As JD Vance's Peter Thiel funded miracle run through the Senate proved, you don't have to be a Senator long to run for Pres. or VP.

Vance had just two years in professional politics before becoming VP, thanks to Peter Thiel's money and influence.

It's a pay-for-play system, not a Representative Democracy.

This just in, apparently the two party crony capitalist system isn't just going to hand everyone systemic change as that would endangered their grasp... Apparently people have to - force this state of affairs to change.

PeerTube seems to have fucked up by being too quick to reject people. Not exactly the best strategy for growth.

Just to remind you that both parties are what's known as "cartel parties", serving the same wealthy interests.

Don't get me wrong, The Democrats are preferable to Trump, but this whole situation is a product of Neo-Liberal Capitalism's unwillingness to regulate wealth and remove it from influencing democratic outcomes.

By encouraging both parties to constantly service the rich, and deregulate their interests, we're left with a voting public DESPERATE FOR RADICAL CHANGE.

....which is why Bernie, AOC, and Trump could all be popular at the same time. Because they're all carry varying degrees of promise for change.

Some will likely lose that sheen of promise quicker than others. Ratchet theory - that both parties only shift things toward the goals of the rightwing Capitalist freemarket - will continue to be the central long term problem inviting radicalism and even more Trump like Fascism.

True change will not be handed to you by this system. The system will break over time with radical disappointments leading to violence. Delays and stop-gaps may be offered along the way, but the core problems of free market Neo-Liberal Capitalism corrupting Democracy will remain.

...voters will remain hungry for a break from that.

That's how parties that don't actually serve the majority end up dying. It's a flaw in democracy that it can be so easily corrupted by the wealthy classes.

It ends up all being a sham, then a shame, then a dictatorship.

I was hoping there'd be a filter in the type of people (because Lemmy requires some intelligence and a preference away from mainstream systems). I was incorrect.

Lacking obnoxiousness is apparently not a collorary.

Not even, it's just corruption getting too stable ultimately results in voter instability - as people are enticed to vote for ANYTHING BUT business as usual.

This means Obama's Hope And Change is just as likely to be voted for as Trump's "Grab them by the Pussy" because they equally appear to be offering a shift from the norms of the Capo-democratic swamp.

Meanwhile they're both actually unfettered "too big to fail" Capitalism, with all its "make the rich richer, corrupt democracy further" aspects intact.

So Capitalism creates its own threat, and hence marches on oscillating democracy to its own needs like the perfect parasite.

The parasite won't give you what you want. The corrupt won't volunteer to end corruption. You have to smash the windows grab the parasite and squeeze the life out of it before you can issue genuine ideological reforms and take back a fairer system.

Sometimes violence is what's necessary. The "slow fix" of democracy only works when the right radical candidates have the right free hand to make the right radical changes, and corruption tends to prevent that.

I suppose this is a "tough time" but it's caused by moderate Neo-Liberal freemarket and often nominally democratic Capitalists.

This is because "Spice" is not a flavour. It's a specific sensation of pain.

Neo-Liberaliam / Economic Liberalism is part of what got Trump elected. The sense that Capitalism was beyond the reach of meaningful governance, and will always just aid the wealthy getting wealthier - created a hunger for radical change.

People end up just wanting radical change out of frustration, regardless of what direction that change takes (left or right). They just want a break in unrelenting Capitalism.

Which explains why for many, Bernie, AOC, and Trump, were all likable/popular choices at the same time.

Newsome as a moderating figure will prevent any strong shift away from the service of Capitalism as above all else, and hence is a huge danger to the politics of equilibrium. It's ratchet theory, keeps things stuck.

... Neo-Liberals should be embarrassed to admit who they are, because they caused this, by claiming that Capitalism and deregulation is a moderate position (steering the ship of state between the left and the right) - when infact that's an economic extremist viewpoint which excuses inept government and the corruptions of money... and when perpetuated infinitum as it is, it becomes the cause of voter radicalism.

Neo-Liberal economic policies create the unshifting corruption and two-tier "too big to fail, too rich to jail" system that people want to vote against.

In this sense Newsome is dead weight, representing Bidenism 2.0. Neo-Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for not just accepting their part in creating the quagmire, but wanting to continue it.

Yeah their offense about Atheism Plus really does seem to mirror later movements in gamergate and the far right in general.

Haven't looked at that before. Thanks.

Oh he's been rolling out control over capital cities in the name of "fighting crime" and mirroring what he's done with controlling DC:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=fcWSt6aiHYU

.... and then recently he's compared the effort to "war":

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/09/20/dpce-s20.html

And his actions often start woth the stuff in the OP article. That combined with his recent outlawing of antifa makes his initiating more serious or war like actions domestically, very possible.

He's sort of, installing a switch that he could switch.

So that's what Trump meant when he sd he was going to do "the big one".... He meant New York.