Today in Fascism

Please do not let this story about Donald Trump cowardly running away from Air Force One to hide in a catering vehicle, leaving everyone else to potentially be targets of a dangerous attack aimed at him, get swept under the rug, because there’s more to it than I think many people might realize.

Look, I understand that a president’s safety is first and foremost on the minds of the Secret Service, and for the sake of national security, it doesn’t matter who that person might be.

That said, the fact that, prior to his departure from Turkey, Trump went on social media to announce that he would be using the old Air Force One rather than his new Qatar plane — when he knew he wasn’t going to be on either — is, in my opinion, the bigger part of this story.

Why make that announcement at all?

Unless you’re Trump, and you’re hoping to divert any potential attack toward the old Air Force One rather than your new, shiny luxury Qatar plane.

And, hey, that plane is full of reporters, most of whom he hates anyway, so who cares what happens to them, right?

I know that sounds dark, morbid, and fairly conspiratorial, but what other reason would Trump have for making that social media post in which he oddly announced that he would be flying on the old plane rather than his new one?

It was unnecessary.

They could have done all of this without any attention-seeking post by Trump containing some lie about showing off his new plane to troops in the U.K. who were supposedly “begging” to see it.

They could have just boarded, left, and done whatever they were going to do to transport Trump safely, and that would have been that.

Except it seems like Trump really wanted to make it clear to any potential attackers that, if they were going to target a plane, they should make sure not to go after his new, shiny luxury Qatar airplane — but instead make sure they targeted the old one, full of reporters and other apparently disposable White House staffers.

Maybe that’s just me being a bit too cynical after dealing with this lowlife piece of crap for over a decade, but is it really so far-fetched to believe that Trump’s main concern, other than saving himself, would be protecting a plane he really wanted and finally had painted just the way he has always wanted an Air Force One to be painted, just for him?

I don’t think that it is.

This is someone who mocked the death of Rob Reiner, publicly celebrated the passing of Robert Mueller, and said he didn’t feel sorry for Joe Biden having terminal cancer. There’s really no low to which this scumbag won’t stoop as long as it benefits his interests.

And if putting a plane full of reporters and other White House staffers in harm’s way, while he ran away on a catering truck to safety and his new, shiny Qatar plane was no longer the focal point of a potential attack, meant making that post declaring that he would be on the old Air Force One — then I think that’s exactly what Trump would do.

Again, maybe I’m being overly cynical — which is entirely possible — but I don’t believe that I am.

I’m not saying this is why Donald Trump made that post. All I’m saying is that, based on what I’ve seen from this scumbag all these years, that’s what I think his social media post was largely about.

Protecting himself and his shiny new Qatar plane — while leaving everyone else on board that old Air Force One in danger.

Because, yes, I do think Donald Trump is that much of a sick, disgusting, lowlife piece of sh*t. ~ AC
 
Bazby killers --

1786475280980.png
 
watfly said:
Fauci has done more to damage science then any other person in American history...he had a lot of help though.

I'll say it for the umpteenth time, the opinion of a scientist, doctor, "expert" in their field is not science, it's still just an opinion. Science isn't a set of facts, science is a process, and if done correctly a rigorous and independent process. Most people don't understand this.
Click to expand...
Idilot.
 
Desert Hound said:
He of course is talking about himself.

His news sources that spoon feed him the D talking points are avoiding and not reporting what has been found.

Here is an example of why the public lost trust in the "experts"...sorry @dad4

View attachment 40227

View attachment 40228
Click to expand...
Shit, in the body of bad acts committed by Fauci, this might not even make top ten. Not that it isn't a serious breach of trust, is just hard to compete against his other heinous acts. It's not that Espola doesn't know about the other bad acts, its just that he chooses to ignore them because that's what he is told to do.

The great irony is that the forum's grammar chief of police mispelled his single word response. I always find that forum insults are more effective if they're spelled right.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Please do not let this story about Donald Trump cowardly running away from Air Force One to hide in a catering vehicle, leaving everyone else to potentially be targets of a dangerous attack aimed at him, get swept under the rug, because there’s more to it than I think many people might realize.

Look, I understand that a president’s safety is first and foremost on the minds of the Secret Service, and for the sake of national security, it doesn’t matter who that person might be.

That said, the fact that, prior to his departure from Turkey, Trump went on social media to announce that he would be using the old Air Force One rather than his new Qatar plane — when he knew he wasn’t going to be on either — is, in my opinion, the bigger part of this story.

Why make that announcement at all?

Unless you’re Trump, and you’re hoping to divert any potential attack toward the old Air Force One rather than your new, shiny luxury Qatar plane.

And, hey, that plane is full of reporters, most of whom he hates anyway, so who cares what happens to them, right?

I know that sounds dark, morbid, and fairly conspiratorial, but what other reason would Trump have for making that social media post in which he oddly announced that he would be flying on the old plane rather than his new one?

It was unnecessary.

They could have done all of this without any attention-seeking post by Trump containing some lie about showing off his new plane to troops in the U.K. who were supposedly “begging” to see it.

They could have just boarded, left, and done whatever they were going to do to transport Trump safely, and that would have been that.

Except it seems like Trump really wanted to make it clear to any potential attackers that, if they were going to target a plane, they should make sure not to go after his new, shiny luxury Qatar airplane — but instead make sure they targeted the old one, full of reporters and other apparently disposable White House staffers.

Maybe that’s just me being a bit too cynical after dealing with this lowlife piece of crap for over a decade, but is it really so far-fetched to believe that Trump’s main concern, other than saving himself, would be protecting a plane he really wanted and finally had painted just the way he has always wanted an Air Force One to be painted, just for him?

I don’t think that it is.

This is someone who mocked the death of Rob Reiner, publicly celebrated the passing of Robert Mueller, and said he didn’t feel sorry for Joe Biden having terminal cancer. There’s really no low to which this scumbag won’t stoop as long as it benefits his interests.

And if putting a plane full of reporters and other White House staffers in harm’s way, while he ran away on a catering truck to safety and his new, shiny Qatar plane was no longer the focal point of a potential attack, meant making that post declaring that he would be on the old Air Force One — then I think that’s exactly what Trump would do.

Again, maybe I’m being overly cynical — which is entirely possible — but I don’t believe that I am.

I’m not saying this is why Donald Trump made that post. All I’m saying is that, based on what I’ve seen from this scumbag all these years, that’s what I think his social media post was largely about.

Protecting himself and his shiny new Qatar plane — while leaving everyone else on board that old Air Force One in danger.

Because, yes, I do think Donald Trump is that much of a sick, disgusting, lowlife piece of sh*t. ~ AC
Click to expand...
So you got spoon fed your talking points...again.

Apparently you have been unaware all of your life that when the Prez is deemed at risk...the secret service removes him. Leaves everyone else.

So nothing changed from past protocol. The only difference is the clapping seals receiving their daily dose of TDS didn't know this. And so repeat D talking points above.
 
Congratulations! Donald Trump has been awarded a ten-foot gold participation trophy for the Iran war. It appeared in Foley Square in Lower Manhattan on July 29, spray-painted, with a number one on its side. More than three dozen smaller awards sat around the base. Ribbons. Novelty trophies. A WWE championship belt.

The plaque reads: "We hereby award President Donald J. Trump this participation trophy for his enthusiastic involvement in the Iran War. While some concern themselves with military strategy, diplomacy, or measurable outcomes, President Trump demonstrated the courage to participate regardless of the final score."

And below that: "President Trump joins the ranks of children everywhere who received recognition for simply showing up."

The square is a few blocks from the courthouse where he was tried on thirty-four felony counts.

The artists call themselves the Secret Handshake. Nobody knows who they are. They have put up roughly a dozen installations around Washington over the past twenty months, including a twelve-foot statue of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands, and a golden toilet near the Lincoln Memorial mocking the White House renovations.

This one stood on the National Mall first, back on July 13, before making the trip north.

Their statement called it "the largest ever awarded to a sitting president," and described it as "an attempt to de-escalate the conflict through positive reinforcement." They invited New Yorkers to add awards of their own, noting that "no accomplishment is too distant, too small, or too unearned to bestow on President Trump."

A 79-year-old woman named Maren Stange stopped on her way to the subway, bent down to read the inscription, and laughed.

The president's press office issued a statement about the trophy.

"These untalented 'artists,'" spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, "should stick to their ugly 'art' and refrain from weighing in on foreign policy."

They could’ve ignored a trophy.

But they couldn't help themselves.
—
IMG_9730.jpeg
 
Desert Hound said:
So you got spoon fed your talking points...again.

Apparently you have been unaware all of your life that when the Prez is deemed at risk...the secret service removes him. Leaves everyone else.

So nothing changed from past protocol. The only difference is the clapping seals receiving their daily dose of TDS didn't know this. And so repeat D talking points above.
Click to expand...
He made a point of making the legacy AF1 a target. An AF1 loaded with staff and journalists. He could have kept his mouth shut. He is a complete POS. We all see it.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
He made a point of making the legacy AF1 a target. An AF1 loaded with staff and journalists. He could have kept his mouth shut. He is a complete POS. We all see it.
Click to expand...
So let's unwrap your TDS.

How did he make AF1 a target?

The press is the one that didn't keep their mouth shut. They have now disclosed one of the ways Presidents may be moved when intelligence seems there may be a threat.

The press should not have done that. How presidents are protected applies to members of both parties.
 
Desert Hound said:
So let's unwrap your TDS.

How did he make AF1 a target?

The press is the one that didn't keep their mouth shut. They have now disclosed one of the ways Presidents may be moved when intelligence seems there may be a threat.

The press should not have done that. How presidents are protected applies to members of both parties.
Click to expand...
You really are a simpleminded individual.
 
We saw the gaudy towers, the gold-plated insecurity, the tabloid theatrics, the constant need to be seen as richer, tougher, smarter, and more important than everyone else in the room. We saw a man performing success because the truth behind the performance was never quite enough.

By the time The Apprentice arrived, many of us were not fooled by the made-for-TV fantasy. The show sold a carefully manufactured image of a brilliant, decisive billionaire. But New York already knew the history: bankrupt casinos, failed ventures, inherited wealth burned through or leveraged into spectacle, contractors fighting to get paid, marriages marked by infidelity, and a lifetime of lies told so often they became his preferred language.

We knew about the discrimination allegations against Black and Latino tenants. We knew about the scams, the stiffed workers, the inflated claims, the lawsuits, the endless self-promotion. We knew that every public act was driven by the same bottomless need: to be admired, feared, validated—and maybe, somewhere deep down, finally approved of by a father whose shadow he spent his entire life trying to outrun.

So no, this is not “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

It is memory. It is pattern recognition. It is judging a man by the mountain of evidence he has built around himself for decades.

The country did not discover some mysterious new version of Donald Trump in 2016. It elevated a familiar New York character: a deeply insecure con man with a talent for branding, a hunger for attention, and absolutely no hesitation about hurting people if it gets him another headline.

Some of us were never impressed because we had already seen behind the curtain.
IMG_9731.jpeg
 
A map back to the strength we once had


Democratic Capitalism: Ike Warned Us. Abdul Is Asking Us to Listen.

The military-industrial complex won. Corporate power followed. The fight now is not capitalism versus socialism. It is democracy versus concentrated power.

Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican, a five-star general, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and nobody’s idea of a socialist revolutionary. Yet Eisenhower understood something much of modern America has forgotten: capitalism cannot remain truly free when economic and institutional power becomes strong enough to dominate democracy.

He warned us, and we did not listen.

In his farewell address, Eisenhower warned of the growing power of what he called the military-industrial complex. That phrase mattered because his warning was not simply about the military. It was about the marriage of military power with industrial power: enormous private corporations dependent upon government spending, government institutions dependent upon those corporations, political districts dependent upon the jobs they created, and an expanding network of money, technology, lobbying, research, and political influence capable of shaping national policy.

He warned that this combination could acquire what he called unwarranted influence and endanger democratic government.

Look around today and the verdict is hard to avoid.

The military-industrial complex won.

That does not mean America’s soldiers are the problem. The problem is the machinery surrounding them. Weapons manufacturers depend on government contracts. Congressional districts depend on weapons manufacturers. Lobbyists influence Congress. Contractors move into government and government officials move into contracting. Every international crisis arrives in Washington surrounded by institutions that become larger, richer, or more powerful when the answer is another weapons system, another deployment, another military commitment.

Eisenhower’s warning reached beyond weapons alone because the real danger was the concentration of private economic power joined to public authority. The danger was what happens when government and powerful industries become so intertwined that the institutions supposedly being regulated gain enormous influence over the people doing the regulating.

Defense showed us the model first.

Other industries learned from it.

Banks became too big to fail. Pharmaceutical companies grew powerful enough to influence the rules governing pharmaceuticals. Insurance companies inserted themselves between doctors and patients. Technology corporations accumulated extraordinary control over information and communication. Private equity learned how to turn almost anything into an asset to strip, leverage, consolidate, or sell. Corporations swallowed competitors while politicians kept chanting about the virtues of competition.

Then we were told this was the free market.

There is nothing particularly free about a market controlled by a handful of giants. There is nothing conservative about allowing corporations to become powerful enough to shape the laws governing themselves. There is nothing democratic about ordinary Americans getting one vote every few years while concentrated wealth gets access to government every day.

This is where the argument being made by Abdul El-Sayed becomes far more interesting than the lazy word socialist thrown at him by his opponents.

Abdul is not proposing that government seize every restaurant, machine shop, farm, grocery store, or family business in America. He is asking a much older American question:

Who is the economy supposed to serve?

That question would not have frightened Franklin Roosevelt.

It would not have frightened Dwight Eisenhower.

FDR confronted capitalism at the moment capitalism was destroying itself. Banks had collapsed. Workers were desperate. Fortunes were concentrated at the top while millions had almost nothing. Roosevelt did not abolish private enterprise. He put guardrails around it through Social Security, banking regulation, labor protections, public works, progressive taxation, infrastructure, and rules against financial abuse.

The radical left complained that Roosevelt had saved capitalism.

They were right.

He did.

Eisenhower inherited much of that architecture and did not tear it apart. The Republican president who commanded Allied armies did not arrive in Washington screaming that Social Security was communism. He did not declare every public investment Marxism. He presided over massive infrastructure construction and accepted a tax structure that would cause today’s corporate lobbying class to reach for oxygen.

There was once a broadly understood American bargain. You could become wealthy. You could build a company. You could invent something. You could invest, compete, own property, and make a fortune.

But your fortune did not buy sovereignty.

The country still belonged to the people.

That bargain has been steadily reversed.

Today the worker is told to compete globally while capital can move wherever it chooses. Families are told government cannot afford healthcare while Washington somehow finds staggering sums for war. Small businesses supposedly represent capitalism while enormous corporations receive subsidies, tax advantages, government contracts, and rules written by armies of lobbyists.

Then somebody proposes universal healthcare or asking billionaires to pay more in taxes and suddenly we are warned that communism is around the corner.

Enough.

The argument Abdul El-Sayed represents is not fundamentally about abolishing capitalism. It is about democratizing it.

I would go further.

I think we should call it democratic capitalism.

Capitalism is the engine.

Democracy holds the steering wheel.

Markets are extraordinarily useful. They can encourage innovation, reward risk, distribute information, and create enormous wealth. I have lived enough life and spent enough time around business to know that entrepreneurs are not enemies of society. Small businesses, independent tradespeople, inventors, and family enterprises are among the healthiest parts of capitalism.

But capitalism is not a religion.

Markets do not possess consciences. Corporations do not have souls. Capital flows toward return, not justice.

That is why democracy matters.

Government establishes the playing field. Citizens establish the rules. Workers have rights. Monopolies are restrained. Infrastructure is built. Children are educated. The elderly are protected. Healthcare should not depend on whether illness fits somebody else’s quarterly earnings target.

None of that requires abolishing capitalism. It requires remembering that capitalism exists inside democracy, not the other way around.

That is the thread connecting Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Abdul El-Sayed, and people like me who have watched this country drift toward something increasingly difficult to call either democratic or capitalist.

I am not interested in replacing one ruling class with another. I do not want corporations ruling us, billionaires ruling us, bureaucrats ruling us, or party establishments ruling us.

I want citizens ruling themselves.

That is democracy.

Democracy becomes hollow when concentrations of private wealth grow powerful enough to determine which candidates are viable, which laws get written, which industries get rescued, which wars receive funding, and which human needs are declared unaffordable.

Eisenhower saw one of the most dangerous forms of that machinery taking shape. The military side supplied the mission. The industrial side supplied the money, production, contracts, jobs, lobbying, and institutional weight. Together they created a permanent center of power capable of exerting influence far beyond any single election.

That is the lesson.

Then came the financial complex, the pharmaceutical complex, the insurance complex, the technology complex, and the private-equity complex. Different industries, same danger: concentrated power accumulating beyond meaningful democratic control.

This is why Abdul matters beyond one politician or one election. His candidacy raises a question America is going to have to answer whether the political establishment likes it or not.

Can democracy regain authority over concentrated wealth? Can healthcare become a human necessity instead of primarily a profit center? Can workers regain enough bargaining power to share in the prosperity they create? Can small businesses compete against corporations capable of manipulating markets and government at the same time?

Can Americans once again tell corporations, defense contractors, banks, and billionaires:

You may become powerful in America. You may not become more powerful than America.

That is not communism.

It is not authoritarian socialism.

It is not particularly radical.

What is radical is the system we have gradually accepted: extraordinary private fortunes alongside people rationing medicine, workers producing more while struggling to afford housing, corporations receiving government protection while citizens are told to fend for themselves, and endless military spending treated as realism while universal healthcare is dismissed as fantasy.

We privatize the profits, socialize the losses, and still call the arrangement a free market.

That system does not need defending.

It needs changing.

Eisenhower understood that military power fused with industrial power could acquire influence strong enough to threaten republican government. Roosevelt understood that capitalism sometimes has to be restrained in order to survive. Abdul El-Sayed represents a generation asking whether those lessons still mean anything.



White Rose
August 10, 2026
 
The most insane part of the Trump catering cart story isn't that he hid in a food truck. It's that he used a plane full of reporters and staff as a decoy against a credible threat on his own life.

Think about that for a second.

The Secret Service comes to you and says there is a real, specific plot to kill you tonight, and the danger is the plane. You have two choices. Keep everyone on the ground until it's safe. Or send the plane up anyway, with other people on it, so the killers aim at the wrong target while you slip out on a second aircraft.

He chose the second one. On purpose. As the plan.

In Ankara last month, Trump climbed the stairs of the old Air Force One in full view of the cameras, waved, and slipped back out a side door. A catering truck, the kind that loads meal carts before takeoff, raised its container to the far side of the jet, took him aboard, and drove off across the tarmac.

Airport footage shows it vanish from view for about forty seconds before reaching a smaller military plane. He flew to Britain on that one with Pete Hegseth.

The 747 he'd posed on took off without him. A jumbo jet sent up into the sky as bait.
And it wasn't only the press on it. The New York Times says Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on that plane. So was Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. So was Stephen Miller. So was Steven Cheung, the communications director who would later put out the statement defending the whole thing.

More than a hundred people, told nothing, sent up as cover.

Now the part that should end the argument. Asked about it afterward, Trump admitted the plane he left them on was the one at greater risk, because that, he figured, was the one they'd go for.

So he knew. He looked at the aircraft he believed was more likely to be shot out of the sky, loaded it with his own cabinet and a cabin full of journalists, told them to close their shades, and walked to the safer plane.

Picture being on it. You think the president is forty feet up the aisle. He isn't. A Secret Service agent keeps coming back to make sure your shade stays down. Politico's Megan Messerly filed her note that night: wheels up from Ankara, shades closed, see you on the other side. She didn't know she was the decoy.

Senator Richard Blumenthal is now demanding a congressional briefing, asking what anyone did to protect the people left on the plane that was judged too dangerous for the president. The White House has no answer.

When the press finally got to ask why they'd flown blind in a sealed cabin, Trump grinned. They were on a dangerous flight, he said, because of the sleazebags he has to deal with. Then came the line.

"I'm number one on their list, before you. But if I go, you go. Right?"

Except he didn't go. He was never going. He was on the other plane the whole time. -the other 98%

I will add that if aware of the threat the pilots are guilty of obeying an illegal order as the civilians on board were not notified of the risk. Our military doesn’t do that.
 
In the following essay, White Rose suggests an interesting experiment between MAGA & the rest of us. I'd love to think that both sides are capable of seeking some common ground, while accepting that we'll still disagree on other issues. That shouldn't make us enemies. It just makes us Americans.

Maybe this is where we start. It's an interesting idea to get us off dead center. We have to move from there eventually if we want to save our democratic republic.

Here's what White Rose had to say…

***************

"Dear MAGA: Let’s Look for Where We Agree

"Dear MAGA,

"We spend an extraordinary amount of time yelling at each other. Maybe it is worth trying something different.

"I am a democratic socialist. Many of you hear those words and immediately think communist, government control, or some political philosophy completely opposed to everything you believe. I hear “MAGA” and have my own concerns about where that movement has gone.

"But before we begin another argument, I want to ask a more interesting question.

"What if we are looking at some of the same problems through different lenses?

"You believe working Americans have been forgotten. So do I.

"For decades, corporations shut factories, moved jobs overseas, broke unions, abandoned towns and then told displaced workers that globalization was simply the price of progress. Wall Street prospered. A lot of places in Michigan and across the industrial Midwest did not.

"You call that America Last.

"I call it corporate capitalism without adequate democratic restraint.

"Different language. Same abandoned factory.

"You distrust a political establishment that seems far more responsive to wealthy donors, lobbyists and corporations than ordinary citizens. So do I. Whether the money comes from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors or multinational corporations, neither of us should want a government that is effectively rented by the highest bidder.

"You talk about draining the swamp.

"I talk about breaking oligarchic power.

"Maybe we should at least admit we are pointing toward the same swamp.

"Many of you are tired of endless wars. So am I. I served my country. I do not believe patriotism requires sending another generation of young Americans halfway around the world every time Washington discovers another country it wants to remake.

"Defend America? Absolutely.

"Protect Americans? Absolutely.

"Police the entire planet indefinitely? No.

"I suspect considerably more MAGA voters agree with me on that than Washington politicians from either party would like to admit.

"You worry that America no longer makes enough of what it needs. I agree. A country that cannot manufacture essential medicines, electronics, machinery, energy infrastructure and defense supplies has surrendered part of its sovereignty.

"We should rebuild American manufacturing.

"Where we may disagree is how. I want workers receiving a much larger share of the wealth they create. I want unions strong enough to bargain with multinational corporations. I want public investment tied to American jobs rather than another round of subsidies where corporations take taxpayers' money and later move production somewhere cheaper.

"But surely we can agree that an American economy should work for Americans who actually work.

"Most MAGA voters I know do not want their Social Security or Medicare taken away. Neither do I. In fact, I want those protections strengthened.

"Think about that for a moment. Social Security and Medicare are enormous collective programs in which Americans contribute together so none of us has to face old age completely alone.

"Nobody receiving a Social Security check asks whether the road used to deliver the mail is socialist either. Sometimes societies simply decide there are things we accomplish better together.

"Healthcare should be another one.

"You hate pharmaceutical companies charging outrageous prices. So do I. You hate hospital bills nobody can understand, insurance companies deciding what treatment people receive and families being bankrupted because somebody got cancer.

"So do I.

"We can argue about Medicare for All, private insurance and exactly how healthcare should be organized. But surely illness should not be a financial death sentence in the wealthiest nation on Earth.

"You want secure elections. Fine. So do I.

"I have no philosophical objection to voter identification. Give every eligible American secure identification free of charge. Make registration automatic. Protect the ballot from fraud while simultaneously making voting convenient for every legitimate voter.

"Election security and voting access do not have to be enemies.

"You believe America should have a border. I do too.

"Countries have borders. Governments have a legitimate responsibility to know who enters and to stop trafficking, organized crime and dangerous contraband.

"Where I draw the line is treating every immigrant as an enemy, abandoning due process or confusing border enforcement with cruelty. We can have an orderly immigration system without surrendering the constitutional principles that supposedly make America worth protecting.

"You worry about government surveillance, censorship and intelligence agencies accumulating too much power.

"Welcome aboard.

"Government should not be compiling ideological enemies lists, monitoring lawful political activity or deciding that dissent becomes acceptable only when the government agrees with it.

"That protection has to run both ways.

"If conservatives deserve free speech when Democrats govern, socialists, liberals and Trump critics deserve exactly the same protection when Republicans govern.

"Otherwise it isn't free speech. It is permission.

"Here is perhaps the biggest area where I think ordinary MAGA voters and people on the democratic left could find common ground:

"America is becoming dangerously oligarchic.

"A tiny number of extraordinarily wealthy people exercise enormous influence over our media, technology, elections, workplaces and government.

"You may call them globalists.

"I call them oligarchs.

"Whatever word we choose, I do not want Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, pharmaceutical executives, hedge-fund managers or defense contractors having more political influence because they possess billions of dollars.

"One citizen should have one citizen's worth of political power.

"That used to be a fairly American idea.

"We will still disagree about Trump. Probably loudly.

"We will disagree about immigration, taxation, abortion, guns, climate policy, religion and what government should actually do.

"That's democracy.

"Democracy does not require agreement.

"It requires recognizing that the person across the table is still a citizen rather than an enemy who must be destroyed.

"So here is my challenge to MAGA.

"Forget the words socialist, liberal, conservative and MAGA for five minutes.

"Ask instead:

"Should someone working forty hours a week be able to live decently?

"Should Americans lose their homes because they get cancer?

"Should corporations be allowed to buy politicians?

"Should American workers have to compete against exploited labor earning a few dollars a day overseas?

"Should our children repeatedly be sent to fight wars whose purpose nobody can explain?

"Should pharmaceutical companies be able to charge Americans several times what the same medicine costs elsewhere?

"Should Social Security and Medicare be protected?

"Should government need a warrant before treating citizens like suspects?

"Should politicians of either party be accountable when they break the law?

"Should America belong primarily to its citizens rather than its billionaires?

"If we can answer yes to enough of those questions, perhaps there is more common ground beneath all the political noise than either side has been encouraged to believe.

"I am not asking MAGA to become democratic socialist.

"I am asking something much more radical in today's America.

"Let's talk to each other as Americans before somebody tells us which Americans we are supposed to hate."
 
Until we all realize we are being pitted against each other by the parties and their corporate donors (read: bosses) to their advantage not ours, we are doomed. No one man, no one party, no one ideology will steer us in the right direction, only We the People can do that. Separation of corporate interests and state NOW!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top