Thank you very much for posting

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2025, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

This is from an email I got from Bernie a while back, regarding the anti-oligarchy tour.
To states that the "Couch Patriot" party leaders dare not go.
IT IS NOT a complete platform, just issues that hit hardest and which resonate with millions of people.

Run like a new-deal Democrat. On all other issues, run exactly like Kamala did.

The older generation thinks they are fine. Until the housing market, and stock market tank. Then they will come screaming with the rest of us.

policies, the party would be much stronger, as it was during the time of FDR.

Nor would they support the illegal internment of Japanese Americans or ignoring the mass murder of Jews or the sending in the army to break up a legal strike by a union or funneling huge amounts of tax payer money to create the military industrial complex.

Yeah it’s hard to imagine an FDR these days and that is what the doctor orders.

The left also need to take women’s rights seriously again.

The idiotic girlboss era has made it too easy for a stealth “throw Karen under the bus” dynamic of misogyny to quietly emerge. A worldview that falls into the old error and fails to recognize that most older, childfree women or female victims of sexual harassment at the hands of men with power over them are not villainous Karens or girlbosses, but people with real problems.

I was always opposed to a specific repellant take that I see correctly castigated as “woke capitalism” as it allows for stealthy prejudices
to get baked into a leftish worldview.

A specific and bullshit take on feminism and anti racism has such negative effects that I can’t help feeling it is an effective and malicious tactic that worked to represent the larger, quieter left as so obnoxious and unrelatable that it helped the right.

FDR was an interventionist who pushed the idea of democratic exceptionalism in the international arena. He would be hated by a lot on the left despite his anti-colonialist rhetoric.

Economically, FDR was also a free trader who supported open markets and significant trade deals, which puts him at odds with this wing of the party who support a good amount of Trump's tariffs.

A check to check person spends their money wuick and local. Some wealthy person gets extra they are in no rush to spend it. And when they do it is often just shuffling it around their own closed circle. This is basic evonomics.

making the wealthy more so will improve the average person's life...no wonder they think we are dumb

When all voters are considered socialism is only seen favorably by 39%. Capitalism get 54%. Its still a sure loser in most states or nationally. And just wait for the hatchet job that will be done on any socialist who gets big enough to worry the elites. The party needs to concentrate on stopping Fascism for now.

All of the imbalances in our society are because of unregulated corporations who have gotten away with literal murder for decades. They have created a new nobility in the ultra-rich, as well as their career politician cronies, and that same group is conspiring to keep the rest of us at a certain level to insure both their positioning and our compliance in their positioning.

You remove the cause, you remove the regime as well as any chance of another group of animals getting to the top. The party should be working on that.

Why just fix one thing when we could fix most of it?

And Fascism that could have been stopped will thrive on.

Considering how many times I have been told that I am being negative.

Or, as Yoda once put it:

So certain, are you?

or why they told you that.

As far as being certain: If I didn't firmly believe what I was telling you was right I would not have said it. I can be persuaded I'm wrong with facts, evidence or logic. I've yielded more times than I can count. But you haven't given me anything convincing.

I don't believe the world is as bad as some think it is.

We can point out to other successful and/or failed attempts at altering a government or a society till we are both blue in the face.

You said yourself that you 'believe' your position is correct. You expect me to offer logic, facts, and evidence, and yet you use belief as your position. Unfortunately, 'belief' is not a basis for a 'certainty'. Plus, while we are in what can basically be described as 'uncharted waters', using belief as a basis of stability is not going to work. Ask anyone from the Dark Ages.

I have been told I was being negative because I have been saying that things like what is currently happening with ICE and with the D.C. situation would happen. I have been told I am being negative because I am not on board with just returning things to the way they were before that orange gibbon got elected the first time. Which is absolutely imperative for those who are already in the 'clique', so to speak, to remain there. My position is that the 'clique' needs to go. Now. All of it. However, most here do not share this position. Mainly because there is really only one way to remove that clique and it would involve some hardship. So, we won't even consider it. We'd rather suffer the hardships of being ruled by a fascist regime than suffer a more controlled situation by devaluing the thing that has created this horror show so that we can remove the stranglehold that the wealthy have on power as well as certain other aspects of our society. Which is also very odd to myself. I was not aware that Americans were so into Masochism. I would think that being the ones controlling the change would be better than trying to pick up the pieces after an out of control change. Maybe that is just me.

The 'world' is not what is bad. Humans are the issue. But, even if it is not 'as bad', I do not see the wisdom in deciding not to improve things when given the opportunity.

And, it appears that I am in the minority on that one as well.

You said you 'believe' that this will fail. You also offered no factual evidence that my suggested course of action would fail, just your belief that it would.

So, we are both in the same boat, I guess.

Except, I want to try new things because the old ones are not working anymore, and in fact bear real responsibility for our current state of affairs. (What was it Einstein said about insanity?)

Something has to change. Something has to give. Trying the same things over and over is not going to make things better. I want things to get better.

How about you?

Because they seldom win. How well did Bernie do last time? We are always evolving. Right now there are some very good generic election polls. We have powerful issues to use against Trump. The best thing we can do is stick together and not fight with each other.

i said logic. I believe I'm applying that.

focus on the policies and the large donors will be overruled every time.

I know that scares certain people. Tough.

I love being a rank and file liberal Democrat!

Thanks for the thread Celerity.

I just listened to Ezra Klein on the Blocks podcast(Neal Brennan) where they talk-among other things-about exactly this. Quite a good take, I think.

Only took 10 years. I'm "All in"

meaningful alternative to fascism.

Or what's the point? Going back to the same old same old, which was always inevitably going to lead here when our opponents have no regard for democracy or political norms?

The American Prospect is hardly an unbiased source.

The American Prospect is a print and online publication “promoting informed discussion on public policy from a progressive perspective.”

The idea to simply discuss a new more popular direction for the party is .......too radical for you?

Someone is going to take hold and run on them in 2028

$30 per hour minimum wage

National rent freezes

Free child care for all

Free mass transportation

Nationalize grocery stores

We had a great candidate in Kamala. We have great candidates at the local and national levels. If our higher-ups and old guard can’t get with the times, we are done.

and from what I have seen, you have nailed what the issue is.

Something has to change. And I fully support making our future better for EVERYONE!

Someone needs to forward this information to the DNC, CHUCK SCHUMER, AND HAKEEM JEFFRIES.

They seem to refuse to put their prescribed methods aside for the benefit of the country, and the urgent need to save our Democracy.

Last edited Wed Sep 10, 2025, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Been with Bernie ALWAYS (being a Jewish New-Yorker, naturally,) AOL since the first time I've heard her, and Zohran NATURALLY!!!

NOT sure about remaining Dems, tho; feeling more Lefty.

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2025, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

that needs to change is to get the money out of politics. What was so wrong when it was a limited amount on how much you could contribute to someone? Everyone had an equal voice.

And what is so wrong with going further left? The right went much further right with a con man, and look where we're at now.

Having progressive policies? Does anyone have a problem with Healthcare for all? Free education? Fair taxation?

We have to win the next several elections, or democracy is toast. Now is the time to act. We're running out of time every day, as nothing seems to be moving in the right direction. Too many politicians sitting on their hands. It's time for a huge change. Why is it that only progressive democrats are the only people going across this country to stop oligarchy? We need new people, new ideas, new thoughts, and get the damn money out of politics.

Let's take our democracy back.

Neat article. Tfp.
I should at some point read seriously exactly what socialism is since I am unclear on its specifics though I generally view it positively, where I get hung up is on the question of private property.

I am not American, through the work-relevant portion of my higher education comes from my American grad and postdoc schools (the specific labs I worked in primarily).

I have been solidly white collar, middleclass all my life. My dad is an ex military officer/ex vet and my mom was a bureaucrat/banker - they both had/have science backgrounds/pensions and I am their only child. And we have some private property (some of which has been in our family for at least a century). So if I am far from the oligarchy, I am also not poor.

But my parents only had one kid and we live pretty frugally and don’t have several cars like some of our middle class neighbours and we are basically honest people.

In the last 14 years I feel that a stealthy push driven by private sector technocrats and the corrupt parts of the state has basically ignored my property rights (iminent domain could apply here) and with hijacking of my home, devices and data has pushed me to the brink. This is not the recycling based economy. It is rapacious mining and exploitation and 14 years of it so far.

I am extremely angry and pondering what legal recourse there is when this Robinhood style redistribution in an unequal world starts with an innocuous middleclass family that never exploited anyone and is not aggressive/aggressively litigious. Apparently that signaled to a lot of very creepy, harassing, parasitic, corrupt and shameless people from my country at least that we are “suckers and patsies”.

That creep Alex Pentland was part of the push to implement the digital id system in my country and with Google declarations and the Pentland worldview I am aghast at the scale of plunder this was.

Obviously that doesn’t apply to calls for all these tech oligarchs driving this shit to be taxed and regulated.

Sorry..went off on a tangent. ;-/.

1. Take a poll of the big Democratic DONORS and you’ll see why “leading Democrats” are not in line with polls of VOTERS.

2. The term “socialist” does not mean the same thing to the general public. Left leaners think Scandinavian countries high standard of living and quality of life.. Right leaners think South America and economic collapse.

Farmers in Arkansas are begging for a bailout. 0% of them would say they’re supporting socialism.

3. Remember the ERA? At the time, a famous national poll asked (1) do you support the ERA? and later in the poll (2) do you agree with this statement? [the statement WAS the ERA word for word]

Something like 50% said yes to #1, while over 80% said yes to #2.

It’s the same issue with “socialism”, they say they’re opposed to it (the term) but they love their Social Security and Medicare.

The Dems either need a different term or they need to take control of the message.

That’s why millions of small-dollar donations are critical.

Small money donors react positively to leaders if/when those leaders create change.
Big money donors are always working to prevent such change.

It's all in the framing/messaging; we've been losing that fight for a number of years (partly because we are tied to wonky, policy driven positions instead of snappy tag lines and partly because corporate takeover of the media, aided by flood of money in politics, drowns out/distorts our messaging). Our party needs to change the way it messages, and prioritize combatting media concentration and money in politics. One concrete idea: pack the court and overturn Citizen United (among many other decisions).

More specifically the people with money. The donor class is not at all a fan of this rising faction of Democrats, and the corpora-crats aren't too happy about having to choose between the people and the money. But they need to be reminded that doing nothing is a choice too, and we are watching.

. . . you will find that post deleted ASAP and a stern warning issued re: "Do not attack the donor-class Democratoc party leadership."

There are none so blind as those who will not see... or listen... or learn....

and learning right now...including those in "leadership".

No room for mistakes, right now.

can we not refer to it as Social Democracy instead of the toxic (to many) Democratic Socialism?

The Democratic politicians talking about socialism were not themselves wealthy. Bernie is not struggling. He’s amassed wealth from somewhere. Mamdani is wealthy from his parents. AOC still claims to be on the poorer side.

...Welfare Deformed only put low income (mostly) women in lifelong poverty. This was cheered along by established Democrats who purposefully misunderstood (IMO) that poverty is an institute. Institutions are kept in place because they benefit someone. Here is the definition of an Institution from the Marriam Dictionary:
a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture the institution of marriage
also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing
Who does the poverty institute benefit? Unlike the haters of those in poverty, they refuse to acknowledge the truth. The Poverty Institute certainly does not the benefit the poor. The institution of poverty is kept in order to employ and include those in the upper classes. such as the legal system, medical, social services, housing, food, all of these are part of the Poverty Institute

In the 1980s a man in Venezuela stood on the top of the garbage mountains and told those people, that not only were they far more numerous, they were also losing all the resources of their country, which gave them away to the richest and other companies from foreign entities. He said if they all voted they would win and be able to benefit from those resources. So they did vote and won, stunning the country and the world who never even counted him as a real candidate.

He did turn out to be a kook, but he did inspire the least among his country to vote as a block and win. His name was Ugo Chavez. The point I am making here is that, if the Dems stopped hating and blaming the poor from whom they benefit, they would win in a landslide. And this is why they are so afraid of that part of the country and try to shut them up. They just won't admit to their own benefit from those in poverty and embrace this population.

Say or do whatever you like but the truth is this is the way Dems could win if they took off their blinders.

My 2 cents, Cat from Seattle

that they are either invisible (and not trying to be visible) or when they speak, it's mostly monotone robotic talking points, lacking passion and any way of breaking through and fighting back.

I'm not saying that they are doing nothing, but we are in a unique, tragic and dangerous time, and we need leaders who meet this moment.

I mean the big donors. The ones at the top writing the really big checks.

Campaign.Finance.Reform

"I went to college but still don't know what all these words mean"? But regular Democrats are the elitists who don't know what's going on?

Okay then, good luck with that revolution based on insulting Democrats with big words.