The more I think about it, the dumber progressive derangement syndrome gets

 So, I discussed the idea that I'm "like MAGA" if I overlook the Platner sexting scandal recently. And I completely dismantled it, showing that basically, you would need to run a literal Stalinist to get anything remotely close to Donald Trump right now. Like, the two aren't even close. And apparently someone tried the same argument on Kyle Kulinski today, and Kulinski smacked it down in his own way. I swear man, these guys get their talking points from some centralized source, because they all come out with this stuff at the same time, and they all sound the same. Anyway Kulinski had good points too. Like...okay, but what about policy? We're getting all hyped up over superficial issues like OMG A SEXTING SCANDAL when, as Kyle pointed out, his wife broke the scandal to a staffer confidentially, and then the staffer ran with it, leaked it, and betrayed the campaign. Like that's the thing. It happened years ago, the wife knew about it, and was just asking "hey this wont hurt my husband will it?" And then it leaked. And we're supposed to care about this over policy?

Here's the reality. These guys dont wanna talk about policy. Because they get completely bodied on the topic. AT BEST, the people displaying so much faux outrage are centrists who viscerally hate platner for his positions, but they cant debate those positions because they know they'll lose. And at worst...well...they can't debate their way out of a paper bag. Seriously.

I had a guy freaking out over Abdul El Sayed today. First, they compared him to a maoist. I pointed out he wasn't a Maoist, and asked them to defend that point. Then suddenly they're talking about how he didn't say anything bad about the Ayatollah. I mean...what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Iran is an islamic theocracy, and while I certainly dont endorse that, i dont see why he should have to virtue signal about it. Not do I even understand how it's relevant. So pointing out that this had nothing to do what we're talking about, some other guy jumped in and pointed out that communists supported the Islamic revolution in the 1970s. Okay...but why did that happen? Could it have been because we supported a coup in that country in the 1950s? I mean, no wonder they hate us. Doesnt mean I support Iran's government. I think they're crapbags too, but uh...I understand why they dont like us very much. I mean, would you like it if they overthrew OUR democratically elected government? 

Anyway, then the guy started calling me an R slur, going on about some weird grand alliance between islamists and communists, and asking me for scholarly sources on the iran coup thing, despite it being rather common knowledge. I provided a source anyway, but this whole line of discussion is just so off topic that it's just...no. 

I mean...these people are so dumb. This is why I dont debate conservatives much. They basically schizo post. First youre talking about one thing then they start going off topic and going on deranged rants about topics loosely related at worst, and not related at best. And honestly...let's go back to the original point. IS Abdul El Sayed a communist? No. He's at most a democratic socialist. He is a muslim, but that doesnt mean much. He's been critical of Israel. He largely doesn't seem to wanna separate church and state, but remember when I've been talking about lately. A lot of Americans seem deeply racist toward muslims and automatically view them as radicals for not having the "right" judeo christian belief system, even if they dont want to, in any way, impose their beliefs on the rest of us. I mean, it ultimately is a policy and worldview discussion. It's the judeo christians vs the world. And they think if you're not on their side, you're evil. But they say that because they know they cant control you. That belief system a tool of the wealthy to control the masses so they screech THEYRE NOT LIKE US! and attempt to appeal to a common set of values.

But that's the thing. I might be white, male, and of a judeo christian background, but being an ex christian, I dont have that worldview either, and I believe that worldview is fundamentally evil. I mean, I dont like islamic fundamentalism either, i wanna make that clear, but my view is this, i'm a secular humanist, I want a world based on freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom FROM religion, and right now I'm far more scared of the christian nationalists than I am of islamic extremism, which largely doesnt exist in the US. Just as you can be a christian and still be a rather chill guy who doesnt wanna shove that crap down everyone's throat (see james talarico or the pope), you can also be a muslim. And I'll work with just about anyone who has common goals. 

And thats the thing. You leave that christian worldview, and suddenly progressivism makes sense. Suddenly you see the world for what it is, understand that the people screeching loudest about western values are actually some of the most deranged people on the planet right now, and basically ARE the american version of the taliban, and that if anyone are the bad guys, it's them. Which is why they're trying to declare anyone who doesnt embrace THEIR worldview a terrorist. They literally view half the country as terrorists, and they're scared of actual progressives getting into power.

But that's the thing. Being a secular humanist, and a veteran of online debates, i mean, my political views were literally shaped by intense debate in the early-mid 2010s, I see through this crap. And at the end of the day, again, keep in mind what I said, what these guys care about at the end of the day are white, judeochristians who embrace right wing economic views like the work ethic and a strong ideologically positive view of capitalism. 

So when you got some brown guy who isn't christian talking about giving everyone free healthcare, these guys lose their crap. But you know what I say? your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer. And these guys literally can't debate properly. AT BEST all they're doing is offering a masked appeal to their value set, thinking that the people they're debating actually SHARE their values. And at worst, they just sound like unhinged morons. 

Really. It is as kyle said. At the end of the day they'd choose susan collins over graham platner. Because a literal republican has values closer to them than platner does. Platner is a threat to them, despite being a white guy running for congress. And the same with el sayed. These guys love to play the blue no matter who card to get us to support centrists who dont represent us, but when the shoe is on the other foot, i swear these guys would probably support mike rogers over el sayed if he got the nomination. 

And then in texas, well...the attacks against James Talarico are even worse. They tried painting him as a vegan, only for him to take a nice big bite of meat at a barbecue. They tried painting him as gay, only for him to have this hot latina girlfriend. I mean, it's pathetic. These guys attacking progressives are really pathetic people. 

And I'm not gonna say any of these people are perfect. Quite frankly, I'm put off by james talarico's explicit christianity and believe that that mindset is going to cause artifacts in his worldview that cause him to oppose several goals of mine. I dont like graham platner's reddit communist past and think that's a red flag. I question of El Sayed can even win in Maine given polling, and I think he's a lot more abstract on policy specifics than say, mcmorrow was, and I actually do support a public option due to my own ideological and policy based nuances. So let's not act like I agree with any of these guys completely. But here's the difference. I offer minor POLICY and IDEOLOGY BASED criticisms. I look at what they wanna do, what they actually believe,  and I evaluate them based on that. And again, I certainly dont agree with them 100% of the time. I'm NOT some "MAGA like" guy. Im NOT uncritical of people I support. I just understand my own views are so niche that no one really matches me 100% of the time. But you know what? I'll support the people who get me closest to where I wanna go. 

Centrists dont cut it half the time because they dont actually wanna go there. And I've seen through their act for years, and now it's blunt now that progressives are actually winning primaries. These centrists HATE progressives on a pure value level just like we progressives hate them. I've said it for years, these centrists are about as far away from us as they are from republicans, and some of them seem to actually prefer the republican over the progressive. So much for party loyalty and voting blue no matter who. And all this stuff has always been in bad faith. Called it since 2016. Not sure why so many people bought into the blue no matter who crap. Maybe we need it now given trump IS literally as bad as he is, but again, trump is a special case. He's the exception to the rule, not the rule. The rule is you vote for whomever you want and candidates earn your vote. You suspend the rule when a fascist tries to destroy democracy itself. 

And youd think, for all the western values screeching, these guys would care more about that. But no, it seems like they'd rather openly embrace a fascist actively destroying this country from within than vote for someone who wants to give people free healthcare, which is fricking disgusting. Again, all the western values virtue signalling these guys do is a scam. They dont actually care. At the end of the day, they care more about the conservatives' values than actually promoting an alternative.

Which is...quite frankly, what caused me to not wanna vote for them anyway. I wanted an oppositional force to the republicans, not just a diet version of them. These people are a diet version of them. And they're the ones screeching about this stuff. Screw these people. Seriously.

It'll be glorious if we see El Sayed, Platner, and Talarico all win their elections this fall. I love watching these guys crash out. And I hope in 2028 we get someone actually good. Because guess what, I DO wanna beat trumpism, but we need to do it with a progressive, not a diet republican who is gonna be so weak he's gonna breathe new life back into MAGA.  

Why is Mallory McMorrow so bad at this?!

 So a new poll came out today and McMorrow dropped to a distant third place finish, Womp Womp...

Yeah...she's getting eaten alive. Now, to be fair, michigan primary polling is extremely volatile. For a while el sayed was way down and haley stevens was the presumed nominee. Then Stevens dropped off and it appeared to be McMorrow vs El Sayed. Now it's more Stevens vs El Sayed. 

Well....I have a few answers. First of all, it's hard to represent a middle ground between the two democratic "lanes." You got centrists (Stevens), and progressives/leftists (El Sayed), and then you have McMorrow, which is this weird awkward middle ground. Now, given my own nuanced takes, sometimes I like middle grounds. I'm not a socialist and while progressives and leftists talk a big game, sometimes their proposals are more bark than bite. Sometimes they're just too expensive to reasonably implement to the point of not being worth it. So sometimes that more center left ground is better to be in. And McMorrow did...at first, come off as the best candidate policy wise. El Sayed had platitudes with little data (although he did write a book on M4A, but most voters probably havent read it), Stevens is just...no. And yeah, McMorrow could have had potential as being the more "pragmatic progressive." Im not sure it ever could have worked. Again im a minority and I know most voters are gonna probably go one lane or the other. That's how these things work. That's the problem Yang often had too. 

But McMorrow was ahead for a while, and she was in a strong position. So what happened? Well...she's a really REALLY bad politician. She made a HUGE mistake picking on El Sayed and going full negative against him with the Hasan smears. Not only did it streisand effect  El Sayed by putting more of a spotlight on his campaign, but it also made HER come off as some bad faith centrist. Rather than running on her own strengths, she went negative, and did the kinds of tactics from centrists who themselves have nothing to run on. She came off as like, Hillary Clinton, or even like Elizabeth Warren, who also had that kind of role in 2020, not being quite as far left as bernie, but then going full HRC mode, attacking him, and invoking the perpetual wrath of his supporters. Seriously, dont do that. Stick to policy, PLEASE. If youre gonna run against a progressive, beat them with facts and numbers not this bad faith bullcrap. 

But that's the other thing about McMorrow, she's just...genuinely bad at her job. Like the majority report discussed a debate they had and she ONCE AGAIN failed to properly defend a public option, coming off as tongue tied and all over the place. So...she implodes! No one wants her, the centrists are fleeing back to Stevens, and El Sayed is more emboldened than ever.

Honestly, at this point, Im pro El Sayed, but I really wanna keep harping on this because seriously, McMorrow could have been a better candidate, had she just played it cool, not gone negative, and played her hand better. Im kinda miffed because I just genuinely dont like stevens and I prefer mcmorrow SO MUCH MORE over her. And I honestly wonder if El Sayed can even pull off a win. He has persistently been the worst poller of the three primary candidates. Stevens is somehow the best, idk why. I dont think she's a compelling candidate at all. But at this point, it's like the president xi memes. Do nothing. Win. All she had to do was just....sit out the mcmorrow/el sayed cat fight, watch mcmorrow implode, and now she's getting her voter base back. 

*sigh*

Did Bernie Sanders just propose a UBI?

 So...Bernie Sanders today proposed a one time tax on the AI industry of 50%, to create a structure of public ownership of the industry, allowing widespread public accountability, and opening up the idea of an alaska like Sovereign Wealth Fund. The idea is basically this, given AI is basically reshaping our economy on a mass scale and has the ability to massive change the economy and job market, all citizens should have a say in how the industry is run, and everyone deserves a share of the profits. I largely support this in theory, and this is theoretically one of the most based ideas Bernie has come up with. 

However, digging into the proposal, the cracks do form. The article mentions some cracks like the fact that AI isn't profitable currently. THere's the potential for capital flight if we start just socializing the assets of the industry.

I asked chatgpt how much in profits this would generate a year. Currently it's close to around $50-100 billion....not enough to fund a UBI. With 250 million adults, that's $200-400 a year per adult. It could become MUCH larger over time, reaching over a trillion, but even with a trillion, that's only $4,000 a year, and by then with population growth it might only be closer to $3,000 if there are say 333 million adults by then (assuming around 400-450 million people in the country, this is decades from now).

The point is, this idea sounds a lot nicer in theory than it does in practice. I love the idea aesthetically, but the reality of it wouldnt be able to fund a UBI, let alone a hypothetical "universal high income." At least not any time soon. So....nice proposal, but eh....not super workable if the idea is to provide an income stream for the masses to live on without working. 

Discussing Hasan Piker being banned from the UK

 So, Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur have been banned from the UK for "antisemitism" apparently. *sigh*

So...I'm not gonna lie, I aint surprised our government is acting in authoritarian ways, but the UK? Really? It seems ridiculous to me. Criticizing Israel is NOT antisemitism. You can be for freedom of religion and discourage hate actions against individual groups while still criticizing a government doing bad things. In my case, I dont like Israel OR palestine. yes, I do condemn Hamas. I dont believe in "from the river to the sea", but that doesn't mean what Israel is doing is morally correct either. Just because one side is bad doesnt mean the other is good. And I cant in good conscience support a faction of Jewish radicals who think bombing another people into oblivion on an industrial scale is acceptable. Nor can I support their massive lobbying efforts to influence western governments into...taking away peoples' free speech rights.

I mean, we love to talk about western culture this, liberal democracy that, but Hasan touched on this in his video and I wanna say I've been noticing the same thing here...nothing we're doing here is liberal. The highest virtues of liberal democracy are that of freedom of speech/thought, and limited government to stop tyrants from restricting peoples' freedoms and rights. Some might ask where those rights come from, citing 'god", but they're just human concepts that are good ideas. They dont have to come from religion. I justify many of them through structural functionalism. 

With that said, we are massive hypocrites as far as how we talk about those values. Hasan called our dedication to them a "sham" in his video, and he's right. The longer this goes on, the more it seems like we care about when we talk about western culture is white people, christianity, and work ethic. We seem horribly islamophobic, tbqh. If anything is an issue its that. We seem to be expected to foam at the mouth at muslims and those from islamic cultures existing and having opinions (like hasan and cenk), but then when it comes to judaism and christianity its like HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THINGS DONT YOU REALIZE THOSE ARE OUR CULTURE?! Now, the UK does claim to be a more overtly Christian country where the US is more secular, so maybe it CAN actually claim a higher level of cultural affinity there, but Americans kind of do this stuff too. And it irks me. Because we're supposed to have freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion. And if we wanna invoke the paradox of tolerance on anyone, let it be on the TRULY intolerant. Those who actively wanna take rights away from others. But does Hasan do that? or Cenk? Or me? (I didn't get banned but I also didnt apply for a visa). I dont think so. I never got that vibe from them. And in my own case, I view it like this. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, unless your opinion harms others, I don't see why we should regulate everything. And even with opinions harming others, i tend to have a relatively maximalist approach to free speech due to my American heritage. It's only in narrow cases that I would actually invoke some sort of restriction or punishment. Even if it comes down to cancelling people, I only believe in doing so if the offense is extreme and blunt. Like outright calling for concentration camps or something. Ya know?

So it comes off as hypocritical when western governments these days ride this high horse of western cultural superiority and the demonization of "the other" when "the other" are just peacefully expressing their views, while those screaming so loudly about western culture are themselves violating the most core tenets of it while pushing the parts of it that are either not that important, or even harmful. Like religion. I dont hold a judeo-Christian worldview myself. My views are closer to secular humanism. I have no inherent sympathy to israel. They're just another country. And they're a country for as much they scream about being western, the only thing 'western" about them is aesthetics and their obvious "colonizer" attitude. Meanwhile they're killing journalists and committing war crimes on a mass scale. Basically, they're not much better than Russia at this point. And that's the thing. if we wanna hold ANYONE accountable to western moral standards, it should be Israel. After 1945, we said "never again" (and to ask rhetorically, who were the ones genocided in 1945?....duh).  We established all of these international criminal courts and international organizations against genocide. And then....we just...look the other way when the shoe is on the other foot. It's fricking bizarre, man. 

Like, that's the thing. Not being a Christian, I have no special empathy for Israel. I dont see them as this "chosen people" elevated above other people. They're just...people. And are subject to the same morals and standards as the rest of us. So why the insane double standard? 

But this is what happens when we seem to define being western as...having the right religious outlook, and having the work ethic...which is...associated with said religious outlook. Again, it seems to come down to "judeo christian good, everyone else is bad." And that's not what western values are supposed to be at all. Western values are supposed to be secular and based on freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. 

So yeah, I do agree with Hasan that there seems to be a weird double standard here, where the ones who scream loudest about western culture seem to support all the worst elements of it, while apparently being willing and able to rip up the best of them and pretend they dont exist. It's messed up, to be frank. Like they dont actually care about all that crap about freedom and democracy, and now that the facade is failing, we're seeing the evil racist colonizer narratives underneath it all. Again, it's like it's all about being white, judeo-Christian, and has the work ethic. That's all these guys seem to really care about. I throw in the white stuff because let's face it, you end up being brown and of muslim heritage? Suddenly these guys seem willing to scream about how you're an extremist when they're as normal as any one of us. Cenk certainly aint extremist. Hasan is cringey at times dont get me wrong, but he aint some nick fuentes type either. But yeah people act like these guys are ISIS or something and they're not. It's crazy. So...yeah.

Anyway, that's enough ranting, it should be obvious I'm against this and pro free speech. Because that's what being "western" is ACTUALLY about. If we wanna represent the actual good and moral version actually. It's like what Jon Stewart said once. When we think western values we think freedom and democracy, and they? Well, they're thinking knights templar.  

Am I "like Trump supporters" for ignoring Graham Platner's scandals?

 So...more stuff came out about Graham Platner lately. Apparently sexted people who werent his wife or something and of course, the progressive derangement syndrome is coming out again. 

And yeah, I do wanna point out: THIS IS PROGRESSIVE DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. You got these centrists who have this crazy, irrational hatred toward progressives like Graham Platner and Abdul El Sayed, and who are taking every minor thing and making a mole hill out of it. OMG EL SAYED APPEARED WITH DOG ABUSER/LEFT WING RADICAL HASAN PIKER AT A RALLY! And then basically you watch an El Sayed rally and it's clear these guys just wanna make peoples' lives better and the middle are taking seemingly irrelevant issues and blowing them up. Why are they doing this? Because they wanna tank these candidates and get the median voter to support some uninspiring centrist instead. It's the same with Platner. 

Now, Platner IS a colorful fellow, and he isnt above criticism. But we discussed his nazi tattoo. The dude ain't actually a nazi so I don't care. He was a reddit communist on r/antiwork in 2020, which....should appeal to me, but keep in mind i got banned from that sub for arguing with said reddit communists who place their hatred of capitalism above hatred of work. And Im not big on communism. But, the guy has distanced himself from that, and is running mostly as a democratic socialist type akin to other progressive left candidates. Since then the controversies are getting more pathetic. It's stuff like him using the R slur in like 2010, or him cheating on his wife, or him pleasuring himself in some shady marine corps porta potty in like 2005 or some crap. It's like...who cares? This dude is still way better than the other candidates, and if you'd abandon Platner over these nothingburgers to vote for Susan Collins, that says more about you and your politics and morality than it does about mine.

The reason, I support progressives is this: I want change. I dont like the current right wing status quo as it exists, and I want people who break the mold, flip the script, and shift the overton window left of where it is to accomplish changes that make my life better. I admit, Platner might be...ahem...TOO far left if he still holds reddit communist views, but he aint coming off that way in his campaigning. He's running on a more acceptable socdem platform, not some weird niche reddit communist crap, so let's hold him to that. Hasan Piker is also too far left for me, but I often find myself agreeing with him more than liberal counterparts as well. 

And honestly, what are these scandals supposed to signal to us? How does Platner cheating on his wife impact me as a constituent? Is the message "if he cheats on his wife, he will cheat on America?" Okay, so what does that mean in practice? is he gonna sell out to corporate PACs? I got news for you, in that regard, I still trust Platner more than I trust Mills or Collins. Like that's the thing. The people cheating on us, the American people, are the same people putting out ads bashing progressives like Platner and El Sayed. They're the ones who can be bought. They oppose those candidates because they CAN'T. They CAN'T be controlled by corporate interests, and that's why those interests are so invested in tanking their campaigns. It's why McMorrow, herself not a bad candidate on paper, went so hard with the negative attacks on El Sayed. And what did THAT do? It spoiled me on McMorrow and made me want to support El Sayed. Because if she's putting out those kinds of attacks, can I trust her? I mean, this was the same playbook centrists always use, and I hate those guys for a reason, because they're anti progress. 

Same with this. Am I supposed to look at this and suddenly be like "gee, Janet Mills is looking like a good candidate about now"? Becuase Im not doing that. Id still find Platner as a senator more appetizing than I would some milquetoast centrist who I know isnt gonna do anything and who I know can't win. Or Collins for that matter. Why would I vote for ANY republican? Even though collins is a moderate,  she still votes with Trump a lot more than she doesn't. Even if she breaks with him on some key issues showing she has SOMEWHAT of a conscience, doesn't mean I like her, or that I'd support her over Platner. Why should I give up supporting a candidate I agree with 80% of the time, for someone who I agree with maybe 20% of the time? 

Of course, this is what got me nailed by some neocon type as being "like a Trump supporter." Ie, they support their guy no matter what, no matter how bad he is. Well, not really. And I wanna use my past conservative self as an example. 

If I were a conservative in the Trump years...

So....when I was a conservative, when I was a teen, yeah, I basically was a full blown Reaganite, agree with republicans like 96% of the time, whatever. But I was mostly too young to vote in that phase, and when I could vote starting in the 2006 mid terms...I voted split ticket. I'd vote republican by default, but I also voted for quite a few dems. I honestly was in a position where I didnt feel the republicans were in a good position under Bush, and I thought split government would do Bush some good. I ended up regretting that as the house dems were very obstructive of Bush in ways I didn't like at the time, but I still voted for McCain in 2008, even though i didnt really like him. I thought the republicans were in a bad place. I didnt like the war in Iraq and thought it was a mistake. i didnt like the national debt increases to pay for said war. I wanted Ron paul in 2008, and considered crossing over for Clinton, but not Obama. I considered voting for Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate at the time. The fact is, I didnt like McCain OR Obama, and I temporarily found my home in the tea party, before realizing I no longer aligned with conservatism at all. 

But let's say I didn't align with the democrats and I still had conservative views in the modern era. How would I view Trump? Not well at all. Sure, a lot of the relatively minor scandals, I wouldnt care about, same with Platner. I wouldnt care about, say, Trump cheating on his wives. Or him being a bit vulgar once in a while. But you know what? There would be SEVERAL support breaking problems with him:

1) His authoritarianism- He clearly wants to act like a dictator. Putting people who disagree with him on lists. Deporting people for being outspoken on Israel. Hell, his deportation policy in general would be too extreme for me. Again, he's doing nazi type crap with that one. He's putting people in concentration camps, holding them without due process. You think I, a formerly Ron Paul style libertarian, would sign off on that? No, I'd be more aligned with the likes of Thomas Massie on that one.

2) January 6th- You incite an insurrection, you're done. Period. This isn't a partisan issue. I mean, again, it's basic constitutionalism. I was a bit of a constitutionalist back in the day. The constitution was designed to constrain would be autocrats. I would support checks and balances against him. Heck, based on how I voted in 2006, I'd be inclined to support moderate democrats to control Trump, since the republican party sure as heck ain't doing the job. 

3) The Iran War- Let's face it, his foreign policy is a disaster. he's destroying our international alliances, the greenland thing was just...no. Bullying other countries is just...no. And then he goes into Iran on some faked up pretext that was flimsier than Bush's in 2003, and we're supposed to just go along with it? Let's face it, he distracted from the Epstein files. It's blatantly obvious.

4) The epstein files- I mean, okay, you do weird crap with consenting adults, but with kids? No. Just no. I'd be in with the massie/MTG types on this one. 

5)  The economy- Look, I dont normally blame presidents for the state of the economy. I remember when prices went up around 2005ish under Bush and I was like "what, do you expect the president to control the gas prices?" But invading Iran was an unforced error driving prices higher than they've ever been and his tariff policy is disastrous. Quite frankly, Reagan always opposed tariffs and Trump's interventionist policies are clearly contributing to inflation. All of this are unforced errors. Trump screwed up. And honestly, we should oppose him.

With that said, I'd be inclined to be anti Trump even if I were a republican. Maybe I'd find Susan Collins palatable in such an environment, she would be up my alley at the time, actually. I probably would support Collins over Platner with those convictions in maine. But if my choice was Trump vs a moderate democrat, say, a Hillary Clinton type...eh I'd probably break Clinton just to get Trump out. Id probably find Harris or even Biden acceptable. Not because I like them, but I can tolerate them...to get Trump out. 

Back to Platner

What would it take for me to vote for a Collins type over Platner? Well, my beliefs on the left are a bit more extreme than my views were on the right, outside of my early pre voting years. Given I can barely tolerate a Mills type from the left, a Collins type aint gonna work for me. But yeah, he'd have to be pretty bad. Like run on a literal communist platform. Let's imagine that. Let's imagine Platner was actually as extreme as Trump. Based on the above:

1) he would be flirting with implementing literal communism in the US. He would be adding anyone who doesnt agree with him to an enemies list. he'd be illegally detaining people who criticize him or show any signs of right wing thought, especially immigrants. 

2) He's refuse to accept election results and incite riots in response to losing.

3) He would support interventions overseas to spread communism.

4) He'd diddle kids

5) His policies would destroy the economy, leading to high prices and supply shortages. 

Now...is platner gonna do ANY of that. IS he that extreme? no. Hell no. If Platner WAS LITERALLY a left wing Trump, would I vote for him? Also hell no. I would tolerate Susan Collins in such a situation. Just to get Platner out. But we would need to talk him being that extreme. Not even getting into his massive corruption, the ball room crap, yeah, if we had this dude act like a wannabe Stalin, yeah, i WOULD vote for Collins. But that's what you'd need to make an analogue to Trump that works. Given Platner is still within the realm of normal scandals and normal politics, I see no reason to drop platner for a moderate candidate who represents my values in objectively worse ways. Sorry, not sorry. Platner being elected isnt gonna cause a massive constitutional crisis like Trump's presidency currently is. Hes not gonna be a tyrant. He's not gonna destroy the constitution. He's not gonna create artificial disasters based on his policies.

And given the nature of the subreddit I had this convo on, I know they dont wanna hear this, but yeah, Trump literally IS that bad. He IS acting like a full on fascist. He IS a threat to our national security and constitutional rights, and he is making tons of unforced errors that are destroying the country and international order as it exists. You cant even remotely compare Platner to that. If he goes full reddit communist mode, well, we can have this discussion. But he would need to go full communist to make the comparison even remotely FAIR. That's how bad of a situation we're in with Trump. 

How would Platner's scandals even affect governance anyway?

 So I actually pressed the guy on this, and didn't get convincing answers. Basically, they gave me three assertions, none of which I agree with.

1) No one wants to work with someone with a nazi tattoo

I hate this idea that we should elect people because other want to work with them. it's this weird centrist hugbox thing. like we should elect people who work with other members of congress pushing compromise, incrementalism, what have you. No, I want someone who has different ideals. And I admit, maybe others in congress dont wanna work with them. But does that mean I should change my ideals? No, I wanna elect who I wanna elect, and if others wont work with him to accomplish goals, that's their problem, not my guy's problem. I also doubt the tattoo is that disqualifying. What is potentially is the fact that centrists hate the guy and might wanna isolate him to ensure they cant get crap done, ya know, like Bernie in the senate for 40 years, but ultimately, I want more bernies and less smarmy centrists. 

2) It's hard to replace Susan Collins' experience

I dont give AF about experience. I mean, more experienced candidates arent necessarily better. More experienced candidates might have more institutional knowledge, but if I vote the current institutionalists as corrupt and not serving my interests, I want them out. There's been talk in recent years of wanting to get rid of all these old people in congress who have been there for decades with term limits. Given Susan Collins has been in office for literally 30 years, yeah, it's time for her to go. I dont care about her institutional knowledge, especially since she doesnt ideologically agree with me anyway. 

3) She knows how to bring money into Maine

HOW?! What is she doing here? I can only think of two responses (I didnt get one from this user), either a job creation narrative, which, given my ideology aint gonna go over with me. Or she's for pork barrel projects, which I'm fine giving up to accomplish my actual goals. Either way, I see it as nonsense job creation schemes, either from trickle down economics or pork, and...yeah. I'd give that up to get universal healthcare, or a UBI. Like, i don't care. That's the thing. This isnt attractive to me. And I even pointed it out after they said I made assumptions, I pointed out that their idea of what I should want is themselves ideological. Yeah, if I wanted a steady hand who was sociable with others of a similar ideology who knew how to give a tax cut to jeff bezos to "create jobs" in my state or something, sure, susan collins would be my candidate. But you know what? None of that is attractive to me. Maybe that's what ideological moderates on the fence between centrist dems and centrist republicans want, but I DONT want that. You see where I'm coming from?

So yeah....once again, why should I see Platner's scandals as deal breaking? You see why I'd care more about ideology and policy than this, right? Because I ain't being sold on Collins here. I dont share centrists' values on what I want from a candidate. 

And I'll be blunt. If their candidate had a scandal, they'd still support them over a Platner type. Because the real reasons these centrists hate El Sayed and Platner is because they dont ideologically agree with them. They want some ho hum centrist type who wont rock the boat and who will use their sociability and institutional knowledge to pursue mainstream goals that dont do much for the state. But I dont want that. I want progressive change agents. Not necessarily communists, again, if you had someone try to be a left wing equivalent to Trump, you'd get a Stalinist type. But again...Platner isn't that. So...I ain't seeing the problem here. 

The fact is, centrists, your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer. We dont have ideologically similar goals, even if we might find common ground in removing some common enemies like the Trump regime. Stop trying to talk to me like I care about your stuff and your values, because I don't. If I have to hold my nose for some centrist to get republicans out, fine, I'll do that this time. But that doesnt mean I LIKE your crappy warmed over candidates who dont stand for anything. They're about as appealing as unseasoned chicken....that's been left in the fridge for 3 days. Yeah... 

Anyway, you guys always tell us to vote blue no matter who, if you cant do that when the shoe is on the other foot, you lost all moral claim to push me toward doing so in future elections. You're on your own.  

Discussing Peter Thiel fleeing to Argentina

 So, Peter Thiel is apparently leaving the US and moving to Argentina. And my honest opinion? Good riddance. I know a lot of conservatives loves to go on about capital flight and how we cant tax billionaires or they'll leave, but uh...maybe it's good that he does.

Peter Thiel is that really weirdo dark enlightenment guy I never heard of before the Trump administration, but now his name is everywhere. He's the guy building the US surveillance state and bypassing the constitution because it's okay when a private entity does it. He's arguably a big player in the Trump administration overall. Some refer to JD vance has "his acolyte", as Vance has similar views and it's been argued Vance was made VP at his direction. And yeah, he fundamentally thinks AI is incompatible with democracy, and wants to end democracy and devolve us into a corporate feudal state. 

The official reason he's leaving seems to be taxes, but I've seen tons of other reasons being floated, from wanting to test his surveillance state apparatus on a third world country before bringing it back to the US, to him fleeing because he sees the backlash against AI, and sees that Trump's administration is a failed coup and he might legally be liable afterwards if he stays. I think this is most likely it. While yeah, he wants to fund some anarcho capitalist crap like a real world Mr House, I honestly think the big reason is that the Trump administration was a failed coup. Trump just attempted to take over the government using Curtis Yarvin's playbook,  Curtis Yarvin himself trying to leave the country, and honestly? I think that these guys fear political retribution if democrats win again, which, unless Trump can finalize his coup by outright stealing elections as the country swings HARD against him, it's very well possible. I mean...we all know that the Trump administration is guilty of all kinds of treasonous and illegal acts, some of which we can already see, but some...we might not even know the full extent of. For example, DOGE? I honestly think Elon Musk's end goal was to get everyone's data and give it to Palantir (Thiel's company) so that they could build a massive surveillance state to spy on Americans. I dont think we'll get any solid proof of that until 2029 or later, but I think it's coming. He might be wanting to leave because he might be found guilty of all kinds of high crimes and misdemeanors. So the ratlines are forming and they're fleeing to south america like its 1945. What country accepted the nazis again? 

 It's also possible that these guys think something else big is coming. I mean, I saw a story about Mark Zuckerburg building some sort of doomsday bunker in Hawaii. I mean, at this point this reminds me of the movie 2012 where all the super rich people know the world's gonna end so they were prepared and when the disasters in the movie started happening, they all got phone calls and suddenly they're fleeing to china to get on a huge boat and ride it out like some modern noah's ark. Some suspect this is climate related. If it isn't fleeing from prosecution from a future democratic administration looking to hold the trump administration accountable for crimes, maybe. I know that climate change is expected to get worse, and billionaires are just partying until the bottom falls out. Maybe the bunkers are because they know in a few years some sort of societal collapse is coming. Maybe its because they fear retribution from backlash against AI as they continue to eviscerate the social contract without implementing any of the ideas I keep saying we should so we can transition to a world without work PEACEFULLY. Maybe they are prepping for nuclear war.  That would explain why apparently trump's building a huge bunker under the white house. Maybe WWIII is about to hit and these guys want to flee the worst consequences of it. The article above mentions artificial general intelligence, aka, strong AI, ya know, the type that in science fiction movies ends up killing everyone, like skynet. 

Idk. All of this is speculation. But yeah. Really suspicious behavior. Either way, I won't miss the guy. For all his obsession with the antichrist, if anyone comes off as anti christ like, it's that guy. Well...that and...trump. But yeah, given he's part of that entire axis of evil (or axis of epstein, i mean, he IS in the files too...), yeah...he's definitely playing for that team. 

Anyway, we'll see. I really hope the world isn't about to end or something due to some dumb thing they've decided to do in recent years. Maybe it is just fearing potential backlash from a future democratic administration that uncovers the seriously messed up crimes they've been doing and is ready to prosecute them. Seems like one of the better outcomes at this point. 

Discussing the reality of blue no matter who

 So, Kyle Kulinski discussed blue no matter who on his program today, how he was skeptical, but came to accept its wisdom in the trump era, but now is witnessing all the blue no matter who types refuse to actually support...progressives when they win primaries. So, I wanna have an honest discussion about the practice and how I view it, both from a more abstract poli sci standpoint, but also in the current reality. Because I've shifted on this too, but the shift is more due to circumstances, and not principle. And I wanna really give people the real scoop on this idea.

Blue no matter who was always a scam

I could tell from the second I first saw this phrase that it was just some cheap flimsy excuse to bully progressives who clearly didnt like Clinton into voting for her. I mean, the democrats in 2016 would always go like...."oh bernie is never gonna win, but you better support whomever the nominee is" along side "it's always gonna be hillary." It's like, the fix was in, we gotta vote for clinton, or we get whatever republican wins. Back in early 2015, it wasnt trump. It was just...whatever republican wins, we MUST support the democrat because theyre some grand existential threat.

This never sat right with me. it's exactly the kind of phrase some bad faith actor would come up with to justify voting for a turd. And yet, this virtue of "voting blue no matter who" became so commonplace in the democratic party that you were treated as a pariah by self righteous and antagonistic centrist libs who insisted we MUST vote for their crappy candidate. It was never a good faith argument, it was always parroted by centrists, and it was always positioned along side arguments of electability, assuming people wouldnt vote for a progressive candidate. But it's apparently okay to force us to vote for a centrist one? We cant leverage power in the same way? yeah, it's bullcrap.

From a political science perspective

 While we've had a two party system since the 1796 election when Washington refused to seek reelection, establishing the two term precedent for presidents in American politics, it's never been an intended design choice. If anything, James Madison in federalist #10 kind of saw the american system as designed to prevent factions from arising, and to control them when they do arise. The founders never wanted there to be parties, and the idea of there being two parties no one actually likes but people had to vote between was just sadly one of the worst outcomes for the American system of government. 

And early on, the two parties didnt even stay the same two parties. We had the federalists and antifederalists disappear and the republican-democrats and whigs arise in their place. Eventually the republican-democrats just became democrats and the republicans replaced the whigs. The two party system existed in party alignments, which were generational, and eventually broke down. We had periods like the 1824 and 1856 elections where we had four way elections as the coalitions broke down. And while things have settled among the republicans and democrats from 1860 onward, what drove those parties were coalitions of voters, with periods of relative stability and instability. Ultimately, voter patterns drove those coalitions, and once in a generation, those coalitions break down and reform. We've had this happen six times, and arguably we're undergoing a transition to a seventh party system, if this has not already happened yet. 

What happens during these periods of realignment is voters end up dealigning from the parties in question, and then realigning along different lines. Party loyalty declines as the existing alignment no longer serves voter interests, and then rises again as the electorate aligns itself around a new set of issues. But ultimately, it's the voters that decide. If a party is no longer serving their interests, the voters have every right to walk away and even vote for a third party. We like to act like voting third party is a waste and you cant win, but if enough people get fed up with the existing coalition, and the coalitions break down, the republicans and democrats gotta scramble to get those voters back. 

Often times, third party campaigns can be quite influential when the two parties arent doing enough. Abolitionist parties arose when neither main party would address slavery properly. We had socialist parties during the gilded age and fourth party system when capitalism's excesses were at their worst point. George Wallace's 1968 campaign represented a dealignment as white southerners upset over segregation left the democratic party, only to be picked up by Nixon and Reagan. In 2024 just this past election, RFK's third party candidacy was a threat to trump winning, and trump brought him in and made him secretary of health in order to satisfy him and bring his fan base into trump's coalition. Even if RFK Jr is a batcrap insane health secretary, bringing a competitor into one's administration and giving him a powerful position is smart politics and arguably helped tipped the scales in Trump's favor. had he not done that, Harris very well might've won, given how close the margins were. 

So dont let anyone tell you the threat of voting third party is empty. Sure, it might seem like a wasted vote, but if neither party is serving your interest, and the party youre closer to is taking you for granted and quite literally bullying you into remaining in their coalition, you generally have every right to leave. And ultimately, the third party people, at least on the left, end up being right eventually. It might take a few decades or even half a century for the rest of the country to catch up, but eventually, the country will be forced to act on those issues to maintain itself. And the party that finally gives them attention, like Lincoln's republicans, or FDR's democrats, end up being very electorally successful.

Where I evolved with Kyle

 So, I wanna make it clear, the people screaming blue no matter who in 2016 weren't wise beyond their years when they were making threats in 2016 about how bad republicans would be. They just got lucky. Ultimately, they had no idea who would be the nominee. They actually helped elevate trump, thinking it would weaken the republicans by driving more people toward hillary (because that's how pathetic her campaign was), and the whole campaign was just an attempt to scare people into voting for the chosen one. 

The problem was...it backfired. Trump wasnt supposed to win in 2016. He was not favored for most of the campaign cycle. The 2016 election was always the democrats' to win and the republicans' to lose, and it really took some work on the part of democrats to F things up so bad that Trump actually won. 

Even if the republicans won, while the republicans would be bad regardless, we didn't know HOW bad, or how stubborn the democrats would be in refusing to learn from a defeat. The democrats learned nothing, tried the same thing in 2020 with Biden, and just happened to win due to the republicans' having election fatigue. Keep in mind the party in power tends to do worse in reelection most of the time, only performing around their first performance at best, and actively underperforming it in many situations. That's why Biden won in 2020. People wanted trump out. It wasnt an endorsement for Biden. Which is why the democrats entered 2024 in such a sorry state. 

But yeah. A lot of us...expected normal republican screwery from Trump. And in his first term, we got normal screwery. The democrats clearly had "trump derangement syndrome", going on about how OMG LOOK AT HOW BAD HE IS, but again, it was all just normal bad republican things. And that's kind of what i expected. Trump was an idiot but he was surrounded by republican experts who could help guide him and keep his worst impulses under wraps. 

The real problem happened after he lost 2020. He went NUTS, did the whole "it was rigged" thing, had his people storm the capitol, and i didnt know wtf to think at first, but after seeing the evidence put together during the biden administration. Yeah, that was a failed coup. He went for it. And Trump went in a DANGEROUSLY authoritarian direction after that. 

And in 2024, he came back with a new agenda, new people (yes people), and this whole plan to take over the government and establish a maximalist interpretation of executive power. Basically, he wanted to be a dictator this time. And by this point, the democrats just cried wolf so many times over this guy no one listened. 

But...even I saw the threat. And this is how I see blue no matter who. Look, if we're dealing with normal republicans doing normal republican things, have at it. No one is owed your vote. You dont have to vote for democrats blah blah blah. BUT...when the actual fate of the country is at stake, and the stakes get this high and the consequences of failure this severe....we kinds HAVE to vote for the democrats to keep the GOP out of power. It isn't about blue no matter who being good. It's the fact that if we wanna affect change in the long term, we need the continuation of our democracy to happen, and that can no longer be treated as a given. Not in this environment, with this administration. 

Did the democrats predict this in 2016? Eh...they did but not for the right reasons. you see, they were fear mongering. They were envisioning the absolute worst case scenario that should never happen to pressure you to vote for them. They didnt believe it. They just wanted you to. because they want a bunch of desperate people who will crawl over broken glass to vote for them even if they do nothing for you. They fundamentally believe they just have to be less bad than the GOP and you should just for joy at the opportunity to vote for them. They dont wanna be good, they dont wanna try. The fact that trump ended up this bad just happened to come true. They dont deserve credit for being right in this "see I told you so" way, as if it props up the validity of their theory of politics. They just got lucky. 

I wanna make that clear. They just got lucky, they would've been acting the same way if this dude was just a normal republican doing normal republican things. He could've been george bush III and they'd still act exactly as hyperbolic.

The same is true of SCOTUS. They had no way of knowing so many SCOTUS justices would die or retire and trump would get to replace THREE people. And even if he did, we had no way of knowing the court would become this corrupt and this activist. SCOTUS is supposed to position themselves above politics and rule independently of the other branches. They're not supposed to just greenlight whatever insane theories trump wants. And to be fair, sometimes they DO mildly push back against trump, but at the same time, they're also a flagrantly partisan institution that does do a lot of judicially activist things. But again, we couldnt realistically predict it would be THIS bad. THe dems fear mongering over the worst case scenario doesnt make them right, it makes them lucky. I wanna make that doubly clear.

So what do we do now?

For 2026 and 2028, we vote blue no matter who. Remember the realignment I told you about? It's happening, the republicans are winning. The dems F-ed up big time, and at this point, we might be lucky just to keep our democracy. But if we ever make it out of this...at some point, we ARE gonna have to stand up to the dems again. We cant just allow them to keep power over us forever. But for now, yeah, just vote for these guys as if our democracy depends on it, because it does.

So what of their refusal to back platner?

 Establishment dems are being really crappy in recent years. Like...they're at risk of losing power. because post 2024, people are tired of their crap. They're tired of the same do nothing lukewarm centrist politicians. But the fact that they're making such a big stink over zohran mamdani, graham platner, abdul el sayed, etc., shows their true colors. It was never about blue no matter who and party loyalty. if they dont get THEIR way, well, they might try to tank the coalition. And if they do that, well, that shows how crappy they are. it shows how little they believe in their own crap, and honestly, I hope we can have more honest talks about the centrist wing as time goes on. Because they were NEVER acting in good faith. it was always a cudgel, it was always a smokescreen. 

As I see it, until the threat of trump and his immediate illiberal coalition passes, we do have to blue no matter who. but that doesnt mean we should be stupid and ignore the obvious. The democrats use that stuff in bad faith to pressure us to vote for centrists, with no expectations of reciprocity when the shoe is on the other foot. Normally, I'd take their behavior as a sign of "fine, let's have this fight", but for now, i am focused on winning 2026 and 2028. Still, in the future, I am fine with throwing these centrists out of the party. Hell. I hope they join the republicans. Let them get all the stuffy elitists, let us get a working class coalition. So far the dems have been angling for the opposite. This whole mess happened because they've been trying to on board the neocons and moderate wing of the republicans, while keeping the progressive base captive. But it's been failing as they're losing more working class voters than theyre getting moderate republicans. Honestly, i think it's best for the country if these guys F off to the republicans because that's where they belong. And it is better for the country if they get these people. It leads to a weaker, less ideologically cohesive, and moderate republican party, and a more progressive and populist democratic party. 

Honestly. I dont even think losing these guys will do much for us in terms of making us lose elections, because they're what's been holding the country back. So if they wanna join the republicans, join their coalition, and water it down, making the fascist threat less threatening, make my fricking day. That's the outcome i wanted all along. 

Conclusion

Idk its tricky right now. We do gotta focus on winning, but at the same time, we cant let these guys keep pushing us around. We are undergoing a realignment. It can go two ways. Either we're stuck dealing with a centrist democratic party that keeps progressive captive while the GOP continues to rush toward fascism, or....we get a working class democratic party and the elitists jump ship to the republicans, which will probably do us a favor if anything. 

As far as im concerned, as long as the fascist threat is neutralized, i dont care what happens to the democrats. I have no loyalty to them. if anything I hate the ruling class that runs the party. I wish they'd F off to the republicans. We'd probably gain more voters than lose them if that happened honestly. But yeah. Continue to fight these guys from within in primaries, vote blue in the general, and if the centrists dont, well....shows how serious they were with this blue no matter who crap, doesn't it? Make my fricking day. I just want trump out, with my long term secondary goal of making the democrats a more working class party.