@benanhalt.bsky.social
Reposted
Democratic talking heads keep litigating this language that no major democrats use not because of the language, it’s because each of these terms encapsulate a major social problem democrats like Gavin Newsom refuse to take a principled stance on (trans rights, incarceration, homelessness, etc)
It would be a huge step forward for Democrats and for general clarity in political writing if these terms went away. These came mostly from academic hothouses.
August 24, 2025 at 12:45 PM
Democratic talking heads keep litigating this language that no major democrats use not because of the language, it’s because each of these terms encapsulate a major social problem democrats like Gavin Newsom refuse to take a principled stance on (trans rights, incarceration, homelessness, etc)
Reposted
I don't think it was a financial decision at all. It was all about having power over other human beings, especially their own workers and servants, and MeToo, BLM and 3% unemployment all were huge threats to that power.
Last week someone made this point, a lot of money people (including tech) made a very clear, very calculated decision that authoritarianism, even a corrupt kleptocracy, was better for them financially than risking Dems doing a wealth tax/tax fairness etc. It was an eyes-wide-open choice.
Cuban explains why companies like Intel are happy to give fascists a cut. The wealthiest people in the country see it as a smaller sacrifice than what progressives are proposing in higher taxes.
August 24, 2025 at 4:38 AM
I don't think it was a financial decision at all. It was all about having power over other human beings, especially their own workers and servants, and MeToo, BLM and 3% unemployment all were huge threats to that power.