Since the failure of “Bidenomics” to win popular acclaim, the Democratic Party has been torn over how to navigate a populist electorate and reform capitalism.
It is not at all obvious that there is a significant anger or desire in the working class that anti-monopoly policies address. Thus this is a solution waiting for a problem in the working class and any consumer research expert will tell you this is a losing proposition. Second this message doesn’t fit well with a party that wants to centralize power into regulations. To push a policy which decentralizes power in the private sector but still wants centralized power in the federal government is a mixed message. Stronger or maybe a better word is prolific federal regulations hurt small businesses and innovation which an anti-monopoly policy is not really trying to help. It is not at all obvious that there is a rational way to thread this in the minds and hearts of the working class. Honestly this feels like something thought up by the educated elite.
So is the Democrats' "new antitrust doctrine" truly a sincere effort to check monopolistic leanings, or just another measure of the Democratic Left's embrace of controls and disdain for business in general, and big business --however legitimate -- in particular?
With names like Lina Khan, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren most closely associated with this "new antitrust doctrine" Americans have every right -- actually a duty -- to remain skeptical.
Capping health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs - PPI and Third Way have put out some good proposals here - would do a lot of good. And some of the antitrust rhetoric does indeed mesh with abundance talk, like building more housing and bringing more workers into needed services like child care.
Empowering workers is also great. Non-compete agreements should indeed be banned. Some form of mandatory profit sharing would be a good idea. And it should be much easier to form unions.
As for consumer goods, though, I worry the antitrust energy pushes policymakers in a bad direction - encouraging too much consumption and too little savings. By all means ban junk fees, but part of the reason for high inflation is that Americans are too used to buying too many things they don't need. Annie Lowrey in the Atlantic was right - "inflation is your fault."
I don't know if bringing back the postal savings bank is the right idea, but incentivizing people to save more of their earnings would be great.
Attaboy. There isn't an ill in the world that can't be cured by more regulation, more policemen, more bureaucrats, more forms to fill out, more approvals to obtain. That's good Democratic thinking, right there.
You don't do antimonopoly by regulating trusts, you bust them. There is a well known term in the literature-regulatory capture that describes what happens when you try to regulate. The regulations are manipulated by the oligarchs to hinder competition rather than to enhance it and especially to prevent entry of new competitors by making regulations so burdensome that only giant companies can comply.
Further, if Democrats are really antimonoply, rather than just seeking partisan advantage, they should make common cause with the Republican faction holding similar views. I don't know if Trump is "a traitor to his class" in the style of FDR but the possibility exists. And Vance isn't of that class at all. He is a smart hillbilly who got rich. His girlfriend, now wife, had to show him which fork to use at the formal law school parties. Do policy, not politics.
Point taken Tom. I was thinking that "hillbilly" as an N word could only be used by others in the H category regardless of whether they're R or D. It then begs the point how people in the H category recognize each other to the extent that they are allowed to mutually use it.
I think MG did a much better job of nailing Richard on Democrats' obsessive arrogance with class, a subset of their broader, mindless identity politics.
He's *not* a hillbilly, though, as 'hillbilly' is a pejorative used to refer to people in rural Appalachia, extended in some contexts to refer to urban residents of Appalachia living in poverty.
Vance was a kid from the suburbs, and he left Appalachia altogether to rub elbows with various Silicon Valley oligarchs attached to Curtis Yarvin's Pro-oligarchy/anti-Democracy movement--notably Peter Thiel, Marc Andreesen and Scott Dorsey. Then he went into politics by going after Trump when he was still an outsider, before doing a complete 180 once the party anointed him as their untouchable imperator. (not a problem, I guess, if you believe it is ethical to lie to manipulate the public or are claiming you're just doing normal politics--less so if you're making claims to be an 'authentic' person surrounded by 'inauthentic' politicians)
A better candidate for 'hillbilly'--or the Nebraskan equivalent thereof--was the person he debated in 2024, Tim Walz, who actually grew up in a small rural town and never tangoed with corporate oligarchs or the VC world. (and notably, had nothing but his governor's salary and a military pension when his accounts were picked over--an interesting comparison to the millions in real estate holdings and VC investments found in Vance's)
I think you've mischaracterized what Vance wrote, not surprised.
As far as Tim Walz, talk about a complete and utter phony. He's so embarrassing your party would be better positioned if you could get him to get off the stage.
And nothing says inauthentic like a party trashing 'oligarchs' and VCs while elevating a billionaire (Prizker).
Does turning a large and powerful private company into a heavily regulated utility, rather than breaking it into two or more separate companies, count as antitrust?
This issue will get them nowhere. It will only resonate with the far left Bernie Sanders cohort. Once again, the Democrats have no idea what issues concern the American people.
Sigh. First, glad to see you guys still don't get it. "Major multinationals" aren't going to "exploit" anything regarding the tariffs. That's whey they have gone full jihad against them. Tariffs so far are quite popular. Wait til the real impact of exploding numbers of American manufacturing jobs kick in. I can see one giant Intel plant---the biggest in the US---from my back yard. Or wait til still MORE revenues flow in from tariffs, causing the Treas as it did last month to show another SURPLUS.
But the key line is this: "The challenge for Democrats, then, is figuring out how to thread their various attacks on monopoly power into a cohesive message about restoring genuine economic opportunity and security" Democrats cannot do this because their key remaining donors are the Tech Bros and monopolists. There will be no "cohesive message," as Newsom in CA is discovering.
The real issue Democrats should be addressing, but won't, is Civil War #3 (#1 is illegal aliens vs. inner city voters; #2 is Israel/Jews vs Hamas/Pales). Number 3 is the AI Tech Bros vs. "green" energy, cuz they are absolutely incompatible. So far, Tech Bros are quietly sliding to Trump.
In case it isn't obvious there needs to actually *be* "exploding numbers of American manufacturing jobs" before any effects of said jobs can kick in.
I would add that unless Trump actually sits down and reads a book on how trade and protectionism works and starts to implement rational policy, the likelihood of a manufacturing renaissance is miniscule--no industrialist or industrial outfit is going to build a factory in a country where they can't plan production around stable prices because tariffs are changing every week.
Being a policy wonk I was despirited when Harris wouldn't commit to keeping Lina Khan on at the FTC. Left oligarchs aligned with right oligarchs.
Being a working class realist I know that my wages are a lot more relevant to paying the remaining three years of college for my youngest and the number of Central Americans hired by my competition has a lot more to do with wages than the break up of google.
Why would anyone not a partisan vote for a party that thinks 100 days is long enough to judge anything? Or more so, everything. Independents and the Dem voters who were pushed out of the party obviously don’t think like partisan and even more obviously, are not as stupid as partisans. Which we see in all the articles put out about the Dems.
-disappeared Tufts student Mehmet Öztürk for non-violent editorial (State Department finds no evidence of terrorist activities)
-sued CBS and other news organizations for coverage he doesn't like
-allowed a billionaire with massive conflicts of interest who was not elected to any office with spending authorization to reshape federal expenditure at will, and get access to the Treasury, and thus all of the nation's financial information
-suspended the right of due process without any declaration of war at work
Yada yada yada . Explain how Biden got relieved/restricted of his presidential duties and an unknown nonelected coup took control of the government. Can’t go there can you? Unconstitutional take over of government and the cover up of a mentally incapacitated president. Lies lies and more lies. Please tell us how that was constitutional. Only in your world.
By the way don’t waste your time with such long post. I don’t read them. I don’t have time for lies and spin from someone who doesn’t have the balls to put his/her/it/slug name out there. What are you afraid of?
I don’t go around saying Biden wasn’t corrupt, though. Clearly he was. (Although Trump has already done things several orders of corruption worse, in just 100 days)
It’s instructive that you can’t admit the same about Trump. “He’s different because reasons” seems to be the going tack here.
You really are that fucking stupid. I have said over and over that Trump has done nothing he wasn't elected for. Because what a bitch for biden has to say (like you) and who has no idea what your own constitution says, means nothing. biden's handlers took over our govenrment on your watch. And you don't even need to acknowledge. No president has done anything worse. This is the Dems 1/06 on steroids. No wonder you don't put your name out there. You'll be blocked after this post. Losers have no value for winners.
Trump wasn't elected to do most of the things on that list--but he *especially* wasn't elected to use the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family, which he's already doing to an obscene degree.
"No president has done anything worse"
Reagan was reportedly worse than Biden. Neither should have been serving given their reduced capacity, but it's not the same as trying to illegally throw out the outcome of a lawful election, as Trump did with his fake electors scheme. You're being totally unhinged.
Your last line says it all. Your worldview are for now losers, mine, so different from yours are winners. What does it mean when the totally unhinged are in charge. It means that the president who announced three times publicly he would violate the constitution or disregard SCOTUS decisions he didn’t like was who you believe is snot above the law. That. President can be secretly replaced by unelected family and close advisors while his cognitive decline, defined as unable to do his duties, is hidden by his power hungry family and advisors so they don’t have to follow the Constitution basically have executed a coup in charge of the country. Looking unhinged to folks like you proves we are where we need to be, in charge and fighting successfully against misogyny that harms women and pregnant men. Your worldview is starting to become irrelevant. Your floundering to save it is hilarious. And to think, you made yourself irrelevant and obsolete. Enjoy your life of no consequence while providing perverse entertainment for the rest of us. Like I said, you and the rest are nothing more than the bitches for the elite class. How else can it be said so succinctly?
Competition policy has its place, but don’t romanticize it. A world of small businesses is also a world of low wages, less regulation, and fewer unions. In many cases, we want regulated oligopolies that can scale and produce and compete internationally. Overdoing it on competition policy seems to envision a standard neoclassical economics market of competitive small firms and that is not a vision for the widespread prosperity we seek.
There are three fundamental principles that should guide an anti-monopoly agenda. They are 1) transparency through increased disclosure and access to data; 2) strengthening the enforcement of anti-monopoly laws; and 3) promoting competition and lowering barriers to entry.
Abundance is the current strand of spaghetti which seems to be sticking to the wall. The abundance movement is a ripoff of prosperity theology which holds that faith and virtuous living will lead to material wealth. Apparently, eternal life and avoidance of hell are not enough but throw in a fat bank account and you can close the deal. Vast riches have been generated but only for preachers and Gulfstream salesmen, just as the "abundance" will surely flow to the priesthood of Northern Virgina. Verily I say unto you.
It is an improvement, at least, on the ripoff of New Apostolic Reformation that Trump is running, where authoritarianism is the basis for 'the triumph of Christ' over unbelievers through the dismantling of a secular state, and the gains flow not so much to a priesthood as to one Savior figure at the top of the hierarchy. Scary stuff.
For the Democrats, this a challenge of messenging one set of ideas and interests, while holding their real covert ideas and interests that in complete opposition.
This is a helpful overview and Vassallo’s recommendations are sensible enough.
The problem is that gestures against monopolistic practices will remain nothing more than gestures as long as both parties need massive amounts of campaign cash from corporations and industries that construct monopolies and engage in rent seeking.
We keep hearing that Democrats should embrace economic populism. How can they? Campaign finance keeps the party almost as plutocratic as the GOP.
To their credit, Dems avoid flagrantly dishonest promises in the Republican style (tariffs will restore manufacturing and pay for tax cuts). Instead of making hollow promises, they make tiny promises ($25K for your first mortgage).
As long as sky high campaign costs compel candidates to censor themselves and say little of real value, neither party can offer us a whole lot.
One solution: make voters the donors who fund election campaigns.
It is not at all obvious that there is a significant anger or desire in the working class that anti-monopoly policies address. Thus this is a solution waiting for a problem in the working class and any consumer research expert will tell you this is a losing proposition. Second this message doesn’t fit well with a party that wants to centralize power into regulations. To push a policy which decentralizes power in the private sector but still wants centralized power in the federal government is a mixed message. Stronger or maybe a better word is prolific federal regulations hurt small businesses and innovation which an anti-monopoly policy is not really trying to help. It is not at all obvious that there is a rational way to thread this in the minds and hearts of the working class. Honestly this feels like something thought up by the educated elite.
So is the Democrats' "new antitrust doctrine" truly a sincere effort to check monopolistic leanings, or just another measure of the Democratic Left's embrace of controls and disdain for business in general, and big business --however legitimate -- in particular?
With names like Lina Khan, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren most closely associated with this "new antitrust doctrine" Americans have every right -- actually a duty -- to remain skeptical.
Trump didn't "neuter" the CFPB - he ended regulation by enforcement action, which is dirty pool.
Regulation by enforcement is like a highway with no speed limit signs. The only way to know the limit is to get a ticket.
You should have to give companies some idea of what the rules are before you start bringing enforcement actions.
Capping health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs - PPI and Third Way have put out some good proposals here - would do a lot of good. And some of the antitrust rhetoric does indeed mesh with abundance talk, like building more housing and bringing more workers into needed services like child care.
Empowering workers is also great. Non-compete agreements should indeed be banned. Some form of mandatory profit sharing would be a good idea. And it should be much easier to form unions.
As for consumer goods, though, I worry the antitrust energy pushes policymakers in a bad direction - encouraging too much consumption and too little savings. By all means ban junk fees, but part of the reason for high inflation is that Americans are too used to buying too many things they don't need. Annie Lowrey in the Atlantic was right - "inflation is your fault."
I don't know if bringing back the postal savings bank is the right idea, but incentivizing people to save more of their earnings would be great.
If you cap insurance revenues, you are going to get rationing.
Attaboy. There isn't an ill in the world that can't be cured by more regulation, more policemen, more bureaucrats, more forms to fill out, more approvals to obtain. That's good Democratic thinking, right there.
You don't do antimonopoly by regulating trusts, you bust them. There is a well known term in the literature-regulatory capture that describes what happens when you try to regulate. The regulations are manipulated by the oligarchs to hinder competition rather than to enhance it and especially to prevent entry of new competitors by making regulations so burdensome that only giant companies can comply.
Further, if Democrats are really antimonoply, rather than just seeking partisan advantage, they should make common cause with the Republican faction holding similar views. I don't know if Trump is "a traitor to his class" in the style of FDR but the possibility exists. And Vance isn't of that class at all. He is a smart hillbilly who got rich. His girlfriend, now wife, had to show him which fork to use at the formal law school parties. Do policy, not politics.
Vance isn't the right 'class,' he's a hillbilly, and he didn't know which fork to use? Gee, why can't Dems win over the working class?
I think Richard was being ironic, no disrespect meant. I also think Richard wasn't aware that "hillbilly" is an N word.
"Hillbilly" is only an N word to Ds, and only when used by an R.
Point taken Tom. I was thinking that "hillbilly" as an N word could only be used by others in the H category regardless of whether they're R or D. It then begs the point how people in the H category recognize each other to the extent that they are allowed to mutually use it.
I think Richard was implying that Vance's fork confusion is an example of his authenticity despite having worked as a venture capitalist.
I think MG did a much better job of nailing Richard on Democrats' obsessive arrogance with class, a subset of their broader, mindless identity politics.
He's *not* a hillbilly, though, as 'hillbilly' is a pejorative used to refer to people in rural Appalachia, extended in some contexts to refer to urban residents of Appalachia living in poverty.
Vance never lived in rural Appalachia, and he never lived in poverty--that is just one of the many falsehoods he has propagated, about his background and much else, pursuant to his self-professed belief (declared openly on national television, mind you) that it is okay to 'make up stories' to manipulate public perception. (https://apnews.com/article/vance-haitians-springfield-ohio-pets-false-claims-1c4c8a06ca7d0e1328ba6b9c1b5ca7ff)
Vance was a kid from the suburbs, and he left Appalachia altogether to rub elbows with various Silicon Valley oligarchs attached to Curtis Yarvin's Pro-oligarchy/anti-Democracy movement--notably Peter Thiel, Marc Andreesen and Scott Dorsey. Then he went into politics by going after Trump when he was still an outsider, before doing a complete 180 once the party anointed him as their untouchable imperator. (not a problem, I guess, if you believe it is ethical to lie to manipulate the public or are claiming you're just doing normal politics--less so if you're making claims to be an 'authentic' person surrounded by 'inauthentic' politicians)
A better candidate for 'hillbilly'--or the Nebraskan equivalent thereof--was the person he debated in 2024, Tim Walz, who actually grew up in a small rural town and never tangoed with corporate oligarchs or the VC world. (and notably, had nothing but his governor's salary and a military pension when his accounts were picked over--an interesting comparison to the millions in real estate holdings and VC investments found in Vance's)
I think you've mischaracterized what Vance wrote, not surprised.
As far as Tim Walz, talk about a complete and utter phony. He's so embarrassing your party would be better positioned if you could get him to get off the stage.
And nothing says inauthentic like a party trashing 'oligarchs' and VCs while elevating a billionaire (Prizker).
Does turning a large and powerful private company into a heavily regulated utility, rather than breaking it into two or more separate companies, count as antitrust?
This issue will get them nowhere. It will only resonate with the far left Bernie Sanders cohort. Once again, the Democrats have no idea what issues concern the American people.
Sigh. First, glad to see you guys still don't get it. "Major multinationals" aren't going to "exploit" anything regarding the tariffs. That's whey they have gone full jihad against them. Tariffs so far are quite popular. Wait til the real impact of exploding numbers of American manufacturing jobs kick in. I can see one giant Intel plant---the biggest in the US---from my back yard. Or wait til still MORE revenues flow in from tariffs, causing the Treas as it did last month to show another SURPLUS.
But the key line is this: "The challenge for Democrats, then, is figuring out how to thread their various attacks on monopoly power into a cohesive message about restoring genuine economic opportunity and security" Democrats cannot do this because their key remaining donors are the Tech Bros and monopolists. There will be no "cohesive message," as Newsom in CA is discovering.
The real issue Democrats should be addressing, but won't, is Civil War #3 (#1 is illegal aliens vs. inner city voters; #2 is Israel/Jews vs Hamas/Pales). Number 3 is the AI Tech Bros vs. "green" energy, cuz they are absolutely incompatible. So far, Tech Bros are quietly sliding to Trump.
"Wait til the real impact of exploding numbers of American manufacturing jobs kick in."
Just to remind the usual suspects that, per usual, this is all nonsense:
Manufacturing Employment--peaked in April 2023, has decreased every month since January: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP
Industrial Production--down since 'Liberation Day' and Trump's implementation of his tariffs: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IPMAN
ISM PMI--down since Trump's inauguration: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/business-confidence
In case it isn't obvious there needs to actually *be* "exploding numbers of American manufacturing jobs" before any effects of said jobs can kick in.
I would add that unless Trump actually sits down and reads a book on how trade and protectionism works and starts to implement rational policy, the likelihood of a manufacturing renaissance is miniscule--no industrialist or industrial outfit is going to build a factory in a country where they can't plan production around stable prices because tariffs are changing every week.
Crypto corruption is an issue that is waiting to be investigated. It may take Democrats getting subpoena power after the midterms.
Being a policy wonk I was despirited when Harris wouldn't commit to keeping Lina Khan on at the FTC. Left oligarchs aligned with right oligarchs.
Being a working class realist I know that my wages are a lot more relevant to paying the remaining three years of college for my youngest and the number of Central Americans hired by my competition has a lot more to do with wages than the break up of google.
Why would anyone not a partisan vote for a party that thinks 100 days is long enough to judge anything? Or more so, everything. Independents and the Dem voters who were pushed out of the party obviously don’t think like partisan and even more obviously, are not as stupid as partisans. Which we see in all the articles put out about the Dems.
For one, because in the past 100 days Trump has done the following, with the blessing of his party:
-released California reservoir water
- blamed wildfires on DEI
-Had DOJ ask lawyers to drop case against Adams
-Defied a court order in his funding freeze: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-finds-trump-administration-violated-court-order-halting-funding-rcna191528
-written an executive order to abolish birthright citizenship (not something subject to executive orders)
-Bragged about insider trading with other billionaires after tariff craziness https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-billionaire-profits-dropped-tariffs-b2731386.html
-openly said he’s ‘intentionally crashing the market’ during the stock market implosion. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-shares-tiktok-video-claiming-he-is-purposefully-crashing-the-market/ar-AA1CiY9r
-disappeared Tufts student Mehmet Öztürk for non-violent editorial (State Department finds no evidence of terrorist activities)
-sued CBS and other news organizations for coverage he doesn't like
-allowed a billionaire with massive conflicts of interest who was not elected to any office with spending authorization to reshape federal expenditure at will, and get access to the Treasury, and thus all of the nation's financial information
-suspended the right of due process without any declaration of war at work
-Ejected the AP from WH press room for simply not portraying him positively all the time and not saying ‘Gulf of America’: https://apnews.com/article/trump-ap-white-house-press-corps-pool-91535a6384d681fee1cd7e384ea6c627
-openly gone after law firms who argued cases against him in the pass: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/law-firms-targeted-by-trump-ask-judges-permanently-bar-executive-orders-against-2025-04-23/
-pardoned January 6 insurrectionists
-had a temper-tantrum with the head of state of besieged country (Zelensky)
-defied a judicial order in unilaterally overriding the right to due process
-defied a Supreme Court 9-0 decision in returning a deportee from an El Salvador gulag
-picked a Sec of Defense that included journalist on Pentagon SignalChat
-picked a Sec of Defense included wife on Pentagon SignalChat about Yemen military op
-showed a photoshopped version of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s hand as if it were real as propaganda to support his illegal deportations
-called for democrats removal for impeachment talks: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5279136-donald-trump-democrats-articles-of-impeachment/
-“maybe kids will have two dolls instead of 30”
-pardoned Nevada politician who paid for cosmetic surgery with funds for slain police officer: https://apnews.com/article/trump-pardon-michele-fiore-nevada-fraud-cf56ef8b302b8111e47cf52d5a606d19
-targeted ActBlue
-Offered private dinner to investors in memecoin
-blocked funding for tornado victims https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/23/weather/trump-denied-disaster-aid-arkansas-tornadoes/index.html
-Attacked head of central bank
-began prosecution of NY AG https://nypost.com/2025/04/15/us-news/trump-administration-refers-ny-ag-tish-james-for-prosecution/?utm_source=reddit.com
-threatened to deport US citizens https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-home-growns-bukele-citizens-b2733207.html?utm_source=reddit.com
-enlisted huge U.S. law firms to work for government for free after threatening to go after them https://www.axios.com/2025/04/12/big-law-pro-bono-legal-work-trump
-started an investigation into media critic for treason for criticizing his military policy https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-orders-doj-to-investigate-prominent-critic-in-shocking-oval-office-remarks--think-he-s-guilty-of-treason/ar-AA1CCOva
-Trump family holds deal talks with binance following crypto exchanges guilty plea
https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/trump-family-has-held-deal-talks-with-binance-following-crypto-exchanges-guilty-plea-05b029f
-let government delete evidence of kidnapped Russian children while making overtures to Russia: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-ukraine-children-russia-war-kidnapping-evidence-b2717730.html?utm_source=reddit.com
-allowed Harvard scientist to be sentenced to death by Putin: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/health/detained-russian-scientist-harvard.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HE8.eykt.Pn7-0lBqTsl3&smid=nytcore-android-share
-accepted plane (I.e. bribe) from Qataris
-used private dinners with the president to raise money for his cryptocurrency
-had Trump family strike deal with Qatari officials to build golf course in Qatar: https://apnews.com/article/trump-qatar-deal-conflicts-saudi-arabia-emoluments-7379bee2e307d39bd43b534a05ae3207
-had Vietnam approve Trump org golf course as trade talks loom: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vietnam-approves-1-5-billion-183500461.html?guccounter=2&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucmVkZGl0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHwqfkwn4FrNPqNyd6aH4lZAjMIBjSMmFXkDVNcDuo9ie3YBOm_Qx9mwP-iTh-04seLPo-otAGI7zF-ExiSWl1rY0zzzZB85BVXgoPAw6wMmSGzSe98U2Ac02uv4SHeJ9wTEN6z-0VzFtYkmlDLk5Gd7M8ie4IHXn5WsXvwcIuuU
...it should be more than enough for any sane person.
Yada yada yada . Explain how Biden got relieved/restricted of his presidential duties and an unknown nonelected coup took control of the government. Can’t go there can you? Unconstitutional take over of government and the cover up of a mentally incapacitated president. Lies lies and more lies. Please tell us how that was constitutional. Only in your world.
By the way don’t waste your time with such long post. I don’t read them. I don’t have time for lies and spin from someone who doesn’t have the balls to put his/her/it/slug name out there. What are you afraid of?
I don’t go around saying Biden wasn’t corrupt, though. Clearly he was. (Although Trump has already done things several orders of corruption worse, in just 100 days)
It’s instructive that you can’t admit the same about Trump. “He’s different because reasons” seems to be the going tack here.
You really are that fucking stupid. I have said over and over that Trump has done nothing he wasn't elected for. Because what a bitch for biden has to say (like you) and who has no idea what your own constitution says, means nothing. biden's handlers took over our govenrment on your watch. And you don't even need to acknowledge. No president has done anything worse. This is the Dems 1/06 on steroids. No wonder you don't put your name out there. You'll be blocked after this post. Losers have no value for winners.
Trump wasn't elected to do most of the things on that list--but he *especially* wasn't elected to use the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family, which he's already doing to an obscene degree.
"No president has done anything worse"
Reagan was reportedly worse than Biden. Neither should have been serving given their reduced capacity, but it's not the same as trying to illegally throw out the outcome of a lawful election, as Trump did with his fake electors scheme. You're being totally unhinged.
Your last line says it all. Your worldview are for now losers, mine, so different from yours are winners. What does it mean when the totally unhinged are in charge. It means that the president who announced three times publicly he would violate the constitution or disregard SCOTUS decisions he didn’t like was who you believe is snot above the law. That. President can be secretly replaced by unelected family and close advisors while his cognitive decline, defined as unable to do his duties, is hidden by his power hungry family and advisors so they don’t have to follow the Constitution basically have executed a coup in charge of the country. Looking unhinged to folks like you proves we are where we need to be, in charge and fighting successfully against misogyny that harms women and pregnant men. Your worldview is starting to become irrelevant. Your floundering to save it is hilarious. And to think, you made yourself irrelevant and obsolete. Enjoy your life of no consequence while providing perverse entertainment for the rest of us. Like I said, you and the rest are nothing more than the bitches for the elite class. How else can it be said so succinctly?
Competition policy has its place, but don’t romanticize it. A world of small businesses is also a world of low wages, less regulation, and fewer unions. In many cases, we want regulated oligopolies that can scale and produce and compete internationally. Overdoing it on competition policy seems to envision a standard neoclassical economics market of competitive small firms and that is not a vision for the widespread prosperity we seek.
There are three fundamental principles that should guide an anti-monopoly agenda. They are 1) transparency through increased disclosure and access to data; 2) strengthening the enforcement of anti-monopoly laws; and 3) promoting competition and lowering barriers to entry.
Abundance is the current strand of spaghetti which seems to be sticking to the wall. The abundance movement is a ripoff of prosperity theology which holds that faith and virtuous living will lead to material wealth. Apparently, eternal life and avoidance of hell are not enough but throw in a fat bank account and you can close the deal. Vast riches have been generated but only for preachers and Gulfstream salesmen, just as the "abundance" will surely flow to the priesthood of Northern Virgina. Verily I say unto you.
It is an improvement, at least, on the ripoff of New Apostolic Reformation that Trump is running, where authoritarianism is the basis for 'the triumph of Christ' over unbelievers through the dismantling of a secular state, and the gains flow not so much to a priesthood as to one Savior figure at the top of the hierarchy. Scary stuff.
https://archive.ph/fzirc
"https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/02/new-apostolic-reformation-christian-movement-trump/681092/"
Wow - thanks. I was not aware of this.
For the Democrats, this a challenge of messenging one set of ideas and interests, while holding their real covert ideas and interests that in complete opposition.
This is a helpful overview and Vassallo’s recommendations are sensible enough.
The problem is that gestures against monopolistic practices will remain nothing more than gestures as long as both parties need massive amounts of campaign cash from corporations and industries that construct monopolies and engage in rent seeking.
We keep hearing that Democrats should embrace economic populism. How can they? Campaign finance keeps the party almost as plutocratic as the GOP.
To their credit, Dems avoid flagrantly dishonest promises in the Republican style (tariffs will restore manufacturing and pay for tax cuts). Instead of making hollow promises, they make tiny promises ($25K for your first mortgage).
As long as sky high campaign costs compel candidates to censor themselves and say little of real value, neither party can offer us a whole lot.
One solution: make voters the donors who fund election campaigns.
www.savedemocracyinamerica.org