Pikergate is one of the most annoying things in our online discourse and it's a totally self-inflicted wound for Democrats. People don't have to like Piker or agree with him. But that's the point of a big tent. There are Democrats who support what Israel did in Gaza and don't seem bothered by large numbers of civilians being killed or the deliberate attempt (as stated explicitly by Israeli leaders) to make Gaza uninhabitable, which seems to me to be worse than anything Piker has said.
What makes it worse is that they're in positions of power and have used their power to provide cover for Israel's atrocities. But no one is saying that they shouldn't or can't be Democrats. Some of them are leading figures in the party. That's just the way it's going to be, as much as we might dislike it.
Piker's most objectionable remark in recent weeks has been not too different from what @neeratanden has said about Netanyahu's actions making Jews in America less safe (see below). It's an obvious point to make. If people who claim to speak in the name of a religion do awful things it endangers members of that religious community. Just like how when Muslim extremists commit horrific acts in the name of Islam, it endangers Muslims. This isn't rocket science.
But somehow Piker is seen as disqualifiable. It just doesn't make much sense to me. But "moderate" Democrats (who are actually out of step with the median voter on Israel-Palestine) have made Piker into the be-all and end-all of inter-factional fights, and they've hurt their own party in the process by putting the attention on Piker when the attention presumably should be put on beating Republicans.
"Embrace an authoritarian who routinely bashes Democrats and regularly praises totalitarian regimes, or else you're a ZIONIST"
Why are Democrats being asked to swallow this obvious dogshit
We're still two months from Election Day, with relatively limited polling in several key Senate races.
Here's how current VoteHub polling averages compare with Kalshi win probabilities, highlighting where market expectations are more favorable to either party than the polls.
@nick_field90 He thought he was positioning himself as an electable centrist for president. He's going to have to switch parties to have a chance at keeping the seat.
When RHPS came out being gay only existed in the public conscious as part of 'monstrous hedonism.' So challenging the narrative that hedonism is even monstrous was core to early queer liberation
The rich can earn billions in capital gains -- without ever paying a cent in taxes -- by simply holding onto their assets until they die. (Under current tax law, when an heir inherits an asset, its initial value resets and the capital gain disappears.)
For this reason, when Elon Musk (or any other billionaire) dies, the IRS should pretend that he sold all his assets the day before his death -- and then add all of Musk's accrued capital gains to his final tax return. https://t.co/qMy34olPjs