What group or combination of groups has the actual leverage to stop him?
• He has been chipping away at each one including the missing one, the military.
• Another, unions. Brooks, IMO, is probably isolated from what we call "real world"
•  I would not expect the military to stand up except in a moral dilemma, such as (more) senseless killing of civilians.
• These are educated people, but what can they/we do that has clout other than just not buying things?

• Hidden in "business" are banks, the only group with clout to slap him down (did you expect courts?)
• Banks, and investment houses are probably not going to do the proverbial "jack shit"
UNTIL! (and this is a goodie) He actually kicks the bucket and the crypto troika disenfranchises banks by making the US a crypto bank with unlimited power.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20668548
^^^^^ FULL DETAILS ABOVE ^^^^^^
Just say that Carnac predicted it.


TOO LATE. Too busy counting money to see the time bomb.

Well, discuss amongst yourselves.
Who has the leverage against HIM, and not just his "use and discard" flunkies?

And then, the real leverage, over which we have no control other than to ramp up the pressure until
"The Epstein Event Horizon"

This war was lost over many decades with this country relentlessly indulging right wing lunacy.

Only he can get away with that UN speech yesterday. The media can scream all they want but it's too late.

Because if you are, you are wrong.

If I knew, I worked have posted it.

And we don't know what crisis would bring that person or group to the forefront.

The Disney business has shown the power of mass boycott.

Others? Please share.

But it takes repeated and sustained effort protesting by more than 3.5 % of the populace (about 12 million), as discovered by studies of many regime changes. Like every weekend, say.

I was concerned that it might have been another doom post with a message hidden or otherwise to give up. It seems you have not given up (cheers), but I would give up on any notion of somebody or some organization riding in to save the US.

The person is here. It's you (collectively). You collectively will save the US but collectively it still requires individual people to get motivated one way or another to protest in a sustained way.

The next big protest is Saturday October 18.

I am on the case. More is better.

Most of America is too busy working or too poor to go to protests every day for any sustained period.

Protests don't need to be every day, though that helps. Every weekend would be good, which is what I wrote. I did not suggest "every day".

3.5 % of the population leaves 96.5% who can be too busy working or too poor.

So then, if you don't think sustained mass protests are possible, what do you think is possible that will work?

the weekend is spent getting caught up with what they didn't get done during the week.

i always thought and I was taught that the constitution, our laws, the courts,our military and Congress would protect the US.
That sure did turn out to be bullshit. I don't know what will save it but I don't believe it will be the people. The corporate state and the wealthy have made damn sure of that.

Its way too late, this war was lost over many decades with arrogant little "conservative intellectual" shitstains like David Brooks using their platforms to enable the Republican party's relentless gaslighting of this country with their disingenuous bullshit framing Rs as the wise party of the people and dems as "way out of touch."

of changing minds among conservatives.

They al KNEW. Every single Republican pundit and politician KNEW the plan was to dismantle the federal government .

And they’re doing it in full view every single day.

Why doesn’t he get his Wall Street Buddies to save democracy?

It is not lost. If it is lost, "way too late", then you should give up and move to Sri Lanka or a similarly far away place.

But the way forward means learning from past mistakes. David Brooks made a career of punching down at ordinary Democrats, accusing us of being out of touch elites and spoiled BOBOs. He wrote the script for 30 years of anti-Democratic Party propaganda. His message helped convince tens of millions of people that the Democratic Party doesn't care about them.

People don't pay attention to the programs and bills Democrats propose. But they sure listened to David Brooks and his mean nonsense.

And all the time he's the elite he's complaining about!

Cause he is.

And, Im not wrong that its too late because it is, the fight was lost over thr course of many decades now and the last election was the door slamming shut. They have every lever of power and won't let go of them.

That said, Im not telling you or anyone to "give uo hope" because each person's sense of "hope" is theirs alone.

no one is saying that.

Can the rest of us have a conversation, please?

Usonian asked an excellent question that we need to consider: "What institutions still have any power for us to use?"

And Cosmocat rightly pointed out that David Brooks is not our friend and we should read him with caution. He is part of the reason where we are where we are. And we are in a dire place.

NO ONE is saying we should give up.

This habit of a few people here who accuse others of giving up or being bad Democrats when they say anything other than, "Democrats are doing great and all is well and we the people are rising up! Lalala!" is crazy.

There are practical considerations. We are not doing great. Our Democracy is being dismantled. If we the people are going to succeed, we need to consider those practical considerations, and that doesn't make us bad Democrats.

Talk about purity tests.

My post #9 was mistakenly replying to usonian instead of replying to Cosmocat. In post #16 I answered usonian's question by affirming that the people ultimately have the leverage, the force, the power.

Nothing I say prevents anyone else from having a conversation. Nothing. You ascribe mythical powers to me that I do not have.

Cosmocat did not say it the way you say they said. If they had said "not our friend, read with caution", that would be a reasoned, temperate opinion that I might even agree with. Instead they wrote this war is over ("This war was lost" ).

That's the giving up. The war is not over.

If they had written what you wrote:

then I would have agreed 100%, but they did not.

One practical consideration is: don't shit on people when they agree with us. I agree with each sentence in the OP. Is there anything in the OP that you disagree with?


Do you disagree on the need for a "comprehensive national civic uprising"?
Do you disagree that it is "time to form one coordinated mass movement"?
Do you disagree that "Trump is about power"?
Do you disagree that "The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power."?

If you agree with most of that or all of that, then as a practical consideration, now is not the time to shit on the person saying that.

Strawman deployed.

But you even asking that question shows me you have fallen for Brooks's schtick. That's what he does. He says things that Democrats would obviously agree with, and then tells Democrats off-the-wall things like, "You Democrats are the elites, and you have ruined our society." Or "You Democrats need to embrace evangelicals because evangelicals obviously are enemies of trump and you're turning them away."

And his saying we need a movement - which, seriously? Did you need him to tell you that? - is nothing more than navel gazing over the obvious. Which is another of his talents.

So Cosmonaut was absolutely correct in saying, "Fuck David Brooks." Because David Brooks DOESN'T agree with us. The things he says are always trojan horses used to deliver blame and lies about Democrats.

You may trust him. I certainly don't.

And you know what? Cosmonaut is right. That war IS over. It's done. We lost that war. Our old methods failed. We are fighting a completely different war now. We need new methods. And stating obvious platitudes does not move us toward that

You know what we need to do to to fight this new war? We need to admit we have been ineffective in opposing the dismantling of our Democracy. We need to look at why we have been ineffective. And we need to change. We need to find a leader or leaders to rally around. Because coordination doesn't just happen. It needs a focal point and direction. The power of "We the people" has never simply risen from the ether. It requires dynamic leaders.

There are those on DU who insist that, if we look for leaders, we are bad Democrats. They insist Democrats are doing all that can be done. They think the question, "What are YOU doing" is a real point in the debate. As if, if only I had done more, this would not be happening. Whenever anyone expresses dismay at where we are, they say, "So are you saying we should just give up?" It's a ridiculous question. And, really, it's just an attempt to censure people who are not in the "all is being done that can be done" crowd.

From where I sit, that is the crowd that is most obstructive to progress in the war we are in NOW.

So stop asking people if they are saying we should give up.

Good Democrats always look for leaders, and now more so than times when we've had clear leaders.

Democrats are not doing all that can be done.

I make a point of not demanding "What are you doing?"

I do not equate dismay with giving up. I am dismayed and I have not given up. I equate doomer statements like "It's over" that we read so many times on DU as giving up.

Now, you will not be able to find posts of mine that refute what I have just written.

Your straw man. Your straw.

were not doing the cheerleading thing.

And "it's over," is simply a statement of the obvious. Politics as we knew it is gone. As I said, we are in a new world. We are in a new war. Acknowledging our loss of the old one is simply a necessity if we are to move forward.

of our current situation gets the best of all of us.

Tests IMO will not unite us.

To whatever extent hes "anti trump hes equally anti democrat.

"He aint us"

I don't know if he did for a second term for Obama, but I feel confident he voted for Biden both times. He may be conservative, but he is clear-eyed about Trump and the danger he poses to democracy.

There are a number of conservatives (David Frum, Joe Walsh, David French, Bill Kristol, Steve Schultz, Rick Wilson, Stuart Stevens, Liz Cheney) who speak and work to stop Trump. Brooks was never as conservative as they are. I don't think anyone who is wholeheartedly working against Trumpism deserves condemnation.

Now is Brooks analyzing the entire political condition and is he often critical of us? Yes of course. I for one appreciate it, because he is thought-provoking and often hits the nail on the head. I can see my own faults more clearly and also the broader faults of our party too. We are not without fault in this mess. And refusing to see our own stuff is not helpful to making any progress out of this pit.

as a someone who has closely followed our politics and seen this coming for nearly a half decade now.

I have differing views of each of them.

To me he is with Kristol and the other arrogant "intellectual conservatives" who droned on for many decades about how awesome republicanism was and how horrible liberalism was, doing incredible damage as supposed "honest brokers" by legitimizing right wing lunacy - who now want to act with the same supposed legitimacy and taking no responsibility, in fact putting the blame on democrats for DT.

He is the same disingenuous snake today that he was when I wanted to smash my TV over his bleeting horseshit in the 90s.

Or at least my ally.

His voice can reach those that we cannot reach.

he is a snake ...

I'm thinking of the speech everyone loved in which he embedded all kinds of really off-the-wall blame to the left for trump.

From his presence on Times Editorial page and on Newshour than almost anyone can gauge. David Broder clone, telling us how wrong we all are because we aren't reaching out to people who want to destroy democracy.

Telling us that some cab driver in San Diego is the true representative of the people. Set the stage for the Times focus grouping diner patrons in Idaho or Florida for the "pulse" of the Nation.

Terrible individual, has caused a lot of damage.

Best post I've seen in months.

That’s the real problem. If enough Republicans were willing to vote to impeach and remove him from office, he could be gone like that.

Life, now thinks maybe we should teach people to spot bullshit like the stuff he wrote his whole life.

In a country that teaches civics, David Brooks op eds is not a thing.

David Brooks: way late, half-assed, and only moderately talented, right? Yeah, I thought so.

Come to think of it, the only genuinely well-done work from the NYT opinion section that I've seen in months was Maureen Dowd's touching tribute to Robert Redford, last weekend. And I say that as somebody who usually has a very low tolerance for MoDo's work.

He showed a lunch he had at Dulles Airport and the bill showed $70. What he failed to show was that the large burger and fries was $15. The rest of the bill was bar drinks. Just because he's woken up he's still a wanker.