Can we not turn everything into a dystopia, pretty please?

 So, Gamers Nexus covered this one, but apparently some pro gaming industry group testified before the California senate and argued unironically that community servers for games are "piracy." 

...

......

..............

WHAT THE ACTUAL ####?! Seriously. F these guys, why the F are we taking these people seriously? Who the hell, outside of the major corporations who wanna exert more control over the game play models they provide to fleece people out of more money want this? 

NO ONE! THAT'S WHO!

And yet, these guys get attention. My god, I hate how corrupt our government is. This is why people dont care about democracy any more. Doesnt matter if its republican or democrat, these MFers will get their voices heard, and both parties will cave to them. Corporatist democrats are almost as bad as republicans in this regard.

The fact is, we are governed by people who dont know how the internet works. Sure, we may have come somewhat of a way from the "series of tubes" idiots in the 2000s, but I doubt many of these congresspeople are gamers and know F all about the gaming industry. 

So...here's how community servers work. For most of early online gaming, community servers were THE way to play games. Almost all games in the 2000s on PC used community servers. Not consoles as much, but their ecosystems evolved separately where the corporations exerted more control. You had xbox live for example as an early online model, and yeah, you can see where that was going, with them charging $50 a year just so people can use their own internet. 

Over time, community servers became less common. They held pretty strong with most games through I'd say, the mid 2010s, but there were shifts earlier than that. You had MMOs that used their own servers, because they were subscription model, and some people did form their own private services which bypassed the official ones and were essentially piracy. I think that's where this argument came from. I know despite many games having community servers, they also relied on the infrastructure of the companies to access a master server, like gamespy arcade or EA games. Like when BF2/2142 went offline, some tried to do community servers there, and EA said that was piracy and that was squashed. But all in all, for the most part, yeah, early gaming used community servers. hell, the game being discussed I think was minecraft? That DEFINITELY uses community servers, at least on java. Bedrock is a bit different and more consolized but even that has a community server option IIRC. Dont quote me on that, but yeah. 

The point is, everyone and their mother can make and own a minecraft server. back in the early days of 2011, my college buddy ran a server off of his fricking laptop. I mean...who are we kidding here? 

That's why this argument is so ridiculous. There's so much context and nuance here. 

Here's the thing. The internet has been a certain way since its inception. In the 2020s, it seems like corporations are trying to rewrite the rules. More age verification. More corporate control. Less user choice and customizability. We really are heading toward a "you will own nothing and be happy" society. They're pushing for subscription everything. They dont want you to own anything, they want you to rent it from them. These ESA guys, they argue against right to repair, arguing that it facilitates piracy, they argue in favor of subscription services, they argue against community servers, it's ridiculous. It's all about rewriting the rules so...again, youll own nothing and be happy. You dont have control over the hardware you buy (if you can even buy hardware in the future, some are arguing that they're trying to kill consumer electronics so they can rent you crap from the cloud), the operating systems you use, the software you buy, and anything against their preferred model in their view is "piracy." It's ridiculous.

And you know what? F intellectual property in its current form. I'm not opposed to a BASIC version of IP, I mean, corporations gotta make money somehow, but theres a huge middle ground between "everything is free" and "lifetime + 75 years + whatever BS stipulations that impose about how you dont really own what you buy." For gaming I think a reasonable amount of time is around.....eh....10-15 years? That's 2011-2016. Maybe you could argue 15-20. Anything more than 20 is just...kinda ridiculous IMO. 

And I definitely advocate for an OWNERSHIP model. Like you own a right to play the games you bought. I support the stop killing games movement more or less, and you know what? if corporations no longer wanna support a game with heavily integrated online, then HEY, YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT MIGHT PRESERVE IT FOR THOSE WHO WANNA PLAY IT?! COMMUNITY SERVERS! 

Seriously, games used to be a product. Games as a service is cancer. Okay, I won't say it's all bad. It depends on the game and what it's trying to do. Some games as a service are actually pretty good. A lot of online games tend to evolve over the years. I think it's contextual. But that's the thing. ALL of this is contextual. Single player games, those are products, and should be treated as such, not services. Multiplayer, I mean, they can be good as a service, but sometimes aren't. And some models like MMOs have been subscription based for decades, which is, btw, why i never got into MMOs. To be fair there are a lot of free ones as well and I just...genuinely dont like MMOs. I find them boring. But I digress. 

And on the piracy argument, here's my honest stance: companies should try to outmaneuver the pirates. Rather than focusing on draconian systems of control, they should do things like:

1) Offer a good service, Gabe Newell of Steam (PC gaming's savior) views piracy as a service problem, and argues if you offer games cheaply enough and through a good enough service, most will pay. Given the guy owns several yachts, he seems to know what he's talking about. 

2) Innovate. Whether it be security on their own platforms, or new games, and new consoles every so often (at a reasonable price of course, not the $1k monstrosities they seem to be pushing for next gen). Seriously, every system will eventually be hacked or cracked. It's not if, it's when, the key is to delay that to outside of the core window of profitability for the game involved. Emulation is normally a thing that comes well after a console's lifespan, with the exception of nintendo since they make their hardware so weak in the firstt place. But yeah, they just gotta outrun the proliferation of piracy as I see it. Swap consoles every so often, assume everything will eventually be cracked or emulated and have a plan to move on to the next thing by the time it is. 

3) Put up with it. I mean, these industries make billions of dollars already. They're not hurting. Consumers are buying. They clearly got enough money to send lobbyists to washington DC. Honestly, the whole point of IP laws is to protect corporations' ability to profit off of a product for a set amount of time. As I see it, that time should be heavily curtailed. Again, instead of life+75 years, I'd probably argue 10-20 years for video games. And....as I see it, the current systems works well enough for the corporations. THese guys are rich already. Why do they need to change the laws to be even more draconian and protectionist? These guys are just greedy. 

Really...you can tell I'm not super sympathetic to the corporations here. Well, I never really am. As I see it, I'm fine with the current rules surrounding the internet and technology mostly, and I wanna preserve that 1990s-2000s wild west internet feel. These weird dystopian pushes in the 2020s are just no...and these guys are gonna ruin the internet, gaming, and technology as we know it with their greed. They really do want you to own nothing and be happy. 

Election Update 7/3/26

 So, it's hot. Like 100+ degrees here. 110+ heat index. My PC is in an un air conditioned room. And I'm doing this from a tablet where my charts have formatting issues. So this is going to go a little differently formatting wise, but it's still the same forecast.

On the forecasts, a lot has changed, especially with the senate, and I'll walk you through it.

Senate

So, as I said, a lot of changes, not all of them positive. Georgia finally has new data which makes it pretty solidly Likely D at a 93% chance at winning. Graham Platner is losing ground in Maine due to a combination of his scandals and democrats refusing to properly prop him up. He's still favored to win, but it's officially a toss up, and I'm not gonna lie. Susan Collins is an overperformer there. So this is BAD for him. He's shifted like 7 points in the past month. He's down just ahead of where Janet Mills was, so this race is becoming increasingly competitive. 

New polls also flipped Texas and Alaska back to the republicans, with Iowa being a toss up. It goes back and forth. Those races are all functionally tossups. And of course Michigan is still a toss up. El Sayed has a slight lead there and he's polling on par with Haley Stevens. Mallory McMorrow loses to the republicans but she aint gonna get it anyway. 

But yeah. The senate is now a tossup. Sure, its 55% chance the democrats win and a 44% chance republicans win, with the most likely outcome being 51-52D and 48-49R, but really, anything from 48-52R to 54-46D are ALL within tossup territory. A 2 point difference marks a shift from one party picking up 6 seats to the other, it really is a dead heat.

House

The house has been holding rather steady. We're still at roughly D+8 versus 2024, giving us a 96% chance of taking the house, with a 231-204 outcome being what my model produces. Most models seem to hover around the 230 mark for democrats, and I believe it. No further comment.

Governors

I finally got some data on Georgia and Maine and it's good news for democrats. Democrats are also doing quite well in Iowa and Ohio, even more so than the senate counterparts are. Yeah, this is a bad year for republicans.

Still kinda hope Hong doesnt win in Wisconsin though. I like democratic socialist types, dont get me wrong, but I dont think she can pull it off. 

Conclusion

So yeah, the senate is a dead heat, Georgia's looking pretty good. Maine isn't on the senate front, but is on the governor front. And a lot of races are pretty much tossups. The house is likely gonna be a blowout for democrats, in the senate ANYTHING can happen. The smallest shifts in public opinion will determine control of the senate. And yeah. That's where we're at. I just wanted to do a biweekly update here. 

Why do the 2020s suck so much? Discussing the KIDS Act

 So, the KIDS act just passed the house. it was a grand compromise that traded internet freedom for the ability to rein in tech companies on AI. I wanna regulate AI, but Jesus Christ, this kind of deal with the devil is just....no to me. Here's the thing. THese companies have been pushing for age verification as an excuse to strip online anonymity from people. The goal is to attach all data to real persons, functionally allowing tech companies to build online databases of every user, which could result in blackmail over time. Some have talked about the end of section 230, which could greatly reduce online speech as well. And it's being sold all in the name of needing more security. Why? The internet has been fine in my view. But it's all ERMAHGERD WE GOTTA PROTECT THE KIDS! How about we make parents PARENT THEIR OWN KIDS! I mean, parental controls exist, use them. Dont make everyone have to submit IDs and stuff so they can access adult material, or really, use the internet in general, since this crap is gonna affect all social media eventually. It's ridiculous. I dont deny there are some problems with the internet these days in regard to the youth, but still. I really dont think that this is something that warrants literal government regulation. And any regulation you could possibly get me on board with would be so marginal and ineffective that it wouldnt really do much. Because I believe in freedom. i dont think the government SHOULD intervene heavily into personal issues like this. I dont want a nanny state. Ya know? I grew up in the days of the wild west of the internet, and I WANT TO REMAIN in the wild west days. Its like I said with gaming, i hate the current state of things, i wanna go back to the past. The internet peaked IMO back around the late 2000s, early 2010s, and it's been all downhill since. And now in the 2020s, everything is a dystopian nightmare. We got all this weirdo authoritarianism coming out of nowhere, and i really gotta ask, outside of the obvious bad actors, WHO THE HELL WANTS THIS? NO ONE WANTS THIS. STOP MANUFACTURING A FAKE CRISIS TO RAM THIS CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS. Really, I'm just over this crap. 

Discussing the PS6, Project Helix, and digitization of games

 So....in another hinting at next gen coming soon, Sony is discontinuing physical games in 2028. And....a lot of people are freaking out about this. Honestly, I have mixed opinions. I mean, I'm on PC, I've been using steam since like 2008, and while I initially was skeptical of the service because I was like "what if you lose all of your games", it was basically forced on us back then and by this point, it's kind of a fact of life for PC gamers, and a lot of us wouldnt have it any other way. For years, physical releases have just been a code in a box, maybe a stack of DVDs to install the game, but then youd need to update it anyway to play it, so...yeah. It's kinda been pointless for a while and I myself rarely buy physical media these days. 

At the same time, I get the concern. Game preservation, the whole "you should own what you buy" thing. And a lot of it is about corporate control. I won't go so far in the doomer camp of "you will own nothing and be happy and the future is streaming everything to chromebooks too weak to run anything natively", I do think there should be a physical option, but tbqh, companies dont like it because of possible piracy. Companies have been getting more aggressive every generation with security, and a world where we control the media is a world where we control the media more than the companies WANT us to control the media. So not only are consoles super locked down PCs, but they're also going to force everything to run through digital services to ensure they remain control. And oh well if the game gets pulled maybe you'll no longer own it. Theyve kinda been doing that with games with online integrated into them. Remember "the crew"? Yeah, im kinda salty about that one too. 

Idk, in some ways I kinda see it as...well...normal to move on this direction, but I also get the concern.

My whole thing with all of this is...DO WE REALLY NEED NEXT GEN CONSOLES RIGHT NOW?! Jesus Christ. I sound like a broken record but seriously, the hardware market has been a mess. They released the last one in the middle of COVID and it led to shortages, scalping, and $800 price tags. it took 2-3 years just to be able to afford a PC on par with said consoles. And at this point, that same hardware is more expensive than it was back in 2022-2023. The $500 consoles are $650-700 now for the base model. Getting an equivalent PC, as we've recently seen, costs around $750. WHY DO WE NEED NEW CONSOLES?! 

And they aint taking a loss on it either. I mean, Jesus Christ, this is my beef with nintendo as well. They had the $300 switch, had it never drop in price the 8 years it was the current gen thing, then they raised the price to $330 and dumped a NEXT GEN console for $450 $500. 

I'm gonna make things as clear as possible:

THIS CRAP IS NOT AFFORDABLE, NO ONE WANTS THIS!

Seriously. What drove the desire for new consoles in the past was the idea that due to moore's law and the rapid increase in tech specs for the same price, that we could produce a console with much better graphics for the same money as the last one. The old console would inevitably drop in price, be replaced with a new one, and the cycle would continue. But between graphics kinda bottoming out in the late 2010s, and rising hardware costs, I really dont see the point of a new console. Why should we buy a new console that barely has better graphics than the old one? Seriously, gaming has developed where we dont really need more power. if anything more power just allows devs to poorly optimize games for no apparent reason, while they barely look better than the previous title from a decade ago. I have not been "wowed" by a game's graphics for years now. They all look good, I'm kinda over it, but what I do notice is the fact that we're still expected to throw away money on new hardware for these new games, or we get left behind. Games are designed around the new hardware, run poorly on the old hardware despite it not being justified, and to go back to the previous topic, they're removing more control from the users and digitizing everything. 

Idk at my age, I'm feeling increasingly tempted to just live in the past, reject the present, reject next gen, reject the new games, and keep playing the old crap. Ya know, just cashing in my chips, riding the hardware I have for as long as possible, and just not buying into the new ecosystem. It's not justified, the entry costs are INSANE, the games arent that good, and yeah, I honestly think the gaming market needs a crash. This isn't sustainable. Nothing about "next gen" is remotely interesting to me. Even as a PC gamer. Like consoles have been a joke for a while IMO, but just the system requirements going up and getting increasingly insane forcing me to upgrade my hardware to run new games is just....no. I mean, the entry price for gen 9 was bad enough for me, there havent been enough games that really justified the hardware requirements, and I'm just...over this crap. Im not gonna rebuild my entire PC for $1k+ just to run some mediocre game that i dont even find as fun as a game from 2015 or 2005. I ain't just. 

Discussing DAC's past

 So...DAC is short for Darializa Avila Chevelier, a communist who basically won a NYC house primary recently. And yes, I do mean COMMUNIST. Like, not socialist, COMMUNIST. We might have an outright communist house member here given she ran in a deep blue district where the primary is the real general election. And uh...let's discuss it. Because THIS lady? Yeah, she's pretty much the one situation where the centrists red scaring over progressives winning primaries might actually have a point.

Like, this person was praising flat out communist revolutionaries and crap. Especially non white ones, because hey, let's also combine that with an insufferable amount of intersectionality. Like, basically, they're not just a demsoc, they're a tankie who engages in the most obnoxious communist brainrot I've seen outside of reddit and outright communist countries where that brainrot is literally mandatory.

She has said she's distanced herself from those ideas somewhat, but much like with Graham Platner, how much has she distanced herself, REALLY?

She ran on a pretty socdem type platform, admittedly, and does align with me significantly on priorities, even advocating for a UBI (not sure how serious she is about that), so she seems good at first glance, it's only when the oppo research comes out that you realize she's totally NUTS. So idk. I dont know how to feel about her. Neither do a lot of dems. The centrists are screeching like angry chihuahuas at her for just existing, with some even saying we shouldn't seat her. Jeffries seems willing to accept her though, at least showing all that big tent rhetoric isn't just for show. 

Honestly, seating her is probably for the best. I think refusing to seat someone duly elected by their constituents is a crappy move, and likely to incite more division within the party (I probably would go off about it, communist or not). Let's face it, she's SIGNIFICANTLY less threatening than Trump and his ilk right now. And I do think there is SOME room for socialists in the tent. I would just like someone a bit less apologetic for literal communist revolutionaries. 

Like here's my take. It's fine to criticize capitalism. Hell, I'd echo DAC here in saying that Kapital is probably a good book people should read. Agree with it or not, it IS one of the earliest and most thorough critiques of capitalism. I myself have disagreements with Marx, which I have expressed on this blog, but yeah, it's good for its historical contributions to the debate. A bit dense and difficult to read, but eh, again, it kind of produced a huge worldview there. I'd actually say my worldview competes with Marxism's takes, being similar but differing ever so slightly on certain topics, leading to much different conclusions. 

So yeah. Would I feel comfortable voting for this person myself? I mean she isnt in my district, but I feel mixed. On the one hand, hey, an actual UBI supporter, at least in name only. I just wish they didnt engage in so much commie brain rot. Still, as long as she doesnt bring THAT crap to congress, right? Really, couldnt her district choose someone else? Like someone with similar ideas, but WASNT an out and out commie? Still, she was chosen, she is distancing herself from the most offensive positions, and she seems pretty based in her actual platform. So....give her a chance at least. We can always censure her later if she acts up. 

"But but, they'll turn on you!"

 A common argument I hear from centrists trying to talk me out of supporting DSA style candidate is that they'll "turn on me" when they seem me ideologically impure.

Idk what kind of argument this is supposed to be, but it's not convincing. Are centrists my ally? Do centrists support my goals? No. It's like they're entire existence is dedicated to explaining to me in 87 ways how a better world isn't possible, I shouldnt bother, I shouldn't try, no, I'm not getting good things, but I better vote for them anyway. I mean, that's pretty fricking hostile to me. Are centrists my friend? No, they're not. I actually consider them ideological enemies at this point.

Does that mean the DSA is any better? I mean, kind of? But also no. Here's the thing about the DSA. Yeah, they are pretty extreme. Yeah, they're very purity testy. And yeah, I fail their purity tests. I'm a "capitalist", I like UBI. I've seen those guys crap on Yang relentlessly and I understand that they might not like me either. But I am aware of these differences. And the same applies to them. They dont always pass my purity tests. They do better than most, but let's face it, I gotta grade on a curve because NO ONE, and I mean, NO ONE, gets a perfect score on my own tests. I could run for president myself and I'd be grading my own weaknesses as well. And someone like Bernie at best scores around like...80-85/100. 

WIth that said, my vote is transctional. I dont declare loyalty to any group or candidate. If anything, I'm just strategically voting to get what I think is CLOSEST to my goals. My own stances are pretty clear, Im lukewarm on leftists, yeah, I think sometimes their extreme social and foreign policy positions are cringe. Yeah, I dont even align with them entirely on economics. 

But at the same time, are YOU, THE CENTRISTS interested in achieving my goals? Hell no. And you guys clearly despise me, and I despise you. Really, it's just a matter of who I hate less, or like more. And guess what? You guys aint winning. When it comes to change vs no change, some progress vs none, I am pragmatic enough (ironically enough) to align with the faction that will get me closest to what I want. Doesn't mean that I have any illusions about how they view me, or how I view them. I've hashed out these views already. And I crap on both moderates AND leftists. Hell, I crap on everyone,, if you give me enough time. I'm a purity testy ###hole myself. I know I am. A bit more rational than most, but still, purity testy all the same. If you want me to vote for you, you gotta meet MY purity standards. Not the other way around. Again, I have metrics, I measure them. Hell, let's go over briefly why I side with DSA types over moderates.

Basic income

Neither faction supports it. Progressives might be a little more willing in practice, but yeah. Both centrists and leftists are hostile to it: THey might support a CTC expansion but that's it.

Centrists- 2/10

Leftists- 3/10

Universal healthcare

I currently support a strong public option. Centrists will support a weak one at best, or ACA expansions, and most of the time do F all to actually advance that. Progressives support single payer and dogmatically so. I actually like single payer in practice. However, I just back away from it because I prefer UBI. 

Centrists- 4/10

Leftists- 10/10

Economics

Centrists are variable, sometimes offering policies I like, sometimes not. I have to admit they've gotten better on my other priorities and I sometimes align with them more than leftists, but leftists do tend to more strongly support my secondary new new deal priorities. 

Centrists- 7/10

Leftists- 10/10

Social issues

I really dont align perfectly with either faction on social issues. Even centrists tend to lean too obnoxiously into the woke stuff, and tend to be too extreme on guns and stuff at times. They might also offer weird compromises on religious social issues, although this is increasingly rare these days. Leftists tend to lose the plot, go too deep into like "abolish the police" land and can be mega cringe though. I'll go with the centrists here but neither are perfect.

Centrists- 8/10

Leftists- 6/10

Foreign policy

Centrists tend to be near perfect. I would concede the Israel issue somewhat to the left these days, but leftists suck at foreign policy and tend to have an unworkable foreign policy. They mean well but they lose the plot.

Centrists- 9/10

Leftists- 2/10

Ideology/Worldview

Centrists are often a rather poor match, as to some degree they seem conservative in nature and I do tend to have a progressive flair. In a way, despite being practical on solutions I do think like a leftist to some degree. I guess I have a partial match with centrists, but I also tend to a bit better with the left. On economics we both want big things, but we dont always want the same things for the same reasons. On social issues and foreign policy, they get brain worms at times. neither are perfect, and both have pros and cons, but I tend to align a little better with the left.

Centrists- 10/20

Leftists- 14/20

Dedication to progressive goals

Leftists tend to believe in the crap they advocate for. That's why they purity test, they are ride or die on policies and if you flip flop, you will feel their wrath. Centrists....you can never be sure what they're for. They say one thing, do another, and then attack you for wanting things in the first place. Theres a reason I despise many centrists. Cant trust them at all.

Centrists- 2/10

Leftists- 10/10

Experience/Competence

This is where centrists shine and leftists crap the bed. Many centrists have a wealth of experience and institutional knowledge where they know what they're doing and they run a tight ship. Many leftists are green, inexperienced, and dont know wtf they're doing.

Centrists- 10/10

Leftists- 0/10

Electability

Well, the electability debate is out. I would give a slight edge to centrists, but I think it depends on the race and district. Sometimes progressives ARE more electable. Sometimes centrists are. However, I will say this, to win, you gotta run WITHIN the democratic party. And half the time progressives don't. So I'll give an edge to the centrists here.

Centrists- 6/10

Leftists- 3/10

Total

Centrists- 58/100

Leftists- 58/100

This is not intentional, but yeah, they get the same score and have different strengths and weaknesses. Centrists are more institutional, are more pragmatic, but often lack ambition on economics. Progressives have more passion, loyalty to big ideas, but they tend to lose the plot outside of economics and often times...on economics. Seriously guys, no one wants actual socialism but you guys. 

Anyway, why do I go with the left then? Because my top priorities tend to be weighed more heavily to top priorities, so in the event of a close match, Im gonna focus on which side advances my goals better.

Also, this is basically a stereotypical thing. Individual candidate quality can change this. I mean, I was imagining one of the most unhinged types i leftists here. If you get someone more well rounded like Sanders, this goes up to like 80. You can also improve with a moderate if they support good policies, but theyre typically only gonna top out in the 60s.

Either way, it depends. 

But yeah, I know what Im voting for. I have no illusions about it. I dont fully trust lefties. I also dont trust centrists. I think centrists are more well rounded outside of economics, yes, but at the same time, leftists have the big ideas and passion for implementing them that I want from people. So....push comes to shove, I think that's why I support progressives over centrists. That and I was rather uncharitable to the progressives and was assuming DAC or green party level brainrot here. Again, progressives have a much higher ceiling when competent. 

Centrist democrats condemn "socialism" in new "pledge to America"

 So, 13 democrats decided to condemn socialism in their new "pledge to America". *rolls eyes*

This is a virtue signal, and one of the worst kinds. They extol the values of "hard work" and "growth." They condemn the evils of "socialism" as they understand it, insisting we'll never be a socialist country. This basically comes after 3 socialists won primaries in New York. 

Again, I personally dont like socialism myself. I aint huffing whatever THESE guys are on, with their hard work hugboxing, but I ain't big on eliminating capitalism. However, I'll be frank, sometimes it seems like it's only the socialists who actually have a systemic analysis criticizing capitalism properly, and proposing solutions. Many of their solutions arent even socialist in nature, but social democratic. Hell, they propose similar stuff to me. That DAC chick who won in NYC wants basic income and medicare for all. And yeah, I'm now aware she's absolutely coo coo for coco puffs on foreign policy to put it lightly, but yeah, on economics, sometimes it seems like socialists are the only ones doing anything. 

Meanwhile what do these centrist democrats do? Circlejerk all day about work ethic. Constantly miss the point that the economy isnt working, don't do anything, tell us we gotta vote for them or else because they're the only game in town, sign weird bipartisan virtue signals against socialism like 3 times a year, and then when socialists start winning, because they're the only ones who wanna do F all to solve the problems it seems, they get all weird and condemn them for it while doubling down on some of the worst aspects of the existing system, and acting like they're good things.

And I have one thing to say to these people. Screw you, get out of the democratic party and join the republicans already. I've been saying it for years, these guys are republican lites. They literally have ideals closer to republicans than us. Literally. THese are REPUBLICAN PARTY VALUES they're virtue signalling about. if I wanted this stuff, I'd vote republican. I want the democrats to CRITICIZE the system and actually propose fricking solutions. I'm not saying you have to be SOCIALIST. Again, I'm explicitly NOT a socialist. I consider myself a "human centered capitalist." here. Not quite in the same way Yang is, revisiting his stuff, but close to it. I basically understand all that work ethic and opportunity crap aint doing it for us and that yeah, we SHOULD want the government to do more. Again, if I wanted laissez faire economics, ID VOTE REPUBLICAN! But I don't, which is why i LEFT the republican party and joined the democrats. So yeah, if youre gonna do this crap in 2026 when income inequality is at record highs, the job creators arent creating jobs, and everything is prohibitively expensive, fricking be honest about it and get the hell out of the party. 

The reason people are critical of capitalism and increasingly supportive of LITERAL SOCIALISTS is because the democrats arent doing their job as the left wing party. Thse guys SHOULD be pointing out the problems with capitalism and FIXING THEM. The fact that they're NOT is why people are being attracted to radicals. When they're the only ones calling that out and are willing to fix it, people vote for them. Who ever could've fricking guessed? 

Worthless, these people are worthless. These democrats are not just a hugbox of uselessness, but even worse, when someone actually attempts to do stuff, they condemn it. I hope someone primaries all 13 of these guys and throws them out on their ###. Hell, I'll put it in capitalist terms for them to understand. The voters are the bosses, you guys are the hired help. Do your ####ing job, or get ####ing fired already. Sick of this ####.