"Democratic primary voters are not playing it safe, when that’s what they really should be doing if they want to ensure that Trump is blocked from implementing his authoritarian agenda. Especially when it comes to swing states, the safe picks are moderates who have been vetted in other campaigns. Now is not the time to gamble on radicals or newcomers with no electoral experience."
The problem that Democratic voters (and anti-Trumpers, in general) are responding to is that "centrist" moderate candidates have largely stood aside as Trump has bulldozed the federal gov't. A good number of voters are turning to DSA candidates (I canvassed for one in Chicago a few weeks back to help a buddy out) not because they particularly like DSA policies, but the just want someone to exercise their Constitutionally-assigned role as a check on a strident Executive branch.
Moderates have been next to useless in Trump 2.0: voting to approve his nominees, pretending that we're an a "normal politics" era, etc. instead of gumming the works up until concessions are made (something Sen. Tuberville was quite good at).
As a moderate centrist myself, I have to ask what the value is voting for a moderate over a DSA candidate, if the result will be the same as if I just voted for the Trumper in the race?
I think a big part of the problem is that voters saw fit to give Republicans control of both houses of Congress. There hasn’t been a lot that Democrats, moderate or radical, could do.
I do agree that Republican moderates have not done much.
The minority party has a decent number of levers to pull: objecting to unanimous consent, voting against nominees, holds, and more.[1]
Democratic voters see that the GOP are not adverse to using these tools when they are out of power - again see the disruptions Tommy Tuberville caused while in the minority[2]. What they don't understand is why the moderate Dems just rolled over.[3]
Note that my comment above is NOT an endorsement of Platner (good riddance!) or the DSA. It's an endorsement for electing people who return America back to a structural system where each branch zealously guards its power and checks the others, instead of using gov't service as a launching board to a podcast or talk show afterward.
Platner's toast; good riddance. The defining difference; democrat's boot them, trump/maga embraces them.
On a lighter note, easily one of best and brightest of humor filled political attacks has to be the resurgence of Hunter Biden. You know, the guy with the paint brush and the laptop. No question, the guy at one point was a walking shit show; addiction will do that to people.
Now though, holy smoke show David. His social media posts are a thing of beauty. He ties his failings into the absurdity we see every day from trump et al and mocks them with cutting reality.
Might be fun to do a column on his rebirth, it has been amazing to watch.
It's good to keep in mind that while the DSA is getting media attention, it's moderates that are winning elsewhere and in greater numbers: the Peltolas/Spanbergers/et al.
But yeah...Dems need to lock things down and kick the DSA out.
Nothing could be dumber than risking our access to crucial industries and raw materials. We have tried subsidizing such assets with no Federal oversight. It turned out the same way as turning assistance money over to the states - abject failure and fraud. Now many of those poorly managed states will not give the Feds access to the implicating records. The most memorable example involving private industry is Solyndra, massive failure allowed by Obama.
I believe you are mischaracterizing President Trump's motives but that is your MO. In any case, we will have a new president in 2029, and you will be able to criticize him for continuing Trump's programs or criticize him for allowing our vital assets to disappear.
What authority has Congress given him to invest in US companies? That’s a core question, along with why Republicans think the federal bureaucracy will be more efficient than private businesses.
The government's role in management rests with the Executive Branch and future presidents can set their own rules. I do not see any intent on Trump's part other than to make sure the companies remain American.
Private business can operate far more efficiently than the government except when they don't. Once again, consider Solyndra or Intel or the CHIPS act which have failed to provide a return on investment. Consider domestic mining which democrat politicians made impossible or unprofitable.
Alternatives to President Trump's policies will be stymied by democrat politicians and liberal district court judges whose go tom position is if Trump wants it. it is bad. In some cases, ignorant citizens have been brainwashed to oppose change. Case in point. AI data centers.
The government's role in management rests with the Executive Branch and future presidents can set their own rules. I do not see any intent on Trump's part other than to make sure the companies remain American.
Private business can operate far more efficiently than the government except when they don't. Once again, consider Solyndra or Intel or the CHIPS act which have failed to provide a return on investment. Consider domestic mining which democrat politicians made impossible or unprofitable.
Alternatives to President Trump's policies will be stymied by democrat politicians and liberal district court judges whose go tom position is if Trump wants it. it is bad. In some cases, ignorant citizens have been brainwashed to oppose change. Case in point. AI data centers.
Other than the gov't bail out, what has materially changed with respect to Intel's business to justify the 425% rise in the stock price (you're undercounting since the original $11 billion investment was at around $20 per share - closed shy of $110 today)?
Don't know. You're the tech whiz. All I know is that the USA has a chip maker that otherwise would have failed. There's an Intel processor in my relatively new PC.
The US has a number of chip makers that weren't on the path of failing: AMD, Nvidia, Apple, Texas Instruments, etc.[1]
This is more about trying to build a US sovereign wealth fund than it was about national security or any other natural interest. The Intel investment distorts a functioning free market, which is something conservatives used to complain about communists doing.
Texas Instruments (TI) is a major U.S.-based semiconductor company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and it does produce certain types of processors — but it does not manufacture full x86 PC processors for desktops or laptops"
"Democratic primary voters are not playing it safe, when that’s what they really should be doing if they want to ensure that Trump is blocked from implementing his authoritarian agenda. Especially when it comes to swing states, the safe picks are moderates who have been vetted in other campaigns. Now is not the time to gamble on radicals or newcomers with no electoral experience."
The problem that Democratic voters (and anti-Trumpers, in general) are responding to is that "centrist" moderate candidates have largely stood aside as Trump has bulldozed the federal gov't. A good number of voters are turning to DSA candidates (I canvassed for one in Chicago a few weeks back to help a buddy out) not because they particularly like DSA policies, but the just want someone to exercise their Constitutionally-assigned role as a check on a strident Executive branch.
Moderates have been next to useless in Trump 2.0: voting to approve his nominees, pretending that we're an a "normal politics" era, etc. instead of gumming the works up until concessions are made (something Sen. Tuberville was quite good at).
As a moderate centrist myself, I have to ask what the value is voting for a moderate over a DSA candidate, if the result will be the same as if I just voted for the Trumper in the race?
I think a big part of the problem is that voters saw fit to give Republicans control of both houses of Congress. There hasn’t been a lot that Democrats, moderate or radical, could do.
I do agree that Republican moderates have not done much.
The minority party has a decent number of levers to pull: objecting to unanimous consent, voting against nominees, holds, and more.[1]
Democratic voters see that the GOP are not adverse to using these tools when they are out of power - again see the disruptions Tommy Tuberville caused while in the minority[2]. What they don't understand is why the moderate Dems just rolled over.[3]
[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/109454/congress-minority-toolbox/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/05/tommy-tuberville-end-military-promotions-blockade
[3] https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-real-reason-the-democratic-socialists-are-surging
Note that my comment above is NOT an endorsement of Platner (good riddance!) or the DSA. It's an endorsement for electing people who return America back to a structural system where each branch zealously guards its power and checks the others, instead of using gov't service as a launching board to a podcast or talk show afterward.
Platner's toast; good riddance. The defining difference; democrat's boot them, trump/maga embraces them.
On a lighter note, easily one of best and brightest of humor filled political attacks has to be the resurgence of Hunter Biden. You know, the guy with the paint brush and the laptop. No question, the guy at one point was a walking shit show; addiction will do that to people.
Now though, holy smoke show David. His social media posts are a thing of beauty. He ties his failings into the absurdity we see every day from trump et al and mocks them with cutting reality.
Might be fun to do a column on his rebirth, it has been amazing to watch.
It's good to keep in mind that while the DSA is getting media attention, it's moderates that are winning elsewhere and in greater numbers: the Peltolas/Spanbergers/et al.
But yeah...Dems need to lock things down and kick the DSA out.
Nothing could be dumber than risking our access to crucial industries and raw materials. We have tried subsidizing such assets with no Federal oversight. It turned out the same way as turning assistance money over to the states - abject failure and fraud. Now many of those poorly managed states will not give the Feds access to the implicating records. The most memorable example involving private industry is Solyndra, massive failure allowed by Obama.
I believe you are mischaracterizing President Trump's motives but that is your MO. In any case, we will have a new president in 2029, and you will be able to criticize him for continuing Trump's programs or criticize him for allowing our vital assets to disappear.
What authority has Congress given him to invest in US companies? That’s a core question, along with why Republicans think the federal bureaucracy will be more efficient than private businesses.
Here's a long discussion of the probable legal basis and the probable federal role: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-legal-bases-for-government-stakes-in-private-firms
The government's role in management rests with the Executive Branch and future presidents can set their own rules. I do not see any intent on Trump's part other than to make sure the companies remain American.
Private business can operate far more efficiently than the government except when they don't. Once again, consider Solyndra or Intel or the CHIPS act which have failed to provide a return on investment. Consider domestic mining which democrat politicians made impossible or unprofitable.
Alternatives to President Trump's policies will be stymied by democrat politicians and liberal district court judges whose go tom position is if Trump wants it. it is bad. In some cases, ignorant citizens have been brainwashed to oppose change. Case in point. AI data centers.
Here's a long discussion of the probable legal basis and the probable federal role: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-legal-bases-for-government-stakes-in-private-firms
The government's role in management rests with the Executive Branch and future presidents can set their own rules. I do not see any intent on Trump's part other than to make sure the companies remain American.
Private business can operate far more efficiently than the government except when they don't. Once again, consider Solyndra or Intel or the CHIPS act which have failed to provide a return on investment. Consider domestic mining which democrat politicians made impossible or unprofitable.
Alternatives to President Trump's policies will be stymied by democrat politicians and liberal district court judges whose go tom position is if Trump wants it. it is bad. In some cases, ignorant citizens have been brainwashed to oppose change. Case in point. AI data centers.
"The most memorable example involving private industry is Solyndra, massive failure allowed by Obama."
How massive was the Solyndra failure in dollars? How does that amount compare to the Intel bail-out?
Solyndra failed and loss was $500 million. Intel has not failed and stock price is up 250%.
Other than the gov't bail out, what has materially changed with respect to Intel's business to justify the 425% rise in the stock price (you're undercounting since the original $11 billion investment was at around $20 per share - closed shy of $110 today)?
Don't know. You're the tech whiz. All I know is that the USA has a chip maker that otherwise would have failed. There's an Intel processor in my relatively new PC.
The US has a number of chip makers that weren't on the path of failing: AMD, Nvidia, Apple, Texas Instruments, etc.[1]
This is more about trying to build a US sovereign wealth fund than it was about national security or any other natural interest. The Intel investment distorts a functioning free market, which is something conservatives used to complain about communists doing.
[1] https://www.semiconductors.org/ecosystem/
Sorta in the case of Apple. From internet search:
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/06/18/apple-make-chips-us-intel-trump-says/
https://geekbitz.com/where-are-nvidia-chips-made/
https://www.slashgear.com/1533074/amd-processors-and-graphics-where-are-they-made/
"Copilot Search Branding
Texas Instruments and PC Processors in the U.S.
Texas Instruments (TI) is a major U.S.-based semiconductor company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and it does produce certain types of processors — but it does not manufacture full x86 PC processors for desktops or laptops"