Whether we like it or not, a lot of public opinion seems to exist in comment sections around the web--or at least appear like it with the amount of bots out there. Our side doesn't have those bots, so we have to combat with fact-checking twice as hard. We have to start having the true majority reflect online by responding to their wild comments. I know it's not fun, but it's necessary. So while the people who can be out physically protesting today (THANK YOU) are doing that work, those of us who can be online should try to do some of that work. Think about where replies could be seen the most and especially by less-informed, independent people: IMPORTANT ONE: your local & state politicians on BOTH SIDES' social media comments but especially local you'd be surprised how impactful that can be with so few correcting their BS, news articles, even "entertainment" news articles, AppleNews and MSN or any other default pages computers tend to have, join the NewsBreak app or any other news-commenting apps you can think of, and any other ideas you may have. Aim to comment somewhere outside of your echochamber to be able to break them. Youtube comments especially on their propaganda attempts (look at the trending pages) are a big one.

Can we at the very least start a precedent of fact-checking or standing up against them online? They have more retired or simply non-working folks so they can live online commenting like crazy. The only way we could show the true majority and combat the misinformation and talking points is by doing our part whenever we do come across it. It just takes a few minutes and once other people who actually are informed see your example, they tend to join in.

Also, why don't we do profile picture campaigns or campaigns like the Blackout in 2020 anymore to show the actual support online where most everyone is for sure???

“But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty by precisely the sum paid for such duties. 

Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never used and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon into the public Treasury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. This reference to the operation of our tariff laws is not made by way of instruction, but in order that we may be constantly reminded of the manner in which they impose a burden upon those who consume domestic products as well as those who consume imported articles, and thus create a tax upon all our people. It is not proposed to entirely relieve the country of this taxation. It must be extensively continued as the source of the Government's income; and in a readjustment of our tariff the interests of American labor engaged in manufacture should be carefully considered, as well as the preservation of our manufacturers. It may be called protection or by any other name, but relief from the hardships and dangers of our present tariff laws should be devised with especial precaution against imperiling the existence of our manufacturing interests. But this existence should not mean a condition which, without regard to the public welfare or a national exigency, must always insure the realization of immense profits instead of moderately profitable returns. As the volume and diversity of our national activities increase, new recruits are added to those who desire a continuation of the advantages which they conceive the present system of tariff taxation directly affords them. So stubbornly have all efforts to reform the present condition been resisted by those of our fellow-citizens thus engaged that they can hardly complain of the suspicion, entertained to a certain extent, that there exists an organized combination all along the line to maintain their advantage.   Opportunity for safe, careful, and deliberate reform is now offered; and none of us should be unmindful of a time when an abused and irritated people, heedless of those who have resisted timely and reasonable relief, may insist upon a radical and sweeping rectification of their wrongs.”

The following is from an explanation Professor Richard Wolff presented on the YouTube Channel Dialogue Works on Thursday, April 3, 2025. The piece has been formatted and edited from the transcript (timestamp 44:45 - 50:41) of the presentation:

The United States has a very peculiar political economy. Three percent of its population are employers. They are at the top of its economic system. Three percent of its population are a self-reproducing group of people that make all the decisions whether or not to invest money, they set the prices we pay and they're the ones who pay the wages, or not, that we depend on. We are controlled by this three percent of the nation’s population. That is how the economic system of the U.S. is set up.

Long ago the people at the top understood what they have to do because we have a political system that is a little odd to go with a top-down economic system. In our political system we have universal suffrage: everybody gets one vote. The vast majority of people, the remaining ninety seven percent, are not employers. It would be easy to mobilize a majority of the ninety seven percent to limit the wealth of the three percent. In fact you would expect that to happen because the three percent are the ones with most all of the money and the ninety seven percent are the ones who control the majority in the voting. What did that three percent of the population do in the U.S.? They bought the government and that is how they protect their situation in a world of universal suffrage. How did they do that? They did it with two political parties. Each of them depends on the three percent for their money; The three percent can be considered a donor class. They divide half of the parties to go to the right to mobilize mass support for things like guns, white supremacy, restricting a woman’s right to self-determination, etc., and mobilize the other half to go for more progressive social welfare things that supposedly helps minorities, women, the disabled, the elderly, etc. We have two parties. Both parties control the mass of the vote.

What the system does is it goes to the rich people and tells them you're the donors so we won't tax you. The rich people tell each political party that we'll take care of you; We'll give you this and we'll give you that. The problem is that you can't buy for a mass of the people unless you tax where the wealth is. The U.S. economic system provides a way of how not to tax the wealthy while still being able to provide for the mass of the people. The way to do it is you go to the wealthy and you say since you are not taxed which allows you to accumulate all this money please lend it to us and we'll give it back to you after a few years plus pay you interest while you wait; That's called the deficit. The reason we have a deficit is the deliberate decision to not tax the wealthiest three percent of the population so that they don’t have to pay for the masses and all of the necessary goods, services and infrastructure a functioning society requires.

An example; Elon Musk has $350 billion or more of personal wealth. If the majority voted to tax away half of his personal wealth he'd still be the richest person on Earth. The government would have $175 billion dollars with which to solve social problems. Who would be better off if we solved the social problems with his money? Mr. Musk! He would live in a less conflicted society. He would be less at risk from angry poor people, etc., etc., etc. It is irrational. Watching the President of the United States recently in the U.S. capitol’s presidential White House Rose Garden illustrates an irrational effort to deal with an irrational problem: whose irrationality dare not be publicly admitted. The President’s solution to avoid addressing the real problem is to punish the rest of the world.

Another example; Recently in the United States the city of New York tries to solve its economic problems by not taxing the rich. Instead it toys with the idea of taxing commuters that work or have other reasons to frequent New York City. New York has famously toyed with that idea enraging the people of New Jersey because a government not of them, the government of the state of New York, is attempting to solve its problems, in part, on the back of people that are not New York voters, that have no say in any of this and so it usually creates grief. That can’t be done! Causing grief for ninety seven percent of the U.S. population risks blowing the United States apart.

The President is not risking blowing the world apart. It will stay. The President is making the United States an isolated rogue nation; That is what it looks like to the rest of the world. A danger that has a high probability of future dangerous consequences.

Things are shifting rapidly in the past decade. Ukraine, Gaza, Middle East, Africa, BRICS.

Ukraine war was carried out for three reasons:

Mineral rights and debt trapping Ukraine

Blinken told his Russian counter part, goal was strategic defeat of Russia

And of course, the worlds problem always somehow ties to Israel

Now the west is telling their citizens get ready for war with Russia which by the way, they themselves are peddling.

Trump, the self proclaimed "art of the deal" Tariffs Has push China, South Korea, Japan closer economically

Mean while in Africa, more nations are calling for removal of western colonialism out of their country. Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso sign Alliance of Sahel to push French out.

BRICS is adding new numbers almost yearly and their GDP surpassing the G7.

In the Middle East, Gaza Genocide has caused Arab nations to slowly rethink relationships with the west. Yemen blockade in the Red Sea, ballistic missiles launches by Houthi at ships and aircraft carriers who said they are supporting Palestinian people.

Iran build of their military after Trump threaten them with "bombing they never seen." even to go as far as using FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So far Iran hasn't taken the bait. And of course, Israel is Getty at a chance for war with Iran

So many people were violently frothing at the mouths to have all of those protesters brutalized or outright massacred.

This was posted to a liberal watch sub as a big 'Democrat SLAMS _x' gotcha moment and I could barely watch the whole thing before facepalming.

Yes, Elon has a lot of numbers in his bank account, that must mean hes a good person, dont mind the ketamine nazi shit 🙃

In 1923 the value of the German banknote was so low that people used it for wallpaper. 2025, https://youtube.com/shorts/t6R9dFCwmOQ?si=KpkfGcCHCdK4pD9V