Category: Power & Corruption

The Power & Corruption section of The Rio Stanton Report examines how wealth, influence, and authority shape political, economic, and social systems. Throughout history, power has often operated behind closed doors—shielded from public scrutiny and accountability.

Articles in this category explore the ways institutions, elites, and networks of influence can distort justice, manipulate public narratives, and concentrate power in the hands of a few. From political scandals and financial misconduct to broader discussions about systemic inequality and accountability, these essays analyze how corruption develops and why it persists.

Understanding power is essential to understanding society. By examining how power is exercised—and sometimes abused—this section aims to encourage greater awareness, transparency, and critical thinking about the systems that govern our world.

Policies Matter. Actions Matter More.

Let me explain something again for the liberals who keep confusing progressive politics with a cult of personality.

Ahem.

We do not give a fuck about worshipping politicians. We care about what they do.

If Trump delivered humane, progressive policies that materially improved people’s lives, I would acknowledge those accomplishments. That would not require me to excuse everything else about him.

When Biden was president, I wanted him to succeed. I wanted an administration willing to meet the scale of the problems facing us. Give us the ambition associated with FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society (without the devastating and unjust war, of course), and I would have plenty to praise.

But wanting a president to succeed does not mean pretending that everything they do is enough.

And voting for someone does not mean surrendering the right to criticize them.

That was true when I wrote the original version of this post. It is still true now.

I am tired of people treating progressive demands as unreasonable while expecting us to accept political responses that fall short of the conditions we are living through.

Yes, Biden actually said this to a group of wealthy donors behind closed doors. But he governed surprisingly to the left (even by a little) than anyone who has occupied that position since Jimmy Carter, in my opinion.

People cannot afford housing. They struggle to get healthcare. They work themselves into exhaustion and still cannot establish financial security. Racism continues to shape their opportunities and treatment. Environmental threats keep demanding action.

Then we get told to be patient, lower our expectations, and remember how much worse the other side would be.

We know the other side is worse. What the fuck are you going to do about the problems we elected you to address?

That question should not cause this much damn discomfort.

I am not opposed to every smaller improvement. If a policy helps people today, that matters. What I reject is treating incrementalism as the permanent ceiling on what we can demand.

A partial victory should give us something to build on. It should not become an excuse to declare the work finished or tell the people who are still struggling that they are asking for too much.

Too often, “be realistic” means accepting that the people with power will remain comfortable while everyone else adjusts to insecurity.

I do not accept that as a political goal.

And no, Bernie Sanders is not a messiah.

He became important to many of us because he gave national attention to policies and grievances that other politicians dismissed. He spoke about healthcare, wages, education, corporate power, and the lives of people who felt unseen.

That is why we supported him. His appeal came from what he advocated and what he appeared willing to fight for.

My appeal to Bernie Sanders was solely based on policies that Sanders fights for.

Sanders is fallible. He has disappointed people on the left, including me. When he does, he gets criticized too.

The same should apply to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, any other progressive politician, and whoever comes next. Nobody gets to substitute their name or reputation for accountability.

If a politician abandons the commitments that earned our support, we have every right to challenge them. That is political consistency.

I wanted Biden to be a good progressive president. I wanted him to deliver. I wanted the people who voted for him to have something meaningful to show for it.

I also wanted the United States to confront its racism. Wanting that did not require me to pretend we had already achieved it.

The same principle applies to an administration. I can want it to succeed and still refuse to accept inadequate responses to real problems.

People’s lives cannot be managed as though the goal is to keep them just hopeful enough to make it to the next election cycle.

They need relief. They need security. They need power over the conditions shaping their lives.

And they need more than a lecture about how complicated everything is.

I like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). However, she is not above criticism. She needs to be judged on the policies that she fights for and her voting record, not on her looks, her former job, or slander about her intelligence.

Yes, governing is complicated. There are institutional barriers, hostile courts, narrow majorities, and opponents who will obstruct whatever they can. Those things deserve serious consideration. They really do.

But an explanation should help us understand what happened, what was attempted, and what needs to change. It should not shut down every question about whether leadership could have done more.

I hate excuses that make no logical sense. I hate watching people dodge simple questions about matters they are supposed to understand. I hate the double-speak that turns failure into strategy and criticism into disloyalty.

And I cannot stand the dismissive attitude toward corruption, donor influence, and the conflicts between what politicians promise voters and what they protect once they hold office.

Do not tell me I am being unreasonable for noticing those conflicts.

Policies are important. Policies are important. Policies are very important.

And actions are more important, especially when the country is watching how politicians move.

A platform tells me what you claim to support. Your actions tell me what you are willing to pursue, defend, compromise, or abandon.

That is what I am watching and paying the most attention to.

When Biden was president, many of us criticizing him had voted for him in the general election. We understood the choice before us. We made that choice.

But our votes were not promises to remain silent.

We did not agree to applaud every compromise, excuse every disappointment, or defend the administration against the very people whose needs it was supposed to serve.

We voted to put someone in office. Then we expected them to do the work.

That standard survives Biden’s presidency. It applies to the current administration, to Democratic leadership, and to every future candidate asking for our support.

At the time that this was written (well, rewritten) and published in this Blog, all of the people that you see here are speculated to seek the 2028 Democratic Party nomination for president. There are some that I like. There are some that I don’t like. Race doesn’t matter. Looks don’t matter. Name recognition doesn’t matter to me. What matters are the policies that help American people and end wars. Any one of these people could get my vote if they are advocating for things that align with my personal politics and morals.

You are not owed our devotion. You are accountable for what you do with our votes.

We have to keep holding their feet to the fire. Organize. Ask the questions. Make the demands. Recognize the gains, and keep pushing where the work falls short.

Because if we stop demanding accountability, the people in power have every reason to keep giving us less… and expecting us to thank them for it.

October 2, 2026
Party Unity—Until the Left Wins

Whenever Democratic loyalists start lecturing the left about “party unity” and “Blue No Matter Who,” I want to ask a simple question:

Does that rule apply when your preferred candidate loses too?

Because I have been paying attention for a long time, and the demand for unity seems to get a lot louder when progressives are expected to fall in line. When the left challenges a favored incumbent, wins a primary, or questions the party’s direction, suddenly there are exceptions.

Then we hear about electability, ideological purity, troublesome supporters, and how the party cannot afford to be associated with those people.

Apparently, the big tent has a very selective admissions policy.

I remember 2008. Some disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters organized under the PUMA banner (“Party Unity My Ass”) and refused to support Barack Obama. Clinton herself urged supporters to back him, but the holdouts were serious determined, and angry. Some openly considered voting for John McCain.

I also remember Clinton invoking her support among “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” while arguing that Obama’s support was weakening. I found that appeal offensive then, and time has not improved that feeling.

My political memory did not begin with Bernie Sanders, and it did not end when his presidential campaigns did.

That is why I get tired of hearing the left discussed as though we invented bitterness, divisive primaries, or resistance to a nominee. The party has a long history of internal conflict. But certain people’s resistance gets treated as understandable disappointment, while ours becomes a character defect.

And the same attitude is still with us.

Angie Nixon is a Florida state Representative who won the Democratic Party primary to be the party’s 2026 United States Senate candidate for the state of Florida.

Look at Angie Nixon. She won Florida’s Democratic Senate primary in August, defeating Alex Vindman despite his financial advantage. Whatever someone thinks of her politics, Democratic primary voters chose her.

Nixon subsequently clashed with Florida Democratic chair Nikki Fried over socialism and whether she was receiving sufficient party support.

Reporting this month also described Vindman directing resources toward other Democrats and the state party rather than Nixon herself, while Senate Majority PAC was steering clear of her race.

Now, Florida is a difficult race. Parties have limited resources, and nobody is obligated to pretend every election is equally winnable.

But that explanation deserves scrutiny when “support the nominee” has been preached to the left as a moral obligation.

If progressives are expected to swallow their objections, volunteer, donate, and turn out for candidates they did not want, then they have every right to ask what support looks like when their candidate wins.

You cannot spend years demanding loyalty and then act confused when people expect reciprocity.

To many of us further left of the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans sound eerily similar.

Here in St. Louis, the fight involving Cori Bush makes the role of money impossible to ignore. Wesley Bell defeated her again in the August 2026 primary. AIPAC-backed efforts and other outside spending supported Bell, with spending on his behalf substantially exceeding spending for Bush.

Bush was not entitled to her seat. Voters could criticize her, challenge her, and choose someone else. That is how elections work.

Cori Bush was the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s FirstCongressional District. She served one term before being defeated by Wesley Bell. Bush was not defended by the same Democratic Party that stated that it would defend incumbents and frowned upon primary opponents.

But I am also entitled to question the priorities behind pouring money into defeating a progressive in a heavily Democratic district. I am entitled to ask why a Black organizer’s politics become something to neutralize rather than something the party has to engage.

Calling that spending “democracy” does not put its sources, motives, or effects beyond criticism.

Then there is Hasan Piker, who has become another target in this fight. In April, Democratic Representative Josh Gottheimer joined Republican Representative Mike Lawler in introducing a resolution condemning alleged antisemitic rhetoric from Piker and other online personalities. Gottheimer renewed his push for a vote in August.

Progressive commentator Hasan Piker has become the new boogeyman in mainstream media. His commentary, often taken out of context, had been weaponized against progressive and leftist candidates who he is associated with.

I do not have to agree with every damn thing Hasan says to question why Democratic politicians are devoting energy to this.

He is a commentator. He can be criticized. His statements should be examined, including statements people find offensive or harmful. Having an audience does not make him immune to accountability.

But neither should a controversial commentator become an excuse to discredit everyone on the left who has appeared with him, watched him, or supported a candidate he supports.

Criticize the statement. Make the argument. Stop treating association as a substitute for discussing policy.

For as controversial as many in the mainstream media find Hasan Piker on the left side of the political spectrum, there are many more people on the right side of the political spectrum who are not weaponized against political candidates on the right.

This is where my original frustration still stands: identity-based bigotry is real, but the existence of bigotry does not mean every political disagreement is driven by it.

Sexism against women politicians is real. I have said that repeatedly, including when defending Hillary Clinton against attacks that male politicians would not have faced.

Antisemitism is real. Racism is real. All deserve serious attention.

But criticism of a woman’s policies is not automatically sexism. Criticism of a Jewish politician is not automatically antisemitism. Criticism of a Black politician is not automatically racism.

Democrats often defend bad candidates with bad policies against criticisms and for losing elections by charging critics and voters with bigotry. Although their charges aren’t totally baseless, they are often exaggerated and made into the primary reason why campaigns were lost, and their candidates or politicians face legitimate criticism.

And criticism of a government’s actions is not automatically hatred of the people associated with that government.

Context is important here. There needs to be a careful and sober examination of the evidence. What was actually said matters more than the political spin.

These questions require more work than deciding that an accusation ends the conversation. Using genuine struggles against bigotry as political shields makes it harder to address both the bigotry and the policy disagreement honestly.

I do not want the left exempted from that standard. I want the standard applied consistently.

Progressive candidates should answer for their records. Their supporters should answer for what they actually say and do. But establishment candidates should face the same scrutiny over their donors, policies, alliances, and treatment of the people whose votes they expect.

Too often, the left’s demands are described as dangerous or unrealistic before they are even seriously discussed.

Progressive and leftist voters are told to “fall in line.” These voters are often scoffed at and then blamed for electoral losses.

Universal healthcare. Affordable housing. Stronger labor rights. Public investment. An end to policies that treat human suffering as an acceptable cost of somebody else’s profit.

Those are political demands. People can argue against them. But dismissing the people making them as naïve, toxic, disloyal, or unelectable is a convenient way to avoid the argument.

And I think some of that hostility comes from the interests those demands threaten. A party comfortable with its donors and existing arrangements is going to feel pressure when its own voters start demanding changes that those donors do not want.

That is my interpretation of the pattern. It is also why I refuse to accept every attack on the left as neutral advice about winning elections.

Winning for what? Delivering what? And accountable to whom?

The media and party leaders often dismiss progressive and leftist candidates as unelectable.

I understand the danger Republicans pose. I do not need that explained to me every time I criticize Democrats.

What I need is for Democratic leaders and loyalists to understand that opposing Republicans does not require me to surrender my judgment. It does not require silence about the party’s failures, and it certainly does not require pretending that its treatment of the left is fair.

If you want unity, give people a meaningful role in shaping the agenda. Respect their victories. Engage their demands. Show them that their participation matters beyond election-day turnout.

Stop treating the left as a workforce you can insult between elections and summon when you need votes.

Party unity cannot mean that we do the work, accept the blame, and shut the hell up.

October 2, 2026
The Best Way to Evaluate a Conspiracy Theory Is to Ask One Question: Why?

People often ask me why I don’t believe many of the conspiracy theories circulating online.

My answer is simple:

What’s the endgame?

In other words, what is the actual objective?

Throughout history, governments, corporations, intelligence agencies, and wealthy interests have absolutely conspired. Watergate happened. COINTELPRO happened. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study happened. The tobacco industry concealed evidence about smoking. Companies have colluded to fix prices. Governments have lied to justify wars.

Real conspiracies exist.

But they usually have understandable motivations.

In my view, nearly every major government or corporate conspiracy can be traced back to one or more of three goals.

First, preserving existing systems of power.

Whether that involves racial hierarchy, patriarchy, religious dominance, authoritarianism, or protecting political institutions, those in power often act to preserve the systems that benefit them.

Second, maximizing profits.

This is probably the biggest motivation of them all.

When you follow the money, countless scandals suddenly make sense. Companies cut corners because it’s cheaper. Industries lobby against regulation because it protects their profits. Politicians accept campaign money or bribes because it benefits them personally or politically.

Greed doesn’t require a master plan.

It only requires incentives.

Third, protecting the status quo by silencing credible threats.

History contains numerous examples of governments and institutions surveilling, discrediting, imprisoning, or otherwise neutralizing people they viewed as dangerous to their interests. The methods vary, but the underlying motivation is remarkably consistent: maintain existing power.

Those three motivations explain far more than most people realize.

They also provide a useful filter for evaluating extraordinary claims.

Take, for example, the claim that unnamed elites are trying to “make the world gay.”

My first question is always the same:

Why?

What is the practical objective?

How would governments, corporations, or powerful institutions materially benefit from such a plan?

Some argue it’s about reducing population growth. But if population reduction were actually the goal, declining birth rates in many developed countries are already being driven by rising housing costs, expensive childcare, economic uncertainty, delayed marriage, and changing social priorities. Those are observable economic and social trends that require no elaborate global conspiracy to explain.

Once a theory can’t identify a coherent objective rooted in power, profit, or political advantage, it often shifts toward increasingly fantastical explanations involving supernatural forces, secret societies with limitless power, or shadowy groups pursuing evil simply for the sake of being evil.

That’s usually where I stop taking it seriously.

Real conspiracies are rarely that dramatic.

They’re often surprisingly ordinary.

They’re driven by money.

They’re driven by politics.

They’re driven by fear.

They’re driven by self-interest.

And they’re frequently far sloppier than people imagine.

Consider the devastating earthquakes in Turkey. Investigations pointed to widespread failures in building standards and enforcement. Buildings that should have withstood the shaking collapsed because regulations were ignored or inadequately enforced, while corruption and cost-cutting reportedly played a role in some cases. That’s not evidence of a centuries-long master plan. It’s a reminder that corruption, weak oversight, and the pursuit of profit can produce catastrophic consequences.

Or consider the 2022 infant formula crisis in the United States. The shortage exposed vulnerabilities created by a highly concentrated domestic market, recalls at a major manufacturing facility, and regulatory challenges. The result was a crisis that left parents scrambling to feed their babies. Again, the lesson wasn’t that an all-powerful cabal had engineered the shortage. It was that weak competition, regulatory failures, and economic incentives created a system that was far more fragile than it appeared.

Those explanations may not be as exciting as internet conspiracy theories.

But they’re supported by evidence.

The truth is that reality is often more mundane—and more troubling—than fiction.

Powerful institutions don’t need to be all-knowing masterminds to cause enormous harm.

Sometimes greed is enough.

Sometimes incompetence is enough.

Sometimes protecting power is enough.

Before accepting any conspiracy theory, ask one simple question:

Who benefits?

If you can’t identify a believable answer rooted in power, profit, or preserving the status quo, then skepticism isn’t just reasonable.

It’s necessary.

October 1, 2026
MAGA’s Messiah and the Myth of the Good Old Days

The thing that fucks me up about the MAGA cult is that so many of them genuinely, blindly, and sadly believe that Chump (Trump) is some messianic figure here to rescue this country from cannibalizing itself through neoliberalism, crony capitalism, and privatization.

To me, he represents the same appetite dressed up in a red hat. Nepotism, grifting, self-promotion, and incompetence sold as strength. Somehow, his petty belligerence becomes courage. His obsessive whining becomes a legitimate grievance. His need for applause becomes devotion to the country.

They see a professional con man and call him their savior.

And what, exactly, is he supposed to save them from? Those imaginary glory days when a White man could supposedly support a family with little education, women happily stayed in the kitchen, and Black people knew their place?

The visible rise of black people and other marginalized groups into socioeconomic positions once held exclusively by White people, including the presidency, created irrational fear and panic in many White Americans who felt that absolute power, wealth, and prestige belonged only to them.

Some people had real economic security during those years. But the picture being sold leaves out who was excluded, whose labor was exploited, and whose freedom was sacrificed to maintain it. Women were not universally happy with dependence. Black people were not content with segregation, domestic service, limited menial work opportunities, and second-class citizenship.

Your nostalgia does not get to erase our history.

The past they long for is part memory, part mythology, and part desire to restore a hierarchy they think should never have been challenged. They want the wages and purchasing power associated with that period, but too many also want its social arrangements.

During the United States’ economic golden age, Black people were still mostly working in menial jobs as domestics and laborers. They were being denied equal access to housing, especially in the newly built suburbs.

Those are two different things. And I wish they would stop pretending otherwise.

Personally, I never fell under the illusion that Biden (or even Obama) was a hero or a messiah. His presidency is over, and my standard remains the same: policies, actions, competence, and accountability. A diverse cabinet does not automatically transform an administration into a vehicle for liberation. Neither does putting a Democrat in the White House.

I wanted someone to do his/her fucking job. I also wanted more than competent management of a system that keeps squeezing working people while rewarding those who already own everything.

That criticism did not disappear because Trump returned to power.

My problem with MAGA is that its devotion to Chump repeatedly swallows the very accountability its supporters claim to demand. When something goes wrong, somebody else must have caused it. When he contradicts himself, they supply the explanation. When he disappoints them, they move the goalposts.

To many in MAGA, everything bad that happens during Trump’s presidency is the fault of Biden, Obama, or the Democrats. They see everything good as a direct result of Trump’s leadership.

At what point does the man you elected become responsible for the things he does?

The economic pain that helped create this movement is not imaginary. Communities have lost jobs, stability, and a sense of a future. But the explanation cannot begin and end with whichever president a cable news host tells you to hate.

Deindustrialization devastated communities built around factory work. Automation changed how many workers employers needed. Highways and suburban development reshaped cities, often at the expense of established neighborhoods. Energy markets changed. Smaller towns lost employers, young people, and resources.

Deindustrialization devastated once-thriving communities and neighborhoods, leaving them impoverished and blighted.

These changes did not all come from one president, one party, or one secret meeting of cartoon villains.

But political choices determined who received protection, who absorbed the losses, and who got rich from the transition. Decisions about labor rights, taxation, trade, public investment, and privatization were very important. And they still are today.

And administrations from both parties helped build or preserve arrangements that concentrated wealth and weakened working people’s bargaining power.

That is why I do not accept the idea that electing a billionaire with a talent for branding somehow frees us from billionaire power.

Chump offers people a villain, a slogan, and somebody to look down on. That does not necessarily give them a pension, affordable housing, healthcare, or control over their working lives.

You cannot pay the electric bill with the satisfaction of making somebody else miserable.

I suspect that part of MAGA’s appeal goes beyond economics. For some of its most devoted supporters, the fear is having to share power with women, racial minorities, immigrants, and people of different faiths, gender identities, and sexual orientations.

Equality feels like dispossession when you believe the country belongs to you.

They hear demands for equal treatment and imagine revenge. They hear criticism of White supremacy and imagine an attack on their existence. Meanwhile, most of the people they fear are trying to live, raise their children, work, and enjoy some relative peace and prosperity.

Many conservative White people fear acts of revenge from Black people. What they fail to understand is that most Black people just want to have equal opportunities for good neighborhoods, education, and jobs rather than plotting or enacting any form of revenge.

We should not have to remain subordinate just to make somebody else feel secure.

And Mango Mussolini’s constant need for praise does nothing to convince me that he is the tough guy he wants people to see. Pettiness is not strength. Vindictiveness is not leadership. Surrounding yourself with loyal sycophants does not make your judgment better.

Neither does refusing to accept defeat.

Trump lost the 2020 election and won the 2024 election. Both results can be true. Winning later does not retroactively turn an earlier loss into a stolen victory. If your respect for elections depends on whether your candidate wins, your loyalty is to the candidate.

That is the problem.

I have compared this kind of devotion to the danger represented by Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple. That is a serious analogy, and the circumstances are different. But the warning behind it is important here: people become vulnerable when loyalty to a leader takes priority over evidence, judgment, and their own well-being.

A movement becomes dangerous when every criticism is treated as persecution and every demand from the leader becomes a test of faith.

MAGA devotion to Trump looks eerily like the devotion that many people had to Jim Jones.

Cultlike devotion to a person is never a substitute for political principles.

And yes, that applies to Democrats too. It applies to politicians I like. It applies to politicians you like. Nobody should receive a lifetime exemption from scrutiny because they once inspired us or made the right people angry.

I do not want a messiah. I want humane policies, accountable leadership, and a society where people can live without being sacrificed to somebody else’s profits.

My admiration for Bernie Sanders and the Squad does not come from a cult of personality. It comes from the policy solutions that they propose and the fact that they seem to address the needs of average Americans rather than corporations and the super-rich. They do this without engaging in culture wars and mindless platitudes.

The people I call “Y’all-Qaeda” are not going to disappear simply because an election ends or a politician eventually leaves office. The grievances, authoritarian impulses, and appetite for enemies require more than waiting for the next news cycle.

We have to confront the conditions that make people desperate, and the politics that teach them to aim that desperation at everybody except those benefiting from it.

Because the country does not need more people worshipping a man who promises to make them great.

It needs people willing to ask who gets the wealth, who holds the power, and who keeps paying the fucking price.

October 1, 2026
Stop Trusting Republicans to Play Fair

One thing that used to really piss me off about the Obama administration (and the Democratic Party as a whole) was the refusal to recognize just how far Republicans were willing to go to gain and keep power.

Democratic leaders kept looking for reasonable partners. They kept talking about compromise, common ground, and reaching across the aisle. Meanwhile, Republicans kept showing them that their commitment to those things lasted only as long as it served their interests.

At some point, believing them becomes a choice.

There is no reasoning your way around people who negotiate in bad faith. There is no meaningful compromise when one side treats every concession as an opportunity to demand more. The Democratic Party needs to stand up and fight tooth and nail for the principles it claims to hold.

But the lessons of the Obama years still don’t seem to have sunk in.

We keep waiting for Republicans to come to their senses, embrace their better angels, or stand by their own words. Then, when they abandon those words, Democratic leaders act disappointed. They seem to think disappointment is going to shame Republicans into changing their behavior.

How many times do we have to watch this?

The fight over the Supreme Court in 2020 made this painfully clear. Some people genuinely counted on a handful of Republican senators to honor the standard their party had used to block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. They expected consistency from people who had already demonstrated that the rules could change whenever power was at stake.

After the Senate failed to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial, some still believed that those same Republican senators would suddenly put fairness ahead of political advantage.

Why? What had they done to earn that faith?

The Democratic leadership, the corporate media, and far too many liberals keep convincing themselves that this time Republicans will play fairly. This time, institutional norms will hold. This time, someone will discover a conscience.

And when that doesn’t happen, we get another round of solemn speeches about how troubling it all is.

I am tired of being told to admire the restraint of people who keep getting their asses handed to them.

There is a familiar saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Whoever first said it, the point applies here. It is beyond frustrating to watch Democratic leaders repeat an approach that keeps failing, then have their defenders insist that the rest of us simply don’t understand the strategy.

Apparently, they’re always playing three-dimensional chess. Apparently, every defeat is part of some brilliant plan that will reveal itself later.

Meanwhile, the whole thing looks more like Wile E. Coyote chasing the damn Road Runner.

And every time a liberal shows up to explain that my lack of faith is unwarranted, I want to ask: What, exactly, am I supposed to be impressed by?

The speeches? The stern letters? The commitment to looking reasonable while the other side takes what it wants?

I do not need another lecture about patience from someone who confuses having a strategy with defending whatever the leadership happens to do.

Compromise requires people who will honor an agreement. When political leaders repeatedly abandon their own standards for an advantage, trusting them again should require evidence—not another appeal to their supposed decency.

And compromise itself should not be treated as a virtue regardless of what gets surrendered. People’s rights, livelihoods, and futures are on the line. The goal cannot simply be to reach an agreement so everyone in Washington can congratulate themselves for being bipartisan.

The goal should be to deliver something worth fighting for.

Democratic leaders need to stop acting as though Republican approval is necessary to make their demands legitimate. Make the case. Use the power voters gave you. Organize. Give people a reason to show up, stay involved, and believe that their participation matters.

If the party claims to stand for working people, civil rights, and democracy, then it needs to fight like those commitments mean something.

Stop trusting Republicans to become the partners you wish they were. Make your demands, prepare for a real political fight, and rally the damn people behind you.

October 1, 2026
Extreme Sychophancy in the White House (An Invitation to my TikTok)

My name is Mario, and I was hoping you could check out this brief video of me ranting about the level of sychophancy in the Trump White House.

There’s a difference between loyalty and outright sycophancy, and lately, that line has been completely erased in American politics.

In my TikTok video, I briefly break down the level of blind praise and performative loyalty emanating from the Trump White House and how annoyingly unsettling it is.

When public officials seem more focused on flattering one person than serving the public or speaking honestly, it raises serious questions about leadership, accountability, and the health of our political system. The goal is not to provide the American public with accurate information. Instead, the goal is to carry favor with Donald Trump by constantly over-complimenting him.

What stood out to me, and what I highlight in the video, is how normalized this behavior has become. The constant sycophantic praising, followed by unrealistic claims designed more to make Trump seem like a divine solution to every problem facing the United States, doesn’t feel like governance. It feels like something else entirely. And regardless of where you fall politically, that should at least make you and any of us very concerned.

I’m not interested in empty outrage, even though my language is often colorful and could perhaps rub some the wrong way. I’m interested in conversations that prompt people to think a little deeper about what we’re seeing and accepting in our politics and our society. This is true of most of my TikToks.

If that’s the kind of discussion you’re into, check out other videos on my TikTok. I’m going to resume posting more content like this, of me breaking things down, asking uncomfortable questions, and keeping it real.

As with this blog and my social media, I invite you to join the conversation, even if you disagree with me. Just be aware that if you bite (figuratively speaking), I bite back.

This is not much of an exaggeration of how it really is.

April 11, 2026
People Don’t Hate Democratic Policies, They Hate Democratic Cowardice
The Democratic Party is currently under water in the polls. Their approval rating is lower than that of an unhinged and failing Republican President.

One of the biggest lies in American politics right now is the conservative claim that the Democratic Party’s low approval ratings are proof that progressive or left-wing ideas are unpopular.

That is not what is happening.

The Democratic Party’s low approval is not a sweeping public endorsement of conservatism, nor is it some grand rejection of ideas like police reform, clean energy, immigrant dignity, labor rights, racial justice, or social equality. If anything, many of those ideas remain more popular than the politicians and institutions claiming to represent them.

What people are rejecting is how Democrats campaign, govern, and legislate.

That distinction matters.

Many Democratic Voters Do Not Actually Like the Democratic Party

One of the most misunderstood things about American politics is that a huge portion of people who vote Democrat are not loyal Democrats.

Many progressives, leftists, disillusioned liberals, and politically alienated voters do not support the Democratic Party because they believe in it. They support it because there is no other viable alternative under the current two-party system.

That is not enthusiasm. That is containment.

Failure to articulate, fight, and deliever real changes leads to voter apathy.

Many Democratic voters are not politically “at home.” They are politically homeless.

They vote Democrat not because they think the party is transformational, but because the Republican Party has become openly hostile to democracy, labor, immigrants, women, LGBTQ people, Black communities, Muslims, and virtually anyone outside its reactionary coalition.

That means Democratic votes are often votes of defense, not belief.

Democrats Are Not “Too Woke.” They Are Not Woke Enough.

Democrats charging progressives and leftists with seeking perfection is the latest in gaslighting excuses for their failure to champion and deliver for their most vulnerable constituents.

One of the more absurd claims pushed by conservatives (and sometimes even accepted by Democrats themselves)is that the party has become too “woke.”

But that depends entirely on what one means by “woke.”

Being “woke” is being aware, conscious, and alert. It is being ready to face systems of oppression with adequate knoiwledge to navigate through them without being a victim. Black poeople know that our freedom constantly hangs by a thread and enemies are everywhere.

In its original Black political meaning, being woke meant being conscious of danger, power, injustice, and the need to protect one’s people and community. It was never just about representation, branding, or inclusion language.

And that is exactly where Democrats fail.

They are often fluent in the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion while being utterly unwilling to confront the structures that actually produce inequality.

They do not threaten the system. At best, they try to make the status quo look kinder, more polished, and more diverse.

But a more diverse ruling class is not the same thing as justice. It truly doesn’t matter if the foot on our necks belong to a woman, minority, or a member of some other marginalized group, the oppression is still there.

In fact, the tokenism that puts a member of a marginalized community in charge makes the problem worse.

Diversity in positions of power does nothing for marginalized communities as long as the mechanisms of their oppression are still operating and supported by those in power.

The Core Problem: Democrats Campaign Left and Govern Center-Right

This is where much of the anger comes from.

Democrats routinely campaign on bold, popular ideas, such as healthcare reform, abortion protections, criminal justice reform, labor rights, student debt relief, climate action, immigration reform, etc., only to retreat, dilute, abandon, or proceduralize those promises once in office.

There is no joy in Democratic Party victories if the end result is that the people’s basic standard of living either doesn’t improve or worsen.

And when they fail, they almost always have an excuse ready:
- Senate procedure
- “Moderate” Democrats
- institutional norms
- electability concerns
- donor pressure
- political timing
- fear of backlash
At some point, people stop hearing these as obstacles and start hearing them as the pre-scripted permission slips for inaction they often are.

This is one of the main reasons the Democratic Party feels hollow to so many of the very people it depends on.

Democrats Alienate Their Own Coalition

Democrats often actively resist moving to the left. In fact, their solutions to electorial win and losses is to move further to the right.

The Democratic Party survives through a broad coalition, but it often governs as though that coalition is a burden.

Black voters, women, Arab and Muslim communities, immigrants, labor-oriented voters, poor and working-class people, LGBTQ communities, and younger progressives are all expected to show up every election cycle. But when it is time to govern, many of those same groups are sidelined, ignored, triangulated against, or used symbolically rather than materially.

Black voters have long experienced this in the form of tokenism, local “benign” neglect, selective outrage, and empty rhetoric about justice that rarely translates into structural change.

Benign neglect of communities only breeds resentment by many within those communities. If the Democrats want to keep their coalition of diverse voters, they have to fight harder for each and every one of them.

Muslim and Arab communities have seen it through surveillance, Islamophobia, selective empathy, and the treatment of dissenting lawmakers as liabilities.

Women have seen it through decades of strategic delay and complacency around abortion rights, only to watch those rights collapse under a reactionary judiciary.

Immigrants and Latinos have seen it through cruelty repackaged as pragmatism.

And progressives have seen it through endless lectures about realism from people who somehow always find the political courage to disappoint the left but never that same courage to seriously confront the right.

The Gaza Crisis Exposed Democratic Hypocrisy

There were calls by many of the political left in 2024 for Democrats to stop supporting the genocide in Gaza and support a ceasefire, These calls were mostly ignored and scoffed at by the Democratic Party leadership.

If there was one issue that crystallized this contradiction for many younger voters, leftists, Muslims, Arab Americans, and anti-imperialists, it was Gaza.

For many people, the Democratic Party’s response to the destruction and mass death in Gaza was not merely disappointing but it was also morally disqualifying.

Many potential Democratic voters could not vote for Democratic candidates alligned with Israel and its lobby in good conscious.

Pro-Palestinian protestors started to express their disappointment with the Democratic Party and vowed to vote against the Democratic Party during the general election.

Instead of responding with honesty, moral clarity, and equal concern for Palestinian humanity, much of the party defaulted to the same old framework: criminalize dissent, sanitize atrocity, and demand loyalty from people expected to ignore what they could plainly see with their own eyes.

That mattered and it sidelined many voters and activists who could have carried the Democrats to victory.

Why?

Because once a party asks people to suspend not just strategy, but conscience, it should not be surprised when those people begin to emotionally detach from it.

Republicans Have an Ideological Core. Democrats Often Seem to Have None.

Democrats struggle to use their power to help the people who elected them. They seem afraid to embrace popular left-wing positions. The Republicans, in contrast, use their power to push their agenda no matter how unpopular it my be. The Democrats appear weak while the Republican seem strong.

Part of the frustration here is comparative.

Republicans, however destructive, reactionary, and dangerous their project may be, often appear more ideologically committed than Democrats. They are willing to fight for what they believe in, even when those beliefs are cruel, anti-democratic, and deeply unpopular.

Democrats, by contrast, often appear to be a party whose primary belief is managing decline politely.

They want stability and not transformation. Procedure and not confrontation. Brand management and not political struggle.

That makes them seem weak, not simply because they lose, but because even when they win, they often act as if they do not know how to wield the power that they have.

This Is Not an Argument for Republicans

Let me be crystal clear about this post lest my words are taken out of context by conservatives using my words to make bad faith arguments: none of this is an endorsement of the Republican Party.

The current Republican Party is more overtly hostile to Black people and other marginalized communities than the Democratic Party is. That is reality.

One of the main reasons why Black voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat is not due to satisfaction or loyalty. Instead, it is because the Republican Party had been openly hostile toward the Black Community for decades. Racist dog-whistle politics may fool some but, Black people can indentify it easily.

Most Black voters, myself included, vote Democrat not because we are enchanted by the party, but because under the present system, it is often the only viable barrier against a more openly reactionary political project.

That is not love.That is only risk management. This is something many Black Republicans, who talk about loyalty to plantations seem to forget.

And Black history gives us every reason to take that risk seriously.

After the electoral victories of many Black people in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898, an angry White Mob conducted a violent coup of the town in which Black residents were killed or driven away. This was one of the last holdovers of a succesful diverse government after the end of the Recontruction Era 20 years earlier.

The gains won through struggle can be reversed. They can be rolled back. They can be destroyed. Reconstruction taught us that. Wilmington taught us that. The 20th century taught us that. And the present is teaching it again.

The Real Crisis Is Political Homelessness

The deeper issue here is not simply that Democrats are unpopular.

It is that millions of people feel politically stranded.

They are too conscious to be satisfied with Democratic symbolism. too threatened to gamble on Republican barbarism, and too trapped in a two-party duopoly to build immediate alternatives with real electoral power.

That is a recipe for alienation. The largest voting bloc during the 2024 presidential election was eligible voters who chose the proverbial couch over casting any vote and any election.

Constant disappoinment leads to political disengagement.

And unless that changes, Democrats will continue to suffer from a contradiction that conservatives fundamentally do not understand.

This is that people may still vote for Democrats while deeply resenting them.

That is not political strength. Instead, that is political exhaustion.

And unless Democrats become something more than “the only adults in the room,” that exhaustion will continue to define American politics.
April 8, 2026
The Epstein Scandal Is Bigger Than Politics

I have been extremely critical of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement regarding the Epstein case. However, it is important to say something that often gets lost in the political shouting.

This case is bigger than Trump.

It is bigger than Jeffrey Epstein himself.
It is bigger than Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, or any other powerful individual who may have been connected to Epstein’s network.

And it is bigger than partisan politics.

At its core, the Epstein scandal exposes something much deeper: what happens when money, power, and privilege collide with the worst impulses of human behavior, particularly male behavior.

For decades, we have seen the same pattern repeat itself across politics, entertainment, religion, business, and other powerful institutions. Men with wealth and influence abuse their power to exploit women and girls, while the systems around them protect their reputations.

Victims are often dismissed, discredited, or accused of ulterior motives. Meanwhile, the perpetrators continue to operate with little consequence.

The Epstein case revealed a horrifying scale of abuse. Hundreds of young girls were trafficked and exploited. Some estimates suggest the number of victims could exceed a thousand.

And yet the reaction from many people has been to reduce the scandal to a political weapon.

Supporters of one political figure point to the involvement of another. Loyalists circle the wagons around people they admire. Victims become secondary to political narratives.

This reaction is part of the problem.

Sexual exploitation thrives in environments where powerful people are protected by wealth, influence, and social loyalty. When society treats abuse allegations as partisan ammunition rather than moral failures, accountability becomes almost impossible.

The disturbing reality is that this problem extends far beyond Epstein’s circle.

Reports in recent years have exposed online communities where thousands of men openly discuss drugging, assaulting, and exploiting women. Studies consistently show that sexual violence is far more common than many people want to admit. According to organizations such as the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), roughly one in six women will experience sexual assault during their lifetime.

These crimes are rarely committed by strangers hiding in dark alleys.

They are often committed by men known to the victim, such as friends, coworkers, acquaintances, partners, and authority figures.

This forces an uncomfortable conversation about male behavior more broadly.

If men are serious about ending sexual violence, the responsibility cannot be placed solely on law enforcement or individual criminals. Men must also examine the attitudes and behaviors that enable these crimes to continue.

That includes learning to accept rejection, understanding the meaning of consent, and rejecting the idea that status, wealth, or influence entitle anyone to another person’s body.

This is not about hating men or rejecting masculinity. This is not about pandering to women for dates or sex. It is about recognizing that power without accountability creates environments where abuse flourishes. This is about accountability and responsibility.

Many of the women harmed by Epstein’s network are now adults living with lifelong trauma. Justice for them should never be reduced to a political talking point.

If this scandal means anything, it should be a reminder that accountability must apply to everyone. Holding criminals accountable should be the goal, no matter how wealthy, powerful, or politically connected they may be.

And for men in particular, it should also be a reminder that respect, consent, and responsibility must define how we treat women.

Anything less allows the cycle to continue.

March 10, 2026
The Epstein Files and the Rot of Power

What the scandal reveals about wealth, power, and accountability.

The more I read about the latest Epstein file disclosures, the more disturbed and frankly ashamed I feel.

I’m not talking about the rumor mill. Some of what people are circulating online comes from FBI tip lines or discredited claims. That isn’t what I’m referring to.

What I’m talking about are the things that actually appear in the record: emails sent to or from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, sworn testimony from victims given under penalty of perjury, and other evidence that investigators have said could support criminal cases, such as photographs, videos, and documentation of trafficking operations.

Reading about these details is deeply disturbing.

This isn’t about people having unconventional sex lives or engaging in consensual adult kink. Adults are free to live their lives however they choose. What the Epstein case reveals is something very different: the exploitation of young girls (some reportedly prepubescent or barely pubescent) by powerful people who treated them as disposable.

These were vulnerable teenagers manipulated, trafficked, and abused by individuals with enormous wealth and influence. And for years, the systems that were supposed to protect them largely failed. It forces an uncomfortable question: what happens when immense wealth and power operate without meaningful accountability? The Epstein scandal suggests that the answer is often ugly.

When people have the money, connections, and influence to shield themselves from consequences, the worst impulses can flourish. In that sense, Epstein was not a supernatural villain or some once-in-a-generation monster. He was something more troubling: a symptom of a system where wealth and power can insulate people from the laws and moral standards that govern everyone else.

In many ways, Epstein functioned like a high-end pimp by providing powerful clients access to things they should never have been able to obtain. And our culture has sometimes romanticized that figure. For decades, entertainment media have portrayed pimps as rebellious anti-heroes rather than as people who often exploit vulnerable women and girls.

The Epstein case strips away that mythology. It shows the brutal reality behind it.

But the truth is that the problem isn’t limited to one man or one network. We’ve seen similar patterns in other high-profile abuse cases involving celebrities, entertainers, and powerful figures. Wealth, fame, and influence often create environments where victims struggle to be believed, and perpetrators expect to avoid consequences.

That realization forces a level of personal reflection as well.

Like many people, I can admit that in the past I sometimes dismissed or minimized allegations against powerful men whose work or status I admired. When people joked about or rationalized the abuse of young women by famous figures, it was often treated as scandalous gossip rather than as evidence of serious harm.

Looking back, that culture of dismissal helped create the conditions where victims were ignored, and predators were protected.

The Epstein files are horrifying not only because of what they reveal about specific crimes, but because they expose how systems of power operate. They show how wealth, status, and influence can warp justice itself.

And that is why the response to this scandal matters.

Justice should not depend on a person’s political ideology, social status, or connections. Anyone who participated in exploitation or trafficking (no matter how rich or powerful) should face real accountability.

The victims deserved protection when these crimes were happening. The least society can do now is ensure that the truth is pursued seriously and that those responsible are held accountable.

March 6, 2026