It makes me happy to think that our government is going try and bring the power back to the people.
Can you explain to us how this will be ?
the freedoms of the rich are the chains of the poor.
Donāt just take my word, just follow what is going on in DC right now.
Nothing stopping you from moving to countries with no rich. Whatās your hold up? What is your country of choice?
Rich people donāt care about borders. They cross them with impunity. The countries without rich people are the ones that have had their resources extracted, by the rich. This has been going on for centuries. Read a book.
Are you a useful ā¦ .
Careful, your nazi colors are showing mike.
Read a book.
Yeah great idea, MAGA (and hell most Hollywood Dreaming entrapped citizens) trying to read serious books and doing some serious introspection, to trying to look outside their own little bubbles of petty ego-centric concerns.
Life is for dreaming and hoping we can be more than lemmings.
Greed and gluttony is for destroying all that.
If presidential candidates can spend a billion dollars on a job application, it seems that there is enough money to go around without everyone becoming poor.
The problem is that too few people make too much money. Unrestricted Capitalism is against Natural law of conservation of energy.
I like your optimism. Letās be real though, republicans havenāt been impressive in a long time. The only thing theyāve got going for them is at least they arenāt democrats.
If we want to think about how we got to this point, hereās a book that can explain it.
Itās a few years old, the writing has been on the wall for a while now.
Available in open source 
Youāre an odd bird. Sometimes totally out in left field, and sometimes the definition of ānarcissism of small differencesā
Ironic indeed.
Illegitimate Authority: Facing the Challenges of Our Time
Noam Chomsky & C.J. Polychroniou
āOne of the greatest, most radical public thinkers of our timeā Arundhati RoyIn these incisive interviews, Chomsky addresses the urgent questions of this tumultuous time, speaking to the deterioration of democracy in the United States and rising tensions globally.
He examines the crumbling of the social fabric and the fractures of the Biden era, including the halting steps toward a Green New Deal,
the illegitimate authority of the Supreme Court,
in particular its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the ongoing fallout from COVID-19.Chomsky also untangles the roots of the War in Ukraine, the diplomatic tensions among the United States, China, and Russia, and considers the need for climate action on an international scale.
Illegitimate Authority exposes those who wield power in their own self-interest and plots framework for how we can stand together and fight against injustice.
āThe Westās most prominent critic of US imperialism . . . the closest thing in the English-speaking world to an intellectual superstarā GuardianāWill there ever again be a public intellectual who commands the attention of so many across the planet?ā says New Statesman
ā¦ On the other hand, he was one of the people arguing most strongly with leftists who didnāt want to vote for Biden over Trump because he has described Donald Trump as the worst criminal in human history. And yes, heās aware of the existence of Adolf Hitler. He says, āBecause the climate consequences of the climate catastrophe will be so severe, in fact, the ultimate destruction wrought by Trump could be worse.ā So the way he manages to square that is to say, yes, there are strong commonalities in foreign policy, but the marginal differences can actually be quite big in terms of their impact on human beings.
And those impacts are far from marginal. Since Dobbs , women have already become second-class citizens in the United States. Thereās a deeply fascistic racial basis in all of the policy suggestions that weāve heard from the Republican side. From a Chomskyan perspective, what is the way forward, for someone who wants to make a political difference, who is concerned that the foreign policy consensus between the parties remains?
And so on. So says Noam Chomsky.
Interesting interview, a few excerpts
heās (Chomsky) not terribly interested in finding out what peopleās real motivations are. Heās interested in consequences and he says that we should evaluate actions morally by what their predictable consequences are. Even the worst criminals in human history always have a story about virtue, and it is impossible to know whether they are sincere and well-intentioned.
On the one hand, Chomsky has been one of the main proponents of the idea that both parties have underlying foundational consensus on a lot of stuff. And the differences between them are often kind of at the margins.
So, whatās the way forward?
You have to build a different vision of how things could be, one that isnāt based on scapegoating and hatred, but that responds to peopleās genuine concerns and fears over the fact that you know their house could get washed away in a hurricane, or they could lose their job, wonāt have healthcare.
Youāve got to have something that really takes peopleās concerns seriously instead of pointing at the Haitians and saying, "This is all their fault.ā And that means building a movement. A fundamental building block of what you might call a Chomskyan position is that protests can move governments, or at least can move people who can act within governments. And there had been a lot of moves to limit the ability to protest during the Trump years.
And
The entire point is that itās your job to criticize your own country. Thatās the First Amendment, right? And youāre not even criticizing your country. Itās literally the state. All of these things that weāre talking about are actions by state and sometimes corporate power. It really is just a mistake to even say that itās a criticism of the country.
IMO, this is how the Republicans took over the working-class vote, they got them to equate an attack on Republicans in government with an attack on the country. At the same time, they equated Democrat policies with an attack on the country. The Democrats did not address it and if anything, they fed into it by attacking policies that gave small gains to those working-class people, policies that help lower-class people and keep working-class people from becoming lower class, but thatās hard for them to see how it benefits them.
Forward for who? Forward in what sense? Forward to whose benefit?
peopleās genuine concerns and fears
something that really takes peopleās concerns seriously instead of pointing at the Haitians and saying, "This is all their fault.ā
the First Amendment
Which people? Billionaires have genuine concerns