The Way Forward
Related: About this forumSo much to do, but first I'd start with a platform from Bernie Sanders, and then move left.
I'm not joking.
If we keep trying to vie for the imaginary "center" we will continue to lose. Talk to people where they are about issues we have in common - and #1 to start is health care - there's a reason Luigi resonated with so many people. It wasn't because the victim was rich, it was because he led the healthcare company that denies the most claims. It is a shame that so many people know what it's like to have serious claims denied and watch family members (or themselves) suffer.
And we need better ways to communicate - when FAUX news is playing everywhere for free that is what people are listening to. We need to figure out a way to compete with this, and it's not subscribing to 100 individual podcasts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We need to focus on both inclusion AND working class issues. We can do both at the same time, folks.
jalan48
(14,617 posts)
TBF
(34,974 posts)they may not be doing it intentionally, but we are being knee-capped by their insistence on maga-lite.
Bettie
(17,592 posts)want to pay taxes...
EdmondDantes_
(217 posts)jalan48
(14,617 posts)TBF
(34,974 posts)on whether the DNC supports them. I'll stop w/that statement and stress we need to make this about ideas rather than personalities.
It's hard to do - people want to shout out names of people they like. I'd suggest beginning with the policies and then see who we have who could explain them well enough to get the interest of voters (not just the bigwigs at the top who seem to make all the decisions now).
WarGamer
(16,086 posts)TBF
(34,974 posts)
LiberalArkie
(17,019 posts)Interesting poll I saw back in 2015 or 2016 was that among the candidates, which would you prefer (not vote for). Trump, Clinton or Bernie.
Bernie won. If asked who they would vote for, it was pretty much a tie between D or R. or Clinton or Trump
LearnedHand
(4,363 posts)Well done! Wonderful framing of the situation. If dems ever come out swinging at the actual villains (the robber barons), I think a lot more people would sit up and pay attention.
On that same note, the Edelman Trust Barometer just came out. It noted there is a huge anoint of anger bubbling under around the world at how the billionaires have robbed us blind. The smart dems would pay the fuck attention to that!
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer
Lonestarblue
(12,163 posts)LearnedHand
(4,363 posts)
mopinko
(72,130 posts)universal healthcare, yes. bernie, no. m4a, no.
medicare sucks as a model. good in many ways, but when u need to buy a 2nd policy to b sure you’re covered, that’s not a good place to start.
i think the most succinct branding is single payer. it needs to be clear that we arent asking for a free ride, just a fair deal.
there’s some serious bernie hate out there. and he’s old af.
if we do nothing else, we need to retire the gerontocracy.
Cirsium
(1,503 posts)The OP said start with a platform, not start with a personality.
mopinko
(72,130 posts)"I'd start with a platform from Bernie Sanders." Not "I'd start with a Sanders candidacy."
mopinko
(72,130 posts)we rly cant b the party of old men howling at the moon, calling for stuff that ppl dont understand.
ppl who arent on medicare mostly know that it takes 2 min infomercials to explain y it’s not enough.
Cirsium
(1,503 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2025, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)
How about this?
I'm not joking.
If we keep trying to vie for the imaginary "center" we will continue to lose. Talk to people where they are about issues we have in common - and #1 to start is health care - there's a reason Luigi resonated with so many people. It wasn't because the victim was rich, it was because he led the healthcare company that denies the most claims. It is a shame that so many people know what it's like to have serious claims denied and watch family members (or themselves) suffer.
And we need better ways to communicate - when FAUX news is playing everywhere for free that is what people are listening to. We need to figure out a way to compete with this, and it's not subscribing to 100 individual podcasts.
Better?
I never met anyone who didn't understand what Sanders was saying, or thought he was howling at the moon.
Abolition came about by a party of old men and the cause was advanced by old men and old women, by the way. The abolitionists were no doubt accused of howling at the moon by the new young generation of slaveholders.
Just a few of the more important people who were pretty old when the 13th Amendment was passed:
John Quincy Adams born 1767
Samuel Fessenden born 1784
Thomas Ewing born 1785
John Alsop King born 1788
Thaddeus Stevens born 1792
Edward Bates born 1793
Joshua Reed Giddings born 1795
'Frederick Douglass born 1795
John Gorham Palfrey born 1796
Reverdy Johnson born 1796
Sojourner Truth born 1797
John Brown born 1800
Benjamin Wade born 1800
Robert Dale Owen born 1801
William Henry Seward born 1801
Angelina Grimké born 1805
William Lloyd Garrison born 1805
Francis Gillett born 1807
Salmon Portland Chase born 1808
Abraham Lincoln born 1809
Harriet Beecher Stowe born 1811
(John Quincy Adams did not live to see it.)
mopinko
(72,130 posts)as for the rest, that was then. it’s a different world.
Brands gain meaning by how they are used and what they label. "General Motors" for example is a pretty bland and generic term. It is the activities associated with that brand that give it meaning. Perhaps you dolt like the activities and statements associated with Sanders? That is not about a bad brand, that is about political disagreements.
Yes, that was then. What else from back then should we reject? The Republicans want to dispense with the 14th Amendment. You know, because it is a different world now.
mopinko
(72,130 posts)i just think he accomplished zip in all his yrs. he also plays games to keep getting elected in vt.
i see what he does, not just what he says.
he’s hurt the party.
ftr, i voted for him in 16.
i’d like to go back to a time when wisdom and experience and age were respected. i dont see that happening. not in the culture, not in our politics.
Understood. Thanks.
TBF
(34,974 posts)and that is why we're in the position we are in. It's time to stop listening to our enemies.
I'm sure Bernie advocated for M4A because it's easier to start with something that's already in place - and obviously it could be improved.
"aren't asking for a free ride, just a fair deal" - and here it is - negotiating DOWN before you even start. That is why we lose.
mopinko
(72,130 posts)it’s got nuthin to do w oligarchs. it’s got to do w a guy running in a party he refuses to join. and pitching a fit at our convention.
and the part where he’s accomplished zip in all his yrs in the senate.
negotiating from fantasy land gets us nowhere. there rly r ppl out there who think single payer= free. but it aint. it’s important for that to b clear.
TBF
(34,974 posts)that's easier. Take it and work with it. Nothing is going to be perfect.
This is outdated (Bernie's website) but it at least gives a starting point of goals. How will we pay for good things for more people? Taxation on wealthy. This is just straight up and I'm well aware there are folks in the democratic party who don't like Bernie and certainly don't like his plan of looking after ALL people rather than just billionaires. I'm sick of being "reasonable" with folks who have no interest in really changing how things are done. We need to have a list of demands for the rest of us. The millionaires/billionaires can fend for themselves.
Here's the link if you're serious about talking about issues as opposed to individual people --
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
mopinko
(72,130 posts)most ppl only see the exchange, but it went a long way to regulating not only coverage, but practices.
they made hospitals publish data on outcomes. they required free cancer screenings.
and it was an enormous engine of job creation.
‘finish the job’ is a much better slogan than ‘throw out what the black guy did’.
no dem is stanning for billionaires.
TBF
(34,974 posts)I'm flexible. Something to get going.
On billionaires, there's a lot of things that help them unintentionally. Whenever we focus on the stock market rather than whether folks are able to make rent, when we let the wedge issues divide us - any of it - we are helping them. That's what I meant by that. I do think it's even worse on the other side. Low info voters getting all wrapped up in trans issues or abortion, and not seeing that their own party is stabbing them in the back financially.
Somehow, we need a shift so that red v. blue is focused primarily on economics. I don't know how we do it or I wouldn't be looking for ideas here. But I think we need to somehow get there. Others may not see it that way, but that's where I'm at. The billionaires are literally killing us, they are not afraid of us, they've got us split. If we could somehow work on that and descend on Washington with a national strike, perhaps that could move the needle.
Sailingfish
(47 posts)Spot on with that. Allow me an opinion and it won't be a very popular one. The left populist part of Bernie's platform can get traction. Taking on billionaires, wealth inequality, healthcare, taking on the establishment and elites, labor issues, Social Security. All that resonates far beyond the Democratic Party and is something to work with. The progressive part of Bernie's platform will not get traction and is one of the reasons the Democratic Party lost the election. I've no doubt that Sanders and the progressives were in Biden's ear for four years in shaping progressive climate policy. It's true there was a shift from Neoliberalism but it's irrelevant because the result was worse.
Progressive environmentalism within a capitalist framework is a recipe for unyielding authoritarianism and austerity for labor, the working class, and the poor. A new New Deal could of got traction. A "Green New Deal" will not. Progressive environmentalism is, and always has been a movement of upper-middle class bloviators who can afford the repercussions of the policy prescriptions they preach. They can look very similar to the policy prescriptions of ecofascists. Climate science has become a religion that will tolerate no dissent or reason. Climate doom and fearmongering is not a bug. It's a well planned propaganda feature of the movement that has no basis in scientific reality. Whistleblowers within the movement abound that prove it. That's not climate denial. That's fact. Bernie and progressives are as guilty of that, as are Paul Ehrlich and his overpopulation disciples who bear resemblance to Malthus at his worst. Ehrlich was proven to be full of shit. As a labor leftist I've been dealing with this unadulterated overpopulation and climate doom bullshit for over two decades with no result. There is no "climate catastrophe" and no "sixth mass extinction" being caused by a couple hundred years of industrial civilization. Extinctions are assured. The nature of the universe is violent on an unimaginable scale. Planets and stars die every second of every day. People thinking they can step outside of and control nature is the true denial. A ten mile asteroid smashing this planet is catastrophic climate change. A few hundred years of industrial civilization not so much.
The environmental policies prescribed by the current Democratic Party are an unmitigated disaster that have caused rampant inflation and driven the costs of daily survival through the roof. The upper 10-20% can afford to withstand the pain. The rest of the population can't. All of it is about a lot more than the "price of eggs" that detached from reality Democrats have pulled out of their ass as a meme to disparage and marginalize anyone unhappy with the cost of daily survival, regardless of political affiliation.
There was a thread here a spell ago about how high gas prices and inflation would hurt the Democratic Party at the polls. All the usual preaching and attacks on anyone who dared question the "climate catastrophe" narrative and its result.
"Continuing to wish for cheap gas prices in order to win ignorant voters. Isn’t this a wonderful country?"
"People have options these days. Go electric. Stop making yourself a victim of big oil. Its not the 70s anymore despite what the propagandists tell you."
"Our gas prices are actually low compared with the rest of the world. What's really hurting us is the propaganda from hate radio and corporate owned TV."
----
Finally some "stupid and ignorant out of touch climate change denying traitor and deplorable" chimes in with this.
"Only the ignorant live paycheck to paycheck? I want cheap gas and groceries so my fucking family can eat. Then take the remaining and save up for that electric car I’m already supposed to have. Check your fucking privilege."
I know what side of the debate I'm on TBF. Strongly with the latter. Thanks for listening. Just throwing this out there. I'll ramble about the "woke issues" next. lol
TBF
(34,974 posts)and you've given me some things to research. Much appreciated.
Who thinks that single payer= free? Nobody, for all practical purposes.
The OP was not pushing Sanders the personality, and that has been made quite clear, Yet you keep attacking him as though the OP did try to push Sanders.
I think perhaps you oppose progressive policies and are just attacking Sanders as a way to discredit those policies. If that is true, why not make your case openly and never mind Sanders?
It is always good policy to begin negotiations from the strongest position possible. That is not "fantasy." Too often Democrats, trying to be "practical' and "realistic," start negotiations by putting forward that which they would settle for. The Republicans demolish us every time we do that.
Voltaire2
(15,087 posts)If the Democratic Party continues to be the neoliberal establishment party, it will continue to lose to the fascist Republican Party.
There is no 'center' anymore, because the current system is failing people on many levels. If the only political party advocating radical reform are the fascists, they will continue to gain power.
This problem of the 'despised center' is not unique to the Democratic Party. It is a problem throughout the EU, for example., and it is a problem in the UK, where the dominant centrist faction of the Labour Party has managed to tank popular support in a remarkably brief time, and has boosted the popularity of the fascist Reform Party, which in the latest polls is about dead even with Labour.
Self Esteem
(1,885 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,595 posts)In 2025 the neo-liberal has come to mean anything a progressive doesn't like. I had never even seen the term used until progressives accused Hillary (and anyone else to the right of Sanders) of being neo-liberal.
Self Esteem
(1,885 posts)Maybe Trump too - that's something both had in common.
Biden was not a free trader like Obama and Clinton. He openly pushed the idea of price controls and he opposed significant deregulation of the markets.
But somehow that's neoliberalism! lol
betsuni
(27,404 posts)conspiracy theory that Bill Clinton couldn't get enough money from unions so he abandoned them and the working/middle classes for Wall St., wealthy donors and corporations, diabolically plotted trade deals to personally destroy America and apparently single-handedly invented globalism (when everyone knows deindustrialization and American companies moving factories abroad began in the '70s and the white working class left the Democratic Party in large numbers before '72) and have been lying about Democrats shifting Right and being "neoliberals" ever since.
ismnotwasm
(42,510 posts)I work with a lot of younger to very young people. Right or wrong, they seem to resonate with him. I despise the erasing of Hillary, cause godam she would have been a spectacular president.
So this is not the worst idea in moving forward imo
TBF
(34,974 posts)I'm definitely talking about his ideas, not running him!
I truly think we need to look to the younger generation for leaders. Not that the Clintons, Pelosi, and all the rest can't be good mentors - but it's time to pass the torch imo.
On young leaders we need to identify and talk about them - which ones could be really good. We all know AOC and she's already a lightning rod because the right is scared of her. So, she is one. But there are likely more who would be as good or better. Probably subject for another OP 
Nanjeanne
(5,488 posts)incredible. There was so much discussion on what he managed to achieve in his state - progressive ideals that Dems had talked about and were widely popular in the generic (as long as it was only the policy and no D attached to it - majority of Americans were for it). Things like universal school meals in public schools; child tax credit; free college tuition; gender affirming care; paid family leave; paid medical leave; clean energy policy; voting rights for ex-felons; etc. And understand, when I say "free" - I think we all know these are tax payer items - all in for the commons - the bedrock of a civilized society - like we say free libraries and roads, etc.
But then - Walz accomplishments were sidelined. He was ironed out. Processed by consultants. The Harris campaign - for whatever reason (I have my thoughts but that's another discussion) went off in search of the illusive Rep voter who hated Trump enough to vote for a Democrat. We lost our vision. We became the party of "democracy" against the "danger to democracy" and enthusiasm died, people had difficulty knowing just what they would get with a Harris presidency (was it just a continuation of Pres Biden? Or a "compromise" with the Rs to allow for some incremental possible changes without disrupting the overall "my friend on the other side of the aisle" mantra. Fracking was back. Medicare For All was gone. It was the old Chuck Schumer from 2016 platform of "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
So, for me personally, I know I'm one of those old far left hippies from the 60s . . . but dammit before I die - I'd still love to see a big, bold, exciting, daring, inclusive, thoughtful, peace-centric platform - where the vision of what can be is more important than the nay-sayers. Where young people who have a real stake in this country are listened to. Where getting money out of politics is the future goal - and big donors be damned. I want a politician to say AND mean it as FDR said:
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.
AllaN01Bear
(23,756 posts)my heros . fdr , jfk. carter. mr. clinton. obama . biden. sigh. i have been called many things by them and wear the lables as a badge of honor . made me who i am.
Think. Again.
(20,791 posts)...with most leftwing proposals and opinions.
TBF
(34,974 posts)to divide us because there are far more of us than there are of them. It's sickening to watch it over and over again.
But if we could put some average income people at a table and come up with a list of demands of what would be good to have - the things like health care, social security - those things would be very important to us. The problem is that the right throw up their hands and say "well who is going to pay for that?" and then throw out any wedge issue that will stick to the wall to distract.
The way we do it is reallocate and distribute tax dollars to help the most amount of people. This is exactly opposite of what Trump wants. He wants huge tax breaks for himself and billionaire friends. Musk et al are sitting up there with him because they want those tax breaks, plus they want us to pay for their pet projects like "Musk on Mars". Seriously, and somehow they convince people to do it (or they hack the voting machines). 
comradebillyboy
(10,595 posts)And they don't really like or vote for the most leftwing politicians. Bowman and Bush were successfully primaried. Notice who won in the recent elections, it was Trump for prez and the Rs who took the House and Senate.
Think. Again.
(20,791 posts)It's been a while since we've seen the amount of enthusiasm that Bernie stirred in the general public.
comradebillyboy
(10,595 posts)Or any other "Democratic Socialist" for that matter.
Think. Again.
(20,791 posts)TBF
(34,974 posts)and I love how he has become our new lion in the Senate.
TBF
(34,974 posts)them "democratic socialist" because you don't like what they stand for, so slap on a label and say they're too whatever.
Well, we ran centrists against Trump TWICE and lost TWICE.
We didn't lose with Obama because no one knew who the heck he was and forgot to label him -- I mean I'm sure they got around to it eventually, but he stunned them by raising his own money and taking over with caucuses. It was brilliant. And we need to do it again.
DickKessler
(395 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 23, 2025, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)
An awful lot of people don’t like either party.
Prior to 2016, I remember people making jokes about America being “under the Bush and Clinton dynasties.” That was when it seemed likely that Hillary would be facing Jeb! in the 2016 presidential election.
Well, Republican voters rebelled against their Establishment in the primaries by supporting Trump, who openly mocked the Bushes and talked about how stupid and horrible Dubya’s Presidency was—and a lot of Republican voters absolutely loved him for it. That and the fact that he was “not a politician”, at least not in the conventional sense. In this regard Trump’s complete lack of prior experience in government at any level was an asset.
After all, Republicans love nominating businessmen, like Dubya or Romney, and they love a celebrity, like Reagan. Trump is both businessman and celebrity, and he’s not afraid to be a contemptuous asshole to the people who Republicans hate. He’s a classic “populist” in that way.
Moreover, the seeming contradiction of a billionaire trust funder having the support of many working class voters isn’t so mysterious when you consider how this is America, the land of business hucksters and get-rich quick schemes and the Prosperity Gospel, etc. And the Trump family history in America—from Frederich and Elizabeth Christ Trump to Fred and then Donald—has demonstrated just how successful that kind of vulgar, predatory capitalism (buying up a lot of real estate, licensing the family name to be used by other developers, reality television, and of course, cheating the government out of untold amounts in tax revenue) can be in this country. Support Trump, and maybe, just maybe, you too will be very rich.
But that works for Trump and the Republican Party. Democrats are different. So while Bernie’s form of principled left-wing populism is popular among a significant chunk of the Democratic base, it clearly isn’t the level of support that can win the party’s nomination for president, at least if 2016 and 2020 are any guide. We’ll see if someone else (who’d have to be considerably younger than the octogenarian Sanders) will take up his baton and actually win the nomination in 2028.
TBF
(34,974 posts)Agree that we need to pass the baton to younger dems, and that there is much work to do.
"Level of support that can win the party's nomination for president" is trickier. We have had, arguably, shenanigans and major disagreements there. As to who the party elite will actually accept (I'm still getting push back in these threads when I bring up Bernie because of the level of animosity that exists in some quarters). The wealthy donors in our party push us to the center. Perhaps the answer on that is to look back to the first Obama primary (ironically that's when I found DU, I was very active for Obama locally) - because the folks that ran his campaign figured out a way to get him in front of voters with his campaign on change, focus on caucuses, and reliance on his own fund-raising. There are lessons there that need to be reviewed.
Cirsium
(1,503 posts)I thought we were going to explore new ways forward. Instead we have people aggressively pushing business as usual, and attacking progressives just as they do everywhere else.
"Discuss the future of the Democratic Party and the left, strategies to rebuild the party's influence and reach, and tactics to retake political power from the right."
"..and the Left..." "...rebuild the party's influence and reach..."
TBF
(34,974 posts)It is hard work breaking down the centrist way of thinking that is pervasive now in the Democratic Party. I think it was Carville that stated we need to be "maga-lite" most recently, which was hilarious because he didn't realize we are already there.
You can't beat republicans by playing a light version of their game. Things need to change.
Next time when I start the conversation, I'll do it without Bernie's name and see if I can add a little more detail. We can't just blame it all on sexism/racism. That will always be there, but we need to go deeper. We did get Obama elected. Granted he was more conservative than the types of policies I'm talking about, but it shows that people really want change.
I also need to do a separate piece on how we break through. Obama had us all walking door to door and then showing up at caucus. We need ways to reach people without the mainstream media, because that is bought and paid for by the oligarchs.
NewHendoLib
(60,763 posts)drifted rightward
Cirsium
(1,503 posts)Yes, I agree with you.
qazplm135
(7,611 posts)Run to the middle or the far left?
TBF
(34,974 posts)between "the middle" and "the far left" would be the Johnson administration back in the 1960's. Obama was reminiscent of that generation as well - he really worked hard to get ACA. But no matter where we start the pull-back comes quickly, so we'd be much better off going "far left" in order to try to regain the rights we are losing on a daily basis.
* "far left" in this country would not be all that radical in Europe, it is only here that we seem to think we have to give in before we even start negotiating.
qazplm135
(7,611 posts)That neither the far left of the party or even just the left or the middle of the party have enough literal bodies to win a national election.
We need both, and telling either side to just sit down and do whatever the other side wants isn't a path to winning.
You need engagement from and compromise with both.
TBF
(34,974 posts)qazplm135
(7,611 posts)When you have a diverse, big tent party v a narrow party that has a lot of the party on the same page.
That doesn't get solved by telling half our party to pound sand.
TBF
(34,974 posts)as left as possible when you present it publicly (after hashing out details in private) - so you have a good point to start with in negotiating. I can't see the benefit to "oh it's a big tent, so you've got to give away the farm before we start". We'll never win with that approach. I'm not suggesting we piss off folks, just that it needs a lot more finesse than we have right now. Somehow the right wing manages to do it (although Donald Trump has given them a challenge for sure) - they still get their voters to the polls when they're not 100% on board. Ours sit home in a huff and refuse to show up ala Michigan.
qazplm135
(7,611 posts)For two reasons:
1. Most of their party is right, so moderates have little power
2. Conservatives usually make up about 40 percent of the general public instead of 25 percent or so for liberals, so they need fewer folks in the middle to get enough votes to win. Even then, when they win it's almost always with smaller margins than when we win.
Again, all you do by going super far left is cause moderates to sit home. JUST like you do with liberals when you go super far to the middle.
Nanjeanne
(5,488 posts)tuition free college, paid sick leave, paid family leave, universal healthcare, strong unions, etc.?
I truly don't understand "far left" other than a right wing talking point.
qazplm135
(7,611 posts)Think the far left isn't a bad thing or even a good thing.
What matters is that there are enough voters who DO that it isn't a viable path to winning national elections.
Now, if you have a plan to convince enough voters to embrace that, sign me up. But we couldn't even get folks to sign up to middle left policies with Harris who was very clear and vocal on what those policies would be. Didn't matter. They were scared of that she was "too liberal" according to exit polling.
I realize exit polling isn't perfect, but it's roughly informative. Far left scare tactics work because a a majority of voters don't buy into it.
So, until you can change reality, you have to deal with it, even if it's wrong.
Passages
(1,612 posts)https://jayapal.house.gov/2021/03/17/medicare-for-all/#:~:text=Medicare%20for%20All%20is%20supported,resolutions%20endorsing%20Medicare%20for%20Al
The established leadership needs to move on asap, they are not winning. Neoliberalism is a losing position. Ignoring the smartest guy in the room is pure willful negligence at this point.
Joseph Stiglitz: Neoliberalism Is Devouring Itself
The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2024/04
Apr 22, 2024 — Neoliberal orthodoxy holds that economic freedom is the basis of every other kind. That orthodoxy, a Nobel economist says, is not only false ...
msfiddlestix
(7,961 posts)now, how in the hell to bring this to the table with the powers that be in the party with immediate effect?
TBF
(34,974 posts)so I have somewhere to share ideas. The leadership appears to be largely AWOL, but at least on Bluesky we might get AOC's attention. She is probably our best hope right now.
msfiddlestix
(7,961 posts)She has a very powerful voice in her own right.
I haven't subscribed to bluesky yet.
at some point, I'm likely to go there at the moment I can't even look at DU Home page, LBN or GD without having a panic attack. So I have this forum open when I feel safe to take a peak and skim through the OP headers. It's good to see you here. 
TBF
(34,974 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 30, 2025, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)
given our last 10 days in this country. I can do some time here, some on BlueSky, and I do look at a couple of online papers in the morning. I haven't watch TV news in nearly 20 years, so at least that is not in my face all the time. Hang in there, more dems are starting to speak up. It can't just be AOC - I absolutely agree with you on that.