Communities

Tell them you are not ok with an unelected billionaire taking control of government institutions, especially departments responsible for supporting the budgetary work under the Authority of Congress.

Appeal to the fact that these departments support the work under their authority.

I wrote about the lack of a united Democratic leadership front. The lack of Daily Press Conferences. The lack of outrage. They need to be reminded that this is not politics as usual and that the old way of doing things will not work. It's time to stop talking about working across the aisle.

Let them know that we the people need to see them quickly coming together to stop this.

I even reached out to my Republican Senator. Even they don't like their Authority being undermined. I didn't mention the rest, just pointed out the breach of physical and cyber security and how it undermined their authority.

Look up your Senator

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

Dear Senator {LAST NAME}:

Also write the Democratic Senate Leadership

Senate Minority Leader: Chuck Schumer (New York)

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/message-chuck

Senate Minority Whip: Dick Durbin (Illinois)

https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email

Chair of the Strategic Communications Committee: Cory Booker (New Jersey)

https://www.booker.senate.gov/contact/write-to-cory

Chair of the Democratic Outreach Committee: Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/

Look up your House of Representative

https://ziplook.house.gov/

Dear Representative {LAST NAME}:

or

Dear Congressman {LAST NAME}:

Dear Congresswoman {LAST NAME}:

I tried writing the Democratic House Leadership, but they reject contacts not in their district.

Additionally, write the Democratic org.

https://democrats.org/contact-us/

In 2020, the supreme court ruled that employment discrimination against gay people is unconstitutional. The reason behind this decision was as follows. If a man, who is in a relationship with another man, is subject to employment discrimination because he is in a relationship with a man, but a woman can be in a relationship with a man without facing any such discrimination, that is gender discrimination. Republican justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch (who were appointed by George W Bush and Donald Trump respectively) voted with the majority. Two Republican justices voted in favor of gay rights.

Open a US history textbook and you may notice a trend that has occurred over the past 150 years. There is a group of people (women, gay people, racial minorities, etc.) who do not enjoy the same rights and protections under the law as others. There is controversy there. The issue really is as simple as; one side of the debate says that this group should enjoy the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, the other side believes that that group of people should be treated as second class citizens. The latter group’s entire argument is it is good when X group does it but yucky when Y group does it. The controversy really is as simple as that. When this happens, usually; A few people to the left of the political spectrum speak up and advocate for this positive change, but it seems unlikely that this change will ever occur. Year after year, more and more people on the political left not only advocate for it but attend marches and hold protests. Eventually, pretty much everyone on the left supports giving equal rights to this marginalized group, and the right is deeply divided on whether or not these people should enjoy equal rights. Decades later, we have reached a point where the vast majority of people (barring a very small minority of people) agree that the right in question should be granted to all people. It is amazing to most of us that this was ever controversial.

Here are a few examples of what I mean.

When the constitution was first ratified, women could not vote. Around the late 19th and early 20th century, a small minority of people began to entertain the thought that maybe women should vote. Most people (even women themselves) believed otherwise. Some people worried that women were too emotional to vote. To that I say; who is to say that being emotional automatically means that any vote you cast will be misguided. Some people felt that every woman would just vote the same as her husband. Not only is there a fairly decent chance that at least some women (maybe even a lot of women) would not vote the same way as their husbands, this argument fails to consider that unmarried people might vote. The social custom where women and children were to be the first ones rescued in a disaster was created to fuel the idea that women do not need to vote, because men will always prioritise women’s interests when voting. To that I say, women could also prioritize men’s best interests when voting. After all, every man who has ever voted would not have been able to vote if his mother had not given him life. Besides, women bring a unique perspective that men are not capable of bringing and vice versa. Even if men prioritize women’s best interests when voting, there may be certain things these men did not consider that a woman may have been more likely to consider. When the 19th amendment was ratified, a lot of people were mad about it. Nowadays, the vast majority of people agree that women should be allowed to vote. In fact, it seems kind of surprising that anyone would ever be against letting women vote.

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, black where were oppressed by Jim Crow laws and other racist policies. In the supreme court case known as Plessey V Ferguson, it was ruled that, things that are for black people and things that are for white people could be separate, but they had to be equal. The problem of course is that a lot of the time, they where not equal. If you had one restaurant for whites and another for colored people, the bathrooms in the white restaurants would be cleaner, the cooks in the white restaurant would be more skilled and experienced, etc. Apparently, if a black man had just used the bathroom, there is something wrong with it. If a white man uses that same bathroom, the white man will become infected with the black man’s germs. My thought process is this. If we allow separate but equal, there is a chance that the equal part will not be enforced very diligently. Therefore, in order to justify your belief in separate but equal, you must explain what is wrong with allowing whites and colored people to eat at the same restaurant or sit next to one another on the bus. Whatever terrible thing it is that will happen to a white person who sits next to a black person on the bus, will that same bad thing happen to a white person who sits next to another white person on the bus? If you say no, how do you figure? Plessey V Ferguson was overturned in a case known as Brown V Board of Education. These days, most of us are amazed that anyone would think that a white person using the same public restroom as a black person is inherently harmful.

Fifty years ago, most Americans felt that gay people should not be allowed to marry and adopt. Now, pretty much everyone who considers themselves liberal, is in favor of extending full equal rights to homosexuals. The percentage of Republicans, who oppose gay rights, is becoming smaller by the year.

Fifty years from now, I am confident that those who oppose gay marriage will be seen the same way that people who oppose inter racial marriage are seen today. These people will still exist, but they will be a small minority of people and most of us will be amazed that anyone is or ever has been opposed to same sex marriage. After all, the purpose of laws is to protect people from harm. That is not to say that, just because a behavior has the potential to harm people, that it should necessarily be illegal. However, only if a behavior is potentially harmful should it be illegal. Any and all behaviors that do not have the potential to harm people should be legal. Therefore, laws stating that marriage licenses can only be issued to opposite sex couples and cannot be issued to same sex couples is fundamentally illogical for the same reason that it would be illogical to have a law prohibiting wearing a green shirt in public all the while it is totally legal to wear a red shirt in public. Anything (whether it be good, bad or neutral) that could happen as a result of wearing a green shirt in public, could also happen if you wear a red shirt in public. Therefore, if the situation and context is such that you are allowed to wear a red shirt in public, then you should be allowed to wear a green shirt in public. Similarly, anything (good, bad or neutral) that could happen if a same sex couple gets married, could also happen if a sterile heterosexual couple gets married. I added the qualifier that we are talking specifically about sterile heterosexual unions, because same sex unions are 100% sterile, while heterosexual unions do in fact carry with them the potential to create new life. If being sterile does not preclude you from marrying someone of the opposite sex and/or adopting a child, then same sex couples should also be allowed to marry and adopt.

With many company's rolling back or deleting their DEI policies, which grocery stores are staying strong with their DEI policies?

Originally as Aldi is a German company I thought they would be a safe option, but they have quietly deleted their US facing DEI page.

I’ve been thinking lately about how old and tired Trump looks. My hypothesis is that he received bad news about his health before the election and is trying to inflict as much damage as possible before he succumbs to an illness or is forced to resign to due to illness. Does this seem logical or possible?

Trumps whole plan is to place tariffs on Canada, then offer them statehood in exchange for removing the tariffs?

This is like a first grade bullying strategy. This cannot be real life right now.

Are there any organizations that are forming to actively rally people to resist?

Why is it that when taxpayers fund billion-dollar corporations, we don’t get a single cent back, but when corporations make billions off our investment, they pay zero in taxes?

Why Aren’t Public Funds Treated as Investments?

Every year, billions of taxpayer dollars are poured into private enterprises, massive corporate bailouts, infrastructure projects, pharmaceutical research, Hollywood film productions, and sports stadiums, the list goes on. The justification? "Economic stimulation," "job creation," or "public benefit." But here’s the problem: while the corporations receiving this funding reap enormous profits, taxpayers see little to no direct return on their investment. Most of the time, we're left footing the bill while public programs are struggling to keep afloat.

If the government is acting as an investor, then why isn’t the public receiving dividends, equity stakes, or proportional profits? Why is taxpayer money being handed out with zero expectation of financial returns?

This should not be a partisan issue. It’s not socialism, as I know many would call it, nor do I see it as radical. It’s basic investment logic. And yet, in every major taxpayer-funded venture, the public is consistently left holding the bill while corporations rake in billions.

The Math Behind Social Security: An Avoidable Crisis

What really sparked this topic for me was a discussion I was having with my wife about Social Security, one of the most glaring examples of our broken system. Right now, there is a cap on how much income is subject to Social Security tax ($176,100 in 2025). This means that someone earning $176,100 pays the exact same amount into Social Security as someone making $1 million, $10 million, or even $100 million.

Logically, if this cap were removed, high earners would contribute proportionally to their income, and Social Security's funding crisis would largely disappear. In fact, estimates suggest that simply taxing all income equally would extend Social Security's solvency for decades.

So why don’t we do it? Because those with the most political influence, high earners and corporations, have successfully lobbied to keep this system in place, ensuring that the burden falls disproportionately on middle- and lower-income workers.

Originally, Social Security was supposed to function more like a long-term investment fund rather than a pay-as-you-go system. The original design intended for it to accumulate funds and generate returns over time. Instead, the money was immediately spent on benefits, and as a result, we've been funding it through new contributions rather than investment growth.

Had we followed the originally intended formula, instead of having certain global investment firms with trillions of dollars in investment capital driving up inflation, we'd have Social Security invested in our economy, with that return ensuring future generations would be able to retire without worrying that they'll have to work until they're gone.

Where Public Money Goes, and Who Profits

The problem isn’t just Social Security. Taxpayer money is funneled into countless private enterprises with little to no accountability for returns. Here are just a few examples:

1. Corporate Bailouts: During the 2008 financial crisis, the government bailed out banks with $700 billion in taxpayer money. Those banks quickly recovered and became massively profitable again, but did the public receive a return on their forced investment? No. The banks pocketed the profits, paid out executive bonuses, and then raised fees on the customers who paid for their bailout. This doesn't even count the car company bailouts or any of the other numerous other companies saved by taxpayer money.
2. Big Pharma and Government-Funded Research: Many of the world’s most profitable drugs were developed using taxpayer-funded research. Once these drugs hit the market, pharmaceutical companies slap on astronomical price tags. The public, who funded the research, not only has to pay full price, but these companies often hike up prices on drugs they know that Medicare and Medicaid will pay for. Why aren’t these investments structured like venture capital deals, where the government retains a percentage of profits? You could probably fund Medicare with just fair dividends from the drugs taxpayers have paid to research.
3. Hollywood and Publicly Funded Productions: Millions of taxpayer dollars go into film tax credits, military-funded productions, and subsidized studio infrastructure. Yet when a film makes hundreds of millions in profit, does the government receive a percentage? Absolutely not. Imagine if taxpayers had a stake in every blockbuster they funded proportionate to the tax dollars used to produce the film.
4. Stadium Construction: A Perpetual Public Loss: Cities routinely shell out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to build sports stadiums under the false promise of "economic growth." In reality, these projects generate mostly low-wage jobs with little tax revenue to justify the expense. Many of the employees at these stadiums make so little that they end up on Medicaid and food stamps, so I highly doubt even the few jobs they produce manage to create a positive tax flow. Meanwhile, team owners, often billionaires, profit immensely, and then a few decades later, demand new taxpayer-funded stadiums. Instead of this endless cycle, why aren’t cities demanding ownership stakes in these franchises? It would be a better benefit to taxpayers if these downtown stadiums were used to build parking lots instead. I'm not saying we shouldn't have sports teams, but if we're funding the stadiums, and they have enough money to sign enormous contracts with athletes (recently I saw one that was almost a billion dollars for one player), then why on earth is there not enough money to repay the cost of the stadium, at a bare minimum?

A Simple, Fair Solution: Treat Public Spending Like Investment Capital

If a venture capital firm invests in a startup, they get equity. If a bank loans money, they demand collateral. If the government (taxpayers) funds a project, why is there no expectation of a financial return?

A fair public investment strategy would include:

• Profit Shares: If public money funds 20% of a business, the public should receive 20% of its net profits.
• Stock Ownership: If taxpayer dollars bail out a corporation, the government should receive equity.
• Dividends for Public Programs: Profits from publicly funded projects should be reinvested into Social Security, Medicare, and public infrastructure, not funneled into executive bonuses.

I absolutely do not see this as government overreach; I see it as just common sense. Taxpayers should expect the same returns on investment that any private investor would demand. Taxpayer-funded programs have contributed greatly to the corporate side of the economy, why is it acceptable that our tax dollars become their paychecks while very few of them contribute anything in the way of taxes?

Why This Hasn’t Happened, and How We Change It

The only reason this system persists is because corporations have structured public spending to their advantage. Lobbyists ensure that taxpayer money keeps flowing with no strings attached, while politicians, many of whom engage in a form of legal insider trading, benefit directly from protecting corporate interests.

But this conversation needs to happen. Americans deserve to ask:

• Why are we funding billion-dollar corporations with no expectation of return?
• Why do politicians resist removing the Social Security tax cap when it could fix the program's funding crisis?
• Why are taxpayer-funded investments structured as giveaways instead of long-term public assets?
• Why do we give money to corporations that don't pay taxes and are run by executives who also don't pay taxes when they give themselves the money we used to bail them out?

If we demand accountability in public spending, we could transform Social Security, fund public programs without increasing taxes, and finally break the cycle of corporate welfare disguised as economic policy.

It’s time to start treating public investment like what it actually is: an investment.

Let's face the truth, these corporations rarely pay taxes. There are so many tax loopholes out there that we dump billions of dollars into corporations that, at the end of the year, pay less taxes than the average employee at their own company.

Taking an equity stake in public investments is likely the only way taxpayers will ever see any return on public investment. It's important to recognize that we're in deficit spending, which means every dollar of corporate welfare is money we don't even have. Why do we allow our children and grandchildren to be born into debt, ensuring executives are guaranteed generations of wealth for theirs?

Personally, I'm sick of promises to tax the rich that, in the end, just end up creating inflation we pay for everywhere, from the pump to the grocery store. This is the only way I see corporations ever actually paying their fair share without it becoming just another expense that they will add their profit margins to and dump right back on us to pay for them.

How much of Wall Street has been funded by taxpayers, but only the wealthiest people and politicians make anything off it? Imagine if those companies had publicly appointed representatives on their boards, similar to how government-funded agencies operate!

How much of our infrastructure was taxpayer-funded, but corporations make all the money off it?

I'm sure many people can give countless more examples of taxpayer investments where the public saw no return.

Doesn't this seem like something that could be framed as a net positive for enough people on both sides of the aisle to make it happen (eventually)?

What are your thoughts on this?

This is just something I noticed between all the social media platforms and even more so now on tik tok. Conservatives will spam liberal videos or content with their rhetoric. Some of it they had to actively seek out. Whereas for us, we don't purposely go into their spaces to interact because we hate them. The last thing we want to do is go partake in their antics or see them more.

So why do you think it is that conservatives always want to be in our faces and commenting on our stuff to support their "Daddy Trump"? What makes them seek out our content instead of staying in their own miserable little bubble?

When did California citizens turn on Gavin? Seems like a nice guy but was it his incompetence with the wildfires?

When did California citizens turn on Gavin? Seems like a nice guy but was it his incompetence with the wildfires?

In light of the absolute insanity of the US to attack all our neighbors and allies, I want to do what I can to buy as little American made products as possible since I can't get a job in another country, I'm stuck here.

Any suggestions on how to go about that when you're living in the US? It seems hard to know what is actually American or not. For example, I buy Canadian mustard already, but it's sold and shipped from a company in New Jersey. I buy Irish oats, but it says they're imported from Ireland, packaged in the US. So who is getting the money from that?

Are there any sites that help make better choices about where the products you're. buying actually come from? I want to start buying more Canadian and European.

They’re broadly supporting policies that will ruin American companies, cost Americans their jobs, and force Americans to pay more for goods and services. They support attacking our allies and opening up avenues for China to replace us in the global trade system. For a group whose motto is “Make America Great Again”, why do they consistently support policies aimed at crippling United States?

Trump’s tariffs are the biggest tax on American consumers since the 1940’s. It will cost the average American at least $1,000 dollars per year in consumption taxes, without accounting for retaliatory effects. We are both reducing our food supply workforce via deportation (even of legal citizens) and taxing the food supply via tariffs. A double whammy on price increases and inflation. Not to mention, he randomly poured out a large portion of California’s water supply for quite literally no reason, depleting the water available for our farmers this summer for irrigation.

Canada is our countries biggest supplier of energy. We are taxing that, too. We are taxing CANADA more than CHINA, who is the best positioned country to supplant us in global trade with both Canada and the EU. We are releasing cop beaters back into society and providing an unelected, non-government official in Elon Musk (who has significant business with and in China) with our private citizen’s information on banking and addresses.

Trump has spent two weeks focused explicitly on crippling the American economy, reducing our access to goods and services, making the ones we do have access to more expensive, and ensuring that things only get much worse from here. Conservatives meanwhile are whining and crying about Democrats, DEI, and people wanting to keep their bills down. They are cheering on inflation, government control of your personal information, China, and weakening of national security. It’s truly baffling how much they are rooting against their own country.

I know what they are but I am perplexed why this is helpful and being implemented. Last time it was to buy American. But we are not set up to manufacture or grow the things tariffs are being imposed on. Also there is no big talk of investing big money into building back up this kind of industrial infrastructure to support not importing goods and services. It isn’t as if we can just reopen an old steel mill etc immediately and be operational So what is the point?? All it seems to me it does it hurt economy and people. So someone please explain to me why tariffs what is the end game here?? Why impose them? Thank you

I'm in my early 30's part Irish, half Puerto Rican and Irish am sure i lost my Irish side to Maga. I mean when since when I was a kid, that side treated me differently now I am excluded from family gatherings and even my dad is distant. What makes it hilarious is that despite them being Patriots and love that the orange racist is stripping rights way from people, I was the only one in my immediate family to serve in the military. 4 years in the USMC, and I am sick to my stomach to what it has come down to.

Why hasn't Trump been telling everyone how well the stock market is doing?

Hey guys! So I am 23f (gen z) and I feel like so many people in my generation all of a sudden became heavy republicans in this past election (I get this from pretty much every interaction I have with people my age in real life as well as online). I get it, a lot of us only just entered the adult world post-pandemic (I graduated college and moved out July 2023) so we only really know a world where we can’t afford anything, but I genuinely thought my generation was wayyyy more open to diversity, promoting human rights, health initiatives, etc. than our parents (usually gen x). Lately though, i’ve noticed tons more people my age wanting to go back to “traditional” (🚩🚩🚩) mindsets.

I get it to an extent. Seeing that things probably wont improve is tiring, especially when you have little life experience to turn to for hope that things will get better. it’s kind of like looking into the future and seeing a never ending hopeless pit. It would be nice to have the ability to choose whether or not I want to live a “traditional” life (in my case it would be one partner stays at home with our future kids while the other works) rather than having to work three jobs between my husband and i to pay off student loans and cost of living (i have a bachelor’s and am a nurse and he is a fireman. we also just live in an apartment and don’t go out or anything) with little to no savings.

HOWEVER, i do NOT understand why they think mass deportations, tariffs, taking away SO MANY people’s rights, and giving literally horrible people who only have their own best interests in mind all the power would help AT ALL. Literally the only thing it’s destined to do is make our situation MUCH worse. Plus so many people forgot how most of this was caused by the pandemic.

I really thought gen z cared a lot about others, especially marginalized groups. Now it just feels like there is just a plethora of honestly immature Magas (not to say i’m much more mature, but it’s soooo cringe) that will do anything for Daddy Trump. I know his party preyed on so many people’s insecurities and I do know there are a still a lot of liberal gen z’s around but tbh the magas are suffocating and i really feel all alone out here haha. I know there are a lottt of different reasons why a lot of people my age became republicans, but i was just wanting to hear your guy’s insight on this.

Y'all, isn't this trade war just diversion for the fact that Musk has broken into the Treasury? He plans to replace the entire banking system with X and his minions are working night and day on this. Who is the ruler now? Not the orange figurehead

Trump is an egotist. It's well documented. He wants to be the bride at every wedding, and the corpse at every funeral. I've always thought this was a horrible personality trait for anyone, especially the President of the US.

But, could it perhaps be the thing that saves us from Elon Musk's apparent attempt to remake the US government? I cannot believe trump will accept Musk stealing the limelight for long. At some point a rift will develop and my hope is it happens before musk is so deeply imbedded in the government that it becomes impossible to extract him and his agenda.

Any thoughts?

Hey everyone, I've found myself often not in much of a music mood on my commute lately and I was wondering if you guys have any political podcast recommendations that cover things from a liberal perspective but in an unbiased way if that makes sense.

Liberal in the sense that things are covered from a POV that would likely align with my views, but "unbiased" in the sense that even when it's on "my side" I can't stand the type of people who paint everything a Democrat does as good and everything a Republican does as bad.

Hopefully you guys get what I mean, I feel like I'm struggling to think of how to accurately describe what I mean lol. Thank you in advance!

We need to hold all our seats, tale north carolina and maine , put a DINO in west virginia as a bare minimum. And invest in texas. the downballot races showed that with sufficent investment texas could go purple. even with the trump effect cruz only won by 8 points. if we can take the latino vote and drive turnout we can get a massive advantage for the next 50 yeats.

These are my thoughts on Trumps impact on the housing market surge:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 introduced a one-time mandatory repatriation tax on foreign earnings of U.S. corporations, leading to the repatriation of approximately $777 billion in 2018. This influx of capital resulted in significant share buybacks and dividend distributions, providing substantial windfalls for investors. Many reinvested these gains into investment real estate, fueling a buying frenzy that contributed to rapid property price increases. Additionally, the number of investment properties and Airbnb listings surged, further intensifying competition in the housing market.

During President Trump's tenure, the gross federal debt increased by about $7.8 trillion, rising from $19.95 trillion to $27.75 trillion. 

crfb.orgThis increase was due in part to the TCJA and subsequent fiscal policies, including COVID-19 relief measures.

Despite these factors, former President Trump has attributed the rise in housing market prices solely to increased immigration, overlooking the significant impact of policies enacted during his administration.

Trump’s millionaire and billionaire friends have expanded their real estate empires while the average American struggles to afford a home—if they can at all. Instead, we’re left renting from the 1%. And now, he claims he’ll ‘fix’ the crisis by separating families, framing himself as the savior of a problem his own policies helped create.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree?

How many more plane crashes, invasion to our privacy by rogue billionaires, higher food prices, terrible economy, and threats against our allies is going to be too much for even republicans before they stand up to him?

The tariffs are going to hit red states the hardest. When will they have had enough?

Yes, I’m talking about the ones of The Donald pointing at the price and saying “I DID THAT!”

We may as well agree on the image to use now because we’ll have to start affixing them to pumps within 7-14 days at latest.

EDIT: for the downvoter - it may seem petty but this sort of thing (dumb stickers on gas pumps) are exactly what voters understand…or at least believe. There’s going to be a very direct correlation between the tariff on Canadian oil and gas prices and drawing people’s attention to it is precisely what we need to do.

He is decimating the economy and putting the United States in a recession. We’re all in the FO phase even those of us who didn’t FA.

Current protesting has limited impact and largely isn’t seen by those who need to see it the most.

So many times I’ve heard in rural communities that protesters are “destroying their own cities.” Or some variation of that.

50501 is planning on protesting in capitals, where they hope to be seen and heard by legislators I’m guessing.

——

Some questions:

Cities remain largely liberal. Rural areas aren’t. What actual impact does protesting in a city have when the people there already largely agree?

What impact does protesting in front of a capital have when a lot of those legislators don’t have to go to work, aren’t voted in from that area, and just wait it out?

——

I’m recommending a change of tactics.

Guerrilla protesting rural areas. Why not? Conservative agitators often go to cities to cause issues. They aren’t always from those cities.

I get that it can be harder to organize but it’s not impossible.

Overwhelm smaller towns. Their police forces can’t handle it and jails aren’t built for it. Town cops from nearby towns don’t have jurisdiction.

The towns are often centralized where protest can be heard efficiently, and movement through the towns typically doesn’t take much time.

These are also the people that keep voting for this nonsense, so give them what they didn’t want….hearing your voice.

Like Walmart removing the "international" sign from their international aisle or Target putting all black products to sale and ending that section, like why? half of the country still didn't vote for that man and customers still need to buy and identify those products, nothing to do with DEI.

It's like it doesn't make sense.

Selling America’s gold reserves to buy Bitcoin is reckless and shortsighted. Gold has been a cornerstone of economic stability for centuries—tangible, trusted, and immune to the wild volatility that defines cryptocurrency. Bitcoin may be trendy, but it’s speculative and unproven as a reserve asset. Trading gold for crypto undermines the financial security of the nation and risks shaking global confidence in the dollar. What’s baffling is the silence from the political right, which has always championed gold as sound money, and Democrats should be just as alarmed—this isn’t bold leadership, it’s a dangerous gamble with America’s future.

I want to do something. Anything. This isn't fair. I didn't vote in the election. I couldn't. I'm not old enough. I didn't choose this and now it feels like my world is falling apart. I want to stop engaging with politics entirely. But I know that's irresponsible. Just burying my head in the sand before the inevitable. I want to do something. I want to act. But what do I have the power to do?

Sorry if this isn’t allowed. I’ve been hearing the “why aren’t democrats doing anything to stop this?”. While I know this must not be true, my algorithmas really haven’t fed me anyone besides AOC.

What are some democrat leaders to follow who are fighting back and keeping their people informed?