This

[dcmfox]

Let's do this..Anything on the list you don't know about, just ask

— Dcmfox (@dcmfox.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T22:32:28.581Z

[yellow dahlia]

1. Expand SCOTUS to thirteen justices.

Thirteen districts = thirteen justices.

[calimary]

3. That's a GREAT idea!

I like it! I like it A LOT!!!

Thirteen districts = Thirteen justices.

[yellow dahlia]

5. Each district is overseen by a Justice.

Right now some Justices have to oversee two districts.

When the number of Justices settled at nine, there were nine federal districts.

[calimary]

6. Makes perfect sense (at least to me).

[questionseverything]

30. And it doesn't take a constitutional amendment

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

52. In other words, Trump could do this while he still has a Repug Senate, ...

... and lock this Extreme Court for the next 60 years.

[twodogsbarking]

2. Have we tried turning it off and then turning it back on again?

[Sogo]

7. Trump's working real hard at turning it off....

nt.

[progressoid]

20. Have you tried forcing an unexpected reboot?

[twodogsbarking]

40. Thanks.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. Damn!

I can't believe we forgot the restart trick!

(Thanks for the much-needed )

[twodogsbarking]

49. Great DU name. I couldn't think of one and both dogs started barking. So there.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. Mine's the first line of a book I loved

from childhood: A wrinkle in Time.
😁

[AllaN01Bear]

4. restore all cuts that the rs have made in the last 30 years .

[LilElf70]

8. Everything listed

sure sound like progressive ideas. I'm all in!!!!

I totally agree. It's time to take our country back.

[Capt. America]

9. Generally, I am for all of this; however, some just are not feasible.

Such as:

1) I believe the States make the Congressional maps.
2) Fairness doctrine may be difficult to get past the courts, but let's give it a try.
3) You can't have different salaries for Congressmen. Not only is it silly, it's probably not legal.
4) I have no idea what "tax unrealized gains as loan collateral" even means.
5) You won't be able to tax big churches versus little churches, or any churches at all.

[live love laugh]

10. You can have different salaries. I'm pretty sure that would incentivize

them to vote for their constituents’ well being.

[soldierant]

14. The states to make the Congressional maps

because the Constitution says they are in charge of elections. But it is poaaible to amend the Constitution - it's just a lot harder then passing a law.

[Ponietz]

19. The old paradigm is dead -- we can do whatever we set out to do

[llmart]

39. And we can do it just using Executive Orders, right?

There is now precedent for it.

[Wiz Imp]

21. Unrealized gains

https://www.jacksonhewitt.com/tax-help/tax-tips-topics/personal-finance-savings/unrealized-gains-tax/

Unrealized gains are profits on investments or assets that have increased in value but haven't been sold yet.
While unrealized gains can boost your net worth on paper, their value can change with market fluctuations.
Unrealized gains don’t affect your available cash or income until you sell the asset.
Unrealized gains are not considered income and are not taxed until they are realized.
You do not need to report unrealized gains to the IRS since no transaction has occurred.

google.com/search?q=why+unrealized+gains+as+loan+collateral+should+be+taxed&sca_esv=d6124646a290b296&rlz=1C1SJWC_enUS1101US1101&sxsrf=AE3TifN4i8wwM8hc9kk01o-5d57BVqzWNQ:1757903295526&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZPH5QghoXViUOqdFyhkUfHhA90f6RZnLvcDKUWyhDavFBbFz95fUCRtZA8InbyClGBqM49Q8OnQl7hXsLUbA9H70VAnicGA7PNKoCOJQW_yvbHY-6ZtXXMM9M5ODEPE7xAX_brhOp6cXOZYKxNEtwcFKVZU2MeDQxmVaQEbqbUlOmOOA0ECsVAYwVHBGu1-ITeziCdw&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje1OqL3NmPAxV1q4kEHcQ5N6sQ2J8OegQIERAE&biw=1536&bih=695&dpr=1.25

Advocates argue for taxing unrealized gains used as loan collateral to close loopholes that disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealthy. Under the current system, wealthy individuals can use their appreciating assets (like stocks) as collateral to take out loans, effectively accessing their wealth without selling the assets. Since the gains are never "realized" through a sale, they can defer—or, upon their death, completely avoid—paying capital gains taxes.

This practice is often referred to as the "buy, borrow, die" strategy. A wealthy individual buys assets, borrows against their appreciated value, and then their heirs inherit the assets with a "stepped-up" basis equal to the market value at the time of death. This stepped-up basis effectively erases any tax liability on the unrealized gains that were never sold.

[Delmette2.0]

44. I inherited a small IRA account from a relative.

I was told that if and when I cash out on the original amount I will have to pay taxes on it. Since it was not taxed when the funds went from his paycheck to the IRA account he didn't pay taxes. The agent said someone has to pay taxes on it.

My takeaway is that the little folks once again pay taxes but the wealthy don't.

[lastlib]

53. IRA withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income.

The poster above was discussing non-retirement assets, which get the different tax treatment.

[chowder66]

11. Ban anyone who commits a crime against the united states from holding office. Reform the pardon process.

Ban felons from office.
Impeach the Supreme Court Justices who went outside of the judicial boundaries.
Confiscate all tax payer money that was stolen.
Release everything on Trump and his cronies.
Fix our immigration process to allow those who want to come to have a smoother and more reliable path to citizenship.
Strengthen our election processes
Strengthen the weakest/exploited laws and loopholes.

Shit there is so much to fix; science, education, housing, social security, support for those in need, etc.

[returnee]

32. Remove any justice or cabinet member...

…who acts contrary to their under oath testimony at nomination hearings.

[chowder66]

45. How about just using the mechanisms that are in place to remove someone!

They already exist but are not used. It definitely needs to be addressed though.

[Bluetus]

12. Bravissimo !!!! You know what makes this uniusual?

Last edited Sun Sep 14, 2025, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

It lists REAL ACTIONS we can demand our representatives commit to. I defy anybody to find any Democrat who has campaigned on ANYTHING this specific in 40 years.

These are all things almost every American can understand. The only one I'd state differently is taxing billionaires out of existence. I'd state that as "Tax the richest in proportion to the the bounty they have received" or something like that.

And at the risk of being too wordy, I'd say "Term limits and strictest ethics code for SCOTUS"

But these are all the right points, and there are a lot of people who have been voting Republican who can support these things.

This is EXACTLY what we need.

[Wiz Imp]

23. Actually, many Democrats have explicitly run on many of these issues

-Overturning Citizens United
-Codifying Women's right to choose
-Universal Healthcare
-Increasing Minimum Wage

And many Democrats have called for:

-Getting rid of Electoral College
-Outlawing Gerrymandering
-Term limits for SOTUS and/or increasing the size of the court.
-Significantly higher taxes on billionaires
-Banning Stock trading in Congress
-Having IRS investigate right-wing group's "religious exemption" status.

I haven't verified, but I assume many Democrats have called for taxing unrealized gains

[Bluetus]

25. Have they? I mean actually RUN on this.

Sure, there has been plenty of lip service, but I don't recall ANY PROMINENT DEMOCRAT ever producing such a specific list of commitments. The conventional wisdom among K-street consultants is to never be specific abut anything.

Dems, by and large, have been taking the lazy approach, with their main stump speech being "I am not George W Bush. I am not P Ross Perot. I am not John McCain. I am not Donald Trump."

Rarely is a clear affirmative agenda presented in any convincing, consistent way.

[Wiz Imp]

26. Then you haven't been paying attention. Joe Biden ran on some version of most of these policies in 2020

From Politifact's 2020 Biden Promise Tracker (If he promised it then he definitely explicitly ran on it)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/

Introduce a constitutional amendment to eliminate private dollars from federal elections

"Introduce a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections. Biden believes it is long past time to end the influence of private dollars in our federal elections. As president, Biden will fight for a constitutional amendment that will require candidates for federal office to solely fund their campaigns with public dollars, and prevent outside spending from distorting the election process. This amendment will do far more than just overturn Citizens United: it will return our democracy to the people and away from the corporate interests that seek to distort it."

Work to codify Roe v. Wade (Remember this was before it was overturned)

"As president, Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate the constitutional right to an abortion, such as so-called TRAP laws, parental notification requirements, mandatory waiting periods, and ultrasound requirements."

Offer a public option health insurance plan like Medicare

"Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, Biden will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare."

Increase the federal minimum wage to $15/hour

"Increase the federal minimum wage to $15 across the country and eliminate the minimum tipped wage."

Create a bipartisan commission to consider reforms to the Supreme Court

"If elected, what I will do is I'll put together a bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative. And I will ask them to ... come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it's getting out of whack, the way in which it's being handled. And it's not about court packing."

No tax increase for anyone making less than $400,000 (Implicit in this was he would raise taxes on hire earnings since Republicans were accusing him of wanting to raise everyone's taxes)

"Under my plan, if you make less than $400,000, you won’t pay a single penny, more in taxes. You have my word on it."

That original list didn't include many other things he explicitly ran on:
-Restore ACA's contraception mandate
-Eliminate the federal death penalty
-Expand and increase Social Security benefits
-Protect military personnel and veterans from deportation
-End the online sale of firearms and ammunition
-Add 150,000 community health workers
-Create a pathway to citizenship for nearly 11 million people
-Expand broadband, or wireless broadband via 5G, to every American
-Rebuild health stockpiles to be ready for crises
-Forgive student loan debt from public colleges and universities
-Lower cost of prescription drugs
-Decriminalize marijuana
-Update the Voting Rights Act
-Offer universal preschool to 3- and 4-year-olds
-Prevent the White House from interfering in federal investigations and prosecutions
-Offer up to $8,000 tax credit for child care
-Put Social Security on a path to long-run solvency
-Raise corporate tax rate to 28%
-Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act
-Rejoin the Paris climate agreement
-Reverse the transgender military ban
-Rejoin the World Health Organization (WHO)
-Immediately rescind the “Muslim bans”

There's tons more as well. Biden ran on every one of these specific issues. He accomplished many of them but not all due to inaction of Congress.

You're parroting right wing talking points saying Democrats are never specific. This proves Biden was very specific on a multitude of policies, you just weren't paying attention. Go back and Watch Kamala Harris's speeches from last year - she repeated most of these "promises" that Biden wasn't able to accomplish in almost every speech she gave.

[betsuni]

27. Thank you. Democrats know this.

[Bluetus]

36. No he didn't. he TALKED about some of those things from time to time.

He never laid out a clear agenda withe SPECIFIC solutions he was going to fight for. No Democrat has done that in my lifetime, and I'm pretty old. If you go back and look at FDR,s speeches, he was very consistent in his messaging. He sold it. He brought the people along, Modern Dems, on a good day, triangulate.

Yes, we know what position most Dem candidates will take on climate, LGBT (sometimes), monopolistic corporate power, the HC system, guns and so on. But try to find any examples of where a candidate laid out a clear set of policies they were willing to fight for. You cannot. It does not exist.

Dem politicians can all go on about how bad Project 2025 us. But where is their plan? It does not exist. They aren't even in the game.

[Wiz Imp]

41. LEt me translate your post

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2025, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

" All Democrats Bad. All Democrats Bad. All Democrats Bad. All Democrats Bad. ..."

No need to continue this "discussion".

[Bluetus]

46. No, that's not the message

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2025, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The translation is that just about all the Democratic strategists are clueless and are consumed with a fear of taking any clear positions on anything because that isn't "safe".

99.9 percent of Dems need to learn the difference between reacting to the other guy/lady versus presenting a clear vision to define themselves. We must do BOTH -- ESPECIALLY at the Presidential level. When we don't define ourselves sufficiently -- and Biden NEVER did -- the other guy defines us. This is really basic stuff.

If you can't see this or refuse to see it, then I agree we're wasting our time here.

[Torchlight]

51. That's a lot of assertions.

[ReRe]

13. K&R

Yep. Project 2028 and so so much more. Get thee behind us Republicans, foreverfuckingmore. This world has had about enough out of your way of running our country. Project 2028 should be the Platform of the Democratic Party, day 1 (Jan 20, 2029).

[lastlib]

15. Add one:

PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE AMENDMENT!

[Bluetus]

37. Absolutely. But when people say things like that, Dems instinctively shit on it

by talking about how hard and unlikely it is to enact a Constitutional amendment.

Dems don't get the concept of selling ideas. Even if we can't get a Right to Vote amendment immediately, we can and MUST talk about this. Right now the Republicans control the entire message with all the incremental laws they are passing that would be unconstitutional under such an amendment. We need to put that idea out there precisely because we need the media to talk about "Wait, if we had that amendment, wouldn't that make these 294 laws unconstitutional?"

And then you have a conversation started. "Hell yes, those laws would all be unconstitutional, and let me tell you why that is exactly as it should be. ...?

[Buddyzbuddy]

16. Remove new hires and appointees since Jan. 20, 2025

Off the top of my head, amend the Constitution

Limit Presidential powers and immunity

Implement guidelines and limits to pardon.

Make it a Federal crime for the President to benefit from Pardons with fines and mandatory prison sentence.

Make voting a right.
End private prisons
End private military
Eliminate the ability to appoint un-elected persons to have any power beyond advisory without advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate
Reinstate the standing filibuster rule in the Senate
Make it a 55 vote minimum to change Senate rules.

No monetary maximum for paying into Social Security

Implement a Dept. Of Climate Change with powers to Fine and Criminally Refer to the Justice Dept. and be given emergency powers.

Implement solutions for repayment of higher education school loans.

Eliminate Government subsidies for
Charter Schools

Reduce the military budget while increasing pre-school through 12th grade education budget.

Create a hybrid system of single payer health care while keeping private insurance for those that choose it.

Eliminate the ability for lobbyists to write our laws.

Make all gifts to politicians designated as a bribe punishable by a minimum of 10 years and a one million dollar fine.

I know it's a lot but they're just a few ideas from one citizen.

[slightlv]

18. I would add a few more where minorities and women are concerned.

Women have lost... and are losing... much more than our right to "choose." We need to have our human rights, our economic rights, and our health rights codified as immutable. That should already be obvious within the constitution we have, but it's always been ignored. Minorities have waited far too long for a seat at the table to speak of equity, and expect something to be done about it.

[DiverDave]

22. I like the way you think.

I agree with all you said.

[Buddyzbuddy]

31. Thank you

[markie]

17. Project 2028!

[Wiz Imp]

24. Reinstate USAID

-Ban President from freezing funding already allocated by Congress
-Ban setting up pseudo-government agencies (like DOGE) from being set up without Congressional Approval
-Ban abolishing closing government agencies without Congressional Approval
-Ban entities like DOGE from ever having access to Government Systems from which they can access citizens' private personal information.
-Remove Cap on level of wages subject to SS Taxes.
-Enshrine Social Security in the Constitution
-Ban President from stripping power from independent regulatory agencies
-Ban Presidential targeting of Law Firms, Universities and other Private Businesses
-Ban immigrations enforcement from stopping or detaining individuals without a warrant or other probable cause. Require them to identify themselves immediately. Ban them from wearing masks.
-Reinstate all regulations relate to vaccines that RFK Jr has stopped.
-Restore all scientific and research funding
-Restore education funding including financial aid. Restore and expand President Biden's Student Loan forgiveness.
-Restore all Environmental Regulations Trump ended by Executive order
-Make Climate Change top priority

+ many, many more

[moondust]

28. Couple things.

As to the Fairness Doctrine, I believe the hangup is that the government can regulate the public airwaves but not cable lines that are owned and operated by private companies.

I would say do away with the minimum wage because it's not fair to small businesses. IMO a better plan is the Swiss 1:12 Initiative that caps executive pay at no more than 12 times the pay of the lowest paid employee in a company. If they would have done something like that when slavery was abolished it would have likely reined in predatory capitalism and ridiculous inequality.

[Bluetus]

38. What we can and can't do

is 1% law and 99% conventional wisdom. Look at all the things Trump can't do, but is in fact doing.

That distinction of air waves versus copper wires was always bullshit. The wired networks (cable companies and Internet) are just as universal as radio spectrum waves. And in fact, much of the "internet" is delivered over radio spectrum anyway (WiFi, Satellite TV, Starlink).

Stop negotiating against ourselves. We lose before the debate even begins.

[Wiz Imp]

42. The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine may well have been the single most consequential political act of the last

half century. it led IMMEDIATELY to the proliferation of right wing talk radio, which has been and continues to be more more destructive to American society than even most people here acknowledge. Far more people listen to right wing talk radio on a daily basis than ever watch Fox News.

From Wikipedia:

While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by both the Kennedy and later the Johnson administration to combat political opponents operating on talk radio. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

The court did not see how the fairness doctrine went against the First Amendment's goal of creating an informed public. The fairness doctrine required that those who were talked about be given chance to respond to the statements made by broadcasters. The court believed that this helped create a more informed public. Justice White explained that, without this doctrine, station owners would only have people on the air who agreed with their opinions. Throughout his opinion, Justice White argued that radio frequencies, and by extension, television stations, should be used to educate listeners, or viewers, about controversial issues in a way that is fair and non-biased so that they can create their own opinions. In 1969, the court "ruled unanimously that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional, but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues."

On August 4, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4–0 vote. The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical". The decision drew political fire, and cooperation with Congress was one issue. In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the fairness doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. In 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine was stopped when President George H. W. Bush threatened another veto.

The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered", divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed Rush Limbaugh—then working at a little-known Sacramento station—to a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers." According to The Washington Post, "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness", e.g., "feminazis". Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.

Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the fairness doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement, with funding from fines given to public broadcasting.

[Irish_Dem]

29. The billionaires, MAGA, our enemies have taken total control of our country.

It is 100% certain they will not let go of it easily.
Until they have drained the tank completely dry.

[OldBaldy1701E]

33. Then, they will leave us with the ruins.

But, we should just wait until that happens....

[Irish_Dem]

34. Yes. We pay them to destroy our country, then we will have to pay for the rebuild.

The US gave Europe the Marshall Plan which cost us about $150 billion in today's dollars.

No one is going to help us out to pay for the damage we did to ourselves.

[Escape]

35. Great list! One more thing....,

Ban the sale and ownership of assault weapons.

[joanbarnes]

43. Should have been Project 1928, but whatever........

[snot]

47. "Fairness Doctrine" is the least of it;

we need to repeal the Telecom Act of 1996, which resulted in the slaughter of the hundreds if not thousands of independent media outlets, reducing the number of traditional media outlets to literally 6 multinational megacorps.

Apart from that, I agree with much though not all of this list; and there are other things I'd add – I've got a list of at least a half doz. changes needed to securities regulation alone.