutely nothing to do with understanding or even liking humanity and a lot more of a greed for more money and more 'wins' for money and winning's sake. But hey, they made us a bunch of money, or some of us anyway. Which, btw, is their entire raison d'etre, whatever else they may claim but mostly, yeah, they are pretty upfront about it being about winning and money.
 
There is definitely a big difference between noticing faults on both sides--side note: there are ALWAYS faults on both sides because we are all people, flawed human beings--and fascism.
Tell that to Jarhyn!
Fascism tends to be neat and tidy, black/white with very little gray or room outside of the lines, unless totally out of sight which is one of the many flaws of fascism. Anti-fascists are more...amorphous, fuzzy I think or at least with many fewer absolutes, the big absolute being: no fascism.
I disagree. Anti-fascism as an ideology is very different than just being against fascism.
Anti-fascism is like the antimatter version of fascism. Opposite signs on everything, but otherwise identical.
Therefore anti-fascists are just as dogmatic and black/white as fascists, lile Spy vs. Spy. It goes back to the Antifaschistische Aktion of the German Communist Party (KPD) that viewed even social democrats as "social fascists". And not just the German communists believed that. This is a Soviet poster from 1932:
political-poster-ussr-1932-social-democracy-and-fascism-are-two-links-of-the-same-chain-of.jpg

It says: "Social Democracy and fascism are two links of the same chain of capitalist exploitation".
Having come of age during the latter days of the hippy era, I can say with great authority that a lot of people who are absolute control freaks definitely came into power during the whole free love/power to the people thing and that everyone on every side was very very flawed but only some were high on power trips. Not all tripped and fell flat as they should have done.
I am a bit younger than you and have not lived through that era.
You and I do not agree on many things, Derec, but it has come to me that in part, you are very much an idealist and like all idealists, are doomed to be constantly disappointed in reality.
I do not think I am an idealist at all. But I do think I am politically homeless. Neither party really appeals to me. I think Democrats are too beholden to groups rather than principles. For example the principle of privacy or social liberalism is only defended when it applies to certain groups like gays and women. I am in favor of things like legal gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas), gay marriage or legal abortion, but am frustrated that principles behind those positions are only advocated in the narrow sense of advocating for favored groups, and not as principles that apply to everybody. But again, Dems are for groups over principles, and their alliance with radfems means that they cannot be consistent in principles such as "right to privacy" and "my body my choice".
....in this case, tech bros/billionaires, whose fortes have absolutely nothing to do with understanding or even liking humanity and a lot more of a greed for more money and more 'wins' for money and winning's sake.
I think the pathological hatred of tech bros/billionaires is also bad, and weakens the message of the likes of Bernie Sanders. I dislike Warren for many reasons, and I do not think wealth taxes are a good idea, but at least her wealth tax plan, unlike the Bernie one, starts well below $1G net worth.
 
There is definitely a big difference between noticing faults on both sides--side note: there are ALWAYS faults on both sides because we are all people, flawed human beings--and fascism.
Tell that to Jarhyn!
Fascism tends to be neat and tidy, black/white with very little gray or room outside of the lines, unless totally out of sight which is one of the many flaws of fascism. Anti-fascists are more...amorphous, fuzzy I think or at least with many fewer absolutes, the big absolute being: no fascism.
I disagree. Anti-fascism as an ideology is very different than just being against fascism.
Anti-fascism is like the antimatter version of fascism. Opposite signs on everything, but otherwise identical.
Therefore anti-fascists are just as dogmatic and black/white as fascists, lile Spy vs. Spy. It goes back to the Antifaschistische Aktion of the German Communist Party (KPD) that viewed even social democrats as "social fascists". And not just the German communists believed that. This is a Soviet poster from 1932:
political-poster-ussr-1932-social-democracy-and-fascism-are-two-links-of-the-same-chain-of.jpg

It says: "Social Democracy and fascism are two links of the same chain of capitalist exploitation".
Having come of age during the latter days of the hippy era, I can say with great authority that a lot of people who are absolute control freaks definitely came into power during the whole free love/power to the people thing and that everyone on every side was very very flawed but only some were high on power trips. Not all tripped and fell flat as they should have done.
I am a bit younger than you and have not lived through that era.
You and I do not agree on many things, Derec, but it has come to me that in part, you are very much an idealist and like all idealists, are doomed to be constantly disappointed in reality.
I do not think I am an idealist at all. But I do think I am politically homeless. Neither party really appeals to me. I think Democrats are too beholden to groups rather than principles. For example the principle of privacy or social liberalism is only defended when it applies to certain groups like gays and women. I am in favor of things like legal gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas), gay marriage or legal abortion, but am frustrated that principles behind those positions are only advocated in the narrow sense of advocating for favored groups, and not as principles that apply to everybody. But again, Dems are for groups over principles, and their alliance with radfems means that they cannot be consistent in principles such as "right to privacy" and "my body my choice".
....in this case, tech bros/billionaires, whose fortes have absolutely nothing to do with understanding or even liking humanity and a lot more of a greed for more money and more 'wins' for money and winning's sake.
I think the pathological hatred of tech bros/billionaires is also bad, and weakens the message of the likes of Bernie Sanders. I dislike Warren for many reasons, and I do not think wealth taxes are a good idea, but at least her wealth tax plan, unlike the Bernie one, starts well below $1G net worth.
Ok, I’m dumb: What is the G in $1G?
 
Back
Top Bottom