“10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guy, but today the tables have completely turned.”

This implies he thinks the Reps are now the party of the little guy, which in the context of going after Big Tech sounds like an endorsement. This isn’t a “The Dems have failed us, but maybe the Reps will come through for once” in acknowledgement that the Reps are at least just as deep in corporate pockets, it’s an implication that the coin has flipped entirely.

“[T]he current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.”

Again, sounds like he thinks rhe Trump admin did well, or at least seems to defend them.

Also, both parties have gotten worse. Did you not see the Democrats saying that they were pro fracking and genocide a few months ago?

Oh no, I was completely agreeing with you on that. That’s my point: the table hasn’t turned, it has moved.

But, on the issue being discussed (antitrust) it does appear that the tables have turned. Well, at least for this pick.

The pick is meaningless until it produces results. If I make a gesture of donating to charity, except that charity just ends up lining my pockets again, my generosity is a farce to make me look good without actually sacrificing much. In this case, the pick is a wonderful way to pretend he’s doing something good, while…

Probably, as you say, any of her actions will be blocked for billionaires who paid off Trump (as would certainly be the case for the Dems too)

…knowing that nothing will actually change as long as his cronies sit on the courts.
Hence: I’ll believe that the tables have turned when that turn becomes visible rather than a vapid gesture.

And a CEO should most certainly know these mechanisms better than me, not to mention all the other points he’s so conveniently ignoring.