Putin and Trump wouldn't be where they are without their respective oligarchical classes' supports. You can't have democracy when some private individuals are able to hold unto so much wealth and power, buying media and politicians, etc. This is what needs to be addressed if we don't want more Trumps and Putins.
Vance has none of whatever Trump used to entrance 50% of Americans. MAGA dies with Trump, although I'm sure something else will come end replace it, if the issues that led to it aren't fixed.
It is very obnoxious, the sound should just be enough for pedestrians to notice there's a car behind them (happened to me a few times now that there was an electric van one meter behind me that I hadn't heard at all). Tangentially related, but I came across a startup selling EV noises as NFTs once, and it still holds the palm of "most ridiculous business" in my head.
Fraudsters usually don't resort to violence once they get caught. In your contrived example, the guy would probably end up paying what he owed and that would be that. Violence mostly emerges from people who feel that they are treated unfairly, and can't use civil channels to solve their issues. Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly.
> I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.
I think it does, actually. The more unequal the country, the more violent it is. Which is why the best way to get rid of crime is not to give unlimited funding to the police (that has been shown to be very ineffective, and ruinous), it's to make sure no one needs to commit it. That will never get rid of all crimes, of course.
You're acting like Democrats are as deep in the cult of personality as Republicans are, yet outside of the most corporate liberal circles, Harris and Biden are heavily held in contempt by most of the Left.
No, Harris and Biden are not heavily held in contempt by most of the Left. I'm on the Left and voted for both of them. Indeed, as a Progressive, I was pleasantly surprised by Biden for his withdrawal from Afghanistan, student loan forgiveness, his canceling the Keystone Pipeline, etc.
Yawn. Trump wouldn’t even give the Biden transition team the terms of the agreement. Trump should have withdrawn his own withdrawal. He knew he was going to lose and like W created a minor debacle for his successor. Troll elsewhere.
Being pleasantly surprised by things that should be the bare minimum is not a sign you hold him in high regard. How do you feel about his attacks on Gaza?
Well, you should hold them in contempt for their awful 2024 campaign, their staunch pro-Israel position in the face of internal polls begging them to at least acknowledge what was going on in Gaza. You should hold the Democratic establishment in contempt too for their continued efforts to keep the progressives down: Sanders, AOC, now Mamdani...
Harris in particular, led a weak and energy-less campaign, disappeared for 6 month after losing, didn't do or say anything about Trump's terrible start, then reappeared for her book promotion and pinned it all on progressives.
I'm not telling you to disregard whatever good policies has come out of Biden's term, I'm telling you that's the barest of bare minimums, and winning an election against an obviously retared manchild such as Trump shouldn't be that fucking hard. Yet they lost, having down nothing to counter-message his many obvious lies. This deserves scorn, nothing else.
> Harris and Biden are heavily held in contempt by most of the Left.
To be absolutely frank, I don't consider the Democrat party as "Left" in any (traditional?) sense at all, even though it may include Left and Left-leaning elements.
(But then again I don't consider Starmer's Labour as Left either, and one could argue that Labour is more Left than the Democrats.)
>To be absolutely frank, I don't consider the Democrat party as "Left" in any (traditional?) sense at all, even though it may include Left and Left-leaning elements.
The Democratic (not "Democrat", a member of that party is a Democrat, but the party is the "Democratic" Party), and calling it the "Democrat" party has its roots in Republicans deliberately misnaming the party as one of many attempts to devalue and dismiss the Democratic Party. If that's your goal, then please continue. Otherwise, it's like calling an Englishman a Limey or a Pommie just because you've heard others do so.
Otherwise, you're quite correct, in that the US Democratic Party is mostly a center-right party, with it's most progressive/left-wing elements being firmly center-left.
We really should share his writings/speeches more. The sanewashing of his mad ramblings or Truth social posts is omnipresent in media. Once you notice it, you see it everywhere.
None of the good things you described requires the existence of powerful private actors. The internet was created by public funded researchers, it is fundamentally decentralized. Wikipedia is a non-profit, video call could be p2p, etc.
> Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time.
It seems a captain obvious now but it wasn't so at the time. (Or maybe my.braincells.count() < 2)
Many people listened because he wasn't some youtuber doing his research, he was the head of the "Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit" ad the Faculty of Medicine of Marseille.
I've watched one of his interviews where he stated that people survived in his unit with hydroxychloroquine and that he had numbers to prove it.
When you look at his credentials, and my.braincells.count(), it was hard to identify it as misinformation.
I definitely exaggerated with my "two braincells". Even the french president said about the guy "we need more people like him" (although I wouldn't say he's that smart himself...).
But even without being knowledgeable about statistics, there were a lot of very serious people giving very good arguments against his results. You just had to see them. And seeing all the Facebook doctors lunatics instantly side with Raoult and defend him tooth and nail should definitely raise some red flags...
reply