That’s extremely convenient. So the ones that didn’t want to pass legislation that would reflect the democratic party’s values and platform were not funded anymore and kicked from the party right? So they all had strong well-funded primary contender’s and couldn’t run as democrats anymore in the general election right?

If they had 60+ votes in the Senate and a strong majority in the house like they should, I would fully expect them to pass good legislation.

Why did they need 60 votes? Could they have done something in the senate without 60? Think carefully.

I just don’t understand why this particular thing comes up all the time. Is there someone seriously proposing that?

I know the conspiracy theorists loooove to talk about it as if Bill Gates along with some “they” is planning that for all of the rest of us, based on something said at WEF one time, but…?

I’m sure the alex jones crew bring it up all the time when talking about the secret global conspiracy or whatever, but I bring it up because bugs are a legitimate food source. One that is extremely efficient in terms of both resources and space, but just because eating bugs is more “efficient” then eating beef, doesn’t mean that we should all eat bugs. Generally this is uncontroversial, but some environmentalists dismiss food culture and variety of diets amongst humans in pursuit of maximizing some other metric but they aren’t very clear on what their goals are, let alone the why.

“End Racism” was removed as the slogan in the end zones in the stadium where the Superbowl is being hosted, and people wanted to attack neoliberals for being so soft that “People Exist” would be their replacement slogan. Would there have ever have been an “End Racism” sign from the Saints and NFL if the “neoliberals” hadn’t been pushing things forward since LBJ?

If the “neoliberal” party wasn’t around to constantly stop socialism, do nothing slogans like that wouldn’t need to exist at all. Slavery would have actually been banned, not enshrined in the constitution as punishment. FDR wouldn’t have even been elected, it would have been Eugene Debs or someone even more radical. The purpose of the democratic party is to make sure that things cannot get better economically unless a large corporation benefits first and foremost.

Yea that’s why Roe v Wade was prioritized, and even the most progressive president who ever progressived, endorsed Roe v. Wade by calling it “not our highest priority.” Real bang-up job there and that’s why abortion rights, something that was first created 50+ years ago are now a bedrock of healthcare in all 50 states.

I bet they will be as good at being “the opposition” as they were at defending Roe v Wade, or being “the resistance.”

Yea doing the right the thing for the wrong reason is unfortunately the only way things get done in america since forever.

While I’d love to just nationalize space-x that isn’t even in the zeitgeist yet and Boeing has to be destroyed before such a thing is possible.

Forbid food exports, problem solved. Americans can grow their own food and enjoy their own burgers on their own land just fine.

Why the focus on “efficiency” with food? The purpose of food in human culture goes way beyond caloric efficiency, and honestly caloric efficiency is the last thing we should consider when discussing food supplies. We don’t want to, nor do we need to, get into a race to the bottom where we destroy all food culture because it turns out that eating bugs is the most space and resource efficient way to create food.

Not to mention the unspoken assumption when we start talking about food efficiency that the human population of earth should be maximized because we want to be efficient in our food consumption, therefore we should restrict our diet to the bare minimum so that we can support more people.