Thats a HUGE leap, and it doesnt follow.

No, it is not a leap at all:

"DSA wants to:

" - expand the House." But we already have a 100-count Senate in addition to a 435-count House. DSA conveniently does not offer numbers. The current system does,

" - institute proportional voting." What do you think the Electoral College is? It exists to prevent only the most populous states from always electing our government representatives. It equalizes. In fact, if our E.C. were abolished, the current most populated 24 States would elect the President. By contrast, the E.C. currently requires, given our current States' individual populations, the least populated 40 States to elect the President. Which to you appears to be more representative of the whole people, both in CA [the most populated], and in WY [the least].

" - rank choice voting." When one candidate achieves >50% of the vote, what further rank voting is necessary? That's just more expense for no purpose. The system already has in place a run-off system when no candidate achieves 51%.

"Bring more parties to elections." More? How many more are needed? DSA doesn't say. There's more than two. That's already "multiple'" DSA "count." And, as I asked, if DSA wants more parties, why don't they want to be one of them, rather than occupy the Democratic Party? You managed to ignore that question. It's a viable question no one in DSA is willing to answer, apparently.

Crazy talk? Have you never read the Communist Manifesto by your hero, Karl Marx? THAT is crazy talk, if for no other reason, because communism has never lasted longer than a single human lifetime. If so, show me.

What do you believe is the "root cause" of mankind's suffering is"?

Man, himself, is the cause of his suffering. It is not God, because he gave man free agency to choose his own thoughts/actions. It is not Satan, for he cannot coerce, either, but merely suggest. Satan does not have all power over us, contrary to the common thinking, "The devil made me do it." No, we do that to ourselves.

Yes, I am certain man's suffering will not end in this mortal life, since death itself will be visited upon all, and death is the final enemy, causing its own brand of suffering on mankind. But all men and women will be redeemed from death, but that, itself, does not mean all will live with God in heaven. We will all live in different places, which aligns with how we lived our mortal lives. Either we keep all God's commandments and adequately repent for our wrongdoing, or we do not. So law has greater consequences than others, just as sins vary in their degree of onfraction and necessity of more focused repentance to obtain forgiveness. God's justice is perfect and complete.

See message #34 again. Now your making this whole issue even more confusing, and misleading.

OK, here's my post #34, in total, including a citation of your post #32, criticizing me:

@ebuc

I presume you posted the info because you agree with it,

My #34: "You presume incorrectly. Otherwise, I would not post this entire series. I do not merely quote people with whom I agree. I quote, and mark it as such with open-and-close quotes, because it is not my material. But to think I agree with everything I post in quotes is poor scholarship."

That is all #34 said. Yet, you claim [your #41] my #34 said:

It's not a quote of someone else. It is a statement of my own belief, which happens to be the definition of "rights" as opposed to "privileges," in response to the confused

DSA, which thinks rights are universally applied. Minors do not, as it happens, have the privilege to vote. Unregistered people, even citizens, do not have the privilege to vote

Neither of your two comments above are from my post #34. Who's confused? There should be no confusion over what constitutes "rights' and what are "privileges."

That's more or less what I thought. Thanks.

I mean that kind of proves my point, no?

Sorry for late response. No, doesn't prove your point at all. like I said, why did Rs need to dump Trump? That's a common D response, but their motivation is still rooted in defeating Hillaryous Balloon Girl, and then not being able to answer why Dems attended Biden rallies in tens [in the '20 campaign], while Trump's supporters attended in tens of thousands, and yet lost the election. Then DFs went ape-shit when Trump challenged the election. That's not illegal, by the way, though the ape-shit response by Ds is full of that sentiment. And then, in 2024, Biden's debate performance, still in denial that he was derelict, as was the Party until it became too plainly obvious that he always was, had to dump him.

So, why would Rs dump Tump after that kind of public support in the face of Ds abandonment of Biden? It's a simple question.

I think my question below adequately belongs in this thread, even though a matter concerning one member specifically.

The matter of the current "trial by debate" for "defendant" member Remy Brown is a very democratic vehicle. I have no knowledge of the circumstances bringing Remy to trial, and do not need to know, though I suspect the "trial/debate" will, of necessity, contain the charges along with the back-and-forth of questions/evidence. As this trial will have a concluding vote, I ask if the moderation team will abide by the vote, or will a team of moderators have the wherewithal to override the vote should it result in apparent bias, or dismiss votes that are clearly out-of-bounds as sometimes occurs with standard debate votes?

I'll admit I have not read the CoC lately to remind me if this question is already answered there.

"Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

No Democrats and no Republicans. A "two-party system" DSA alleges should be "replaced." However, they offer no definition of "a multi-party democracy." Two political paerties is a multi-party democracy already. 

The two major political parties are;

• Democratic registered in 50 States

• Republican   "

However, there are other national parties:

•Libertarian registered in 35 States

• Green " 20 States

• Constitution " 12 States

Is this not a "a multi-party democracy?" By DSA claim, we are not currently a democracy. The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, already guarantees every state in the union a "Republican Form of Government." Republican, not as in the political party, which did not then exist, but as the form of government, comparable to a democracy. [See part 22]

There are other registered political parties in a number of States, but, the fact is currently, even though posting a political platform, the Democrat Socialists of America is not a registered political party in any State, yet wants its "members" to advocate all these platform planks being reviewed in this series of posts. So, if there is not currently a "a multi-party democracy," in the United States, why doesn't the DSA want to register as another political party to add to the existing "multi-party democracy?" Why are they so shy? Answer: DSA wants a communist state, not a democratic republic. Political power in a few hands, not in over 500 hands. In one place, not in 51 places.

Our current major parties could be the Blue and the Red, and what difference is made? That we name them "Democrat" and "Republican" is of little consequence. "What's in a name?" Will Shakespeare's Juliet lamented. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." [Romeo & Juliet, II, ii] In fact, those names mirror the democratic republic that we are, already, so they seem fitting titles. Is this simply a matter that communists who "fight" are merely dissatisfied with everything their lives currently are, and can find no joy in it? Joy is an attitude we make of what we have and are, but it includes hope and faith in a system of a democratic republic, which we already are. The DSA would really make us something else. Namely, communist. 

Reminder: in Part 14 I stipulated "... Marx, in his Manifesto of 1848 does mention "socialism" a couple of times, but the title is not "The Socialist Manifesto." It is, rather, "The Communist Manifesto." For that reason, "socialism" has been more often referred to, in these posts, as communism. After the Manifesto, the one by Marx, that is, which dovetails nicely with the DSA platform. It is no coincidence. Eyes must be wide open in this nomenclature.

We already have proportional representation in the House of Representatives, although as of 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment Act, the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members. The Senate is likewise apportioned to have 2 Senators representing each State. There is no need to "implement proportional representation,"

by a communist system. So, by what logic would the Senate be abolished, yet "expand" the House with more players? To reduce the representation, not expand it.

Yes, the system has problems. Did anyone promise there would be no problems? No. But, they did declare our democratic republic as an "experiment." It is that. Experiments do not always anticipate all results. Thus, Article V was provided before the whole "experiment" was launched by the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Article V details how constitutional changes are made. They devised a change pattern before launching the system. Forward thinking. The DSA is running headlong into the future with eyes riveted in the rearview mirror. Accidents happen that way.

 "For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. End political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/'

Governing is a term we associate with elected representatives. It is how a democratic republic operates by the definition of both terms. Look them up. I use the OED. We elect representatives in the United States of America in each state by voting for them. The illustration of voting at the ballot box, as illustrated by the DSA, [I illustrated my own version, here] is denied by the cross-out which DSA did. In all states, voting in a general election in November every two, four, and six years is the means of electing Congress and the Presidency.

What, exactly, is this "new political system" which seems to have avoided description by the DSA? They identify what to abolish, i.e., "... political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United... Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

What Congress? DSA would abolish Congress [the proposal is still called "Congress," but it deducts, rather than augments the number of representatives in Part 7]. So who is this new "Congress" that suddenly appears to appoint our President and the Supreme Court, rather than being elected by voters in the case of the presidency? DSA identifies us as "working class," but does that describe all who "work," let alone vote? Even the billionaires? Some of them work; some are retired. doesn't the "working class" retire, too?

But in the view of DSA, billionaires should not be part of this "Real Democracy." How democratic is that? DSA claims "the working class" should govern. Time was, every member of Congress was a working-class before election. Real Democracy, right now, and then, since before 1776. I was educated about that in my day. Remember "education?" The free one that still exists, now, through high school if one is sufficiently self-motivated to finish, and does not need to be re-created.

Abolishing the Electoral College would assure that only the most populated States would elect our Presidents and Vice Presidents. By a popular vote [DSA's suggestion], the maximum number of States needed to elect a President is 24 States, the most populated States. With the Electoral College, 40 of the least populated States are necessary to elect a President. Which is the most democratic system in your view: 24 or 40 States?

And let's not ignore the last zinger, that the appointed President, and the Supreme Court would be "subordinate" to, and not co-equal with Congress in DSA's fantasy world. Which version sounds to you more "democratic?" Democratic Socialists of America, or the Democrats who used to be a rational political party in Kennedy's day, and even Clinton's? Does anybody personally remember them? My hand is up. Anybody else?

Better scholarship and communication would be for you to state what you belief in regards to what post

Really? Just what do you think the first paragraph of my #1 post was? It's not a quote of someone else. It is a statement of my own belief, which happens to be the definition of "rights" as opposed to "privileges," in response to the confused

DSA, which thinks rights are universally applied. Minors do not, as it happens, have the privilege to vote. Unregistered people, even citizens, do not have the privilege to vote.

You greeniew whacko alarmists fail to think in geologic time. In a thousand years, the scars of Exon Valdex, the Mt. St. Helens volcanic blast, the Chornobyl nuclear disaster, and whatnot will be covered in new old-growth forest and new ocean floor. It will be fine. Not in your lifetime, but so what? The Earth is going nowhere without it healing itself. It's been through far worse than we can do, and thrives. We just cannot expect geologic time to occur in speed dial. Not5 for all the billionairees y'all can rip-off can Earth's ree-healing be accelerated, simply because Earth does not speak dollars. Foreign language, my friend, and always has been.

I presume you posted the info because you agree with it,

You presume incorrectly. Otherwise, I would not post this entire series. I do not merely quote people with whom I agree. I quote, and mark it as such with open-and-close quotes, because it is not my material. But to think I agree with everything I post in quotes is poor scholarship.

Both of the quotes you claim in your #30 are not quotes from me as you will notice by more careful reading, but are cited statements of others. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

You complain that "How many homes or other USA citizens needs etc could be built or others with 37 billion..." Boo-hoo. To such retorts, I said, in Part 6: "Billionaires are a criminal class? Show me the statute that forbids an attitude of ambition, planning, and execution ➝ billionaire. This lack is self-made by lazy people who have no interest in "ambition, planning, and execution," such as seeking more education. You read, didn't you, that the >30M in the US who live under the poverty level do not have even a free high-school education. Nor, apparently, did you read that such dropped out of school before completing high school. Their choice. So, I don't need to hear what any amount of money could be spent by taxpayers for those who choose to limit their own contribution due to laziness.

You miss my point entirely. You claim, then. offer no example of the claim. 5,000 posts. No, you're not near that. And I did not merely claim I'd was writing 23 posts on a subject, but proceeded to do so. Now, it's Trump is a failed leader, but you refuse to offer a single example to demonstrate the claim. Show me. Though one will have to admit that a single error is not an example of chronic failure. Just like claiming his telling 30,000 lies in his first term.

My retort to that claim was that, according to PsychologyToday, the average person tells up to 20 lies a day. Over four years, that's just under 30k lies. So, Trump is just average in lying. In other words, just like most of us. So bloody what?

To your question, ignoring communism is what results in the present complacency about communism, just as complacency about democracy is dangerous. What DSA is passing off as democracy is a pile of shyte. The people who embrace communism [let's not pretend we're just talking about socialism!] have no idea what it is, nor do they know democracy. I blame what passes for education today, because it isn't close. The stats tell the story, and the story is going downhill.

an advocacy group that has no governing power.

Myopic, anyone? A mayor of a fairly big and influential town, at least one Demo governor who is/are stated groupie[s], a fair number of Democrats, and, apparently, a couple of Repubs who agree who are current members of Congress, and a handful more of wannabes. Check your daily news cycle.

And I have acknowledged in one of the Parts - may not yet be published - that, though DSA is not officially a registered national party, they certainly have political influence on those who have power.

"Why can't you just ignore" Democratic Socialists LOL.

Education?

What you are responding to does not mention race, so that part of the rant can be dismissed as irrelevant.

You are correct. Part 10 of the DSA rant does not mention race, so I do not, either. In those parts that do, I make my response accordingly. It's called focus. Sorry for the 50-cent word.

This Part 10 is about rights vs privileges, because they are separate considerations, not identical. That, too, is focus. Many so-called rights are not rights for the reasons I defined herein. What many consider rights are privileges. I know that is a word many of the woke have deleted from their dictionaries. It is still in my OED, so I use it when it applies.

I'm right here. No need to third person. And I don't need to "defend Trump." He's capable himself. Not talking about Trump in these posts, anyway. I'm about the continued nonsense of communism. Re-branding it as socialism is hilarious.

So, write 5,000 posts about Trump and stop bragging about what you could do. Could do but for what? No skin off my nose if you do.

"Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression."

"Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents..." this DSA blurb says.

Very admirable, until the phrase is deconstructed to its individual parts. "Voting rights,"as we observed in Part 10, are really privileges, considering that there is a voting age minimum, which, by the Constitution's XXVIth Amendment, enacted in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18, but that still restricts minor children from voting, even though they are "U.S. residents." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Further, the DSA would abolish the Presidency and the Senate. For whom, then, on a national level, would our "U.S. residents" vote? Note the cartoon heading for this section of discussion. It is drawn from the DSA website cited above. Therefore, what relevance belongs to this cartoon? Nope, no national elections, period. As for "democracy," an ideal supported by the DSA - it's even in the name of the organization! - DSA seems to pale from the definition, which includes voting. But one must have candidates to vote for, even on a national level. It is the privilege in a democracy for the people to do so, but this DSA "fight" alleges to remove that privilege from us. So, why the cartoon? They're supposed to be funny! This one is a joke, but no one should be laughing.

"Establish statehood for Washington D.C.," this "fight" declares, without realizing that Washington D.C. already enjoys more direct representation in Congress [which DSA wants to abolish!] than any other State in the Union. Did you know? Observe Article I, Section 8, clause 17, which stipulates, in part: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square [100 square miles]) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,..."  

Section 8 describes the specific legislative duties of Congress, both House and Senate. Clause 17 defines the "District" as a "ten miles square" territory. However, in 1846, Congress enacted a statute to return the 31-square miles of VA back to VA, reducing the District to 69 square miles, [in Maryland, only] which has a population of approximately 700,000 residents within that 69 square miles. 700,000, like all congressional districts across the country, is the approximate population represented by a single Representative. However, the legislative authority representing the District is not just that single Representative, which it has, but is the entire population of both House and Senate; 535 individuals. No State enjoys that direct, widespread representation. 

Not to mention that, because the Constitution already dictates these District conditions, only an amendment will change it. Or do communists mandate change by fiat, and not by congressional vote? Well, since DSA wants to abolish one chamber of Congress, the Senate, you have the answer. Go buy a Fiat. That is Italian manufacturing, not American, but you can only buy one model in the U.S. An EV, of course. Sub-compact. Being 6'3", I don't fit but by shape-shifting to a pretzel. Since I still have choice, no thank you.

"End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

My nose is effective for counting, as in the U.S. Census, as noted earlier, but, as employed for the sense of smell, this nose is sub-standard, meaning my sense of taste is also diminished. Result, by the DSA's analysis of alleged useless things, I should cut it off. Defund the police. We do not need law enforcement, according to the DSA, because everyone is law-abiding. That's a joke, right? Abolish the Presidency, the Congress, and the Court. Replace the Constitution. Now, abolish ICE. Why not all government agencies, departments, and councils? According to DSA, we don't need a government, we must replace it with a giverment.

Is this what we really want? It's all okay. Just tax the wealthy, yes? What is "wealth" according to the DSA? That depends on the various echelons of "wealth" DSA defines:

• Upper middle class: $700,000 to $1 million Pop: 1.5M

• Luxury owners: > $1 million Pop: 20M

• Multi-millionaires: $10 million > Pop: 26,000

• Billionaires: $1 billion> Pop: 989

From $700,000 annual increase and above, DSA's answer is to add additional taxation to these wealthy earners, ignoring that no taxpayer in America pays taxes by this currency they call "taxes." We all pay in the currency known as "dollars." That fact is, this designated "wealthy" class already pays, in the DSA vernacular, 40% of all income taxes paid in the U.S. annually. These are called the top 1% earners. That is about $5.2T. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/  with $2.1T paid by the four income levels noted just above. 

If one adds the next lower income level, $250,000 to $699,999, adds another 20%, or 60% total of the entire U.S. personal annual income tax revenue, or $3.1T. All those earning $250,000 and greater amount to 35% of the US population of 340M people. Cut it any way one wishes, 35% of all US taxpayers, 119M people, pay 60% of all income tax. Is a ratio of 60:35 a "fair share" claimed by many Democrats before the DSA platform, which demands a greater "fair share"? Maybe one needs a better understanding of ratio values. Does education ring a bell? [See part 8, where, by typical education as it once was, learning the calculation and function of ratio was taught in that American guaranteed free education range, K-12 ] How's that for a cold bath? Y'all want to abolish that? That tactic is called a house divided, and Lincoln, a real American, taught us all about that. Maybe American education under DSA dismisses Lincoln. He was just a President, after all. Dismissible, that is, by DSA.

Seems there's a rift among Democrats. Many of them think Trump leads with his stomach, but then, they have to explain Jerry Nadler, but don't. For creators of conflict, they sure don't seem to know resolution. That resolve is the utterly missing element of the DSA.

"People around the world deserve to live their lives without U.S. interference. End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

"People around the world," including people of the U.S.,  also "deserve to live their lives without [DSA] interference." Goose/gander stuff is all this Part 17 blurb is, like the rest of it. What is not okay is to assume one can ignore what is currently established today in the United States as the Constitution, and assume it can be transitioned into something else, without the Senate, which this same manifesto claims should be law of the land, which, by the way, includes a President of the United States, elected by tyhe people of the UnitedStates, and not by the House ofRepresentatives, except under the special circumstances defined in Article II of that Constitution. Maybe someone among the DSA ought to actually read that document, word-for-word, with complete literacy.

"End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran." Just as soon as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and others respect the sovereignty of the United States. Stop thinking they, and many other people from countries of the world, have a "right" to come to the U.S. and expect to stay by violating our sovereign immigration laws, passed by Congress, which includes the one House DSA alleges to keep. Has anybody noticed that by the DSA platform, we, the people of the United States, would be represented by fewer people than we are today? How is that "...[winning] the battle for democracy" as claimed in part 7? Democracy is a representative government, yes?

"Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right to self-determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. End all military and economic aid to Israel. Prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

"Free Palestine" for what, whom, and when? Is Palestine a united people? No, it needs to settle these w's. Is Palestine a singular sovereign state? No. It must determine its own future. It is not even contiguous; it consists of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It claims it is "from the river to the sea," but there is another sovereign territory in between, belonging to the sovereign State of Israel, which Palestine would prefer to occupy, using that last quoted cry. Palestine wants to claim Jerusalem as its capital, but Jerusalem is already the capital of another sovereign state: Israel. To claim Jerusalem as Palestine's capital is, therefore, a matter of aggression, which the previous DSA objective [see part 15] wants to abolish. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/who-governs-palestinians. The last time Jerusalem was rightfully in another's hands was up to the point of Israeli King David defeating the Jebusite [Canaanite] King, Araunua, to win back Jerusalem for Israel 3,000 years ago. I Chronicles 11; 4-5  

The "history" depends on which version is consulted. The Israelite tradition says that Ishmael and his mother, Hagar, were sent to the Sinai, that, when of age, Ishmael married an Egyptian woman, and established a "nation" there. The Islamic [Quran] tradition is similar, but the region was Mecca, in modern Saudi Arabia. In neither case is it what is claimed as Palestine, today, where the modern 'tradition" [if one can call it that, stemming from less than 100 years ago] is "from the river to the sea," which is not where either the Israeli nor Islamic traditions [a thousand years ago, at least] place it. Does anybody have a care to reconcile history?

Does Palestine want to be a communist state? They're divided on that, as well. https://www.leftvoice.org/palestinian-self-determination-and-the-fight-for-socialism/ 

The cited article claims the achievement of a socialist [communist] state is a "fight." Where has that been heard before? [See Part 7]

This post neither understands the true state of affairs re:L Jews, US Statehood, Sovereignty of a nation, nor the languages of French, Hebrew, nor the religion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Other than these flaws, it was a wasted read.

"Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

War is not a one-sided affair, even with civil war. There is aggression, and there is defense. Even communists go to war, whether for aggression or defense. Yes, Russia [when it was a communist state], China, Cuba... you know the list. It is long and distinguished in its savagery of aggression. So, let's not repeat the failure of the Democrats' "defund the police" campaign by adding "war" to the equation.

So, too, ending any current "war" is not ended merely by walking away from it. Since there are no suggested means to reach a point of ending a war, we presume "walking away" is what the SDA proposes.

Much of our current military presence in foreign countries around the world is in a posture of honor of treaties we have with those nations, such as the members of NATO, who continue to depend on our participation in defense of their sovereignty. Did DSA forget, already, that it stipulated in Part 11, "Honor all treaties?" Oops. Seems DSA has a habitual forgetfulness of its offered commitments, along with forgetting there are others it should promise, but doesn't.

.

DSA accuses the U.S. of war crimes. DSA does not have the jurisdictional right to levy accusations of war crimes. DSA raised the specter of the International Criminal Court [I.C.C], but the U.S. is not a member of the I.C.C., which began operations in 2003, 23 short years ago. In that time, the I.C.C. has filed charges against the U.S. twice, and both cases are effectively dead for lack of evidence. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states#12  

Is DSA variable in its commitment to law and order?

Further, the DSA offers confusion because it does not properly understand the dual role of warfare: aggression and defense. Several of the advocacies of the DSA in this platform review are aggressive in nature. See Parts 1, 5, 7, 13,15, 16. Stay tuned for any others. This one is another wish balloon.

The last thousand years have demonstrated tech growth. I imagine the next thousand will, as well, and probably with greater growth.

You're reading it wrong. The majority, by 83%, doesn't want exclusively green energy. DSA, and the other <17%, does..

"Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels. Reclaim and repair our earth's resources for all." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

What does a "green future" have to do with a federal jobs guarantee? Are all jobs to be green jobs? The environment is not our singular issue. Is our future to be all green, and no other energy, raw materials, or transportation sources? Is there any doubt that Earth does not have a singular, ideal climate?

 This discussion was introduced in Part 5, demonstrating that the "GND" is neither Green, New, nor a Deal. In this revisit, we are told there must be a "democratic transition to a green future."

I know this democracy, and the Constitution is the law of the land already. Why is a "transition" necessary to any deal of color? Have a majority of people who have leadership thought about the necessity of "transition?" In December, 2025, Third Way and Impact Research collaborated on a national poll to measure American opinion on an "All the Above" energy grid. Results indicated that 83% of Americans favor an energy grid that combines green energy with fossil fuel energy. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/poll-shows-americans-want-affordable-all-of-the-above-energy-not-the-green-new-deal-or-trumps-coal-plants 

83% looks like not just a majority, but a landslide democratic opinion. That does not mean the Democrat Party, nor its branch, the DSA. The DSA is misrepresenting itself. These are not socialist dogma. Oh, they are Marxist, and Marx, in his Manifesto of 1848 does mention socialism a couple of times, but the title is not "The Socialist Manifesto." It is, rather, "The Communist Manifesto." I've not mentioned that word before, but a spade is a spade, and it shovels shyte as readily as it shovels sand. Neither makes a durable foundation, and that is Communism. Demonstrate the Communist State that has endured for even 100 years. The average is 40. 86% is a landslide. The DSA offers a minority opinion. Sorry, that's democracy.

"Socialist feminism fights for queer liberation and the freedoms of all working class women. Stop gender violence and end policies that oppress bodily autonomy and intimate life, including patriarchal restrictions on abortion, childbirth and childraising [sic], gender expression and transition, marriage, and divorce. Ban sex discrimination and ensure fair compensation and support for all forms of labor, including care work" - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/  

How is "feminism" suddenly "queer?" And why not also fight for masculism? Yes, I acknowledge homosexuality and lesbianism. These terms are already sexually specific identifying male and female, respectively. It's curious that LGBTQ+ does not directly acknowledge F and M in its alphabet. If the fight for feminism is needed, so is masculism. This was already Identified in Part 11. Among its findings is the following:

"The Y chromosome, along with the X chromosome, is often discussed for its role in sexual development. While these chromosomes play a central role, the factors involved in human sexual development are spread across the genome and very complex, giving rise to the array of human sex characteristics found among male, female and intersex individuals. These categories are not equivalent to gender, which is a social category." https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/researchers-assemble-the-first-complete-sequence-of-a-human-y-chromosome

Given this complexity, it is impossible with today's technology to determine the percentage of individuals who express "intersex." One certain thing: exacting science is currently unable to quantify the percentage of those affected simply because the whole population of humanity worldwide has not been tested for anything. The whim of personal choice of identification is not going to be accurate, either. Social, as opposed to science, is going to continue to be at odds. Best not to impose suggested legislation until the science is clearer than it is today, to at least achieve proper statistical accuracy, which is ±2% at 95% confidence.

One wonders why "abortion, childbirth, and childraising" [sic] ought to be combined together in any conversation. Regardless of socialist attitudes, abortion is meant to end pregnancy, prevent childbirth and thus prevent parenthood. "Planned Parenthood" is one of the leading organizations dedicated to advising troubled pregnant females to abort, thus ending parenthood as a possible outcome of pregnancy. These are attitudes that defy the terminology used to advance the socialist agenda. Is that sensible?

For "sex discrimination," the discussion is as disjointed as the discussion of race discrimination in Part 12, above. "Sex discrimination and... fair compensation" is already documented by current statutory law and policy. It is the same problem as race described in Part 12; an individual, not a systemic problem.

Part 12: "What We Fight For" End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity

"Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Yes, Democrats have been war-crying for a number of years to "de-fund the police" along with D.A.s, mayors, governors, and a prior president who reduced populations in our jails and prisons to put tried and convicted criminals on the street. This is nothing but political immunity. Both immunity issues must be corrected. But the incarcerated, released criminals who have not served their full, legal prison sentences need to return to prison. Otherwise, dire increases in crime result. Blame the billionaires, DSA says, again. And, as it happens, illegal drug use is a crime, social boo-hoo notwithstanding. There is already authority over the police by city, county, and state civilian oversight.

DSA claims the current American system "protects the rich and jails the poor." About 24 million Americans [8.8%] are indeed millionaires, or better, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/05/23/the-making-of-a-millionaire-and-why-100k-is-no-longer-the-benchmark-salary-for-wealth-in-america/  

40 million [10.6%] live below the poverty level. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states That is a difference of merely 1.8% of the people. 

The greatest factor to improve low wages is acquiring practical skills by further education. 8.5% to 10.1% of Americans lack a complete high school education. https://www.ccdaily.com/2025/09/datapoints-educational-attainment-in-the-u-s/  That is virtually all the people who exist below the poverty level. A K-12 education is is tuition-free to all in America. Why do people enter the work force of full-time work without a high school diploma? DSA says its favoring the wealthy. Wealth is inconsequential to obtaining a high school diploma. It is lack of ambition, to which the DSA says not one word. Why not? Because socialism lacks ambition.

"Treat drug addiction and incarceration as health issues, not crimes." Compassionate sentiment, but abuse of illegal substances is a crime, and no amount of talk changes that unless the law, itself, is changed. Where these drugs are demonstrated as being illegal, and in addition, addictive, more the reason to avoid their use. There is a dual aspect to the law. More reason to prosecute and convict, thus the need for incarceration, and to stop the current practice of a turnstile treatment of convicted criminals. Crime must not pay. It sure doesn't provide a useful education.