|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams. They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). + Show Spoiler +Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at. The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes. One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society. It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps:
If both parties really were the same you'd just say "Both sides bad" and not vote. The fact that GH is constantly pleading with leftists to stop voting for Democrats while getting annoyed that they ever have to even talk about Republicans at all is telling.
I even gave them a recipe for how to be taken seriously in just a few steps, but they insist on driving their clown car off a cliff every post instead. I guess the people MLK Jr. called "white moderates" just can't help themselves.
|
On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams. They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). + Show Spoiler +Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: https://youtu.be/rbmPHFIFC_U?t=1297Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at. The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes. One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society. It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution?
I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US.
+ Show Spoiler +
EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although...
There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending
|
MTG and Pam bondage might have more in common than one would think.
Mostly the bondage.
It‘s been a while since I ordered Russian hookers from the trusted trafficker at the EU parliament, but then I remembered that this isn‘t the US and that I prefer cauliflower on the plate and not on my dick.
Idk, maybe I‘ll sift a bit through what‘s public today.
Edit: Did that for a bit. Looks heavily cropped, the stuff.
There‘s at least another president involved though…
Donations to a company called medialab…
|
Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more.
They are still much better for me, the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with.
No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate.
If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that.
For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason.
|
On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams. They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). + Show Spoiler +Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: https://youtu.be/rbmPHFIFC_U?t=1297Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at. The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes. One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society. It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason.
The bold is really a lot of the crux of it.
People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware).
"No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them.
One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block.
|
Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election
ad infinitum
|
On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams. They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). + Show Spoiler +Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: https://youtu.be/rbmPHFIFC_U?t=1297Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at. The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes. One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society. It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum
Except in reality...
Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact.
Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top.
Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference.
These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself.
The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power.
|
On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/[quote] They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). + Show Spoiler +Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: https://youtu.be/rbmPHFIFC_U?t=1297Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at. The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes. One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society. It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality... Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups
You're right that Democrats aren't doing enough to close the wealth gap between the Black and White communities. That being said, Democrats are still raising the quality of life and overall wealth of Black communities, consistently outpacing Republican results, while Republicans are sometimes even lowering the overall well-being of Black communities:
Under Democratic presidents, Black families’ incomes grew on average $1005 dollars annually, but grew only by $335 dollars under Republicans. The Black unemployment rate fell by a net 8.5 percentage points across the 22 years of Democratic leadership, but went up by a net of 3.6 points during 29 years of Republican presidencies. Across the years of Democratic leadership, Black child poverty declined by a net of 43.9 percentage points, but grew slightly when Republicans held the White House. https://scholars.org/contribution/when-democrats-win-blacks-latinos-and-whites
That's not to say that Democrats can't do more - they can and should do more - but it definitely makes sense for the Black communities to continue favoring Democrats over Republicans. The trend for Black communities is positive under Democrats (though the slope of that positive trend isn't as steep as the positive slope of White communities, which still needs to be addressed), while the trend for Black communities is basically flat or negative under Republicans.
|
On February 19 2026 08:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes.
One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society.
It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality... Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact. Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference. These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself. The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power. You're right that Democrats aren't doing enough to close the wealth gap between the Black and White communities. + Show Spoiler +That being said, Democrats are still raising the quality of life and overall wealth of Black communities, consistently outpacing Republican results, while Republicans are sometimes even lowering the overall well-being of Black communities: Under Democratic presidents, Black families’ incomes grew on average $1005 dollars annually, but grew only by $335 dollars under Republicans. The Black unemployment rate fell by a net 8.5 percentage points across the 22 years of Democratic leadership, but went up by a net of 3.6 points during 29 years of Republican presidencies. Across the years of Democratic leadership, Black child poverty declined by a net of 43.9 percentage points, but grew slightly when Republicans held the White House. https://scholars.org/contribution/when-democrats-win-blacks-latinos-and-whites That's not to say that Democrats can't do more - they can and should do more - but it definitely makes sense for the Black communities to continue favoring Democrats over Republicans. + Show Spoiler +The trend for Black communities is positive under Democrats (though the slope of that positive trend isn't as steep as the positive slope of White communities, which still needs to be addressed), while the trend for Black communities is basically flat or negative under Republicans.
Correct. We agree Democrats aren't doing enough (effectively nothing on the Black-white wealth gap). You're also right that preferring Democrats over Republicans makes sense.
Neither of those are in contention.
|
On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/[quote] They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). + Show Spoiler +Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: https://youtu.be/rbmPHFIFC_U?t=1297Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at. The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes. One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society. It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality...
In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans.
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
Data question: from worst to best, how is the racial wealth gap looking in solid blue, purple, and solid red states?
|
On February 19 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes.
One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society.
It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why. + Show Spoiler +Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that. No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them. Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality... Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact. Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference. These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself. The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power. In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans. + Show Spoiler +
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
Except when Democrats held large majorities in the house and senate, while holding the presidency, they finally passed their greatest achievement in the last 50 years.
A more right-wing version of Nixoncare...
Few people today would dare call President Richard Nixon a radical liberal. But 44 years ago, he proposed a health plan that went far beyond what today’s Affordable Care Act includes.
At this rate, if Democrats win big enough majorities frequently enough, we'd be lucky to look forward to Democrats and their supporters celebrating finally building Trump's wall and implementing his immigration policy in 50 years.
EDIT: Data question: from worst to best, how is the racial wealth gap looking in solid blue, purple, and solid red states?
It's a more complicated question than it seems, but basically: Blue states provide higher potential income but have the worst wealth gaps due to high barriers to entry (housing/cost of living). Red states provide lower potential income but have the best wealth equality because they offer an easier path to middle-class stability (homeownership/PPP).
|
The country's moved overwhelmingly to the economic right since Nixon. Voters rewarded Reagan and Clinton with huge mandates because they liked what they saw. Obama was called a radical socialist despite being rather moderate, but by winning on a moderate platform he was able to expand Medicaid to 25 million people that didn't have it before, as well as prevent people with pre-existing conditions from being summarily killed by society.
If you want people to vote for more left-wing candidates, you need to convince people that left wing policies are preferable. What you're actually doing is encouraging detached apathy, which benefits the conservative status quo.
|
On February 19 2026 10:13 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump. This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going. Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality... Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact. Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference. These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself. The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power. In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans. + Show Spoiler +
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
Except when Democrats held large majorities in the house and senate, while holding the presidency, they finally passed their greatest achievement in the last 50 years. A more right-wing version of Nixoncare...Few people today would dare call President Richard Nixon a radical liberal. But 44 years ago, he proposed a health plan that went far beyond what today’s Affordable Care Act includes. At this rate, if Democrats win big enough majorities frequently enough, we'd be lucky to look forward to Democrats and their supporters celebrating finally building Trump's wall and implementing his immigration policy in 50 years. EDIT: Data question: from worst to best, how is the racial wealth gap looking in solid blue, purple, and solid red states? It's a more complicated question than it seems, but basically: Blue states provide higher potential income but have the worst wealth gaps due to high barriers to entry (housing/cost of living). Red states provide lower potential income but have the best wealth equality because they offer an easier path to middle-class stability (homeownership/PPP). The country's moved overwhelmingly to the economic right since Nixon. + Show Spoiler +Voters rewarded Reagan and Clinton with huge mandates because they liked what they saw. Obama was called a radical socialist despite being rather moderate, but by winning on a moderate platform he was able to expand Medicaid to 25 million people that didn't have it before, as well as prevent people with pre-existing conditions from being summarily killed by society.
If you want people to vote for more left-wing candidates, you need to convince people that left wing policies are preferable. What you're actually doing is encouraging detached apathy, which benefits the conservative status quo. You are right to point out that Democrats (in their primaries) chose to help move the country to the right since Nixon
That was an intention/consequence of efforts by Democrats like Biden 50 years ago, the other "New Democrats" like Clinton, and the rest of the "left flank" of the Epstein class/lackeys that came along in the 80's , 90's, 00's.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States43818 Posts
That's not remotely what he said.
|
On February 19 2026 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 10:13 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 03:53 Jankisa wrote:[quote] Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps: + Show Spoiler + "Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution? I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US. + Show Spoiler +EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although... There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality... Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact. Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference. These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself. The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power. In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans. + Show Spoiler +
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
Except when Democrats held large majorities in the house and senate, while holding the presidency, they finally passed their greatest achievement in the last 50 years. A more right-wing version of Nixoncare...Few people today would dare call President Richard Nixon a radical liberal. But 44 years ago, he proposed a health plan that went far beyond what today’s Affordable Care Act includes. At this rate, if Democrats win big enough majorities frequently enough, we'd be lucky to look forward to Democrats and their supporters celebrating finally building Trump's wall and implementing his immigration policy in 50 years. EDIT: Data question: from worst to best, how is the racial wealth gap looking in solid blue, purple, and solid red states? It's a more complicated question than it seems, but basically: Blue states provide higher potential income but have the worst wealth gaps due to high barriers to entry (housing/cost of living). Red states provide lower potential income but have the best wealth equality because they offer an easier path to middle-class stability (homeownership/PPP). The country's moved overwhelmingly to the economic right since Nixon. + Show Spoiler +Voters rewarded Reagan and Clinton with huge mandates because they liked what they saw. Obama was called a radical socialist despite being rather moderate, but by winning on a moderate platform he was able to expand Medicaid to 25 million people that didn't have it before, as well as prevent people with pre-existing conditions from being summarily killed by society.
If you want people to vote for more left-wing candidates, you need to convince people that left wing policies are preferable. What you're actually doing is encouraging detached apathy, which benefits the conservative status quo. You are right to point out that Democrats (in their primaries) chose to help move the country to the right since Nixon That was an intention/consequence of efforts by Democrats like Biden 50 years ago, the other "New Democrats" like Clinton, and the rest of the "left flank" of the Epstein class/lackeys that came along in the 80's , 90's, 00's. + Show Spoiler +
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The Democratic party shifted to the right since the 1970s. So did the Republicans. Is that because the political parties decided to create the uniparty and force the American population to just accept it? Or did the American population vote overwhelmingly for neoliberals in the 80s and 90s because the population moved to the right, causing progressives to retire, lose primaries or change their positions to be in line with what the population was mostly voting for?
I think it's mostly the latter if you're looking at Reaganomics, Clinton's popularity and even the Bush era. But citizen's united and similar cases allowing idiotic amounts of money into campaigning probably started shifting it toward the former in the late 2000s, when the Epstein class started to really use their money in influencing the masses.
|
On February 19 2026 17:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2026 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 10:13 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more. They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with. No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate. If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that. + Show Spoiler +For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason. The bold is really a lot of the crux of it. People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware). "No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them. One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block. Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election ad infinitum Except in reality... Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact. Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference. These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself. The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power. In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans. + Show Spoiler +
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
Except when Democrats held large majorities in the house and senate, while holding the presidency, they finally passed their greatest achievement in the last 50 years. A more right-wing version of Nixoncare...Few people today would dare call President Richard Nixon a radical liberal. But 44 years ago, he proposed a health plan that went far beyond what today’s Affordable Care Act includes. At this rate, if Democrats win big enough majorities frequently enough, we'd be lucky to look forward to Democrats and their supporters celebrating finally building Trump's wall and implementing his immigration policy in 50 years. EDIT: Data question: from worst to best, how is the racial wealth gap looking in solid blue, purple, and solid red states? It's a more complicated question than it seems, but basically: Blue states provide higher potential income but have the worst wealth gaps due to high barriers to entry (housing/cost of living). Red states provide lower potential income but have the best wealth equality because they offer an easier path to middle-class stability (homeownership/PPP). The country's moved overwhelmingly to the economic right since Nixon. + Show Spoiler +Voters rewarded Reagan and Clinton with huge mandates because they liked what they saw. Obama was called a radical socialist despite being rather moderate, but by winning on a moderate platform he was able to expand Medicaid to 25 million people that didn't have it before, as well as prevent people with pre-existing conditions from being summarily killed by society.
If you want people to vote for more left-wing candidates, you need to convince people that left wing policies are preferable. What you're actually doing is encouraging detached apathy, which benefits the conservative status quo. You are right to point out that Democrats (in their primaries) chose to help move the country to the right since Nixon That was an intention/consequence of efforts by Democrats like Biden 50 years ago, the other "New Democrats" like Clinton, and the rest of the "left flank" of the Epstein class/lackeys that came along in the 80's , 90's, 00's. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler +Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The Democratic party shifted to the right since the 1970s. So did the Republicans. Is that because the political parties decided to create the uniparty and force the American population to just accept it? + Show Spoiler + Or did the American population vote overwhelmingly for neoliberals in the 80s and 90s because the population moved to the right, causing progressives to retire, lose primaries or change their positions to be in line with what the population was mostly voting for?
I think it's mostly the latter if you're looking at Reaganomics, Clinton's popularity and even the Bush era. But citizen's united and similar cases allowing idiotic amounts of money into campaigning probably started shifting it toward the former in the late 2000s, when the Epstein class started to really use their money in influencing the masses.
Correct. The “uniparty” is not a secret alliance. It is the predictable outcome of a first-past-the-post winner-take-all system embedded in capitalism. Two parties compete for office, but they operate within the same economic architecture and defend its core assumptions. They also reinforce the 2 party duopoly, which the founders warned against, but which helps ensure people rarely look elsewhere.
I'm saying that the transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation did not uproot the racial wealth order. It stabilized it. The system granted access, representation, and symbolic victories while leaving asset ownership, capital concentration, and intergenerational advantage fundamentally intact. Political inclusion expanded at the precise moment structural redistribution receded.
Also, that under US capitalism, electoral incorporation is a technology of containment. Institutions do not simply “process” demands; they neutralize them. Transformative claims are translated into budget lines, pilot programs, and procedural reforms. What cannot be administered/co-opted is discarded. What can be administered is diluted. The appearance of responsiveness substitutes for material restructuring.
Without sustained pressure that creates genuine instability or threatens elite interests, redistribution remains rhetorical. Incorporation absorbs insurgency, converts confrontation into negotiation, and teaches movements to measure success by proximity to power rather than by shifts in ownership or control. The result is not overt repression (for certain people/demographics) but something more durable: a system that survives by managing dissent while preserving hierarchy.
|
On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote:I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another. The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/Show nested quote +In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams. They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck). Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25. I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud: https://youtu.be/rbmPHFIFC_U?t=1297Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened. By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at.
I would more then happily support aoc if i thought that she could win. Its really the only reason,when it comes to policy i am very much on her side but for policy to be relevant you first need to win. The progressives are better of with newsom winning then with aoc losing and rubio winning.
Mamdani would be a much stronger candidate already if you are looking for a progressive. Bernie is probably to old.
That said:newsom isnt great either. I think he could win but i dont really trust him when it comes to policy and i can see why the progressives are not to happy with the idea of newsom becoming the candidate. On the other hand winning would already be pretty big since he will definitely be better then Trump.
As a progressive i think you have to be in survival mode right now. Mimizing the damage instead of dreaming to win every point. First the trend has to be reversed.
If its aoc vs rubio i think it will be a relatively easy win for rubio. Newsome could win vs rubio. Harris would not be the worst but in us politics candidates rarely get a 2nd change.
Just for fun two antitodes:aoc vs noam. Noam probably has a very slight edge and she definitely is not a great candidate.
|
Most political analysts agree that the reason why Trump won over Kamala, other then the price of eggs and general anti-establishment and party in power mood was that people perceive him as authentic.
Marco Rubio called Trump every name in the book, Trump did the same to him, Rubio has had a lot of say about Trump even when he wasn't a candidate, he condemned January 6th, he was a strong supporter of Ukraine.
Until he wasn't, when the time came to flip flop, he did it, when he needed to bend over and sell USAID and Ukraine down the drain, he did it, he's a spineless weasel, people like the resident "centrists" are clinging to him because he's basically the only adult left in the room, that's a mirage, he is an empty suit and if the spotlight ever shone on him he'd melt down, AOC would wipe the floor with him, people thinking otherwise are pretty obviously steeped in right wing propaganda.
Right wingers have focused their ire and propaganda machine on AOC because they are threatened by her, she is intelligent, authentic and charismatic, plus, she's a woman, everything they hate, same way they obsessed with Pelosi and Hillary, they switched to her, because they are terrified of competent women.
In other news, it seems like prince nonce got arrested, isn't it nice to have a country not ran by pedophiles?
|
Misogyny is so entranched in American politics, i don’t see a woman POTUS anytime soon. The double standards are just too strong.
|
AOC would be a great choice if she can get past the juggernaut of Kamala in the primaries. Just the thought of her being president is enough to get people out to vote. But she and Kamala are so equal and comparable in their level of competence that it's hard to even decide who should be at the top of the ticket between them. They'd have to flip a coin maybe. Kamala bringing the executive experience and an actual law degree, AOC bringing legislative experience. Either way the prospect of an all-female ticket would be the most terrifying and threatening thing to Republicans that Democrats should definitely do if they want to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/003/208/785/977.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/30/us/politics/TRUMPBILL/TRUMPBILL-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp)
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Maxwell_Epstein_Clinton_1993_1.jpg)
