Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxes
Not only has Gov. Gavin Newsom vocally opposed the proposed California billionaire tax, but he also wants to prevent the state from ever passing a wealth tax in the future.
On Friday he endorsed Proposition 42, a ballot measure that would cancel out Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax. Prop. 42 would prohibit retroactive taxes like the one-time 5% tax on assets that would apply to any billionaire who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026 if Prop. 40 passes.
But Prop. 42, funded and placed on the ballot by billionaire and Google co-founder Sergey Brin to defeat the billionaire tax, also would go further, by banning any new taxes on personal property.
That includes pensions and 401K accounts before retirees start drawing retirement income from them. It also includes other investments, financial assets, business holdings, art collections and all other forms of personal wealth that would be affected by the billionaire tax or any future wealth tax.
Newsom’s decision to support Prop. 42 runs counter to his own Democratic Party and some labor unions. It also aligns him with some of the wealthy tech donors with whom he’s maintained longstanding relationships dating back to his days as mayor of San Francisco.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/Open linkView original on lemmy.dbzer0.com
329 replies
better work on your gag reflexes folks, because they are going to ram this guy down our throats so hard in 2028
Maybe. He’s losing popularity in his home state though, and I wonder how attractive a candidate whose home state doesn’t like them will be at the national level.
Didn't stop Al Gore.
Former Vice President Al Gore. Gavin Newsom has never been VP with a President who’s not running again.
That looks like an advantage, given the track record for Al Gore and Walter Mondale. ETA: Ah geez, how did I forget Kamala Harris?
Or it could be why they got the party nod even though they weren’t attractive candidates to the people.
I’d actually expect it to be more likely if Newsom gets the nod for VP and then tries to launch that to a Presidential run the next time around.
um, RM Nixon 1960?
Al Gore literally had the presidency stolen from him by SCOTUS.
From Wikipedia:
I can't blame Gore for unpopularity when he won the popular vote, and would have won the electoral vote had they just been allowed to actually count the votes fairly.
He lost Tennessee, his home state, though.
I see what you're saying, but I think you wouldn't be saying these things if the votes had been tallied properly and he became POTUS.
Or Harris
Former Vice President Kamala Harris. Gavin Newsom has never been VP with a President who’s not running again.
A dem not being popular in Tennessee is different from a dem not popular in CA.
Al Gore actually seemed really cool, though. I'm not sure I've ever heard a controversial opinion from Al Gore? EDIT: Found one, his wife supported music censorship for teens and he wholly supported her for it while working as a senator.
Al "Inviting Dee Snyder to testify will be a slam dunk for our pro-censorship position, there's no way that guy who's famous for being able to concisely convey resonating political statements in 5 minutes or less is articulate, what could possibly go wrong" Gore? God, I wasn't even alive for it and it still pisses me off that craven dick was chosen as candidate...
I mean, given his competition, it still blew my mind that the election was close enough to be stolen. That cycle was key to the development of my Theory of Widespread Stupidity.
Oh god, I love that series of hearings. My favorite is when Bob Denver showed up, told Al Gore he was full of shit to his face, then bounced because he had a meeting with NASA
I think without looking, statistically it's not great.
On the bright side, he won't get elected in 2028 if they do that. On the down side, it'll mean handing MAGAts another victory.
Progressives are done holding their nose to vote.
The DNC will call this bluff because they don't care if they lose.
Yes they do care. It may not have seemed like it thus far, but only because they thought they could ride it out. It’s becoming obvious they can’t as people become more angry. They want to keep their positions and their pay and their perks, and that’s all on the line if they lose the midterms.
There are only so many jobs on network television.
So supporting trump it is and always been then.
How you breath and walk at the same time is a miracle
Doubt it. They’ll try, but they
wantneed to win if they want to keep their cushy jobs with their cushy taxpayer funded homes and healthcare, and it’s obvious as fuck the public tide is turning.If Newsom wants to cling to his old-school anti progressive bullshit, he’s going to find that won’t work for long. People are getting angry enough to begin paying attention, and establishment dinosaurs will find they’re about to go extinct.
We’ve seen this trend before, and it’s obvious where this is going.
You still have a say in primaries. Ignoring them is what allows them to push their choice.
I've voted in every primary since I turned 18 in the year 2000 and this is still happening.
My ballot must be broken.
I do too and had some successes. Those elections are smaller so impact is bigger.
If you constantly losing either you hold an unpopular opinion and no one else around you agrees with you, or you hold a very popular opinion, but other people that hold it prefer to go on social media sites whine who gets elected instead of voting.
I’ve concluded it’s because I don’t have popular opinions. Honestly it makes me feel like voting won’t ever elect someone who actually represents me.
And I shouldn’t run for office because I won’t represent the constituents.
Government sucks and I hate it.
Oh look, Democrats have betrayed their own constituency again!?!
I, for one, am stunned
Who knew?!?
Newsom has shown, time and again, that he is a transphobic corporate shill. The real shocker would have been if he supported Prop 40.
Retirees are an important voting block and rightfully oppose any wealth tax that has a chance of affecting them.
"Runs counter to his own Democratic party..."
Reading is hard, huh?
Yeah, a lot of them suck, but generalizations suck too
Ha, yeah, I read it.
Just like eight Democrats "ran counter to their own Democratic party" with the last lame half-assed "attempt" to pass minimum wage.
No generalizations were made. The Democrats have betrayed their own constituents again. It's a statement of fact.
You know what sucks? When someone doesn't know what a "generalization" is.
... Continues to make generalizations. Says they're not making generalizations and builds apathy.
I think corporate dems and neo-libs suck too, but comments like yours add nothing.
What do you gain by being divisive?
What does anyone gain by being quiet? I'm not trying to be divisive. I do notice a large amount of people making these same generalizations though, and that builds apathy around voting time.
Libs this, Dems that, "they aren't leftists", "there are no leftists in the USA". It gets old. Besides, who am I dividing when these types are doing so much dividing on their own?
That was a productive response to my question without attributing negative aspects to the original comment/question, I appreciate that. I agree, silence doesn't help, but unity is also key. Counter points can me made while being constructive, as you've demonstrated.
You're right, I made a mean statement in my original reply.
I used to make more inclusive comments, but I've also received immediate negative feedback and it's made me jaded on politics discussions.
I appreciate your comments and I'll take time to recenter myself in future discussions.
But they're not going to throw him out either, so... how about you work on those 1+1 skills.
My point was generalizations suck.
I think Newsom is neo-liberal trash, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is no good either.
Newsom is a piece of shit, and our next dem candidate, that most of you will browbeat us into pretending he's cool. Right before he changes nothing and hands it back to the republicans.
Because he's the uniparty, he's of the oligarchy, he is the oligarchy. Fuck this guy.
No fucking way Newsom get put up at this point, even by the corrupt corpo dems
Ha ha, you have a lot to learn about just how much the democratic establishment eats corporate dick. He is the frontrunner, make no mistake.
He could've stood up an taken the country in 2024 when we needed it, but he waited his turn, and now it's his turn.
It’ll be either Newsom or Harris again, because it’s still her turn.
Omfg this ride really never ends does it 🫠
They absolutely will put Newson up for president because he is one of their own.
It’s not red ha blue anymore, it’s corporate dems vs nwo oligarchs.
Oh he will the Democratic party have chosen thier candidate he been the choice for long time. They run primary and Harris be there and they might even run Hillary. Then they sprinkle in some moderates like oh Pete Buttigieg, just to make you think you have choices. If AOC runs then they throe Elizabeth Warren just to make sure it spilts that vote. Regardless Newsome will win the primary and he be a Blue Maga. Look how they already sabotaging their campaigns by abandoning trans people.
You’re completely delusional if you think Clinton will run in the 2028 primaries.
He just allowed the Paramount merger after promising not to sell out, and now he’s trying to kill a billionaire tax and make it illegal to try to make one in the future. People see him as the slimy car salesman he is? Even liberals don’t like him. Gavin Newsom is not making it far in 2028 I will tell you that.
Wish you were right but if the Democratic party wants him to be their leader nothing you or I can do about it.
From your lips to god’s ears
Inshallah
Oh god no, I don’t want newsom, I want pritzker
In 2024 Pritzker would have been great.
Now, we need a non rich asshole, (pritzker is a billionaire, hotel magnate,) and the person for the job, is the UAW Boss, Sean Fain. He can win.
Worse he right of Regan and base on his veto and his guest on his podcast by time the Dems shove him down our throats only difference will be from Trump will be his age. The Democrats love moving futher right every single time.
Gavin Newsom exemplifies what is wrong with the Democratic party.
I am begging you to remember, '28 Democratic primary voters: If he does it to us, he'll do it to you.
It's rare that a politician is required to make such a clear choice between the wealthy elite and regular working people. Most of the time that is done in secret or with plausible deniability. This is really Gavin just saying, "I choose rich people."
Fuck you Gavin
I couldn't have said it better.
I don't want a one time tax on billionaires.
I want an every year tax on billionaires.
I hear you, but don't let the lack of a perfect solution be the enemy of progress. A one-time tax would still (theoretically) do some good, and not harm anybody. So long as those funds are properly allocated.
Prop 40 has a loop hole where they can tax everyone on assets if ca needs to. I’m against taxing assets in general. Tax actual income 80% for all I care for billionaires but taxing assets is full of legal issues. Who says what something is worth?
security backed loans are not taxed as income, and largely how the class pays for things.
Good for them for figuring out how to gain the system. Eventually they have to pay those loans
Assets gains outpace interest rate on loan. They take out another securities backed loan to pay off first and pay for more stuff. They do this forever.
Don't care. They need to pay it.
Man, I so hope this kills his political aspirations dead.
Newsome is a cunt
Which is all the more reason he's going to be shoved in our faces come '28. The bar has been lowered so far that the dems now need merely to put up an (arguably) living, breathing warm body up as candidate in order to be considered competitive. They will take the ground they won by putting up with Trump for the past decade by doing shit like this now-- because who's the alternative? The ones nakedly enriching themselves with taxpayer money?
100% they will make this shithead the next president.
They will run him, braindead liberals will simp for him, he will lose, and they will blame everyone who refused to vote for him.
Democrats will not run a viable candidate because the mask has come off. They'd rather lose and continue cosplaying as opposition than to win and be criticized, the money is coming to their pockets either way.
I won't vote for him
What if it's him or Don Jr.?
Doomed no matter who
Then vote socialist.
Ahh yes, a third party with absolutely no support in the house. They'd get so much done, even in the 5% chance they actually get elected because the system is rigged for two parties.
Don't get me wrong. Would love a mamdani or even El sayed (sorry if it's misspelled, going off of memory) to be placed all over every part of our government. More AOC's and Sanders'. But we need to make the best short term option, not just help guarantee the win of the fascists by withholding votes or put them on a third party with no chance of winning. We're not ending this shit hole situation in a single election, so better to make progressive change than let the atrocities continue with full support from the entire government.
This has been the argument for literally 30 years.
Yes, you're not fixing this in a single election. So giving up all power by agreeing to vote for a supposed "lesser evil" is giving up the future elections as well as this one - because the centrists don't even win.
The reason to vote socialist when you lose the primary is not that third parties will win - the system does give a massive advantage to D or R candidates. It's to record that the centrist Democrats left votes on the table, and exactly how many they did.
Yes, I totally get this, but Harris would have been better than Trump. And if the public put the same effort and pressure on her that they're putting on trump, it might have actually made some difference. Everything is conjecture though, because it didn't happen that way.
I hope there's enough socialist party support in the 2028 primaries to make a difference. If there's a good candidate, and they get enough of the vote, I'll probably swing that way. Things are so bad right now, that it may end up swinging public sentiment enough.
How do you propose to put "effort and pressue" on elected officials if you're not even willing to deny them your vote?
Remember how everyone was talking about how they were going to push Biden left after 2020? It's nonsense - your leverage is greatest BEFORE someone is elected, not after.
We need to stop negotiating against ourselves.
Right now? I probably won't bother voting. If that day comes what would I really do? Couldn't say. I'm tired though. It's clear that all our problems come from wealth inequality, so if there are no candidates that take it seriously, then I don't really have a choice at all. It would probably come down to how federal workers are going to be treated, as there are federal workers in my family, and it's the thing that directly affects us the most.
then go somewhere with ranked choice voting so you aren't throwing away your vote.
Throwing away your vote would be voting for establishment dems or repubs. You're going to gleefully vote for the party that dramatically accelerated the genocide in Gaza?
I car significantly more about my friends than about strangers on the other side of the planet
Of course you do.
We are talking the federal election for president. There is no place where ranked choice exists for that election
I personally voted in the 2024 presidential election in Alaska And ranked 4 presidents for the instant runnoff election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alaska
Not American, but this fucker's a Democrat?
Wow, sorry guys, but you're fucked. You really do need to press reset and start again.
Democrats are still a right wing party like the UK Conservatives, or Australian Liberals. They only seem left leaning to GOP because they're even further right, more like UK Reform or Australian One Nation (basically the party that that all the bigots and racists support - in all those cases).
They don't have a centrist party let alone a left-leaning one
Yeah, we're seeing this creep towards the right in a lot of places. Often that means a new party on the actual left will grow in popularity - but it seems like America is stuck with a 2 party system. It's vote for the right or the hard right. Sad times.
He's a California Democrat. In that state, the Republicans are remarkably liberal and the Democrats remarkably conservative.
Democrats are spineless. They have ZERO spine and roll over to the trumpstein class at the earliest possible moment. Fuck the dems. Fuck the repubs
This is what I keep trying to get across to people outside the US. It's not how you think it is.
Can't wait to be called a Stalinist Yankee tankie in two years for saying he's not a respectable person.
No one would call you one for that. Newsom is 100% owned and sucks hard. Now maybe if you attack people calling for solidarity to keep a Republican from office. Without offering a viable alternative. But let's hope it doesn't come to that.
With no incumbent at least we should be guaranteed a primary. No doubt it will still be a shit show. But hopefully we can take him out in the primary.
You obviously haven’t been on Lemmy for too long. Anyone disagreeing with the “blue no matter who” rhetoric on here gets called a tankie.
Or a Russian LLM
My lemmy.world account will be 4 years old this June. I've been active since then pretty regularly.
Generally it's the people who are against Blue no matter who that are the ones that do the name calling. There's one down below even. But I'm not going to deny it goes a little bit both ways.
Slogans by the very nature cannot be nuanced manifestos. They must be short, punchy, and easy to remember. But till November 4th, we are in the general. You are just gonna have to accept it. I'd rather have DSA all day, every day too. But they don't even run here.
But yall need to understand. You might have the privilege of being able to vote for a third party without hurting a national/state Democrats chances of winning your state. But plenty of places have issues with even having a second party running in elections let alone someone other than Democrats. If you don't atack others for taking advantage of the only viable choices they have. Waving Your Privilege in their face. They won't attack you for your privilege. Let's work together to get the best viable options to improve the material conditions of everyone. Agreed?
It's just math.
When you have, for all practical purposes, two choices, and one of them will win, you're most likely in the position of having to vote for the least shitty candidate. Failing to do so only supports the most shitty candidate.
As long as the general election is FPTP, that math will hold. Specific to Newsom, as bad as he is, I can think of a whole lot of people who are worse than him.
This is exactly why US democracy is a lie. If you get a “choice” between evil and hellish, you don’t really have a choice.
Never said it wasn't, but that's the realpolitik.
So if the democracy is a lie, nobody should be getting mad when people choose to vote third party, or refuse to engage with voting, right?
….
Right?
Go buy some lottery tickets, you're bad at math.
you havent been on bluesky or some of the earlier lemmy posts about him. I remember getting told to "enjoy the camps" because I was pissed back when he started to clearly show he was a transphobic cunt
I avoid bluesky. Not my tastes.
I think newsom is unqualified to hold a door open, let alone public office. Unfortunately you and I are minorities and what we think doesn't matter much. God forbid he or Harris make it to the general. But if they should. Do you think it better the election go to whatever homunculus Thiel is running? In the general, what other viable option will there be? If you live in a blue state. Absolutely vote your conscience. All I want is for those voting for their material conditions to not be attacked by those who should be allies. Same as you.
This time there will be a primary at least. Unlike the acrimony that corpse Biden unleashed in 24. So there's a chance they won't make it. And we have 2 years to make that a reality.
That has literally already happened to me on here multiple times. Liberals do not have solidarity, that's kind of their problem.
It's kind of ironic you assuming that people are liberals just because they disagree with you. And being upset that they call you a tanky for disagreeing with them. Something which I'm not doing.
Quite frankly I think we should abolish the state. But unfortunately when it comes to solidarity unless you and I have solid viable alternatives. That will directly impact their material conditions in a positive way. And realistically short of Revolution we don't. And I don't see anyone revolting here. Then we are unfortunately left to go with the majority when it comes to things like the national elections. Which again is why we shouldn't have such wide spread election. Or offices that centralized to require such. But non-participation doesn't improve the material conditions of anyone.
Bud, it isn't an assumption when the action is both reliant on liberal beliefs, and the individuals openly express liberal values.
Also, you don't get to pick that moral value for other people. As much as I believe we are obligated to exercise whatever power we are afforded, which includes a vote, I could never in good conscience tell someone they're a problem for refusing to participate in a system that has committed genocide against their people. Colonizers don't just colonize by explicitly and intentionally dominating other groups, they often do so by asserting that their "moral" philosophy is in everyone's best interest, even if that means the "unfortunate" reality that necessitates them deciding for others.
The narrative you just created requires us to forget that vulnerable people have revolted against the US state for centuries. You're saying that their resistance only counts as something to put faith in when the privileged white people join in, and conveniently, that means we should just do what the privileged white people wany out of practicality. This is not the mindset of a reasonable, empathetic person, it is of someone whose politics are oriented around their own comfort; many of us do not enjoy that privilege.
If the sole survivor of a Palestinian family does not want to vote, who the fuck are you or I to tell them they're immoral if they don't want to help their family's murderers do anything for some fake "greater good." For fuck's sake, you'd refuse them even that? Why should you have any right to tell a closeted trans person who's skirting through genocide that they aren't allowed to maintain some feeling of power or self-authorship by refusing this system their participation? What, them giving away their less than one percent of the vote gonna make all the privileged people listen to trans people for the first time fucking ever?
These are people who have lost and given more than what we could ask of anyone simply by being victimized by this system, and they do not represent dominant voting trends even in the minority groups they represent. You want them to vote for your benefit, don't act like it is anything else. This discourse didn't become prominent in liberal discourses until they wanted to blame victims for not supporting the "good guys," and it's disgusting. If you're going to act like this is from whatever, socialist and/or anarchist voters, I'd love to see either stats that proves some sleeping giant lives among us, or an argument that targets them specifically without presuming to speak on the moral purity of victims.
Fuck off with this fake shit.
Listen up bud. Most people, for better or worse aren't overtly political. That they share a belief with liberals doesn't make them any more "liberals" in any committed or devoted sense. Than myself having anarco communist views makes me a leninist or you a tanky. But you know who runs around calling people they disagree with "liberals" regularly? Tankies. You are legit doing what you are accusing others if doing. Two wrongs don't make a right either.
If refusing to participate makes the material conditions worse. I can and will point it out all day. If you live in a state that will safely not go Republican if you don't participate. That is a unique circumstance and a privileged choice that you specifically are afforded. If you run around telling people generally to do that. Not knowing how that will impact anyone. Possibly extremely negatively. Such as getting vulnerable people to abstain or vote for the person that would victimize them more. (Which happened) You should expect criticism. And if you don't want it. Don't announce your vote/lack of it to the world. And we won't care. Everyone is entitled to vote whoever they want or not at all.
I'm also quite well aware of what the United States is. But thanks for the unneeded lecture. I am a tribe member. Officially on the rolls. The United States has persecuted suppressed and slaughtered my people for hundreds of years. Canada too. I don't have any great sympathy for them. But I did get a chuckle out of this.
I've honestly tried to keep our discussion very civil and fact-based. I'm starting to think that was a mistake. But can we at least agree. That we should be trying to make more allies and not enemies. That we shouldn't rush to Judgment of others even if they rush to Judgment of us. If we go looking for enemies we will find them or make them one way or the other. And neither of us needs that. There are already enough actual enemies.
I'll stand with you, many others will too
Remember when he was pretending to be a peoples governor?
I’m really hating this trend of passing laws to prevent any future regulations of things.
Like the 10 years “you can’t touch AI” with your laws proposal.
Liberal democracies exist to serve capital interests. This is why they fund the police state first and foremost, to protect private property over any other purpose. It's been this way for a long time, see 3/5ths compromise in the US constitution for one clear example.
In the UK constitution there are laws that state that no government may bind the hands of a future government and that a vote can always be superceded by another vote.
Does the US not have such laws?
That's very much an unwritten law, like much of the UK constitution. As a general rule every country that has a codified constitution has very much bound the hands of future governments, to a greater or lesser extent.
The UK constitution is written. It's just not in one document. In this case I think it comes from the civil war when the absolute powers of the crown were given to parliament.
Which is rather the point, there comes another act of parliament and more constitution is formed. What came before can't stop that process. Even with a codified Constitution like the US one, there's always a process of amendments which can change the previous versions. The fact that the US hasn't had an amendment in a very long time is just a lack of political will.
So I think my question is a reasonable one. The founding fathers felt that the constitution should always be able to be changed, so wouldn't state legislation also always be able to be modified by a future legislature?
Eh... yes and no. But we'll get to that.
To answer your question, there's a principle in legal philosophy called the rule of recognition, which, basically, describes how a court determines what the law is.
The US constitution is considered the highest law of the land, and describes the process by which legislation has to be passed (usually by simple majority vote) by Congress and the Senate and assented to by the President before it becomes statutory law. It also describes the process by which the constitution itself can be amended, which is a much more stringent process. Basically, an amendment must be proposed and than accepted by either a national convention (which has never even been tried) or by being passed by a 2/3 majority vote in both the Congress and the Senate. It then has to be ratified by at least 3/4 of the states. Further, it also contains some amendments that limit what statutory law can do.
So the rule of recognition in the US is, basically, is the law constitutional? Which is to say, is the legislation enacted according to the rules in the constitution, and not invalidated by any of limits set out in the constitution? And if the answer to that question is "no" then the court will disapply that law. If legislation was passed saying slavery is legal again then, in theory at least, the court would say "no, there is a constitutional amendment that says slavery can't be legal, this is not good law". The only way to override that would be to pass a new amendment to remove that amendment. And unless the new amendment is passed according to the rules laid out, the courts would not recognise it. So in this way, the US legislature has very much been bound.
The fundamental principle of UK's constitution, on the other hand, is that the King-in-Parliament has absolute sovereignty. Now, while this is certainly acknowledged in legislation and lots of court decisions, it isn't written down in the sense that there is a clear definition of what that means.
The rule of recognition is generally taken to be that an Act passed by Parliament and given royal assent is the law, no matter what it says, and is the highest form of law in the land. To see an example of how seriously that is taken, see the mess that is the Human Rights Act 1998 and its "declaration of incompatibility" apparatus, which exists because courts cannot disapply an Act of Parliament. (To be clear I'm in favour of the European Convention/Court of Human Rights, I just think the HRA is massive bodge (precisely because our constitution is the way it is).) To see an example of how flexible it can be when it comes to interpreting Acts of Parliament, see the Metric Martyrs case decision.
It is an open questions as to what extent, if any, Parliament can bind itself because it's unclear what a court would do if an Act of Parliament was given royal assent despite the fact a previous Act of Parliament technically says it shouldn't have done. And to avoid a constitutional crisis, Parliament, by convention, doesn't try.
Isn't that what a Constitution's for? A law that prevents other laws.
kompromat, controlled opposition, or just another scumbag?
Scumbag. Just look at the haircut, and who he's been close with in his life. Dude is epstein class through and through.
Why else would he stand up for them so adamantly?
I mean, Democrats in general are controlled opposition, so that’s not even a real question. They all serve the interests of capital, not the working class.
scumbag
Yes.
Scumbag through and through
Conservative asshole
Neo-lib asshole. Which is basically the same thing tbf.
Conservatives captured the term "liberalism" for themselves, which is quite tiring.
No, it's that liberals don't or refuse to realize that "conservatives" are liberals.
It's socialism or barbarism, and putting a rainbow flag on your barbarism doesn't change that.
in theory neoliberals respect your right to have an abortion, marry whoever you want and put whatever you want in your body. the conservatives seem to hat all of that calling it "woke".
The War on drugs is bipartisan.
Gavin Newsom is a clown & lapdog to the Epstein class. His legacy is mud
Newsom is sure as f*ck not working for the voters. He is just a middle management asskisser.
God, fuck this guy with a fucking pineapple. Why can't we get candidates who aren't pieces of shit?
Because everything is about money.
But it's not. You can't eat money, you can't bring back an uninhabitable planet once you destroy it for pieces of paper. The things that are important, aren't the things we are focusing on because we are a stupid species that's going to destroy ourselves. And it will be peak irony.
My comment is from the perspective of politicians, not the average person.
The average person is too focused on getting enough money to survive to care about an uninhabitable planet
Because of the way they our political system is set up, and the laws and regulations that surround political spending, money is everything to a party politician even if it isn't.
As a politician, your party controls everything. They control what committees you sit on, whether or not the rest of the party will vote for something you work on, whether or not you will receive any financial assistance (or opposition) in your primary or general campaign.
What determines your status in the party? How much money you contribute to them via fundraisers. What's a great, efficient way to raise funds for your party? Fucking over the population by catering to the rich.
That's what I'm saying. This is why campaign finance laws and regulations need to change. It's extremely difficult to do anything, even if you get elected, when you don't have any power.
The system is working as intended.
There's plenty of great candidates. Check the green party or labor party or communist party
Well, I don't live in California. So unless he runs for president, I won't get to help choose who the nominee is. And I'll vote for who I want to win in the primary, but I'm not gonna throw away my vote during the general bcz he's a bad candidate bcz.whoever the Republicans nominate will be a straight up fascist.
With moves like that, we all KNOW the Dems are going to hold all of the rich pedophilic traitors responsible for their illegal actions FOR SURE!
I mean, he won't tax them, but he will DEFINITELY arrest them, and have them convicted and imprisoned FOR SURE
With all of the illegal actions and stealing of our cash, the DEMS will DEFINITELY hold the tech bros responsible for their pedophilic and traitorous actions! Nevermind that the dem leadership is ALSO PAID BY THIEL. They will hold musk and co responsible and imprison them FOR SURE
Just keep voting for Dems and you will be able to beat those random two (or 6) that flip at key votes. If you vote a little harder for Democrats, they will be able to defeat the parliamentarian when they have the votes.
Nevermind that the Democrats have NEVER restored any benefits or programs that Republicans have cut (they had the votes in '96 and didn't, Newsome could have done universal healthcare and he didn't)
ITS TIME FOR SOMETHING ELSE. NO MORE FASCISM
Voting strategically for the least bad candidate presented by the two major parties is the only thing that has been shown to work. It's how we have the DSA candidates in government that we actually have. None of them have ever won by running as a third party. Not a single one.
Which is why it's so important to turn out during the primaries. Make sure Gavin isn't the candidate by voting for candidates you actually like during the primaries. If he wins the nomination, and I sure hope he doesn't, I'd still vote for him over JD Vance or whatever sick fascist wins the GOP nomination. That's how it works.
You would, I would, but the 2024 election showed that this doesn’t speak to enough voters to win. If the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t act on that info, I’m not sure what to do
That doesnt work because always being the side that compromises means you lose ground every time.
The solution to this is electing politicians who promise not to compromise during primary season, NOT allowing your political enemies to win general elections. Even in a worst case scenario where your candidate is prancing around saying, "I love compromise!", it's still preferable to have a candidate who supports 50% of what you want than one who wants nothing you want and everything you don't.
don't forget running for office yourself. you can make a really big positive difference in local politics
Forgive my oversight. Running for office yourself is certainly one of the best things you can do.
There are a bunch of other actions you can take, of course. Phonebanking, doorknocking, etc. And once whoever wins assumes office, call them every day.
Nothing to forgive. Just I would love it if there were more like-minded people getting personally involved (it's kind of one of my hobby horses). Purely selfish reasoning too, I want to make it easier for my mutual aid network to function and get funding.
My dad had that idea and he got roped into a position where he has no power and just receives complaints. He's not running for reelection.
Yeah, if you stick with it you end up having a project or two you're proud of and a lot of constituents who are upset no matter what you do. I swear being upset is some people's hobby (is there a club I can join for that or something? No I'm not going to law school)
The person I voted for in the primary has won the general exactly once in my 26 years of voting and that person was Fetterman.
great but he cant win. Dems will just sit on the couch if he runs, same as with Harris.
It hasn't worked. It gave us Clinton, the OG Epsteincrat. Then it gave us a string of loser shitlibs who caved to fascism at the first shove. And a long string of corporate cutouts - from Biden to Lieberman to Manchin to Fetterman - who only knew how to obstruct from within the Democratic party.
This strategy is why America is the only country in the industrial world without a public health care policy. It's why we have exploding student debts and a housing crisis. Neoliberalism is a curse.
Not trying to be pedantic but the housing crisis is not specific to the US, it's a problem that exists in a lot of the Western world. The leave the other two as special US issues along with gun violence, incarceration rates along with a whole string of other issues that are American exceptionalism.
The US expanded it's housing model to the rest of the world. The concept of a mortgage - a lifelong debt to some faceless creditors for the privilege of not being homeless - is recent and local. And the hyper-financialization of these debts, resulting in exploding administrative costs, is even more recent and local.
It's a creature of the American economy that has been spread by American banks for the purpose of juicing American profits.
You should look into serfdom or feudal land tenure if you think mortgages are something new. They're just an iteration of a system that has existed for a long time. Also, unsurprisingly, mortgages exist pretty much everywhere. The financialization of them might be more of a US problem indeed but the other points stand.
Serfdom was a consequence of Land Barony, which became a formal process of effectively robbing peasant farmers at swordpoint. Land tenure was a consequence of Enclosure, which was a formal fencing off of public grazing lands by these same land barons. Both of these were prerequisites for the eventual advent of mortgages. But they required a lot more direct application of armed goons. And they were designed to expel native peoples to clear the way for settlers.
Mortgages are a debt vehicle used to move settlers onto seized land, not a military occupation designed to force native people off of it.
Post-WW2 US Hegemony cast a long shadow.
But you see mortgages in places where native people have been expelled, land has been enclosed and financialized, and new settlers have been ushered onto the land under debt peonage. Native people who have held onto their lands don't pay mortgages. They have no one to pay mortgages to, because nobody else has title to their property.
What is your strategy and can you point to it having worked recently? Electing Obama was preferable to electing McCain, was it not? Electing Clinton was preferable to reelecting Bush Sr., was it not? Electing Hillary would have been preferable to Trump. Y/N? Electing Biden was preferable to reelecting Trump. Y/N? Electing Harris would have been preferable to Trump. Y/N?
This isn't complicated. The system is dead simple, and certain people keep making the wrong choices. We are a democracy. We have the government we have not because choices are being forced on us, but because our citizens keep making shitty choices. Can we not? Please?
If you have a democracy how come the US government so often does things no one voted/asked for? Unless the US government tricks everyone into thinking it's a democracy so they can shift the blame away from themselves whenever they do something horrible.
That's the thing: we did vote for this. Look who won the last election.
Can you blame people for voting red when all the media in the United States is made by rich people designed to convince workers that fascist policies are good for them? A fair democracy can't have corporate owned media.
On one hand, I totally, wholeheartedly agree.
On the other, it is the duty of the people to maintain their democracy, irrespective of the attempts of the wealthy to subvert it.
The person who promised no more wars, an end to the genocide in Gaza, and an end to the Russo-Ukrainian war? Hmmmm...
That person who lied thousands of times before, and had a clear track record? The people that elected him should and could have known better.
The system is incredibly complicated. You've just been too absent to notice, and this is not a good system... Its terrible.
And wow... What a choice we have! Corpo pigs or corpo pigs with sharper teeth. Elections have some effect but that study from Princeton years ago LITERALLY showed that elections are mainly useless. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Organizing, community structuring, mutual aid, decentralizing, educating are all completely necessary alongside it. Honestly, often in replacement of the complete failure our system is.
And I know I'm about to be accused of being a anti-voting shill who has been recruited right before midterms. I'm not, I do vote (very intentionally and informed) every election, but I think we need to do SOOO much more.
Show me the better alternative to voting strategically. I never claimed the US system is great and perfect and directly produces wonderful results. Nobody over age 12 believes that bullshit, especially not lately.
In our deeply, deeply flawed system, consistently voting strategically is one of the most effective things we can do to effect change for good. Not perfect, but good. I urge all my fellow citizens to master the art of holding their noses and voting for the candidate more likely to improve their lives, or less likely to fuck them over. The alternative is accelerationism towards collapse, and the people on the left who say they want that are all woefully unprepared for the consequences. (The accelerationists on the right are also unprepared, but at least they have a lot of guns.)
As for doing more: I agree. AFTER we charitably elect the lesser evil, we should be calling their offices every day. We should be demonstrating. We should be engaging in civil disobedience. Our jobs do not end on election day, but we should never, ever allow the GOP to seize power electorally when it's so easy to keep them out. That is tying both hands behind our backs and making sure the people in power not only disregard us, but despise us.
You will never take apart the master's house with the master's tools. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing as well, in addition to our other defenses and offenses.
We live in a democracy. What masters are you referring to? You never answered my very, very simple question. Every time I have this discussion with you guys, I'm disappointed further. You have no plan, but you want to criticize mine.
Nope. People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling and will continually fuck things up for stupid reasons.
I'm reminded of a quote,
Which is why we are doomed. The best we can come up with is awful.
It's difficult to say. Would a John McCain Presidency with a Dem Congressional majority have produced the kind of progressive compromises that Bush/Pelosi and Reagan/O'Neil gave up?
Would it have all ended like Clinton's second term, with Corporate Dems selling off the farm while crying about how the President made them do it?
In the same way it's difficult to say "Hillary would be better than Trump" without knowing the fresh new horrors her campaign would have inflicted. Or, for that matter, whether a Hillary 2016 just ends in a Trump 2020.
It's all empty speculation. And it's all just predicated on eating what these corrupt organizations churn out.
The system is what it does. If you think the outcomes are wrong, then you either acknowledge the system itself is broken or you give up on the concept of liberal democracy.
Because the US isn't unique. Trumpie candidates have been popping out of neoliberal democratic systems for over a century. "The voters are wrong" is a sentiment directly at odds with the democratic model. The voters can't be wrong, unless you've identified some Guardian Council better suited to select the candidates.
I really don't think it is. Can you really look around at our current reality: an executive branch shamelessly enriching themselves, a Congress that has ceded all power, a SCOTUS that has enshrined corruption and abuse of power, military and paramilitary in the streets, etc., and think, "well who knows if Harris would have been worse?" Come on, dude. Don't let your urge to win interwebs arguments override your intellectual honesty. This shit is objectively worse than the alternative, and we don't have to speculate about it.
We had all this shit in 2024. We had all this shit in 2004.
Liberals have an opportunity to clean up politics through prosecution and legislative reforms. They control numerous big wealthy states. They have oodles of cash and a wide network of friendly business interests.
What would have happened under a Harris Presidency with a Republican Congress? Same shit we got in 2011. Debt crisis. Economic slowdown. More wars. Business bailouts. Hordes of angry racist voters blaming women and minorities for all their problems. An incompetent boob in the White House poisoning the country against everything they stand for.
Worse than what? We've been sliding downhill since 2001. Every year is worse than the last, with vanishingly few exceptions.
This isn't a problem of a single person making a handful of bad decisions. It's endemic to the entirely national leadership, from city councillors to SCOTUS judges.
You're delusional.
When has this ever worked?
If this is the system working then the system is bullshit.
"What're you gonna do about it, vote republican?" - The democratic party
I love how honest we are becoming with each other. Hang up your masks blue maga, you dont need them anymore.
What a massive piece of shit!
Gavin recently vetoed a law that would stop California from extraditing people who are charged by other states for the crime of receiving healthcare in California. He said he couldn't restrict future governors.
Now he's supporting a bill to restrict future legislatures from passing wealth taxes.
Not only is he a bigot, he is also a hypocrite. He is term limited from running for Governor, but clearly is wanting to run for president someday. Let me make it completely clear to anyone reading. There are no circumstances that could ever convince me to vote for newsom. I hope he suffers whatever is the worst fate that can be described while following the rules of this community.
Well he basically just killed his chances of winning
You don't get the votes from the majority by moving further right. Look at Hilary and Harris.
This bastard is as sleazy as he looks. Fucking 80s after school special villain that's gonna take over the rec center to turn it into overpriced condos.
You MUST vote for Him is we Make him the Presidential Nominee otherwise you HATE America!
-Democrats CAMPAIGNING for Republicans in the Midterms!
Fucking telling me, this is likely their front man at this time and he's about as Republican as they come.
This is the reason fucking Democrats lose the election. Fucking spineless slimy mother fucking corporate ass licking fucks. Fuck you gavin, eat a bag of dicks.
As a socialist that still votes for the lesser of two evils I look forward to them blaming me in a couple months because their absolute dog shit candidates dont win.
Is it the party and awful candidates to blame that they can’t attract enough votes? No it’s those stupid voters that won’t vote for our terrible candidates.
Imagine voting for evil, lmao
For everyone who was Team Newsom when he was busy taunting Trump with his tweets, this is why not everyone was bought in to Newsom 4 Prez. He's a lizard.
How do you ban future laws? Isn't that a bit like when a 10 year old tells his girlfriend she isn't allowed to ever ever break up?
Oh so he's making his pivot to UltraFascism now. Coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
Now? No lol he’s been fascist light for a long time. He just vetoed a bill that would have given native Americans water rights on the kalamath river. He vetoed a bill that would have kept private equity out of primary care. He created an Anti-semitism task force to hunt down teachers who teach correct history about Israel or lead protests. He vetoes all the progressive legislation that passes. My favorite is his little podcast that apparently he has time to do while acting as governor on which he talks to fascists like Bannon, Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk and sides with them
Nothing says fiscal policy like taking away your biggest revenue stream.
For fuck sake, he'll probably get picked to be the dems presidential candidate in 2028.
Newsom is an evil, conservative sack of cockroaches wearing a wig.
Awww. Roaches are beneficial to other animals. Unlike newsance
Most of them are, but i at least like the ones that are pretending they are sacks of shit. Ideally we do some rioting or something that makes my solarpunk dreams reality
I already didn't like his policies if he runs for president, and need someone much better to win the primary.
He's clearly showing his allegiance. Any party that nominates this guy is not on our side.
It's comical at this point. No way anyone votes for him if he tries to run for president.
You'd be surprised. I thought the same thing about trump 2024. A lot of people only see newsom as a charismatic anti-trump, And don't actually see or care about his individual decisions or policies. Which, come to think of it, is very similar to how trump made it in.
The truly fucked part of government is the people who you'd want in the position absolutely want no part of the position. Almost everyone in government is in there for the money and the power. If you did manage to get someone in who is altruistic, they would simply be fighting against swarm upon swarm of horrible people, while at the same time refusing to take bribes and make personal deals to be able to advance any form of wealth.
For the most part, we've designed our government to only attract self-serving pieces of shit, and the few that aren't in that camp never make it to the top because of all the other self-serving pieces of shit.
We're looking at a sack of turds that occasionally does something anti-trump while licking the balls of some other oligarch, vs someone who walks out there talking centrist and campaigns for the right claiming they're very nice people.
It is entirely possible that the DNC puts him out front instead of AOC, then we're left with whoever trumps successor is (asuming we ever have actual real elections again), or some democrat right sycophant, or trying to convince everyone in the fucking US to write in a name.
We're cooked any way the cards fall
Not really cooked any way the cards fall, you as an individual understand that alongside myself. Our knowledge and ability to discuss freely is what will save us. The senate has a good chance soon, we'll know:
The Democratic candidates for those potential flips:
North Carolina: Roy Cooper
Ohio: Sherrod Brown
Alaska: Mary Peltola
Maine: Troy Jackson
Texas: James Talarico
Iowa: Josh Turek
Kansas: Adam Hamilton
If they let midterms happen without militarizing it and accept the results without fucking with them, we have a chance.
I wish those weren't ifs
The primaries showed how much pull cable news pundits still have. They just have to tell voters "don't vote for the policy that helps you and everyone else, the only way to beat republicans is if you imagine a voter who loves republicans dogshit policy and strategically vote for a dem candidate with those policies"
As if anyone can remember anything for longer than a week.
Bad choice, Newsom, especially considering we already have some wealth taxes, like the tax on real estate wealth. It's not like wealth taxes are unprecedented. At least he's not running again.
He'll be running for president if we have elections in 2028.
He's definitely running for president though.
All my homies hate Newsom.
Yeah, Same here honestly
The proposition for a one-time tax on billionaires, while I hope it does pass, is not the most important prop in this regard. If for no reason other than it’s just a one-time tax. The counter-proposition to ban taxes on “personal property” i.e. wealth is far more impactful long term. We should be taxing wealth and not income. If that prop passes, California will never be able to tax wealth. And frankly I’m worried it will, because Americans just have this reflexive “taxes bad” ideology and will vote for it thinking it means the state will never be able to tax the $15k they have sitting in their Roth IRA or whatever.
And what they consider taxable from personal property and what they don't is entirely designed to fuck over the poor. They'll tax your hovel, or your car you use to get to your shitty job, but not your bosses 20 million dollar investment account.
It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
Such a similar name to Gavin Belson from Silicon Valley TV show. Coincidence?
He looks like Patrick Bateman from American Psycho and the personality seems similar.
The people continue to be treated like rag dolls for the rich. People are such clowns for voting for this system. Split this fucker up. It is time.
Yeah he's just another hypocrit, everybody with half a brain already knew that.
Just ban all attempts at banning tax laws
I'm really hoping some dipshit Republican shoots this asswipe before the primaries that'd be funny.
“vote blue no matter who” they say….
At least that nonsense is starting to fall apart and Americans are being more active with primaries.
It’s actually part of the intention, not contrary. If you’re in the “vote blue, no matter who” mindset, then you’re looking at the primary as your election. You don’t get to decide to not vote on Election Day; you’re already going to vote for the Democratic nominee. So you get involved in the primaries.
What's the alternative in the short term?
short term? since when has short term thinking been a virtue? your short term options are bad or worse, it’s not even “incremental progress tm”. you probly should start thinking long term if you are still interested in progress
Ok...but what about the short term? Do nothing? Let lifetime conservative judges be appointed that will affect generations ahead?
Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
It would solve so many problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
This monetary obesity is due to shareholder externalized ownership. Since people who aren't stakeholders can own the capital of a firm, all the responsibility and externalities are externalized from them. We need direct stakeholder ownership. Anyone who is a worker, consumer, and environmentally impacted by a firm needs to have shared ownership over its operations at whatever level need. We need coöperative ownership. We need a coöp commonwealth!
We need both, these are complementary and compounding ideas. Tolerating a coöp, or its constituent members, hoarding of wealth would lead to similar perversion of social power dynamics.
Newsom is a lapdog to the forces destroying this country and should never be allowed near elected office. His personal wealth should be confiscated and he can subsist on welfare for the rest of his life.
It's because Gavin comes from old wealth.
I am utterly SHOCKED!
Oh wait, its just another idle Saturday and business as usual... If this guy makes it past the primary its going to be a disaster.
Everything they do helps the wealthy become more wealthy and the poor become more poor.
counterstrike vocal stem Enemy spotted.
I wonder what exactly is the tipping point between "Making money and helping the world" vs. "Whoa! I got a lotta money here and I need to goddam well protect it from parasites. Fuck the world". I put it at about 116 million.
Passive income that equals or exceeds your living expenses.
What a bitch.
So I guess the Dems can try again in 2032
May he be absolutely massacred in the presidential primary if he still plans to run. We're gonna Bloomberg this mofo.
The
DemocratsAristocrats!Don Jr will play Gavin in the Skydunce movie.
Let’s see if Gavin newsom is in the Epstein files
He's good for trash talking trump. But otherwise, not as good.
Looking forward to this thread being fully purged in late 2027
I'm so proud that we're led by a cool guy who doesn't give a fuck about us. Yay California.
State workers are about to strike in a couple of weeks. Even cooler.
BlUe nO mAtTeR wHo. Otherwise you’re a Nazi.
If it somehow becomes this asshat vs vance or something, then I'll still be voting for newsom. I'll be holding my nose as it happens, but self-serving greed and nastiness wins against outright treason and intent for public harm.
If its Newsom vs Vance, we already lost, gavin will perform worse than a good candidate, and if Gavin somehow wins, it absolutely guarantees a republican sweep in 2030 and 2032
I fully expect to vote for Newsom because I hate him and that's how politics works: I vote for someone I hate.
Unless your mayoral candidate lost the democratic primary, then its go all in with a spoiler candidate.
Interesting how he was saying before that he didn't support it because it didn't go far enough
What exactly do you expect from Kimberly Guilfoyle's ex?
Never forget, Newsom isn't much different from the other political critters that are corroding America. Just because he isn't the worst, doesn't mean he ain't bad.
Despicable.
Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire. Tax and ban future wealth.
and there shouldn't be the seal of the state of california. whoopsie.
And people were cheering this clown for a potential presidential candidate because he threw shade back at trump. Just another Fetterman.
To get billionaire donors
Goddammit, Gavin...!
So completely shocking /s
I don't know many other people that look like exactly the type of villain they are.
Of course. It was never about dems or reps, it was always the billionaire corporation elites vs the rest of the people. The obscenely rich vs the poor and increasingly the middle class, as they always want more and more and more. I don’t have anything against being a millionaire, but at some point, when you reach a certain sum, the rest should go back to the community and workers and consumers that made that wealth possible. You’d get a congratulatory letter about winning capitalism and move on.
It's been said here before and I'm trying not to be defeatist but 40 is probably not going to pass. And it's basically a tacit admission that so many people still believe trickle down economics works...
They’re blanketing us with propaganda hard here. Tons of ads about how there’s a loophole to make it so that everyone can be taxed*, ads about how unions and teachers are against it, ads from people who ‘changed their mind’ about it, etc. I think I’ve got some that came in the mail that I let my cat have (he loves to shred paper).
* true in a very tortured reading of the text, but trying to implement it as anything other than a wealth tax on billionaires is almost certain to fail in court
Uh, what? 40? Is that prez? Fuck him, and fuck Newsom.
Prop 40 is Californias one time billionaire retroactive tax. The two biggest arguments against it are “I earned all of that money on my own” and “we should tax them more than once” which I also agree with, but isn’t on the ballot. The one time tax could be on the ballot every year too, nothing is preventing that.
Thanks for informing them, I'm not sure how they managed to miss everything about the post I commented on 🤷
You can't...ban future taxes. I mean, that's the point of term limits.
You’d think, but many of California’s current budgetary problems can be traced to a specific law making it very difficult to raise property taxes from the early 70’s onwards. They’ve already been doing this for decades
I'd like to hear his rebuttal before jumping on the hate wagon
Man's dug his own political grave. Good for him.
welp, so much for giving him any support
He's as authentic as he looks. He either agreed with Kimberly Guilfoyle or lied to her to fuck her, either way would be perfectly on-brand.
How’s the boot taste, gavin?
Let's just imagine the headline ended before the word "tax"
I thought this said Gabe Newell for a second and I was confused.
Propaganda Alert: Wealth taxes are not retroactive. California, it's time to fund your Mamdani
...at the state level, and instead have that tax at the federal level.
That's an important bit of detail that somehow gets overlooked.
mega-douche zionist newsom is in 3rd place for the dem spot, according to Kalshi anyway, with Osoff leading and AOC second. newsom will just be a creature of the rich. Voting for him is the same as voting for musk, thiel, ellison, zuckerberg and besos. We should really just cut out the middle man and put them directly in charge.
https://kalshi.com/markets/kxpresnomd/democratic-primary-winner/kxpresnomd-28
Vote Blue No Matter Who!!!!!
Get involved in primaries if you don't like the candidates that gets put forward. But when there is a shitty blue vs shitty red contest you still have to decide which is the least stinky turd and get out and vote for it, because they do get a lot worse. A lot worse
Preach! Too few people care about voting at all, let alone primaries or their own local elections and community politics.
I am with you. The democratic establishment is the enemy, and there is no escaping fascism under their leadership of the opposition.
Not a fucking chance in the world, and everyone downvoting is a fucking sheep. I do vote dem though, just against republicans, but it is now clear that has been folly.
Yeah, we'll show them by not voting! Message heard loud and clear!
There is no defeating fascism through the democratic establishment.
You are the problem here, no matter how many half wits and bots agree with you. By the time Kamala was anointed, the race was lost.
Why does it even matter if the race was lost if the establishment isn't the solution? You have a lot of complaints and seemingly zero solutions.
That I didn't explain solutions to the enemy, doesn't mean I don't have them.
A DNC ghoul is still a better pick than any MAGA goon.
You miss the actual truth here, by supporting corportist dems, we allow republicans to win.
As if the dems weren't the fucking oligarch tools themselves. Just because you have a bunch of half wits/bots voting with you, doesn't mean you are correct here. Wake the fuck up.
Allowing the dem establishment to run the opposition is tantamount to surrender. The Dem Establishment are the oligarchy, Jesus Christ.
That's why I vote in primaries. Any DNC pick is still going to be better than MAGA. The people who snubbed Kamala made the world a worse place to live in.
Oh yeah, I'm sure a Republican would be more interested in passing a wealth tax. Trump is all for em, haven't you heard?!