Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Wal Mart heiress just put out a full page ad in the NYT that was great. Hopefully she’s starting a trend.

Who reads a newspaper anymore under the age of 60?

Generation z and alpha are very much into the old fashioned media like the daily newspaper instead of doom scrolling, books over kindles and ipads for reading, polaroids over iphone pics, and records/cds over apple music.

Tell me you don’t know anyone in Gen Z or Alpha without telling me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't become filthy rich because you have integrity. Stop waiting for rich people to save us. They literally orchestrated this. They are who we are fighting.

This +100

Yep. People who are really successfully rich are not the nicest of people. There's got to be a ruthlessness to be that rich. It's not like just running a successful business. It's so much more than that to be able to make billions. Most people cannot do it or maybe wouldn't want to do it.

No. We don't "need" the dems, a billionaire, or anything else you think we need. What we need is the equivalent to the Sons--but also Daughters--of Liberty. We did not get here just because of trump or the tea party before them or whatever. We got here because we threw away the fairness doctrine, we let corporations in too many tv stations, radio stations, newspapers--and in the last 25 years internet media--even though the internet was created by govt and academic resources that really were publuc assets. We didn't use to have networks identified as right or left.

Tbh as a dem boomer I do not think the dems "went too far" re gender rights. At the same time I am rethinking the government's role in shaping social change. I would like to figure out stuff like that in terms the founders could understand, and I'd like to figure out the legacy of slavery and colonialism and imperialism in a way they could understand. We need to become citizens rather than partisans. Or, if partisans, a new party. It's only with the re election that I have really thought we are at a precipice. Before I could see the possibility, but it didn't feel like it was looming.
We don't need "a" leader, we need leaders. We need to be certain people historical pushed to the edge are part if it, but articulating this in terms of principles of society and government rather than as particular causes. Israel and Palestinians became causes not defined by principles.

I was actually shocked (shouldn't have been) by hegseth saying the bombing wasn't about the houthis at all, it was about displaying power. That is a savage and craven concept.

I can't articulate this as I wish I could, I don't quite have the rhetorical skills or deep political understanding (Politics as such, not party or electoral politics). If anyone can point me to a person, author, speaker, whatever who does and can sense what I am trying to speak to, please suggest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Wal Mart heiress just put out a full page ad in the NYT that was great. Hopefully she’s starting a trend.

Who reads a newspaper anymore under the age of 60?

Generation z and alpha are very much into the old fashioned media like the daily newspaper instead of doom scrolling, books over kindles and ipads for reading, polaroids over iphone pics, and records/cds over apple music.

lol, no they’re not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Wal Mart heiress just put out a full page ad in the NYT that was great. Hopefully she’s starting a trend.

Who reads a newspaper anymore under the age of 60?

Generation z and alpha are very much into the old fashioned media like the daily newspaper instead of doom scrolling, books over kindles and ipads for reading, polaroids over iphone pics, and records/cds over apple music.

Anonymous wrote:You don't become filthy rich because you have integrity. Stop waiting for rich people to save us. They literally orchestrated this. They are who we are fighting.

This +100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disappointed the women billionaires have been silent. It’s dispiriting.

yes, where is MacKensie Scott? We need her. Also Melinda Gates French

Why would a rich lib want to be a politician? They go in poor and come out rich.

Trump is one of kind. That’s why you Libs hate him. He already has plenty of money. He can’t be bought. The Deep State hates that.

Haha. What an odd dream you just had. Go back to sleep.

What about Dan Goldman? Attorney for Dems in first trump impeachment and now a member of Congress. Heir to Goldman Sachs. He is personable, smart, and good looking.

Anonymous wrote:We need someone very smart to devise a coherent strategy to oppose Trump.

We don’t have that yet.

Bloomberg is very smart and political savvy.

Dems still have all the Google and Goldman Sachs donors.

And Alex Soros is probably the number one most influential Dem donor now. He’s funding and grooming Jasmine Crockett for big things.

You sound ungrateful for all the work George Soros has done for the left. We have plenty of uber wealthy people -- the problem isn't money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have George Soros, but he makes us look bad. He's done nothing but make money off of other people.

It should be an Elon Musk equivalent. Someone who has quantifiable achievements that have benefitted the world.

There literally is no Elon Musk equivalent.

Hate on him as you will; he single handily brought EVs to masses and space exploration to commercial potential.

Cuban can’t even touch Musk and the billionaire club knows it. Best play is to let him get bored of politics.

And he will get tired of politics and the Trump chaos sooner than later. Dems don't need a counter to Musk. Dems need a leader to emerge.

The very last thing the American people need is more monetary influence in politics. The influence of money in politics is enemy number one to the American people.

We have Bernie. He IS a leader. We just need to get his word out to more people.

Have we not learned our lesson regarding elderly presidents being a very, very bad idea?

He can be our leader in helping the population understand what is going on. That doesn't mean he would be our next president. In fact, he is such a good man, I doubt he would propose that.

Good point. Bernie is a genuine and consistent messenger to the people.

One of few Federal level politicians out there that hasn't sought to divide the people. He instead has reminded us time and time again how money's toxic influence on society and politics is public enemy number one and he is 100% correct about that.

Too bad his honest and bold rhetoric has rendered him an outcast among our two major political parties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have George Soros, but he makes us look bad. He's done nothing but make money off of other people.

It should be an Elon Musk equivalent. Someone who has quantifiable achievements that have benefitted the world.

There literally is no Elon Musk equivalent.

Hate on him as you will; he single handily brought EVs to masses and space exploration to commercial potential.

Cuban can’t even touch Musk and the billionaire club knows it. Best play is to let him get bored of politics.

And he will get tired of politics and the Trump chaos sooner than later. Dems don't need a counter to Musk. Dems need a leader to emerge.

The very last thing the American people need is more monetary influence in politics. The influence of money in politics is enemy number one to the American people.

We have Bernie. He IS a leader. We just need to get his word out to more people.

Have we not learned our lesson regarding elderly presidents being a very, very bad idea?

He can be our leader in helping the population understand what is going on. That doesn't mean he would be our next president. In fact, he is such a good man, I doubt he would propose that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have George Soros, but he makes us look bad. He's done nothing but make money off of other people.

It should be an Elon Musk equivalent. Someone who has quantifiable achievements that have benefitted the world.

There literally is no Elon Musk equivalent.

Hate on him as you will; he single handily brought EVs to masses and space exploration to commercial potential.

Cuban can’t even touch Musk and the billionaire club knows it. Best play is to let him get bored of politics.

And he will get tired of politics and the Trump chaos sooner than later. Dems don't need a counter to Musk. Dems need a leader to emerge.

The very last thing the American people need is more monetary influence in politics. The influence of money in politics is enemy number one to the American people.

We have Bernie. He IS a leader. We just need to get his word out to more people.

Have we not learned our lesson regarding elderly presidents being a very, very bad idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disappointed the women billionaires have been silent. It’s dispiriting.

yes, where is MacKensie Scott? We need her. Also Melinda Gates French

Why would a rich lib want to be a politician? They go in poor and come out rich.

Trump is one of kind. That’s why you Libs hate him. He already has plenty of money. He can’t be bought. The Deep State hates that.

Haha. What an odd dream you just had. Go back to sleep.