Middle Class isn’t real. You are either a renter or an owner, property tax increase along with a rent ceiling and a vacancy tax only affects the owners.

You are the only person I’ve seen that calls Trumps 2nd term Trump 2.0.

By whom? Do you call FDR’s last term Roosevelt 4.0?

I wonder what happened to Occupy Wallstreet? Did it just go away as mysteriously as it arrived, or was there perhaps federal action behind it’s dismantling? Since you remember Occupy Wallstreet, could you tell me why it “crumbled?”

I also think he’s by an order of magnitude more likely to be elected by the country at large than Sanders / AOC et al.

Maybe instead of vibing with what the Neo-liberal ghouls that fund the DNC say, we try to support politicians that want to improve our lives and not just pass bipartisian tax-breaks for entrepreneurs?

California is closer to Libertarian state then to a socialist-deomcratic state.

I think so, or rather I think that the average US voter aligns more with Gavin Newsom’s policies than with the policies of a hypothetical alternative candidate that Salon might prefer

The Baily’s do not exist. People want universal healthcare and to be able to work a single job to make a living wage. They don’t want tax breaks for entrepreneurs.

Trump is still Trump, he has a second term, but he is still the same trump. No one calls the same person in their 2nd term “2.0” Trump 2.0 will be whoever the person that replaces Trump will be. He’ll be younger, and possibly more dangerous.

Trump is the result of “lesser of two evils” voting. Maybe try doing something different this time?

Laws are toothless if society doesn’t care about them being enforced, and if politicians benefit from not enforcing them. Do you actually think that we’d be in a better situation if the Equal Protection Clause had an addendum that said “especially black people?”

Black Lives Matter is a great slogan for social justice. The Black Bill of Rights is a terrible thing for a government whose purpose isn’t racial apartheid. Either we are all equal under the law or we aren’t.

Why not pass a bill of rights that will address material conditions for everyone, no need to be exclusive. Here is a great one from 1944.

Employment (right to work)
An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Decent housing
Adequate medical care
Social security
Education

Or even just take this part "people under the law and ensure their access to medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security.” and ensure that the same applies to everyone, even if they aren’t trans. I’d love if everyone, including trans people, had those rights.

Definetly should be increasing the number of nazis being “assaulted” by 10x, and also should make sure that the nazis’ being assaulted are being permanently maimed or killed.

This is all true, however you should be preparing to start shooting ICE agents in the face too. Just make sure you do proper planning so that you have a good chance of getting away with it.

Encouraging stat, though i’m sure it is massively inflated by classifying things such as yelling at them as “assault.”

What’s the date of the picture? Because yes, that does change things a bit.

I suspect the guest-list alone motivated him to document it.

It’s possible that they had all agreed to no pictures, but since it’s Epstein, of course he took some anyway.

The dinner looks pretty mundane to me. I get it, a well-connected socialite arranged a dinner with some high-profile tech-bros, but so what? Seems like a bunch of Capitalists, doing capitalism.

It’s even more innocuous, this seems to be a social dinner with spouses etc. Basically the kind of thing that happens eery week in NYC or SF.

A better idea would be to arrest every state legislature who passed constitutional violating laws about guns and throw them in jail, much like should have been done for the violation of the civil-rights act. If there are no consequences for states passing unconstitutional laws, then what is the purpose of the constitution in the first place?