"Where are our leading lights?" ~ Jersey Girl

[Jersey Girl]

I've asked repeatedly over the years, through various periods of upheavel in the U.S., "Where are our leading lights?" The people who inspire, the people who understand the needs of the citizens of this country, the people who are willing to show up, stand up and speak up.

And I finally found some...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders holding 'Fighting Oligarchy' rallies in Denver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C232Zq_MUFA

It recently started with Sanders who knows how to conduct a rally because he's been doing it for probably 60 years, next was Tim Walz, and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined the movement.

They are tuned in. They have their fingers on our collective pulse. They're knocking it out of the park and finally...we have a movement underway.

[Jersey Girl]

Prediction. This is just based on what we're seeing right now. Until and unless more lights come forward...

Bernie lit the torch. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Walz are capable of carrying it to the finish line.

The messaging is bang on.

[Hound of Heaven]

I've asked repeatedly over the years, through various periods of upheavel in the U.S., "Where are our leading lights?" The people who inspire, the people who understand the needs of the citizens of this country, the people who are willing to show up, stand up and speak up.

And I finally found some...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders holding 'Fighting Oligarchy' rallies in Denver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C232Zq_MUFA

It recently started with Sanders who knows how to conduct a rally because he's been doing it for probably 60 years, next was Tim Walz, and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined the movement.

They are tuned in. They have their fingers on our collective pulse. They're knocking it out of the park and finally...we have a movement underway.

Yesterday, I embarked on a road trip and chose to listen to your YouTube video link while driving, approaching it with an open mind. I must say, I felt a mix of emotions after listening to the speakers, there was a sense of positivity, yet I also experienced a touch of sadness.

Allow me to elaborate on that. Initially, the favorable points of the speech included the absence of any references to DEI or trans rights from either speaker. That in itself is a good sign and indicates that Cortez and Sanders recognize the reasons behind the Democrats' loss in the 2024 election.

One more advantage is that I don't believe the name Trump was mentioned at all, and they didn't dedicate much time to discussing the president in comparison to how Democrats have fixated on Trump for the last eight years. In that regard, their overall message resonates more with a moderate democrat like me, as it’s clear they understand that wokeism contributed to their loss in the 2024 election.

However, I see some less favorable aspects in my view. What you refer to as a movement is, in reality, an effort to revert to the democratic values that characterized the party before progressivism shaped its current identity. Isn't it more of a positive adjustment rather than a true movement?

In my view, this is the unfavorable aspect of the speech. If I choose to align myself with this movement, I must accept the notion that billionaires are malevolent individuals intent on financially ruining me and hoarding wealth for their own gain. I believe the central message of the rally was that billionaires are malevolent individuals who prioritize the interests of fellow billionaires above all else. Thus, the sign displayed on the podium reads, "Fight Oligarchy."

However, upon deeper reflection, the notion that billionaires are inherently bad people is not a novel idea. For eight years, a billionaire named Trump campaigned three times for the presidency and achieved victory twice! The American public holds a favorable view of billionaires, and framing the primary issue of your movement around the idea that billionaires are inherently evil and greedy is unlikely to resonate positively or lead to success in 2025.

I value the intentions behind their efforts and the message they aim to promote, yet it still necessitates that I harbor animosity towards a specific group of individuals in order to fully support the overarching message of the movement.

[Dr. Shades]

Why would they hold rallies to stir up people to fight against the very oligarchs who fund their re-election campaigns?

[Hound of Heaven]

I've asked repeatedly over the years, through various periods of upheavel in the U.S., "Where are our leading lights?" The people who inspire, the people who understand the needs of the citizens of this country, the people who are willing to show up, stand up and speak up.

And I finally found some...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders holding 'Fighting Oligarchy' rallies in Denver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C232Zq_MUFA

It recently started with Sanders who knows how to conduct a rally because he's been doing it for probably 60 years, next was Tim Walz, and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined the movement.

They are tuned in. They have their fingers on our collective pulse. They're knocking it out of the park and finally...we have a movement underway.

According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/ ... n-updated/ Forbes article dated October 30th, 2024, 83 billionaires supported Harris, whereas only 52 supported Trump. Additionally, Harris raised approximately 997 million, while Trump raised about 388 million, yet she ultimately lost.

If we accept the message on the front of the podium "FIGHT OLIGARCHY " as genuine and trust that the Democrats aim to combat the oligarchy, the question arises, will they refuse all campaign contributions from malevolent billionaires in 2028?

This presents a significant challenge for Cortez and Sanders. Their movement claiming that "billionaires are evil" could resonate more with the public if the figures I presented earlier were flipped. However, as it currently stands, most billionaires have actually backed the Democrats.

Once Cortez and Sanders step off the stage and face questions from the press, how will they justify labeling billionaires as greedy and evil while their own party receives the most funding from them?

Do they deny billionaires dollars in 2028?

[Markk]

According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/ ... n-updated/ Forbes article dated October 30th, 2024, 83 billionaires supported Harris, whereas only 52 supported Trump. Additionally, Harris raised approximately 997 billion, while Trump raised about 388 billion, yet she ultimately lost.

Accurate or not, I think you may have meant "million" here.

[Hound of Heaven]

According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/ ... n-updated/ Forbes article dated October 30th, 2024, 83 billionaires supported Harris, whereas only 52 supported Trump. Additionally, Harris raised approximately 997 billion, while Trump raised about 388 billion, yet she ultimately lost.

Accurate or not, I think you may have meant "million" here.

Thanks, I fixed the mistake.

Here's the article I pulled those numbers from

[Markk]

Accurate or not, I think you may have meant "million" here.

Thanks, I fixed the mistake.

Here's the article I pulled those numbers from

Still an amazing amount of money. Whether one likes Trump or not, you have to give him credit for getting free air time by both sides of the press. He did not have to spend money in that the left did it for him in many ways, like pasting negative ad's against him on CNN, at airport's, waiting rooms, gyms....where folks like me can see the lazy reporting and parroted talking points and just think....these guys are nuts. If they don't loose the Nazi crap, or the Oligarchy talking points....they will reap the same outcome, unless Trump really screws up or another Covid type event occurs.

If I were them they need to re-find the base that helped them win in the past. The Black and Hispanic vote, and the new generation of young voters, especially the tech crowd. A bunch of blue haired old millionaire hippies singing 60's type of protest songs, and whining about billionaires, I doubt, will get it done.

Also what is missed in most conversations on this subject is that the Trump administration is probably more left in many ways than Clintons 8 years, and the first few years of Obama.

in my opinion, they need to look up a few words in the dictionary, and understand most people understand the definitions.....Oligarchy, Nazism, and most importantly in my opinion "pragmatic." dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g7QmSywg ... ture=share

https://youtu.be/FBpGXF51epg?t=63

A 25 or 30 year old trying to get ahead in life, and wants to buy a home, and sees folks like these old hippies, who own homes, who in many cases will leave congress as multi millionaires, doing nothing for them, but just whining.

[canpakes]

.
Oligarchy and billionaires are not synonymous terms.

‘Fighting Oligarchy’ doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with needing to dislike billionaires, as Hound implies. That seems like a conflation for purposes of setting up a straw man to attempt neutralization of efforts to address issues raised by oligarchy.

Per Wiki:

Business groups may be considered oligarchies if they meet the following criteria:
- They are the largest private owners in the country.
- They possess sufficient political power to influence their own interests.
- The owners control multiple businesses, coordinating activities across sectors.

If one wishes to divert to the subject of billionaires specifically, then one is closer to discussing plutocracy. Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t have a ‘Fighting Plutocracy’ rally.

Counting billionaires who support either candidate is also not entirely helpful, especially when the difference in the count is a few dozen, and we don’t know what, exactly, ‘support’ equates to. A billionaire with $1 billion in wealth doesn’t represent the same potential as one with 330 times that wealth, who - as example - provided a quarter-billion dollars to a single candidate, then is awarded his own government organization to eliminate other government entities as he alone sees fit.

As for plutocracy, the complete post-election accounting on both candidates of the 2024 presidential election still finds Trump having more higher-value single-contributor donations than Harris, while Harris accumulated more small-dollar donations than Trump.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00023864

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... 6915&src=t

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00023864

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00036915

[Markk]

.
Oligarchy and billionaires are not synonymous terms.

‘Fighting Oligarchy’ doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with needing to dislike billionaires, as Hound implies. That seems like a conflation for purposes of setting up a straw man to attempt neutralization of efforts to address issues raised by oligarchy.

Per Wiki:

Business groups may be considered oligarchies if they meet the following criteria:
- They are the largest private owners in the country.
- They possess sufficient political power to influence their own interests.
- The owners control multiple businesses, coordinating activities across sectors.

If one wishes to divert to the subject of billionaires specifically, then one is closer to discussing plutocracy. Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t have a ‘Fighting Plutocracy’ rally.

Counting billionaires who support either candidate is also not entirely helpful, especially when the difference in the count is a few dozen, and we don’t know what, exactly, ‘support’ equates to. A billionaire with $1 billion in wealth doesn’t represent the same potential as one with 330 times that wealth, who - as example - provided a quarter-billion dollars to a single candidate, then is awarded his own government organization to eliminate other government entities as he alone sees fit.

As for plutocracy, the complete accounting on both candidates of the 2024 presidential election still finds Trump having gained more higher-value single-contributor donations than Harris, while Harris accumulated more small-dollar donations than Trump.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00023864

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... 6915&src=t

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00023864

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presid ... =N00036915

In my opinion, we call this "Major Corporate Power," via lobbying. There is a reason that some of the richest neighborhoods, and income per capita in the US are in and around DC, and how a congress person or senator that makes a salary of 150K or so a year, can potentially retire as a multi millionaire.

Pretending that major corporate structure and power, is not what runs our country, in terms of economic structure and strength is just naïve. And, calling selected major corporation CEO's, that support one party or another as evil oligarchs, is just stupid, and feeds the ignorant.

If we as a nation, would rally together and demand the lawmakers to ban lobbying, and ban or severally limit pork barrel spending bills.....that would create a real change. So much so, who knows what would happen to the economy; our retirements depend on corporate earnings. My guess is it would tank big time. But we would certainly see a different breed of leaders, and major corporations would need to restructure their SOP for sure. We might follow Mexico with a different type of corruption.

Whether we like it or not, again in my opinion, major corporations lobbying our law makers, is legal corruption.