He knew why he was there, and even if you couldn’t figure it out, his messages after should’ve cleared it up…

There was no chance of trump going against putin.

And Zelensky turned it into international outcry and Europe’s public support increasing. Then went on Elmo’s own social media to thank a shit ton of European leaders for their public comments of support in response to the media storm.

The only criticism I had was I thought it was gonna be too obvious, but a lot of people still don’t seem to realize what was happening.

He just showed the world that the US isn’t there to help, and they won’t help the next country either. So especially for Europe, it is vitally important that Ukraine doesn’t lose. Putin won’t waste time in moving to the next.

Zelensky just forced the world to acknowledge that Trump’s election has global consequences and redraws a lot of lines.

And ignoring why they got the megaphone to say it on cable news?

Faux News legally couldn’t exist until neoliberals removed fair broadcast regulations…

Because that was the only way to convince people neoliberalism was working.

We had laws against propaganda until neoliberals got rid of them

Now you want to blame anyone except the people who made that propaganda legal.

This is like if I gave a baby a gun, the baby shot you, and then you listened to me when I told you the baby was the problem.

Instead of questioning why we gave a baby a gun, it even addressing the problem that I’m still giving baby’s guns…

You realize we could have fixed this when Biden had the House and Senate…

Or when Obama had the House and Senate…

Are you waiting for Republicans to reinstate the regulations against propaganda?

Neoli erals won’t fix this, republicans won’t fix this, can you guess who that leaves?

They’d rather have any white male rather than any woman or anyone else of colo

It has absolutely nothing with Obama.

1996 (early): Clinton gets rid of the regulation that was requiring the media to not just blatantly lie. (A cynic would say so billionaire owned media could shit on progressives and say neoliberalism is working)

1996 (October): Faux goes on air.

2001: Bill leaves office, GW enters.

Then 9/11 which is what Faux used to radicalize their voters, and they had 7 years to do so.

We could have elected the ghost of Ronald Reagan in 08 and they’d have gotten the same results as Obama from Faux News.

Don’t blame Obama for being Black

Blame the administration that literally de-regulated the media, if it wasnt for Bill Clinton, how they treated Obama legally couldn’t have happened*

I feel like I’m just repeating the same thing, but it is important we understand how we got here.

So fuck it, I’ll keep repeating this for whoever asks, as many times as necessary

Did you watch any Fox News during either Presidency?

Because it couldn’t be invented till the last year of Bill’s …

Because there was laws about how news can be run…

Until Bill got rid of them …

Just …

Fuck man. How are you not understanding this?

The people grumbling about Clinton went apeshit when Obama got in.

Because Faux News couldn’t be invented till Clinton’s

Like we’re just going circles, and there’s not .much to pick up each lap…

But your not picking anything up

But they wouldn’t have had the megaphone to unite them under trump if not for the telecommunications act of 1996, right?

You understand that is the root cause of our current situation right?

Because you’re still not blaming the right people.

the racists who couldn’t accept a black man.

Or am I just “whooshing” here and that was a reference to the neoliberal wing who’s idea it was and how they’d rather have trump than anyone like Obama again?

MAGA never got over a black man as POTUS

That’s not what it was. They hated Bill Clinton just as much as they hated Barack Obama, the only difference was Faux was created in late 1996 and didn’t go fully off the deep end and got popular till 03 with the Iraq war…

Like, the only reason there was ever the big push saying it was Obama, was bullshit neoliberals doing what they always do.

It’s the first rule of American neoli liberalism:

1. No matter what the result, say we need to move right.

Just like they claimed their crime bill did what the ban on leaded gas did for crime rates, just like they said de-regulation did what the dotcom boom did to the economy…

The rise of conservative media started when Clinton allowed it to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Seriously, it took 9 months, as fast as a human baby for Faux News to be created.

And then when people asked why it exploded in 2003…

People blame the Black man no one had heard of yet because it continued along the same trajectory while he was president.

Fuck.

I feel old having lived thru this. And I can get why 18 year olds dont know it…

But how can anyone over like 35 not understand why we’re at the point we are? We literally lived thru this shit during our formulative years.

Who lost an election against literally the worst president in modern history who didn’t even have an incumbent advantage?

So yeah I blame the DNC leaders at the time, Biden, and Kamala for trump being able to win an election.

All they had to do was look at polls of what Dem voters want, and say “yeah, I’ll try to do that”.

That doesn’t take $1,500,000,000. But that’s how much the Dem campaign was to lose to trump.

But sure Karen, blame people on social media. How could 1.5 billion dollars compete with that?

Yep, the DNC forced candidates people didn’t want to vote for, and now no one wants to blame the DNC for the results of their own choices against the voters will.

I’m assuming you’re being sarcastic tho, because is sure as hell haven’t been loving the results.

If Biden/Kmala had more loyalty to the American people than Israel’s genocide we could have avoided all this…

But that’s the big lie with neoliberalism. They don’t want a continuous string of “moderate” presidents. They need villains like trump to destroy things so they can get applause for fixing 10% of the damage.

I just can’t think of another reason they refuse to stop being so antagonistic towards their own voters.

The only way they can be this out of touch, is if they’re actively trying to lose.

Just wanted to point out that if you had scrolled down you can see where I’m getting steadily downvoted for defending Ken Martin and telling people I have faith in the new DNC leadership and we should judge him on his (very impressive) political body of work and not a single answer to a question he was asked during the chair campaign…

Like, it’s just wild to have people call me an “anti dem” trying to fracture the party and others accusing me of being a billionaire bootlicker for defending the DNC in the same thread.

And I checked the timestamps, those comments were there hours before you made this comment.

Not trying to get in a debate or anything, was just too crazy not to comment on.

If you’re a federal employee with TSP:

The C fund includes Tesla, it’s very unlikely to convince the fund manager (Black Rock) to drop Tesla, but you can still move to a different fund.

I remember when Elon Musk was a “good billionaire” friend

That’s like saying you remember when Santa was real…

You don’t, you remember when you thought Santa was real.

I’m not saying leave milk and cookies out, I’m saying if you’re parent want to get you an extra gift, don’t throw it away because the tag says “from Santa”.

Because I understand how the world works? That concessions are made in back room deals and that the money doesn’t change hands until the buyer feels confident they are getting what they want? We know how this goes.

Went.

We knew how it went.

Martin is saying that is no longer the case, but he’s not turning down checks.

I would forego all billionaire donations to ensure the party wasn’t being controlled by back room interests, you know the deals made to get the contribution? They aren’t adhering to campaign finance limits they are drowning out normal Americans with their outside influence.

That’s all reasons to keep outside money out of the primary which I am 100% on board with.

Like, it all comes down to your opinion is that if someone takes the check they have to owe a favor. The people writing the check almost certainly expect it…

But it’s not like they can sue and say their donation was a bribe and they didn’t get what they want.

You realize that right?

A “back room deal” even if exists isn’t legally binding, that’s where the term comes from.

Candidates take donations from average voters and then don’t try to do what the donors wanted, why not do it with billionaires?

It’s the strings that are the issue…

I’ve seen a couple people repeating the “good billionaires” bit, but not a single on that links a source when referring to it…

“There are a lot of good billionaires out there that have been with Democrats, who share our values, and we will take their money,” Ken Martin, a leading candidate for Chair of the Democratic Party, said at a forum on Sunday. “But we’re not taking money from those bad billionaires.”

https://jacobin.com/2025/01/billionaires-tech-oligarchy-biden-trump

But I encourage people to Google it themselves, if only to see 99.9% of the results are from rightwing bullshit like Daily Caller.

Like, how do you think Martin should have responded?

We won’t take any donations from someone with more than $999,999,999.99 in wealth.

If we run a candidate who’s values authentically align with what Dem voters want, why turn down donations?

If the platform isn’t changing because of a donation, why not take the donation in the general?

I think you might have the same misunderstanding as Jacobin:

Ken Martin wants us to believe that there is some definite cohort of “good billionaires” who can be relied upon to fight for political progress, but the tech-industrial complex is showing us exactly why this isn’t the case.

He didn’t say that they could be relied on.

He said he’d take their fucking money.

Why do you think that’s an unpragmatic strategy?

Most Americans have heard the idiom:

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

So if we’re questioning the motivations of social media accounts…

What is your opinion on ones that try to suppress people from learning about why trump was elected president not once, but twice?

Israel was never on the right side, but that didn’t stop Biden from flushing our country down the toilet for the sake of their genocide against Palestinians…

Ken Martin is the new chair and he’s pretty decent.

Still only words, but I don’t think it’s been a month yet, not a lot of time for action.

I hate how vague the terms get when we only need 3:

1. Progressives - ones that want things to improve

2. Conservatives - ones that want things to get worse

3. Dumbass cowards - who are so afraid of change that they’ll refuse to even fix the things conservatives are breaking. They change their own label a lot, but are most widely known as “neoliberals”, “third way Dems”, or “moderates”.

But group 3 is why we need to stop using all the stupid labels, the same fucking people will say you can’t hold them accountable for their past failings because today they have a brand new label.

But what they’re doing clearly hasn’t been working and their self chosen label isn’t why. So just changing the label of neoliberalism again isn’t going to fix anything.

If he really wanted to show trump he’d have allied with Mexico to prioritize both their sea trade routes and making a coordinated attempt to close land trade thru America…

Instead he tried to appease fascists, which never fucking works.

As Snotty Nose Rez Kids love to say:

Fuck Justin Trudeau

I’m a Powerball man…

Those are great odds!

So you’re tell me there’s a chance?