Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread.
Post whatever you got in the comments section below.
This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.
Friday, September 18, 2026
There Is No Such Thing As A Moderate Democrat Anymore
Democrats can keep pretending they are ‘moderate’ to win general elections, but moderation requires more than just saying the word over and over again.
Nearly 60 percent of Democrats support the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
The poll, conducted between Sept. 3 and Sept. 6, asked respondents: “On political matters, do you consider yourself a supporter of the Democratic Socialists of America, or not?”
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats said “yes,” while just 30 percent said “no.” Two percent of Republicans said “yes,” while 96 percent of Republicans said “no.” Among independents, 22 percent said “yes,” and 70 percent said “no.”
It’s a concerning statistic, especially given what the DSA platform stands for.
The DSA released a new platform in June that explicitly called for drafting “a new constitution, and creat[ing] a democratic socialist republic.” The organization also called for abolishing the Electoral College, as well as “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
The DSA is also pushing to “demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps toward fully abolishing the police and prison system.” The socialists want to abolish ICE, “legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.”
There are now just 10 Democrats of more than 250 in Congress who have signed on to a coalition that opposes rising socialism and communism. As part of their “Promise to America,” the 10 Democrats declare (among other things): “We are capitalist, not socialist,” “We want safety, not lawlessness,” “We are proud, not ashamed of America.” That not all Democrats signed on to that in and of itself is concerning.
The embrace of socialism — an extremist ideology — among mainstream Democrats both in office and in the electorate is the logical extension of Democrats’ policies. As I’ve previously written, the DSA isn’t necessarily inventing any new ideas or positions. They’re merely taking positions already embraced by much of the Democrat Party and just following them through to their logical conclusion.
For example, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Democrats have also supported the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would also abolish the Electoral College. Virginia’s Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger recently committed Virginia to the unconstitutional pact as well.
Or take immigration. Mainstream Democrats have long insisted that illegal aliens should have pathways to citizenship. Harris said in a 2017 post on X that “an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. … Give people a path to citizenship. The vast majority of folks we’re talking about are living a lawful life and paying taxes.”
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., declared: “Let me be clear: No human being is illegal.”
The DSA similarly argues “no human is illegal,” and the logical conclusion to this proposition is that there is no reason for ICE or deportations, which is exactly what the DSA is calling for. In other words, Democrat voters are already accustomed to this ideology because of mainstream Democrats.
The same pattern can be seen in Democrats’ calls for defunding police and prisons or making housing a “right.”
The DSA openly pushes for what mainstream Democrats have been advancing gradually with language that is a bit more polished: destroying immigration enforcement and borders, dismantling police and prisons, and abolishing the Constitution as we know it.
When 59 percent of Democrats describe themselves as DSA supporters, the socialists cannot be dismissed as a fringe faction hijacking an otherwise moderate party. Socialists are the party’s voters, its candidates, and the logical conclusion of its agenda.
Democrats can keep pretending they are “moderate” to win general elections (I’m looking at you, Abigail Spanberger and James Talarico), but moderation requires more than just saying the word over and over again. It requires drawing a line and opposing radicals who want to explicitly get rid of the Constitution, end borders entirely, and end police. Yet today’s Democrats — as evidenced by only 10 joining the aforementioned coalition opposing socialism — are unwilling to draw that line because they’re already on the same side as the socialists.
Carney Accepts EU Associate Member Status, Opens Canada Gate for European Migrants
Speaking to the European Parliament earlier today, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warmly accepted the Associate Member status in the European Union and pledged to align the governmental policies of Canada to streamline the assimilation.
Everyone understands the orchestrated publicity from EU Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen, absent from any information given to the EU member representatives, is carried out in full coordination with Mark Carney who has also not discussed the merge of institutional policy with Canadian citizens. It is more than a little ironic for Ursula von der Leyen and Mark Carney both speak in grand prose about their democratic values, while entering agreements that have never been discussed with the people of their countries.
Perhaps that explains why half of the seats in the European Parliament were empty as the Prime Minister delivered his acceptance remarks with snarky pontification aimed at President Donald Trump. WATCH:
Palantir CEO Frames AI Leaders Request as Effort to Avoid Lawsuits from Large Corporate Clients Over IP Theft
Palantir CEO Alex Karp is a little quirky but, on this issue, I tend to agree with him.
According to Karp in the interview below the request by OpenAI and Anthropic AI labs for government regulation is related to a legal issue within their business model. Right now, massive multinational corporations are working with AI groups under contract. As part of those contracts the leaders of the corporations are discovering their individual business plans, what they call their intellectual property (IP) has been uploaded into the dataset of the AI models themselves.
These corporations have spent billions of dollars on their detailed business plans, marketing plans, logistics and revenue systems that are now part of the AI dataset. These CEOs are not happy and talking about lawsuits against the AI developers for stealing their corporate intellectual property. However, at the same time the CEOs are furious at the loss of proprietary information, they are simultaneously bound to the AI developers for forward revenue. This is creating a problem.
Example: By some analyst’s estimations, Amazon’s forward revenue projection is approximately 51% dependent on further technological capability through the use of AI. However, Jeff Bezos likely does not appreciate his business model, which includes a massive dataset that he makes money from, being taken and uploaded to the AI database. Bezos could sue Anthropic for ip theft.
All of the AI labs are exposed to this litigation if it was to unfold. Additionally, all of the investors into the AI frontier labs would be at risk if the AI developer were sued by these corporations. Both the AI developers and their investors would/are demanding protection from these lawsuits.
Here’s where it gets complicated.
If a wave of lawsuits were launched it would seriously hurt the market valuation of the AI developers. However, simultaneously, if the AI developers get government protection (ie Sec.230, federal immunity from lawsuits) that removes entry barriers for startup AI companies, which increases AI competition, which could also reduce the market value of the major AI developers.
Alex Karp with Palantir already has this type of immunity from lawsuits due to the collaborative nature of the national security dynamic that Karp has developed with the U.S. government. However, the AI developers do not have this type of relationship. The AI developers previously said they did not want government interference, but now they want government protection. Privatize the upside (profit), then socialize the risk (losses).
As this dynamic unfolds, you can well imagine all the high-finance influencers who fund various political candidates and Super-PACs are positioning their own interests. An investor in AI would seek the protection of the investment and the elimination of lawsuit risk. Those institutional investors and billionaires would pay political campaigns and special interest advocacy to secure the value of their investment.
The politicians are being purchased by the investors into AI development. The goal is to grant the AI labs immunity from lawsuits.
There are trillions at stake.
If a potential AI threat has to manifest in order to force public support for the liability protection, then so be it.
Perhaps that’s what we are seeing.
Under this unfolding scenario, the tech sector of the stock market looks a little sketchy right now.