unruffled

"Shocking nobody, corporate dems found slurping up cash from AI lobbyists."

Polls show that a majority of US voters—and especially Democrats—want more robust guardrails on artificial intelligence, but Democratic governors' silence on President Donald Trump's directive banning states from regulating AI has some observers asking if lobbying by the powerful industry is to blame.

Sludge's David Moore and Donald Shaw reported Friday that tech titans including OpenAI and Meta last week sent a small army of lobbyists to meet with attendees of the Democratic Governors Association’s annual meeting, held this year at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.

According to the report, lobbyists and governors—some of whom "are teasing White House bids in 2028 or rumored to be in the mix"—gathered for a closed-door meeting. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore were among those who reportedly met with the lobbyists.

Trump signed an executive order trying to prevent states from regulating AI and following through on the safety laws they enacted, but there was little public pushback from Democratic governors.AI lobbyists descended on the DGA winter meeting last weekend in Phoenix, per a list we obtained:

[image or embed]
— David Moore (@davidrussellmoore.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 11:15 AM

The meeting preceded Trump's Thursday signing of an executive order aimed at limiting states' ability to regulate rapidly evolving AI technology. The order directs the US Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to sue states that enact “onerous and excessive" AI regulation. The edict also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations that the Trump administration finds objectionable.

Democratic governors have been relatively muted on the order, especially given the overwhelming support for regulation of AI—which many experts say poses threats to humanity that may equal or outweigh its benefits—across the political spectrum.

As Moore and Shaw wrote:

While Democratic governors were silent, their Republican counterparts have been loudly arguing for months against the federal government preempting state AI policies. In June, 17 Republican governors sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune [R-SD] and House Speaker Mike Johnson [R-La.] warning them against preempting their states’ protections on AI use. Over the past couple months, a trio of Republican governors—Spencer Cox (Utah), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.)—continued to make known their opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order.

Newsom, who many observers believe is eyeing a 2028 White House run, especially disappointed proponents of AI safeguards last year when he vetoed what would have been the nation's strongest AI safety regulations.

It's not just Democratic governors—congressional Democrats have increasingly partnered with an industry expected to soon be worth trillions of dollars. Some Democrats, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, are personally invested in AI stocks. The AI industry also made record contributions to political campaigns during the 2024 cycle.

Other Democrats, including some who may have their sights set on higher office—notably Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York—advocate stronger guardrails on AI development.

The public is worried about AI. Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it. www.thenation.com/article/poli...

[image or embed]
— Jeet Heer (@jeetheer.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 7:24 AM

"Voters want the party to get tough on the industry. But Democratic leaders are following the money instead," Jeet Heer, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, wrote Friday.

Citing voters' desire for stronger regulation, Heer argued that "Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to use the AI backlash for wedge politics," adding that "it's a way to win back working-class voters who are already disillusioned with the GOP and Trump."

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

The resolution “denouncing the horrors of socialism” passed 285 to 98 on Friday morning, with 86 Democrats joining 199 Republicans in voting “yes.” Ninety-eight Democrats voted against the measure, while two voted “present.”

Such a "progressive" party!

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/37163347

A nice little read by Caitlin Johnstone.

The real violent extremists are the oligarchs and imperialists who run the US-centralized empire from both mainstream parties.

Not Antifa. Not trans people. Not anti-genocide activists. Not protesters against ICE.

The extremists who are inflicting the real violence and abuse in our world are the ones committing genocide, starting wars, backing blockades, imposing starvation sanctions, arming proxy conflicts, circling the planet with hundreds of military bases, and flirting with nuclear armageddon.

Donald Trump is a violent extremist. Joe Biden is a violent extremist. Keir Starmer is a violent extremist. Benjamin Netanyahu is a violent extremist.

Oligarchs who knit themselves into the murderous imperial power structure like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Miriam Adelson and Larry Ellison are violent extremists.

The Democratic Party is a violent extremist organization. The Republican Party is a violent extremist organization.

War profiteers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are violent extremist organizations.

Empire management firms which facilitate imperial violence and control like Palantir, Oracle and Starlink are violent extremist organizations.

There is no designated terrorist group foreign or domestic which can hold a candle to the death toll and human suffering that has been inflicted by the western empire.

No doubt!

Since it become a bit of a thing to post National Post stories here these days.

The National Post systematically rewrites wire stories to include loaded anti-Palestinian language, omit the context of occupation, and frame stories around Israeli viewpoints, a comprehensive data analysis shows.

The groups Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) and The Media Bias Project of Tech for Palestine (T4P) analyzed 197 Canadian Press (CP) news stories about Palestine and compared them to the version published by the National Post. The data gathered drew from articles published between October 9, 2023, to September 18, 2024.

Bernie: “I want to, if I might—I want to add a point to that very good question,” he said, standing up from his chair and walking toward the front of the stage. “It may be a little bit out of place here, but I want to do it. I find it a little bit strange that when we have a candidate who competed very hard, as did a number of other people in the Democratic primary—”

He turned to Mamdani.

“My understanding is you won that primary. Is that correct?” Sanders asked.

Mamdani nodded.

“My understanding is you are the Democratic Party candidate for mayor of the city of New York. Is that correct?”

Mamdani nodded again.

“Now, apropos that question: I find it hard to understand how the major Democratic leaders in New York State are not supporting the Democratic candidate,” Sanders continued. “One might think—one might think!—that if a candidate starting at 2 percent in the polls gets 50,000 volunteers, creates enormous excitement, gets young people involved in the political process, gets non-traditional voters to vote, Democratic leaders would be jumping up and down! ‘This is our guy!’”

The senator seemed to be saying what everyone else was thinking. The response from the crowd was surpassed, perhaps, only by Sanders’ earlier condemnation of American weapons sales in Israel. And the two sentiments are not really unrelated—in the case of both Israel and Mamdani, high-profile Democrats are substantially out of step with Democratic voters, and well-funded attempts to weaponize Mamdani’s criticism of Israel in the primary only served to underscore the qualities that made him appealing to voters.

Over the past 22 months, the war in Gaza has become the most deadly conflict for journalists in history.

Last week, five Palestinian journalists – Hussam al-Masri, Mariam Abu Dagga, Mohammed Salama, Ahmed Abu Aziz and Moaz Abu Taha – were killed in a double strike on Nasser hospital by the Israeli military, bringing the total number of journalists and media workers killed in this conflict since October 2023 to at least 189, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Other groups put the tally far higher.

Just one week before, another four Al Jazeera journalists and two freelancers were killed by a targeted Israeli strike on their tent outside al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it deliberately targeted the Al Jazeera crew – the correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who had reported on the war since its outset, the reporter Mohammed Qreiqeh, the cameraman Ibrahim Zaher, and Mohammed Noufal, a crew driver and cameraman. The IDF claimed it had evidence that Sharif was a Hamas terrorist.

The CPJ and other organisations say that this claim is part of a pattern of misinformation – along with other cases where slain journalists have been labelled as Hamas fighters or operatives – and is without credibility.

The Israeli military has prevented international journalists from entering and reporting on the war, and has decimated Gaza’s own media community. Under international law, journalists should be protected civilians, yet the CPJ says that Israel is “engaging in the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented”.

“Palestinian journalists are being threatened, directly targeted and murdered by Israeli forces, and are arbitrarily detained and tortured in retaliation for their work. By silencing the press – those who document and bear witness – Israel is silencing the war,” the organisation said.