More top maga officials indicted in Wisconsin for the fraudulent elector scheme to defraud the election. Chesebro, Roman, and Troupis.
Also indicted in Georgia and AZ for the Trump election fraud scheme. More to come. Failed seditious maga insurrection is the gift that keeps on giving.

Epoch Times, the maga propaganda outlet, is busted as a Chinese money laundering scheme that spent tens of millions to get maggots elected using pilfered money stolen using international identity theft from China.
Not the first time either, remember Bannon’s partner, Miles Guo, another Chinese fraud working for and donating to maga arrested for a $1 billion fraud scheme? It is a pattern, maga is funded by foreign money coming from criminal people who win if America loses.
Question- How many times has the DNC been indicted for being funded with stolen money donated to them by Chinese criminals they’re in business with?

Bonus - In a case of delicious irony, Jesus took the wheel of the Trump “Trust Jesus” bus and it rolled away on its own and crashed on its way to Staten Island.

Second Bonus - the distributor of “2000 mules” has apologized and removed the film from their platforms because it was chock full of lies and falsified data and evidence, lies and fake evidence that the producers knew were lies and fake when they made the movie. SHOCKER! Who could have guessed? (Look back, you’ll see who.). You still believe every word despite the multiple fraud admissions by its creators.

Third bonus- Biden’s meeting with OPEC resulted in them agreeing to drop production and bring oil prices down to below $74 a barrel. America is producing more oil than ever, and is now the major supplier of oil to the world. Gas prices are about to drop like a stone. Enjoy Bidenomics!

Fourth bonus - Biden just changed immigration policy so now anyone illegally entering the country is banned from even applying for asylum and immediate deportation. A much stronger immigration policy than Republicans even tried to implement.

for answers, might look at causes and things that haven't worked. possibility of realizing what ISN'T the leading cause -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z7tEc5t-Wg&ab_channel=RobertReich

- and addressing those that DO and the answers reveal themselves more readily.

altering the subject a bit, OPEC is working on throwing a wrench into the works. i'd suggest not letting them alter our course by re-electing the group that has no desire/experience/answers in solving anything. *

kinda like...if the boat is sinking locate the ones helping to bail and those who aren't - and toss the R̶e̶p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶a̶n̶s̶ slackers overboard and keep the actual help.

rather have folks that try, than all those that cry, cry, cry.



*sans deals w/the devil, war mongering, or weathering the rich while damning the poor = last forty years

Well, well, well... base on this reasoning, the FIRST thing we should do is bring down is the stock price of Tesla, make it into a junk stock company for those endlessly promoting Musk here. Yessssss.......

Whether oil is finite or otherwise is kind of moot when we're talking about its impact on the economic & environment at large. With the advancement of renewable, clean energy techonology and ever cheaper cost of manufacturing & generation -- without even mentioning the political shift it would bring by reducing the power & authoritarian tendencies of the OPEC countires -- it's just plain Good Business to transition as fast as possible away from oil.

So, you think there should be new regulations put on oil production companies so they don’t raise prices? Or are you calling for the full nationalization of the oil and gas industry? You must be, because for it to be Biden’s fault, he must control it somehow. I wonder, do you think he sets oil prices? Production schedules? Supply or demand? Controls OPEC or Russia?
Biden released oil reserves to mitigate the price gouging (didn’t work), but without nationalizing oil and gas, there’s little more he could do (maybe threaten to halt all new drilling permits until those already issued are used, but good luck). You would pretend cancelling Keystone XL raised prices, it wasn’t operational yet.

Just ask Texas how privatization and deregulation is working for them. Analysts say they aren’t better prepared for extreme weather than last year because there’s no requirement for them to upgrade, so statewide power outages and multiple deaths can be expected, and the hits to the economy that come with shutting the state down for weeks.

The largest oil and gas companies made a combined $174bn in profits in the first nine months of the year as gasoline prices climbed in the US.
Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP among group of 24 who resisted calls to increase production but doled out shareholder dividends and bought back stock.
The oil and gas industry has fought Joe Biden’s attempts to pause new drilling permits on federal land, despite its unwillingness to expand operations in order to reap the returns of costlier oil and the fact the industry currently sits on 14m acres of already leased land that isn’t being used, an area about double the size of Massachusetts.
“It’s not the government that is banning them from drilling more,” said Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James. “It’s pressure from their shareholders.”


Soooooo…..nationalize? Gas in Venezuela is $.12 a gallon. If not, blame capitalism, not Biden, for your “high” gas price. (Try gas prices in Europe where gas isn’t subsidized, now those are high gas prices).

You said that already, it’s not an answer it’s the basis of the question, are you having a stroke? More likely trying to dodge because you have no answer.

Try answering the question asked for once….if you can (I have my doubts).

I asked you what Republicans plan to do to return to this imaginary time when border crossing was under demonstrably better control (which is different from when there were fewer people trying to cross), when we didn’t import oil (never happened ), when gas was a buck less (absolutely not true here, but admittedly it was cheaper…because crude oil was free due to zero demand and gas was cheap because no one was driving, compare it to 2019 and it’s not true anywhere) and yes, inflation was under 2%, but gdp was down 33% in one quarter and unemployment through the roof, with fed interest rates at zero (or less)….really shitty trade off.


Were or getting under control. ROTFLMFAHS!! He had 4 years, he added 1/3 of the debt and increased the deficit exponentially with nothing to show for it but division.

He spent tens of billions on a border fence/wall that UNQUESTIONABLY hasn’t slowed, much less stopped illegal border crossings but has caused ecological damage and/or just fallen down in many places.
Energy independence my ass. Such bullshit lies.
Gas, compared to pre pandemic rates the price rise is not excessive, you want to compare pandemic shutdown/recession price to now like a liar.
Inflation is 4.2%, a bit high not crazy (remember 14% in 1980? Stop whining and crying), so time to raise interest rates from zero. Easy fix, something we could agree on. Biden would say you’re welcome, getting the economy working creates inflation. It also creates demand for gasoline, raising the depressed Covid/Trump recession prices. You’re welcome. He also just secured funding for thousands of electric vehicle charging stations, making it easier to own a Tesla, raising your stock value. You’re welcome.

This energy independence bullshit is based on totally unrealistic pie in the sky predictions even if every project green lighted produces the top estimates without hiccups or failures….we do not and never have produced all the oil America uses, if we did, OPEC wouldn’t matter to us. (BTW, oil/energy independence was a Jimmy Carter plan but the right liked cheap foreign oil and hated conservation.). America has 3% of the world’s oil reserves but uses 24% of world wide oil production, we will never be energy independent while using oil…if we ever miraculously managed it, we would be out of oil in years.

These weren’t under control under Trump, and Republicans have zero plans to get them “under control”, either because they see no problems or because they have no solutions, you choose. Can you name a Republican plan? McConnel can’t.

No mention of OPEC enforced price fixing oligopoly?

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

opec suddenly deciding to only sell oil for actual gold isn't a conspiracy... its a possibility

the NATO response and the reasons behind it is where the "conspiracy" lay...



and no offense, but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought

how people in the US think that they are somehow above International Law, and that emotion is a good motivation to act that way is beyond me... its moronic really, and that their government's main motivation being money or strategic positioning is somehow like "Alien Anal Probes" in terms of believability is even beyond that

if you aren't aware that the US (let alone most[if not all] Western nations) couldn't operate "AT ALL" based on its actual liquidity, but only on its ability to acquire credit... and how this system benefits them, yet hinders developing nations... I don't think any reason will reach you

somehow the corporations (military contractors) are money motivated... but their lobbies, or promise of "consulting jobs" after terms of service, etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind... nope, motivations based on money/power stop at the corporate level, and don't seep into world politics at all



and "secret motivation" is hilarious, because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right? because if you didn't... stories like this wouldn't be so rare that you'd actually refer to it as a "secret"



foreigners don't dislike American's because of their freedoms, they dislike them because with they waste them and accept the first and most convenient drivel fed to them... seriously

That's not how oil prices are calculated. Oil is an internationally traded commodity and is priced based on OPEC, not on how much any individual country imports.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
They constitute less than 3% of our oil in the US, not that big of a deal in that respect. In raw crude, it is less than 2%.

Something like that happening overnight is practically impossible though. Changing the manner in which you trade goods or services is far more difficult than say liquidating your shares. Besides, the big players such as OPEC would have far much to lose in terms of demand if they did something that drastic.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Oh yeah, these idiots. Thanks for Filth Clinton, wimp!



Eisenhower -- loses a lot of points for authorizing Operation Ajax and other foreign policy blunders.
JFK -- loses major points for that bay of pigs fiasco and Vietnam.
Nixon -- the biggest psychopathic douchebag ever to get himself elected to the presidency.
Ford -- well, at least he appointed John Paul Stevens.
Carter -- At least he had sensible foreign policy, rolling back imperialism. Stagflation was triggered by high oil prices which were caused by OPEC.
Reagan -- ignorant bigot who tripled the debt.
Bill Clinton -- was the best president we've had since Truman. Genuinely cares about helping people as evidenced by what he's done after the presidency, unlike all the recent republican presidents.
George Bush -- Worst president since Andrew Johnson.
Obama -- Pretty lame so far. Keeps trying to play nice and compromise with republicans while they spit in his face and make increasingly extreme demands. Caved in on almost all his campaign promises without even putting up a fight. He should turn the tables -- threaten to veto funds going to the the state/district of any republican who threatens to filibuster good legislation.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal. Yes, he cut some taxes but they are not enough.

Furthermore, let's not forget the policies of Reagan were an antidote to the high inflation caused by the military Keynesianism/supposed golden era of Liberalism of the post war boom period (1945-67). Unions were too strong and corrupt, durable and nondurable good consumption started falling in the late 60's, the emergence of OPEC, the expansion of the communist menace leading us into Vietnam, various conflicts to combat Marxist-Leninist-Maonist armed resistence groups taking power under political party fronts and an arms race with the Soviets and off the gold standard...While Europe had their social welfare experiment, we were busy policing the globe.

After the Volcker shock of 1979 (boosted IR to 20%) this lead to the financialization of the economy and the move away from manufacturing. All of this happened under the Carter Administration. Realizing the golden era of liberalism was untenable it brought the inevitable Reagan to prominence whose new regime (following the prescription of Milton Freidman and others was to allow consumers and the market to decide and to decrease the centralized control of government) - as denationalization of the public sector was the only way to create more opportunities and jobs. Cheap credit was not only championed by Wall Street as an antitode to problems, but was also championed by Democrats.

Democrats were almost completely unelectable in the White House until Bill Clinton and his administration (was Republican lite in essence as enacting Welfare Reform and setting the infrastructure for the War in Iraq and following the financial privitization schemes of the Chicago School, the FED fueled dotcom and mortgage bubble which created the much ballyhooed and fictitiuous Clinton surplus) is the reason for the financial deregulation in the late 90's (Clinton is now distancing himself from Rubin and Summers regading derivatives). The Neoconservatives and Democrats have much in common - as they both believe in crazy spending. Neocons through military (some of which does create nascent industries of the future), and Democrats who spend on any frivoulous social programs that work to break states and keep their politicos electable. Where is the incentive to become a producer in this country? If you are not paying high taxes you are competing against government subsidized monopolies (stop whining for more jobs when you overregulate ad penalize big corporations for doing what they need to do to make profits). The Democrats kill the ability to start a small to medium sized business thus making it more attractive to join big firms - that everyone continues to attack - sending them racing abroad.

And last time I checked the "real left" - which Obama distances himself from for good reason - is too busy scratching their heads ain petty sectarianism about how all of their wonderfully utopian ideas caused over 70 years of dreary totalitarianism. Seems the working class in the US now wants nothing to do with them. They want Palin. While you upper middle class liberals eat organic, sip latte's, do your hipster environmental thing and make fun of these people - they are forming the next grassroots that will be a vital contituency to covet.

These people may not be smart - but know that Obama is untrustworthy if he thinks the Federal Government can spend its way out of this mess, not understanding that for every 1/2 cent we have saved we still owe 2 dollars and that if we start increasing our deficits to create new jobs, the Chinese will sell off their currency reserves which are in dollars and then...

I've heard the reason for Bush invading Iraq was because Iraq changed it's standard currency for oil sales from the Dollar to the Euro in the end of 2000 and the Fed's greatest nightmare is that that would catch on with OPEC.... so after we invade... we switch them right back on the Dollar standard. No idea if it's true but its the first explanation for the war that seems to fit the motivations of the neo-cons.

(...)it's about accountability. No one in government gets their job without either being elected, or being employed by someone who was elected.

How can anything be less accountable than govt? Govt is a monopoly, businesses usually have competitors. Businesses have to earn money, govt gets money through taxes. I think your logic could work if govt were small and transparent (I'd like that to be the case). When it's formed by so many agencies and departments, operates with such volume of convoluted laws and regulations, employs so much resources and so many people, this accountability you're talking about just isn't there or is extremely sluggish, I doubt anyone truly understands what happens in every level of our govt, and there's no way any majority of voters can keep track of all this. Its one of the reasons govt expands: So it can get away with abuse through obfuscation.

If you're desillusioned about banks, I hear ya. Banks would compete a lot more for your money if govt wasn't into banking, tieing up the market with so many regulations and stifling any incentive to compete. People and banks in general would be a lot more responsible with their money, because there wouldn't be any morally backwards federal institutions promising to bail them out, they wouldn't automatically trust any bank or investor just because a govt agency says they're OK.

I just don't think it's possible to have a market that is both unregulated and beneficent to ordinary people.

I don't think it's possible to have a market that is both highly regulated and productive.

Who are these ordinary people you think the market wouldn't benefit? People are generally required to be more productive in a free society than in a govt regulated society, so I guess you're talking about mostly unproductive and unadaptive people? Why should they be benefitted at all, specially at the expense of others?

With freedom comes responsability. Our society grew accustomed to being irresponsible because of govt slowly taking away many of our freedoms. Besides, in a growing and productive economy, the general improvement in quality of life leaves whoever is left behind a lot better off than most people in a stifled underdeveloped economy.

I also don't think we can count on charities to take on the problems of the poor adequately (...) People are too selfish to really worry about it.

Yikes, to me that phrase sums up a whole lot of misunderstanding about the nature of charity. What is the alternative, let the govt take care of poor people? By definition, that's not charity, I mean, you're not doing charity if you *must* pay taxes. If you're obligated to provide charity, then it's a duty, like as if you owe money to poor people, they can *demand* money from you. So, morally, you're either responsible for their condition or for pulling them out of it. Doesn't that feel backwards to you? Charity only works if it's voluntary.

If you think society is obligated to help poor or unproductive people, then you have a twisted understanding of how a society should work. Talk about moral hazard.

I'll be writing off Keynesians as being quacks if we wind up in a situation with high unemployment and high inflation, unless we have some sort of supply shock (e.g. OPEC decides to stop selling oil to us), or we wind up scaring the world into dumping the dollar before we recover.

How nice of you, cutting the keynesians so much slack. Deep down I think you know the world will dump the dollar before we recover because keynesians miscalculated how screwed up our economy is and how screwing up the dollar won't do us any good whatsoever. To me, keynesians are quacks already because they didn't see this blatantly obvious result to their policies. Reality will just confirm this when it happens.

It's not that government gets a free pass, it's that a corrupt government happens because of businesses influence.

I TOTALLY AGREE ABOUT GOVT BEING CORRUPT DUE TO BUSINESS INFLUENCE, YAY! If govt were smaller and didn't have any stake in the economy, businesses wouldn't bother entangling themselves with govt in the first place.

It's like back in the day, when the state and the church were in bed together, all sort of things would go haywire, society would lose freedoms of expression, religion, sexuality, the state would legislate morality and persecute dissidents, etc. Today we all know better: State and church should be separated. Society has yet to realize that the *state* and the *economy* should be separated for very similar reasons as well.

I guess what I don't understand is why you would trust government with nuclear missiles, police, courts, etc. but not control of currency.

When you talk about currency, you're actually talking about govt establishing a monopoly over the currency, which is completely unnecessary and detrimental to society, that shouldn't happen to begin with. It's like you asking me why I don't trust govt dictating who I can or cannot marry.

I cringe at the entire conservative "we must make policy about maximizing business growth, period" philosophy of governance. Mine is "we must make business growth beneficial to society".

So, society is a helpless victim to businesses, and you want govt to step in and help out. Even though govts, throughout history, with tyranny, warfare and welfare, have caused much more damage in terms of property and lives than any private business ever could.

Are you sure you know who the bad guys really are?

>> ^gtjwkq:
Banks are given money voluntarily , that means they'll tend to receive less money if they're careless with it (reputation?). You might ask, "So why would banks be careless with money given by govt? Don't they know that govt might not give them more money if they're careless too?".

It's not really about the usual libertarian focus on voluntary vs. authority, it's about accountability. No one in government gets their job without either being elected, or being employed by someone who was elected. If tax money is misspent, you can elect someone else.

But I also think there are plenty of people who excel at their profession because they like to be good at what they do, not because they think their ass is on the line if they screw up.

I also question whether people who're primarily motivated by bonuses given for high short-term investment returns have the right kind of incentives.

But I have no control over that at a bank.

Well, just look at the bailouts. Govt gave these banks billions even after they lost copious amounts of it. Either these banks are evil geniuses or, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I'd say there is some collusion between govt and big investment banks, wouldn't you agree?

I'd say a little of both. I doubt the big asset bubble was a plan that the banks and government colluded on. I think the banks screwed up, and I think the strength of their lobbying arm made sure government gave them money with no strings attached, rather than following a more progressive path (temporarily nationalizing them FDIC-style, or folding the same volume of money into the social safety net and letting them fail, or just giving the money to single-home homeowners to bail them out, and by proxy bail out their banks).

I'm in a wait-and-see mode with the bank bailout. Government spent it all to get stock in these banks, which it will later sell. It may wind up being that the way they did it will actually bring more money in than it spent initially, like what happened with the S&L crisis.

Profit is not something strictly selfish (well, actually it is, but profit is usually obtained by providing services to others, which is where the "selfless" magic behind profit lies), a growing economy eventually allows itself to have longer and longer-term goals while still being bound by a profit-seeking mentality, even if we're talking highways or space exploration.

I understand the free market theory, and I actually see that kind of virtuous business cycle as being a goal I share. I just don't think it's possible to have a market that is both unregulated and beneficent to ordinary people.

I also don't think we can count on charities to take on the problems of the poor adequately, especially not in economic downturns that's tightening everyone's budget. People are too selfish to really worry about it.

You said, regarding the Fed's expansion of the money supply:

Austrians say it will cause hyperinflation, keynesians will either say "yay, it worked!" or "hyperinflation only happened because the Fed didn't expand the money supply enough and didn't save enough failing banks".

Actually, unless something drastic changes, Keynesians will say "holy shit, how did we get inflation?"

I'll be writing off Keynesians as being quacks if we wind up in a situation with high unemployment and high inflation, unless we have some sort of supply shock (e.g. OPEC decides to stop selling oil to us), or we wind up scaring the world into dumping the dollar before we recover.

Supply shocks aren't really predictable, but there are ways to measure the international community's confidence in the dollar, and there aren't any warning signs at this point.

If employment comes roaring back, and GDP reverts to trend, then we'll be calling for the Fed to contract the money supply to stave off inflation.

Inflation produces easy money for the govt at the expense of everyone's wealth denominated in that currency. It's the ultimate stealth taxing tool: The govt/Fed just prints money and we all get poorer, and they get to give that money to those who are politically connected.
It's like an upside-down redistribution of wealth, everyone gets slowly robbed (the poor getting hit the hardest for having less resources) and usually the ones at the top get the most benefit first, specially if they're in bed with govt.

I agree with this assessment of the issues that can and do crop up. I disagree that the Fed intentionally causes periods of high inflation in order to explicitly to benefit their well-connected friends.

Govt, as always, gets a free pass and points its finger at capitalism, business owners, the market, banks, foreign lenders, ANYTHING and people will buy it if they're keynesian, statist or stupid enough.

Slurs against people like myself aside, I think you misunderstand our position. It's not that government gets a free pass, it's that a corrupt government happens because of businesses influence.

Peter Schiff has used the analogy that the crisis was like a teacher leaving kids alone with a bunch of candy, and then later comes back and finds the kids have made themselves sick. I agree with the analogy -- business is like a bunch of misbehaved kids, and the government, like the teacher, is supposed to be the responsible adult who keeps them in check. The cure isn't to fire the teacher and let the kids have the keys to the candy supply, the cure is to fire the teacher and hire a responsible one.

I guess what I don't understand is why you would trust government with nuclear missiles, police, courts, etc. but not control of currency.

I want to end fraud, corruption, and abuse, but I don't think big business is somehow immune to it, and I don't see how telling government to generally take a hike would cure it.

I think it's a symptom of human nature itself that people are always going to be seeking advantage, fair or not, by any means necessary. I want to empower altruistic people who represent the people's interests, and aren't afraid to push back against corporate interests to make sure people are treated fairly.

I cringe at the entire conservative "we must make policy about maximizing business growth, period" philosophy of governance. Mine is "we must make business growth beneficial to society".