Why this worries me most is that I think it's a losing strategy by the DNC. AOC is clearly a preferred candidate for a future election, but if she runs, I fully expect the DNC to do everything they can to sabotage her campaign in favor of a milquetoast politician who won't upset their donors. And the GOP would win again (presuming we have elections anymore).
megalow
joined 1 year ago
The DNC actively worked against his campaign in both primaries. There was ample info in the WikiLeaks drop in 2016.
And in 2020, there was the conspicuous action of every other candidate suddenly dropping out and endorsing Biden. We didn't get the same inside view as the previous primary, but it's pretty plain to see that there machinations by the DNC again to push for this.
And we pretty much had a similar move this last election, not allowing for any sort of primary.
I don't think it can be a serious position to deny that wealthy, powerful interests control the DNC, and therefore actively work against candidates who threaten their wealth and power. It's not a hidden secret (donors, PACs, politicians getting rich, etc). And of course the same is true with the GOP too.
How about both? Writing your elected reps is definitely smart, but will be much more effective if there are numerous people calling for the same. I appreciate OP sharing their views, and catloaf sharing a specific action step all of us can do it we are concerned about this matter.
I worked for a few years as a gambling addiction counselor, and these types of games definitely prime people for addiction to gambling. Also, it's worth noting that the demographic with the highest rates of gambling addiction are young men, aged 18-24.
Anyone that's been to a casino can attest that major video game companies also make slot machines. The industry are aware of what they're doing.
I didn't notice anything strange besides the downtime. Thanks for the update and information!
It's like you didn't even read the post you're replying to. Not sure what axe you have to grind, but it's clear that you have a lot of presumptions about what everyone here thinks and some unnecessary hostility to people who are engaging with you in a civil manner.
You seem to basically agree with what others are saying about unequal influence and control, which is precisely the point. It might be legal but I don't think it's a controversial view to acknowledge that our laws are rigged in favor of the wealthy against working people.
If Obama had actually meant what he said in his campaign speeches, I think they would have stopped him. But that's obviously total conjecture on my part. His policies certainly showed he was fine playing playing along with the establishment though.