I do this a lot because I have poor impulse control. And before I even start to watch a horror movie, because I'm very bad at horror. (I will never, ever watch "Nope." The monster in it freaks me out.)

Opting out is functionally identical to a vote for the one who works against your interests at a greater rate. There's no such thing as purity via abstention; there's only working towards the better of two options or allowing for the worse.

You know, just reading that it was Steve Bannon of all people that prompted all the hand wringing makes me feel better even without the rest of the thread. No need to work myself up over him running his mouth.

There are seven besides him who have declared for the primary, ~4-5 of whom seem to have relevant experience at first glance (more so than Platner), and I'd be willing to bet none of them have Nazi tattoos. He's just the one who caught the attention of the online left.

High taxes on extreme wealth and income serve a social benefit in reducing power imbalances as discussed in this article. That it helps pay for social needs is important, but taxes like this can be a good in and off themselves.

I loved this article: it sums up my thoughts on taxing the ultra-wealthy quite neatly. I'm a big fan of taxes structured to provide a societal benefit in and of themselves (congestion fees, vice taxes, etc).

He's not even the first. Patty Murray was on it, and Schumer has been on it as well. Those are just the ones I've seen. Most Democrats want him gone, but not all get the attention.

Schumer called for his firing; it just didn't get attention on this site because he isn't Bernie Sanders. As did Sen Patty Murray. And I haven't seen a statement from Jeffries recently, but he's been speaking out against RFK Jr for a long time.

It's not a good thing, but it is a necessary thing. Long term, there needs to be serious national level districting reform to prevent this (i personally want proportional rep, as it's impossible to gerrymander), but for now the Democrats have to fight with the weapons they have.

* king, not long

I said the communists (not socialists) , who were far left, saw the social democrats, who were more towards center left than the KPD, as the primary enemy and spent more time trying to be long of the left hill. This backfired and communists were absolutely sent to camps.

This is the same mindset being criticized in the original post as I read it. People as recently as last election cycle spent far too much energy fighting against people who shared most of their views as opposed to the people who shared almost none of them.

It's a mix. The leader of the German communist party didn't like Hitler, but he was an accelerationist who thought the social Democrats were their primary enemy, rather than the fascists, and thought they Hitler would be a temporary stumbling block on the way to a Communist utopia.

He isn't the only one who cares, but he is one of the least effective. He's a career politician with no major legislative achievements over decades. He talks a good game, but he has never delivered.

But the actual arguments at hand were these:

1.) Basic government functions, like building roads, is not socialism, which the other guy was saying and,

2.) National politicians running on being a socialist is a bad idea that will lose elections to the right and result in worse government.