US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5917

On August 21 2026 02:30 Gorsameth wrote:
So is this the latest angle to fight the electoral successes from the left?
'centralists' purity testing left candidates.

On August 21 2026 02:42 WombaT wrote:

Latest? They’ve been doing that for forever

On August 21 2026 02:23 LightSpectra wrote:


If he does something blatantly hypocritical then I'll be happy to condemn him for his hypocrisy.



On a personal level I think any rich person who blows it on stupid stuff like giga-yachts when they could be giving to charity are assholes, sure. Since Elon Musk is literally like 100,000x richer than Hasan it's 100,000x as true for him. But I'm not advocating for more taxes on them because they're assholes, I'm advocating more taxes because of a politically-engineered structural inequality.

How many people in this country have $8m or more? Something like three or four million people last I checked. Do you want me to personally stalk each and every one of them until I find something to be outraged about? Would that be a good use of my time?

If Hasan were running for office you'd be well within your rights to not vote for him because you hate millionaires or hypocrites. But letting Mike Rogers win the Michigan election for U.S. Senate even after he said he was going to protect a sieg heiling CSAM-mass-producing centibillionaire because you don't like that El-Sayed hangs out with a hypocritical Internet streamer seems pretty absurd to me. Seems more like something a strawman of socialists would do rather than the "moderate Democrat" you've self-identified as.

I'm still not entirely clear why you don't seem to be outraged at rich people who want to cut their own taxes (essentially making life worse for the 99% just so they can buy more frivolous bullshit or more elections), but rich people who advocate raising taxes on themselves is a line too far. Although I do understand that you'll find some excuse to complain (whether it's envy or hypocrisy) whenever anyone does.

On August 21 2026 02:30 Gorsameth wrote:
So is this the latest angle to fight the electoral successes from the left?
'centralists' purity testing left candidates.

On August 21 2026 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:

Probably worth revisiting if anyone has any policies/points that they believe the dyhb/corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop purity testing/infighting about and concede to those LightSpectra/progressive/DSA factions to their left in order to not self-sabotage?

On August 21 2026 03:05 WombaT wrote:

+ Show Spoiler +

The Dems should absolutely go hard in for something like universal healthcare which is pretty bloody popular as polling shows, + Show Spoiler +

On August 21 2026 02:58 dyhb wrote:
Literally every post of yours that goes "I think any rich person who blows it on stupid stuff like ..." makes me think the next sentence out of you will be "and obviously Hasan Piker fits that mold to a T." Is that the next sentence out of you? If not, why not?

You act like I have to be big mad about "letting Mike Rogers win," like the hypothetical is I vote in both the Democratic primary against El-Sayed and the Republican primary for Mike Rogers.

Also moving the goalposts to "hanging out with" from "refused to denounce during the primary" is a nice touch. Take what I said, not a strawman that I didn't say.

Just check if actions match rhetoric? It's not hard, particularly if you have millions of dollars. I can't rectify your objections to billionaire conspicuous consumption if millionaires are inexplicably exempted by you.

Hasan Piker is a candidate for some office?

On August 21 2026 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:

Can you say "dyhb/corp/thirdway/ect Dems absolutely need to concede on and go hard in for something like universal healthcare which is pretty bloody popular as polling shows. Otherwise their infighting and purity testing is self-sabotage that could lead to them losing"?

Do you recognize the difference between that and what you're currently saying and why it matters?

On August 21 2026 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:


Again, yeah I personally think he is an asshole. But unlike conservatives I don't base my entire personality around trying to use the government to punish people I personally dislike.

The question was repeatedly asked if you're going to (or would if you lived in MI) vote for El-Sayed, Rogers, or neither when the general election comes. You still haven't given a clear answer.

What exemption? I think Hasan should pay more taxes too.

That's why I find this whole conversation perplexing. Not only is he not a candidate, but the people Republicans campaign with or associate with are generally orders of magnitude worse. I already pointed out Mike Rogers is still proudly attending a church that is basically a sexual assault factory, but that's apparently not as big a deal as what Hasan said and apologized for last decade.

On August 21 2026 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:

Can you say "dyhb/corp/thirdway/ect Dems absolutely need to concede on and go hard in for something like universal healthcare which is pretty bloody popular as polling shows. Otherwise their infighting and purity testing is self-sabotage that could lead to them losing"?

Do you recognize the difference between that and what you're currently saying and why it matters?

The Dems should absolutely go hard in for something like universal healthcare which is pretty bloody popular as polling shows

Speaking on Fox News’s Sean Hannity Show Wednesday, [South Carolina Senator Darline] Graham explained the shocking moment she admitted she was “not informed on national security,” when asked whether Taiwan and the South China Sea were national security issues for the United States.

“You know, I tripped up on one question last night regarding Taiwan. But you know I’ve said many times, I’m not a politician, certainly not a career politician, I don’t speak politician,” she said. “You know I was just honest, and I think that’s kind of a foreign concept.”

It’s true that a wise woman knows herself to be a fool—but Graham’s foolishness wasn’t finished.

“Of course Taiwan is our friend, but I think people in South Carolina are more worried about making ends meet, they’re concerned about boys in girls’ sports,” she added.

It would be surprising if people in South Carolina really felt that way—considering the state passed a law banning transgender students from playing on girls’ or women’s sports teams four years ago. The conservative-majority Supreme Court recently upheld similar rules in two other states, cementing the status of South Carolina’s transgender athlete ban.

On August 21 2026 04:19 Jankisa wrote:
I personally think that talking about that chud is completely irrelevant, boring and stupid.

The guy is not anywhere close to as big of a deal as the fake centrists like dyhb try to portray him, and it's not only him, the whole "let's try to make Hasan a big deal for Democrats" seems like the most obvious right wing psyop ever, and of course, the least original thinkers in the history, the fake Centrists can't help but be all over that.

I mean, or boy here openly said that since AES did not burn Hasan's picture on camera he'd vote Republican and give the senate away to Republicans.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's not "only" because of Hasan, it's also because the guy said that US shouldn't be sending billions to Israel.

Or, you know, we can just call it what it is, blatant Islamophobia which is rampant among the "Centrist" crowd.

On August 21 2026 04:20 WombaT wrote:

What do you mean ‘can I say?’



I literally already said it, I dunno how more unequivocal I can be there.
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 21 2026 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:

So no, you don't recognize the difference or why it matters?

On August 20 2026 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Of course I have [posted about what meaningful activism looks like]

On August 21 2026 05:50 Turbovolver wrote:

I did see that post before, but a bunch of its suggestions just read so vague to me chatGPT could have given me them, honestly.

"Don't obey the government, sometimes"
Could mean anything. I would suggest the rightist econobros who spent days of their year on minimising their taxes are essentially doing this, too, for example.

"Make support systems that are parallel to taxes"
Does sound actionable, but if you believe this now you are putting the responsibility on the Hasans of the world to use their small pockets of wealth to actually lift others up.

"Non-reformist reforms"
As per wiki, these are reforms that "challenge existing power relations and pave the way for more revolutionary changes in the larger society necessary for a more socially just and environmentally sustainable world". Sounds very circular, but if you dig into [the wiki page, lmao] apparently it's things like "don't criminalise domestic violence because police are bad, that's reformist reform". This also doesn't actually say how to meaningfully organise to make such reforms happen.

Now, GH, you might say "why on earth should it fall solely upon me to figure out all the details of how to herd a bunch of cats into actually doing these things?"

And you would be right about that, it shouldn't, and it wouldn't if you did not spend every other post here insisting that you are the only one doing anything that matters.

On August 21 2026 05:36 WombaT wrote:

What am I not recognising?

On August 21 2026 02:58 dyhb wrote:
Hasan Piker with the $200k Porsche Taycan Turbo S and the $2.7 million dollar west hollywood home and the $5,000 Cartier glasses and rings are his millionaire's conspicuous displays of wealth as the yachts are to billionaires.

Literally every post of yours that goes "I think any rich person who blows it on stupid stuff like ..." makes me think the next sentence out of you will be "and obviously Hasan Piker fits that mold to a T." Is that the next sentence out of you? If not, why not?

If you don't have the time to examine a prominent example, I won't make you make time.

You act like I have to be big mad about "letting Mike Rogers win," like the hypothetical is I vote in both the Democratic primary against El-Sayed and the Republican primary for Mike Rogers. Also moving the goalposts to "hanging out with" from "refused to denounce during the primary" is a nice touch. Take what I said, not a strawman that I didn't say.

Just check if actions match rhetoric? It's not hard, particularly if you have millions of dollars. I can't rectify your objections to billionaire conspicuous consumption if millionaires are inexplicably exempted by you.

Hasan Piker is a candidate for some office?