buellerbueller

I agree with much of your sentiment, but if the lack of bailout (which let me reiterate, I agree with) leads to a recession, it will kill the D chances in 2028. They will apply this calculus to their political behavior, and (as is typical for the Ds) will do nothing.

Promises in the wind.

Yeah, that was part of the other shenanigans I was referring to!

HRC was also given the power to effectively run the DNC (while a candidate in the primaries!) in exchange for some funraising. There were bunches of other shenanigans.

To me, it all seems to boil down to the notion that Bernie would credibly have "drained the swamp," which would have effectively tanked the careers of a lot of long-serving Democratic folks who were not aligned with his populist/progressive agenda. Simply by hiring people that would have aligned with his vision, this was such a threat to existing power, it had to be stopped. Yes, the Rs are worse (in my opinion), but this gives me plenty of distrust for the Ds. Institutions eventually become more about institutional survival than about their "core mission."

>I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

You keep using the term authoritarian but I don't think you actually know what it means.

Why is the paper not available?

The OPs point stands; why would anti-tyranny types want to stand with people who are (in their example) linguistic tyrants and thought police?

But you didn't actually answer the quesion.

There are plenty of open borders folks among the woke.

The hilarious thing is that you believe yours have added understanding.

Narrator: They didn't.

I feel like this is a reasonable but nearly-impossible-to-prove take. Maybe this is why everything goes uniparty.

1. weak.

2. weaker still.

3. you don't own morality, buddy.

4. complete miss; i don' work for a company whose motives i question.