Our Revolution, the group built by Bernie Sanders around fighting the billionaire class and getting money out of politics, just endorsed Tom Steyer, a billionaire who is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money into a race. That’s the exact behavior they’ve spent years saying is the problem.

And what makes it worse is that they don’t even try to reconcile it in a serious way. The justification is that he is “upsetting the system” and that he has the best chance to stop Republicans. But if you actually think about that for more than a second, it falls apart. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence an election is not upsetting the system, it is the system. It’s the very thing they claim to be fighting against, just now it’s happening in a way that benefits them.

This IS the Pattern

What bothers me about this is not just the decision is that we have seen this movie before.

The Democratic Party sets these very clear moral positions, they build messaging around them, they rally people around them, and then the second those positions get in the way of winning, they abandon them.

You see it over and over again.

They talk about protecting democracy and then avoid real primary competition when it becomes inconvenient.

They talk about banning stock trading in Congress, and then you have situations like Ro Khanna pushing a ban while his household is actively trading millions of dollars.

They talk about getting money out of politics, and then justify massive spending when it’s on their side.

And every time, the explanation is the same. They’ll tell you they have to win. That the stakes are too high. That this is different. That this is necessary. But it completely undermines everything they were saying before.

Do they think we are dumb?

The “Good Billionaire” Problem

What this really exposes is the idea that there are good billionaires and bad billionaires, depending on who they support.

The bad billionaires are the oligarchs, the corrupting influence, the people buying elections.

But the good billionaires are the ones that are doing the exact same thing but for our side.

You see names like Steyer, J. B. Pritzker, George Soros, and Reid Hoffman get treated as exceptions, not because the principle changed, but because it is the blue team.

If your position is that money in politics is corrupting the system, then it doesn’t suddenly become less corrupting because it’s helping your side. Either the principle matters or it doesn’t. You don’t get to redefine it every time the bag is making it rain for your team.

This is the part that I think people are actually reacting to, even if they don’t always articulate it this way.

It’s not just the hypocrisy. It’s the fact that they think nobody notices.

They really think we are dumb.

You can’t spend years telling people that money in politics is the root of the problem, that billionaires are distorting democracy, and then turn around and say this time it’s fine because it helps you win. You can’t say you want ethical standards and then immediately carve out exceptions when it benefits you.

At some point, people stop taking that seriously. Not because they don’t agree with the original goal, but because they don’t believe you actually stand by it.

And that’s where this becomes a bigger problem than just one endorsement. It erodes credibility. It makes everything sound like bullshit.

Stand on Business

At the end of the day, this isn’t about whether you support Steyer or oppose him. It’s about whether the things you say actually mean anything.

If the goal is just to win, then say that. Say you’re going to use whatever tools are available and stop pretending it’s about principle. But if you’re going to take a moral stance, if you’re going to build an entire movement around that stance, then you have to stick to it!

Because right now, we look like fucking dumb hypocrites. And, people are paying attention to that.

Stay Angry

Read more

If you’ve been following or , I appreciate it more than you know.

Donate! Support!

Donate! Support!

The Angry Ohioan is staying free. No paywall, no subscriptions. Just the content.

If you find value in what I’m building across both platforms, you can support the work through The Angry Democrat. That’s where donations go, and it all supports the same mission.

Donate! Support!

Donate! Support!

Your support helps cover research, tools, distribution, and the time it takes to keep this consistent.

Donate! Support!

Donate! Support!

The goal is straightforward: build a space that calls things out clearly and covers what others won’t.

Donate! Support!

Donate! Support!

Stay Angry

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

We had maps in the back seat, corded phones, street lights telling us when to come home, and suitcases without wheels. We also watched America move from being a manufacturing and industrial powerhouse into the internet age, the smartphone age, and now whatever this next AI era is going to become. That is why this moment feels familiar to me. We have seen this kind of economic and technological shift before.

When manufacturing jobs left the United States, people were told to “learn to code” like that was some serious answer to a huge national problem. It was not a serious answer. It was unrealistic, dismissive, and pretty damn offensive. You had people in their forties and fifties, people raising families, paying mortgages, and trying to make it to retirement, being told to just go learn a completely different technical skill and rebuild their lives. Everybody knew that was bullshit. It sounded clean as a slogan, but it did not match the reality of people’s lives.

I think we are back in that same moment again. The difference is that this time it is not factory workers being told to learn to code. This time, it is the people who already learned to code who are watching their jobs change.

The Job Already Changed

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Over the weekend I was at a wedding, and I ended up talking to a lot of people who are software developers and engineers. Every single one of them told me some version of the same thing. A year ago, their job was writing code. They sat down in front of their computer, solved problems, debugged, and wrote code all day. Now, their job is much more about prompting AI to write code, checking AI’s work, correcting it, and guiding it toward the result they want. They are not doing the same job the same way. That shift did not take ten years. It took about a year.

That is the part I think people are missing. This is not some far-off theory about the future. It is already happening in the sectors closest to the technology. That does not mean all those jobs are gone, and I am not saying every layoff is directly tied to AI. But the work itself has changed, and once the work changes, the next question is obvious. How many people do you actually need to do it?

That is where we have to start asking questions. Some research says AI could displace or significantly change around 6 to 7 percent of the U.S. workforce over time, while broader estimates range from 3 to 14 percent depending on how adoption unfolds. That is millions of jobs. However, “Predictions that technology will reduce the need for human labor have a long history but a poor track record,” Briggs and Dong

Roughly 60 percent of U.S. workers today are in jobs that did not exist in 1940, and about 85 percent of employment growth since then has come from technology-driven change. So yes, jobs will be created too. That is how these transitions usually work. But that does not mean the transition is painless, and it definitely does not mean it is evenly distributed.

The people I worry about the most are not even the developers I talked to, because at least for now, they still have jobs and are adapting. I worry more about the next group coming up. The sixteen-year-old deciding what to study. The eighteen-year-old heading into college. The twenty-two-year-old taking on massive debt for a profession they think is stable. Entry-level legal work, paralegals, marketing, graphic design, admin work, call centers, software support, and a lot of basic knowledge work all look vulnerable to some degree.

Even in health care, I think a lot of non-specialty or general practice work could get compressed through telehealth and AI tools. The issue is not that AI replaces every human being. The issue is that it reduces the amount of labor needed, and when that happens, the entry point usually disappears first.

The Warning Signs Are Already Here

Now, I am not saying that every big layoff is AI. But when you start seeing tech layoffs pile up while companies are simultaneously making huge investments in AI infrastructure, you would have to be asleep not to at least ask the question. As of April 11, 2026, TrueUp’s tracker shows more than 91,000 tech layoffs this year across more than 200 companies.

That is why I think we are entering “learn to code 2.0.” The first version hit manufacturing towns and industrial workers. This version is likely to hit white-collar and entry-level knowledge work much harder. And if that happens, it becomes a regional problem, a tax base problem, a housing problem, and a social problem. We saw what happened when manufacturing left places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Detroit. We know what dislocation looks like. The only difference this time is that the geography could be different and the workers being hit might wear business casual instead of steel-toed boots.

What really hit me after that wedding was not that the sky is falling tomorrow. It was that the public conversation still feels behind where reality already is. The people closest to the technology are telling you their jobs changed fast. The market data is showing tens of thousands of layoffs in the sectors closest to AI. The research is telling you millions of jobs are at least exposed to change. And yet most of the conversation is still either hype or denial.

The Solutions

Read more

And I don’t mean that in a vague or rhetorical way. I mean it directly.

Across pardons, foreign relationships, crypto, and real estate, you keep seeing the same pattern. Business activity ramps up around people close to him, capital moves, new ventures appear, and it all seems to align with political positioning. You have crypto projects forming before he is sworn in, token issuances tied to his name, from Trump coin to Melania coin, and the ability to generate massive amounts of capital off that attention. You have real estate conversations tied to geopolitical dynamics, and prediction markets where large, well-timed bets line up with major events.

And before getting into the example below around World Liberty Financial, I think it is important to be clear about something most people either misunderstand or choose not to think about.

Corruption is rarely obvious.

It is not someone handing over a bag of cash in exchange for a favor. That version is easy to spot and easy to prosecute. Real corruption is more sophisticated than that.

It is doing favors now for access later. It is building relationships that create leverage. It is shaping laws and regulatory environments that benefit your interests without ever having to say it outright. It is supporting someone politically and being rewarded with influence, contracts, or access. It is ignoring conflicts of interest instead of confronting them.

It is money moving at the same time decisions are being made. It is campaign donations followed by public funds being directed in certain ways. It is companies getting hired for major projects and then realizing the same networks of people are connected on both sides of the deal.

It is insider trading. It is financial engineering. It is smoke and mirrors.

People are looking for the obvious version of corruption, and when they do not see it, they assume nothing is there. But the reality is, the more sophisticated the system, the less obvious the corruption becomes. It is built through incentives, relationships, and timing.

So when you look at something like World Liberty Financial, or any of the ventures tied to Trump’s orbit, the question is not where the smoking gun is. The question is who benefits, how they benefit, and what decisions are being made at the same time that money is moving.

This is the exact dynamic being described below in Peter Girnus’ tweet.

Note: This tweet is satirical commentary written in the first person of a fictional Web3 ambassador. The satire is built on verifiable public information. Written as a example of how corruption happens

I am a Web3 Ambassador at World Liberty Financial.

There are 12 of us on the team page. 4 are named Trump. 3 are named Witkoff. The page calls us "the passionate minds shaping the future of finance."

600,000 wallets bought our memecoin. They lost $3.87 billion. The family collected $350 million in trading fees. It launched 3 days before the inauguration. 80% of the supply went to CIC Digital LLC and Fight Fight Fight LLC. I did not choose the names. I designed the allocation, the vesting, the timing, and the distance between the product and the President.

The distance is my best work.

I am the reason these events are unrelated.

World Liberty Financial sends 75 cents of every dollar to DT Marks DEFI LLC. That is the family entity. Zero capital contributed. Zero liability assumed. I wrote this into the Gold Paper. Page 14. The lawyers bound it in white leather. The binding cost more than the due diligence.

Justin Sun invested $75 million. He was facing SEC fraud charges. The SEC dropped the case. He is now our advisor. These events are unrelated.

Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to federal money laundering violations. He received a presidential pardon. The SEC dropped its lawsuit against his exchange the same week we listed our stablecoin. Then the exchange settled a $2 billion deal entirely in that stablecoin. These events are unrelated.

Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed of BitMEX pleaded guilty to Bank Secrecy Act violations. All 3 received presidential pardons. Then the company itself was pardoned. $100 million in fines. Gone. An American first. These events are unrelated.

Sheikh Tahnoun of Abu Dhabi paid $500 million for a 49% stake that was never publicly disclosed. Then the administration approved semiconductor exports to his companies over national security objections. These events are unrelated.

Everything is unrelated. I track the unrelatedness on a dashboard I built. The dashboard has 7 columns now. I am proud of the dashboard.

On May 22nd, 220 people paid a combined $148 million to eat dinner with the America First president. Over half were foreign nationals. Justin Sun paid $18.5 million for the first seat. He visited the Executive Office Building the day before. I designed the seating chart. I put it on the Investor Confidence page. That page is doing well.

The team page lists 3 Witkoffs. All 3 are Co-Founders.

Steven Witkoff is the President's Middle East envoy. He testified as a character witness at the President's fraud trial.

His son Zach runs the crypto operation. His son Alex is also a Co-Founder. I have not been told what Alex co-founded.

The father runs the diplomacy. The sons run the platform. The family runs both. That is organizational efficiency.

Barron is 19. His title is Web3 Ambassador. The same as mine. Donald Jr. called the conflicts of interest "complete nonsense." Eric launched a Bitcoin mining company called American Bitcoin. America First. The mining partner is Hut 8. Hut 8 was founded in Canada. America First means the name.

On March 6th, the President signed Executive Order 14233 creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The order directs the government to hold Bitcoin. The President's family holds billions in Bitcoin. The executive order appreciates the President's assets by presidential decree. I did not write the executive order. I made sure it looked unrelated to the portfolio.

Trump Media put $2 billion of Bitcoin on its balance sheet. The ticker symbol is DJT. His initials. The press secretary said it is absurd to insinuate the President profits off the presidency. Forbes calculated his crypto holdings exceed the combined value of Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower. I would call that absurd too. That is my job.

600,000 wallets bought in. 1 of them asked why she could not withdraw her funds. I told her the protocol was experiencing dynamic market conditions. She asked what that meant. I sent her the Gold Paper. She said she had read the Gold Paper. I muted her channel. Dynamic means the conditions change. The condition that changed was her access.

A congressman called us the world's most corrupt crypto startup operation. We put it on a coffee mug. Ironic merchandise. $45. The revenue split on the mug is also 75/25.

My own tokens vest on a different schedule. I wrote that schedule. That is not in the Gold Paper.

The memecoin funds the family. The family funds the platform. The platform funds the stablecoin. The stablecoin funds the deals. The deals require the pardons. The pardons free the partners. The partners fund the platform. The President signs the executive orders. The executive orders inflate the assets. The assets fund the family.

I am the reason these events are unrelated.

Timestamps & Summaries

00:00:00 – Opening, show purpose, and topic preview

Matt opens by explaining the mission of The Angry Democrat: holding your own side accountable instead of performing blind partisan loyalty. He then previews the episode’s main subjects, including NASA, dopamine and phone use, Ohio candidate forums, Congress, Ro Khanna, Bill O’Neill, and the Michael O’Malley–David Brock fight.

00:05:20 – NASA, Artemis II, and what happened to American ambition

Matt reflects on his Kennedy Space Center visit, mixing nostalgia, disappointment, and admiration. He contrasts the inspiration and daring of the Apollo era with what he sees as a long stagnation, while also acknowledging the newer public-private model driven by companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. He argues that missions like Artemis II show how exploration can still unify people and give the country something positive to rally around.

00:18:00 – Dopamine, phones, media saturation, and why politics feels broken

He shifts into a theory about dopamine depletion from constant phone use. In his view, people are less satisfied by real-world activities because digital stimulation is flattening everything else. He then extends that argument into politics and media, saying public discourse now has to become more extreme, more shocking, and more emotionally manipulative just to break through the noise.

00:27:35 – Ohio delegation, party identity, and the need to speak up

Matt questions why Ohio Democrats and much of the Ohio delegation have been less forceful than some independent right-wing media figures in criticizing President Trump. He argues that meaningful pressure has to come from within a coalition, not just from its opponents, and he criticizes a culture where dissent gets treated as disloyalty. He also singles out Laura Rodriguez Carbone for being one of the few candidates he thinks spoke up clearly and repeatedly.

00:34:47 – Ohio 7th District forum and what actually matters in candidate events

Matt breaks down the Ohio 7th District forum using his own framework: presentation, policy understanding, and execution. He argues these events are less about deep policy and more about whether candidates can communicate clearly, hold the room, and show they either know how to fight or know how to govern. He also praises a more interactive Wayne County-style forum model where voters and candidates engage in smaller groups for longer conversations.

00:43:37 – Ohio 21st Senate District forum: Kent Smith vs. Dolores Gray Ford

He then reviews the Ohio 21st Senate forum and describes it as a mismatch. In his telling, Kent Smith came across as polished, deeply informed, and fluent in legislative substance, while Dolores Gray Ford appeared less prepared for the structure and pressure of the event. He also critiques the moderator for extending time on a property-tax question in a way that he thinks favored Smith and made the exchange less fair.

00:53:52 – Ro Khanna, insider trading, and hypocrisy in Congress

Matt pivots hard into congressional stock trading, focusing on Ro Khanna. He argues that Khanna presents himself as a reformer while benefiting from an arrangement Matt sees as functionally indistinguishable from insider enrichment, even if the trades are formally attributed to Khanna’s spouse. He ties this into broader disgust with congressional self-dealing and also criticizes those willing to take Khanna’s endorsement without confronting the contradiction.

01:08:55 – Ed Fitzgerald mailers, campaign branding, O’Malley vs. Brock, and the Bill O’Neill endorsement controversy

From here, Matt moves into the local political back half that was missing before. He starts by critiquing Ed Fitzgerald’s mailer, questioning the claims in it and then veering into a broader commentary on Fitzgerald’s washed-out visual branding and campaign presentation. He then turns to the Michael O’Malley–David Brock conflict, framing it as a fight over control of endorsements, party machinery, and institutional power inside the county Democratic process. Finally, he discusses the Cleveland State law endorsement controversy involving Bill O’Neill, describing the dispute over whether campaigns are entitled to deference or whether they need to earn endorsements through actual outreach and engagement.

Disclaimer

This summary and timestamp breakdown were generated from a transcript.

Get more from The Angry Democrat in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Honestly, I don’t think we can. I think politics has fundamentally changed. There is no such thing as normalcy. The politics of the old, of the stately president. Where if you didn’t wear a tie or rolled up your sleeves, while playing basketball in dress shoes and took off your jacket, that was considered the cool thing to do. Or, sipping a beer with constituents, knowing that it was only for a photo op, was considered edgy. And, the occasional profanity of “fight like hell” was about as far as you could go.

Nah, we’ve blown way past that.

Personally, I’ve always thought that listening to politicians or corporate people speak was nauseating. It was inauthentic and downright offensive by how much jargony, corporate, political speak they used that was just meaningless trash, knowing full well that if you turn off the camera and walk away and everybody, including the politician and all the constituents, speak, act, and think completely differently. So part of me is sitting here going, at least people are saying what they feel.

But over the weekend, and really the past couple weeks, I’ve been thinking about how we react to the world, how we react to politics, social media, and everything around it. And I think that, honestly, we have a dopamine problem.

Now look, if you are a neuroscientist or somebody with a degree in psychology, don’t come at me because I get the science wrong. This is just me thinking. But you can come correct me, we can learn together, or you can confirm that I’m right. Which I would like very much.

Here’s my thought.

We have screens everywhere. We have trained ourselves over the past decade and it has accelerated especially over the past 5 to 6 years, particularly post-COVID, to act like a hamster to a water bottle… getting little hits of dopamine any chance we can get.

The way dopamine works in the brain, especially what people refer to as reward-driven dopamine responses, is that you get a small spike, and then over time, you return to baseline. Historically, that came from real-world experiences like friends and family, a treat, exercise, a good book, building something, or personal satisfaction.

But now we have it in the palm of our hands. Opening and closing apps all day to check to see if anybody messaged you. Feeling your phone buzz, pulling down to refresh your email knowing damn well that 90 percent of it is junk! But, you still enjoy getting it because dopamine.

So my theory is pretty simple, and it ties all of this together.

Social activity used to be the thing that released dopamine. Now it almost feels like something we have to relearn. You go out with friends. You go to a bar. You go to a park! And, even though you want to be there, even though you enjoy it, it is harder to stay engaged, harder to stay present, harder to feel satisfied. I am not saying you personally. You might be sitting there thinking, that’s not me, I love my friends. Fine.

But I am talking in aggregate.

However, we are getting thousands of micro-hits of stimulation throughout the day. So when we go to do something that used to feel good, it doesn’t hit the same. At the same time, larger spikes like sugar or alcohol can feel worse than they used to, not better, because you are already depleted.

What I mean is this. If you are constantly hitting dopamine throughout the day, you spike, drop below baseline, and then recover. But the more often you do that, the deeper that drop can feel. So when you try to get a bigger hit later, it does not feel as good. And, it can actually increase stress and anxiety instead of satisfaction.

That brings us to politics.

Trump knows exactly what he is doing. This is not random. This is not accidental. These are ways of communicating that understand we are desensitized. That we are overloaded. That we need stronger and stronger stimuli just to feel something.

So what happens is that you get statements that are more extreme, more aggressive, more outrageous, not because that is necessarily the natural endpoint of politics, but because that is what cuts through. We have been so inundated with information, outrage, content, truth, lies, AI-generated noise, everything, that if you want attention! Now, you have to go beyond the threshold. You have to shock! You have to provoke! You have to hit people with something strong enough to create a reaction!

And it works!

We react. We get outraged. We talk about it. We share it. We argue about it. Then we refresh, scroll, and move on. The goal is achieved and attention is captured. Then it all disappears. Nobody remembers how it felt six months later, and not because it wasn’t important. But because we have gone through thousands of those cycles since then. The emotional impact gets washed out.

That is the shift.

The moral compass that used to be tied to strong emotional reactions gets diluted because nothing feels that shocking anymore. It just becomes another thing, another moment, another post.

That is why I do not think politics is going back.

We are not going back to the candidate who rolls up their sleeves, drinks a beer, and everyone says, “wow,” how relatable. Now it is the most outrageous, the most shocking, and the most offensive thing that actually breaks through. Because, that is what gives people enough of a spike to feel something, to feel that something happened, that something mattered.

And I think we are now in a different world, a world where AI is going to amplify this even further, where communication can be generated, exaggerated, and distributed at scale in ways we have never seen before, where shock and attention become the currency.

And in that world, normal life starts to feel dull by comparison.

Even when you are out with friends. Even when you are doing something you used to enjoy, it just feels a little flatter, a little more gray.

So what is the solution?

Honestly, it is obvious. But, it is also the hardest thing to do.

Get off the phone!

Step away from it. Break the cycle.

I was listening to Ari Shaffir talk about going off social media and how for a couple of weeks he felt completely off, withdrawal, disconnected, out of rhythm. That is a red flag!

This is not just an individual problem anymore. This is collective.

If the entire system is built on feeding us constant stimulation, then stepping away cannot just be one person deciding to log off for a weekend. It has to be a broader shift in how we consume information, how we engage with each other, and how we value attention. It means fewer refreshes, fewer outrage cycles, fewer moments where we need something louder, crazier, or more extreme just to feel something.

Because right now, the incentive structure is clear. The more depleted we are, the more extreme things have to become to break through. That is not just changing politics.

It is changing us.

So maybe the real question is not whether politics will go back to normal. It will not. The better question is… Can we reset ourselves enough to stop rewarding the behavior that got us here in the first place?

Can we actually step back, collectively, and give our brains time to return to baseline?

Because if we cannot, then the cycle does not slow down. It accelerates. And the next version of this, whether it is AI, politics, or something else entirely, is going to have to be even louder, even more extreme, just to get our attention.

And at that point, we are not reacting to the world anymore.

We are just chasing the next hit and who will give it to us.

Not only did Artemis II launch its first manned mission to the moon in 54 years, inspiring the world while millions tuned in live to watch something that felt bigger than politics, bigger than day-to-day noise, but it also reminded people of what coordinated effort can actually produce. It fostered a sense of hope that we do not get often anymore. It made people stop and think, even briefly, that this is what humanity can do when we choose to build instead of destroy.

At the same time, the Cleveland Guardians beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 4–1, taking two out of three on the road and coming back for our home opener with a strong start to the season.

And in a very different setting, but one that matters just as much for how our future is shaped, I attended the League of Women Voters OH-7 Congressional District forum with one of my favorite people, Sarah.

This is my report on that event.

Purpose of This Breakdown

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

First, I want to acknowledge the League of Women Voters.

Through the years I ran for Congress, and even now, they consistently show up. They create space for engagement, for dialogue, for people to hear directly from candidates. Whether it is three people in a room or hundreds, they do the work. That consistency matters in a system where participation is often declining.

But with eight candidates on a stage and limited time, there is only so much substance you can realistically extract. You are not getting depth. You are getting snapshots.

So after the event, Sarah and I tried to impose some structure on what we saw.

We built a simple evaluation framework:

Presentation
Who actually looked and sounded like someone ready to represent the district? Who controlled the room, understood pacing, and communicated clearly?

Policy
Who demonstrated a real understanding of the issues? Not just talking points, but actual comprehension and clarity.

Execution
We split this into two parts:
Who is going to fight in Congress?
Who actually understands how Congress works and how to get something done?

This matters because those are not always the same person.

Important note: I am not naming favorites.

If you watch the forum with this framework in mind, you will likely arrive at similar conclusions. I am intentionally avoiding endorsements. I live in the district, I ran in the district, and I am currently interviewing these candidates. Once you publicly choose a side, everything you say afterward becomes suspect. I do not want to compromise the integrity of what I am presenting.

Pre-Event Observations (Arrival and Engagement)

Share The Angry Democrat

Share The Angry Democrat

Before anyone even took the stage, there were already signals.

Some candidates were positioned at the entrance, greeting people as they walked in. That matters more than people think. It shows preparation, awareness, and a willingness to engage before the spotlight is on.

When I arrived, Scott Schulz, Ann Marie Donegan, John Butchko, and Michael Eisner were already there. Scott Schulz, in particular, had set up cookies, campaign materials, and signs people could take. It was small, but it was intentional. It created an immediate point of interaction.

Inside the venue, other candidates were working the room, shaking hands as people sat down. I noticed Ed Fitzgerald and Brian Poindexter doing this.

Laura Rodriguez Carbone arrived roughly ten minutes before the start. Keith Mundy arrived late. But context matters.

This was a weekday, 6:30 PM start time, with heavy traffic, construction on I-90, and the aftermath of a significant storm that had caused flooding, downed trees, and power outages. Even the host acknowledged she was almost late. I was 15 minutes behind because of backups on the freeway.

So I recommend not penalizing anyone for timing.

On-Stage Presence

Once the forum began, the differences became more pronounced.

Presence mattered immediately.

Some candidates clearly understood that this was not just about answering questions. It was about delivering under constraints. They were dressed sharply, maintained posture, controlled their tone, and used the microphone effectively. They understood how to compress an idea into a short window without losing clarity.

Others did not.

You could see the difference between people who had practiced this exact scenario and those who had not. It showed in pacing, in word choice, in how they handled transitions between ideas.

There were candidates who spoke with confidence and precision, and others who either rushed, rambled, or lost their structure mid-answer.

With only 30 to 60 seconds per response, there is no room to recover. That is what made the contrast so obvious.

Policy Clarity

Share The Angry Democrat

This is where the gap widened even more.

Some candidates came in with clearly defined positions. They understood the questions being asked, and more importantly, they understood how to translate their policy positions into something digestible in a short format.

They were concise without being vague.

Others struggled.

Some answers became overly complex, filled with qualifiers and nuance that did not land in the time allowed. Others felt like they were being constructed in real time, which led to disjointed delivery.

Again, people noticed.

The person sitting in front of me, someone I later recognized as a supporter from my previous campaigns, was actively scoring candidates. He had names written down, was jotting notes, and placing checkmarks next to answers that met his expectations.

That is what voters are doing in real time. They are not just listening. They are evaluating.

And it became clear, very quickly, who had done the work beforehand and who had not.

Strength vs. Execution

Then the evaluation shifts to something more nuanced.

Who is going to fight, and who is going to be effective?

These are not interchangeable.

There were candidates who projected force. But visibility is not the same as effectiveness. So the real question becomes:

Do you want someone who goes to Congress and makes noise, or someone who understands how to move policy through a system that is deliberately slow and complex?

From what I observed, candidates fell into three general categories:

• Those who would go to Congress and be loud and visible

• Those who had a clear understanding of what they wanted to accomplish for the district

• Those who would likely need time to figure things out once they got there

And again, in a format where each answer is constrained to under a minute, voters are forced to rely on these signals. Tone, confidence, clarity, and structure become proxies for deeper capability.

The Limits of This Format

This leads to the core issue.

Forums like this are useful, but they are limited.

They are good for exposure. They are good for initial impressions. They are good for seeing how candidates perform under pressure.

They are not good for understanding how someone thinks.

You cannot meaningfully evaluate policy depth, decision-making frameworks, or real-world competence in 30-second answers.

That is why long-form content is becoming more important.

Podcasts, extended interviews, and direct conversations allow candidates to explain not just what they believe, but how they arrived there. You can see the candidates have in-depth conversations about policies in the link below.

A Better Model for Future Forums

The forum itself was well run. The organization was clear, and the effort was evident.

But with eight candidates, the format is working against depth.

I would strongly suggest a different model, one I saw used by the Wayne County League of Women Voters.

Instead of one stage, they used multiple rooms:

• Attendees were divided into small groups

• Each group had their own room

• Candidates rotated room to room every 15 minutes

This creates:

• Direct interaction instead of passive listening

• Unfiltered questions instead of curated ones

• More accountability, because candidates cannot rely on rehearsed soundbites

• A more accurate sense of how each candidate actually engages

In that environment, candidates either sink or swim very quickly.

Closing Thoughts

If you are trying to decide who to support based solely on this forum, you are missing too much information.

Use it as a starting point, not a conclusion.

Watch the forum. Observe the presentation, the clarity, the confidence.

Then go a little deeper.

Listen to long-form interviews. That is where you will actually understand who these candidates are and how they think.

You can find those longer conversations on , where I sit down with each candidate individually.

I know this analysis is somewhat restrained. That is intentional.

I am trying to give you a framework, not a conclusion.

Share The Angry Democrat

Walking into Kennedy Space Center brought all of that back immediately. The place itself is massive, thousands of acres of preserved land where rockets just happen to launch. It is clean, well maintained, and a little dated in parts. A lot of the experience is still built around touchscreens, videos, and guided storytelling. But then you turn a corner and see the real hardware. The rockets, the capsules, the scale of what was actually built. That is when it stops being a museum and starts feeling like something much bigger.

And that is where the experience shifts from nostalgia to something more complicated.

The Apollo Mindset vs. The Modern One

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

When you walk through the Apollo section, you are not just looking at artifacts. You are looking at a mindset.

You see the control rooms from the early 60s. Solid desks. Analog switches. Landline phones. Rooms filled with engineers working through problems in real time. There is footage of John Glenn dealing with issues mid-flight, and you can hear the tension in the room as people try to solve it with tools that look primitive by today’s standards.

And yet, they made it work.

They did not have perfect systems. They did not have certainty. What they had was urgency, belief, and a willingness to take risks that most people today would not even consider.

That is what struck me the most. The comparison between what they had and what they accomplished.

They were not doing it because there was something to extract from the moon. There was no oil. No gold. No immediate return. They were doing it because it mattered to try. Because exploration itself was the goal (well and beating Russia).

Now compare that to how we talk about space today.

One of the most common explanations for why we never went back is that there is nothing there. It is expensive. It is not worth it.

That framing alone tells you everything about how the mindset has changed.

We went from asking what is possible to asking what is profitable.

The Price of Inspiration

There was another moment that stuck with me. It cost over $80 to get in, plus parking. $100! And that is before you even step inside. Standing there, knowing that this facility exists because of taxpayer investment, it felt off. Maybe there are operational reasons. Maybe the visitor experience is privately managed. But as a citizen, it felt like I was paying to see something I had already helped fund.

And the experience itself reinforces that feeling.

So much of it is packaged. Controlled. Delivered through screens and structured narratives. It reminded me of the World Expo I talked about before. There is something missing when everything is presented in a way that feels processed instead of lived.

And yet, the physical artifacts cut through that.

Standing under a Saturn V rocket, you cannot help but feel something. You start thinking about the scale of the effort, the number of people involved, the amount of coordination it took to make something like that work.

And then the question starts forming.

If we could do that then, why does it feel like we are hesitating now?

Public vs. Private and the Shift in Incentives

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The other thing that becomes impossible to ignore is how much of the current space activity is now driven by private companies.

As you go through the bus tour, you see launch pads and facilities not just for NASA, but for SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing. Old NASA infrastructure is being leased out. New systems are being built alongside the old ones.

In many ways, it is impressive. SpaceX, in particular, has driven down the cost of getting payloads into orbit dramatically. Reusable rockets. Frequent launches. A level of efficiency that changes what is possible.

But it comes with a different set of incentives.

Now the conversation is about cost efficiency, payload economics, commercial viability. Space tourism becomes part of the discussion. Low Earth orbit becomes a marketplace.

And I do not think that is bad. In fact, it is necessary to scale what comes next.

But it does raise a concern.

If the primary driver becomes profit, what happens to the things that do not have an immediate return? What happens to the long-term exploration goals that require sustained investment without a clear financial payoff?

Because that is exactly what got us to the moon in the first place.

What If We Never Stopped?

As I went through the exhibits, especially the Apollo section, I kept coming back to one idea.

What if we never stopped?

What if we treated that moment not as a finish line, but as a starting point?

There is a show I like, For All Mankind, that explores that exact question. What happens if the space race never ends? What happens if we keep pushing, keep investing, keep exploring?

Walking through Kennedy Space Center, that question does not feel theoretical.

Because you can see both versions at the same time.

You see what we were capable of when we were driven by curiosity and ambition.

I left Kennedy Space Center feeling two things at the same time.

Inspired by what we can accomplish and what could have been.

Yet as I was leaving, there was Artemis II sitting on the pad, the first crewed mission back toward the Moon in over 50 years, (tentatively launching April 1, 2026) built through a mix of NASA leadership and private contractors, a reminder that we still know how to do this when we choose to, the question is whether we are willing to commit to it beyond just this moment.

Because the talent is still here. The technology is better. The capability has not disappeared.

If something does not have a clear return, it struggles to get support. If something is risky, it gets delayed. If something requires long-term commitment, it gets questioned.

And that is where I think we have lost something important. Exploration is not supposed to be safe. It is not supposed to be immediately profitable.

It is supposed to push us forward.

Amaze! Amaze! Amaze!

It’s been a couple weeks since I’ve gone live, and I wanted to jump on and walk through everything I’ve been working on. I’ve been putting out a mix of articles, candidate interviews, and some ideas that got both support and pushback, which is exactly what I want.

This week I’m breaking down a handful of those pieces, talking through what I actually meant, and giving more context behind them. Some of this is national, some of it is local to Cuyahoga County, and some of it is what I’ve learned from sitting down with candidates directly.

If you’ve read the articles, this gives you more color. If you haven’t, this is a good way to jump into the parts that matter most to you.

Below are timestamps so you can jump to each section.

Stay Angry

Opening + What We’re Covering (Articles + Interviews Overview)
00:00 – 06:00

I opened by explaining I haven’t been live in a couple weeks and wanted to go through everything I’ve been putting out. I laid out the full slate:

• Authenticity as a Privilege

• The Version of America the World Sees

• Democratic Party critique (Clyburn, incumbents)

• Ohio 7th candidate interviews

• Eaton TIF guest article

• CCDP finances

• Sarah Cherry / Alison Russo situation

• Preview of Ohio 14 interviews

Read more

This post includes links to all of the interviews I’ve conducted with candidates running in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District.

The format varied. Some candidates chose to do these in person, others did not, and a couple I wanted to do remotely mainly due to audio issues. Every candidate was asked variations of the same questions, which are included in the linked document below. Each candidate also has a dedicated page with short video clips, and under each one I’ve added a brief, unbiased commentary on my experience with them.

Candidate Questions

Two candidates are not included: Ed FitzGerald and Brian Poindexter.

Ed FitzGerald initially reached out to set something up. We tried to connect over a couple of weeks, but he never found the time.

Brian Poindexter and his campaign told me directly they did not have time.

My door is still open to both of them so they can complete the same process as everyone else before the primary.

I’ll be direct. It should concern you when a candidate cannot find an hour to talk policy while asking for your vote.

There are a few possible explanations.

One, they do not want to be on record discussing these issues. I was told the same thing by consultants during my first campaign. Avoid firm positions, avoid being pinned down on camera.

Two, they may not be confident in their positions or comfortable in a long-form setting. It is easier to stick to stump speeches and controlled forums that do not allow for deeper discussion.

Three, and this is fair to acknowledge, they may not see value in coming on The Angry Democrat or do not want to associate with the platform. That is a political decision.

But the outcome is the same. There are gaps.

I still welcome both campaigns to reach out and complete the interview before the primary.

The Angry Ohioan

John Butchko: Candidate for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District

Hey everyone, this is Matt Diemer, the Angry Democrat, continuing the Congressional Interview Series. This conversation features John Butchko, who is running for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District…

Listen now

a month ago · 2 likes · 4 comments · The Angry Democrat

John Butchko presents as thoughtful and deliberate, with a clear sense of his positions and values. Our conversation was focused and direct, and he communicated his views with consistency. He does not currently have a campaign website or FEC registration for fundraising, though he maintains a presence on Facebook, which is how we connected. Coordination took some time, as his responses were slower, but it did not appear intentional. Overall, I found the conversation productive and appreciated the opportunity to speak with him.

The Angry Ohioan

Laura Rodriguez Carbone: Candidate for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District

Hey everyone, this is Matt Diemer, the Angry Democrat, continuing the Congressional Interview Series. This conversation features Laura Rodriguez Carbone, who is running for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District…

Listen now

a month ago · 4 likes · 2 comments · The Angry Democrat

Laura Rodriguez Carbone was easy to coordinate with and consistently responsive throughout the scheduling process. She is registered with the FEC and maintains a campaign website. During our conversation, her responses were direct, well-considered, and clearly articulated. It was evident she has spent significant time thinking through policy and key issues, and she did not appear to struggle with her answers. She expressed her positions with confidence and was transparent about her alignment with a progressive policy agenda.

The Angry Ohioan

Ann Marie Donegan: Candidate for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District

Hey everyone, this is Matt Diemer, the Angry Democrat, continuing the Congressional Interview Series. This conversation features Ann Marie Donegan, who is running for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District…

Listen now

a month ago · 1 like · The Angry Democrat

Anne Marie Donegan was easy to coordinate with and very approachable throughout the process. She arrived early, was patient while I worked through some technical issues, and made the overall experience smooth. Her prior time in office provides a clear foundation for her perspectives, and she spoke openly about both her experience and how it informs her decision-making. It was evident that she approaches the role with a policy-focused and pragmatic mindset regarding the responsibilities of representing Ohio’s 7th District.

The Angry Ohioan

Michael Eisner: Candidate for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District

Hey everyone, this is Matt Diemer, the Angry Democrat, starting the Congressional Interview Series. We’re kicking things off with Michael Eisner, who is running for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District…

Listen now

a month ago · 3 likes · 2 comments · The Angry Democrat

Michael Eisner and his campaign were instrumental in initiating these conversations and helping set the process in motion. His campaign manager was highly organized and consistently on top of logistics, which made coordination straightforward. During our discussion, Michael’s background as a lawyer was evident in his careful, deliberate approach to answering questions, choosing his words thoughtfully and methodically. His campaign has also been notably communicative, regularly sharing updates on events, conducting outreach, and maintaining an open line of communication throughout the process.

The Angry Ohioan

Keith Mundy: Candidate for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District

Hey everyone, this is Matt Diemer, the Angry Democrat, continuing the Congressional Interview Series. This conversation features Keith Mundy, a longtime political organizer and campaign manager with deep roots in Northeast Ohio grassroots politics…

Listen now

a month ago · 2 likes · The Angry Democrat

Keith Mundy presents as an old-school progressive, aligned with a Bernie Sanders–style, Democratic socialist approach to policy. Scheduling took some time due to a few reschedules related to personal commitments, but the process was handled in good faith. He brings a long history in Ohio politics, with extensive experience and connections that inform his perspective on the role and responsibilities of representing Ohio’s 7th District.

The Angry Ohioan

Scott Schulz: Candidate for Congress Ohio's 7th District

Hey everyone, this is Matt Diemer, the Angry Democrat, continuing the Congressional Interview Series. This conversation features Scott Schulz, who is running for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District…

Listen now

a month ago · 4 likes · The Angry Democrat

Scott Schulz was the first to suggest an in-person interview, which helped set the tone for others who later chose that format. He was prompt and clear in communication, making coordination straightforward. I have some prior familiarity with Scott from his involvement with the Bay Village Democrats and his time as an elected official in my former community. In our conversation, his background as a professor was evident, as he approached questions with nuance and a thoughtful, measured style.

Stay Angry

Everything is on the line. Democracy is at risk. The future is hanging in the balance.

And then I look at what we actually do.

We run the same candidates. We repeat the same messaging. We avoid risk. We protect incumbents. We call incremental change a strategy.

At some point, those two things stop ali…

Read more

The Angry Democrat covers the big picture. Congressional races, national dynamics, the broader shifts shaping the country, and my general political thoughts. But it’s not where the day-to-day political reality of Ohio gets fully unpacked.

That’s exactly why exists.

This is where the local stories live. The interviews you won’t see elsewhere. The county-level decisions, party dynamics, and political undercurrents that directly affect your community. If you’re in Northeast Ohio in particular, I hope to turn this into required reading if you want to understand what’s actually happening around you.

It’s free to subscribe. No barrier, no paywall.

And if you value the work across both platforms, you can always support the broader mission through The Angry Democrat.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

But at a minimum, if you’re in Ohio, get plugged into .

What struck me was not just the baseball. It was what it revealed. It felt like an allegory of the United States. Not the version we tell ourselves, but the version the rest of the world might actually see.

It brought me back to something I have not thought about in years. The 2010 World Expo in Shanghai.

I remember being there. Walking through pavilion after pavilion, seeing how countries chose to present themselves. It was not just architecture. It was identity. It was culture. It was pride.

China’s pavilion felt rooted in history. Chile’s felt warm and inviting, almost like a gathering place. Other countries leaned into innovation, agriculture, art, and storytelling. There was a sense of energy and authenticity. You could feel that these countries wanted to show the world who they were.

And then there was the United States.

Our pavilion was funded by corporate sponsorships. That was the law. It could not be publicly funded. So what we ended up with was something that felt exactly like what funded it.

Corporate.

Structured.

Controlled.

There were logos everywhere. Sponsorships from major corporations. A overly polished presentation. A Disney-produced film as the centerpiece. Everything felt managed, filtered, and corporate.

It also felt empty.

People walked through it and wanted more. Not more production value. More substance. More culture. More identity. Real America.

Even working there felt different. Other countries had camaraderie. Their teams bonded. They explored together. There was joy. There was pride in representing something.

Ours felt like a corporate environment. Rules. Image control. PR management. A sense that you were representing a brand more than your slice of Americana.

I remember leaving early. Not because I did not want to be there, but because I was disappointed. I knew we had more to offer than the American Airlines branded uniforms.

That same feeling came back watching the World Baseball Classic.

You look at teams like Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Italy, even teams like the Czech Republic. You see energy. You see joy. You see players dancing in the dugout, celebrating, embracing the moment. You see teams that are proud to be there.

You see connection.

Then you look at Team USA.

And it feels different.

There is talent. There is no question about that. But the energy is not the same. The urgency is not the same. The joy is not the same.

You hear about contract concerns. Commitments to MLB teams. Players not fully bought in until they arrive. A sense that this is not the main event.

You see a locker room that feels controlled instead of alive.

You see moments that lean into something else entirely. Military symbolism. Structured messaging. A kind of seriousness that does not match the spirit of the competition.

There was even a moment where the team brought in the man credited with killing Osama bin Laden to give a pregame speech. That choice, paired with the heavy military symbolism throughout, pushed the tone away from sport and into something that felt more paramilitary than celebratory.

It did not feel like a team coming together around the joy of representing their country. It felt like a performance of power.

And you start to notice something else.

It feels like we expect to win. It felt like the performances were mailed in.

There was a moment where the United States played as if advancement was guaranteed, without even realizing they had not clinched a semifinal spot, ultimately leaving it up to other teams.

It is not confidence. It is arrogance and complacency.

And when you put that next to teams that are fighting for every inning, celebrating every moment, and treating the opportunity like it matters, the contrast becomes obvious.

It reminded me of that feeling in Shanghai.

When you put the United States next to the rest of the world, something becomes clearer.

We are not lacking talent. We are not lacking resources. We are not lacking history or culture.

What we are lacking, at least in how we present ourselves, is connection.

We are starting to feel like a brand instead of a country.

Because I do not believe that is who we actually are.

I do not believe that Americans lack heart, or pride, or community. I know it exists.

But I do think something else is shaping how we show up.

Corporate influence.

Militarization.

You see it in our cities. You drive through different towns and they start to look the same. The same stores. The same layouts. The same developments. The same experience.

And compared to countries that are willing to show their culture in a raw, vibrant, and sometimes imperfect way, we start to look… flat.

That is the word that keeps coming to mind.

Flat.

The World Baseball Classic showed that.

Not because we lost a game. Baseball is unpredictable. Anyone can win on any given day. That is part of what makes it great.

The Cleveland Guardians proved that. A young, scrappy team that fought their way back and played with energy and belief.

That is what I saw in those international teams.

And it made me ask a harder question.

What are we showing the world right now?

Because when people show you who they are, you are supposed to believe them. And I think, on that stage, we showed something.

Not the full picture. Not the best version of ourselves. But a version that is shaped by corporate influence, controlled messaging, and a belief that we will always come out on top no matter what.

It is not wrong to be confident, but it is wrong to be arrogant.

It is about asking: Are showing the world who we really are?

Because I know we are more than what I saw in Shanghai.

And I know we are more than what I saw in that dugout.

We have to keep fighting for the identity within our communities and not being afraid to export it.

Stay Angry.

Check out some articles from 2010 reviews of the Shanghai expo

http://www.expo2010china.hu/index.phtml?module=hir&ID=1802

http://shanghaiscrap.com/2010/04/weve-got-yer-pizza-american-cuisine-well-represented-at-expo-2010/

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

People usually phrase it as having “fuck you money.” The idea that you have enough freedom and security that you can say exactly what you want, do what you want, and be completely yourself without worrying about the consequences.

If you have that kind of freedom, the consequences of what you say do not really affect your livelihood, your social circle, your family, or your position in the world. You live outside many of the boundaries that other people have to live within.

And that idea made me start thinking about the word authenticity.

And because I live in the political space, and because I am The Angry Democrat, I want to talk about what authenticity actually means when we talk about political candidates.

My Own Struggle With Authenticity

I have been interviewing candidates recently, and I have also been a candidate myself twice.

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear in politics is simple.

“Just be authentic.”

But I remember my 2022 campaign clearly. I was the furthest thing from authentic.

I was trying to craft a message that I thought would resonate with everybody. I did not want to come down too hard on certain issues because I did not want to alienate voters. I also did not want to make people mad who I might need as allies. You know, the, “reach across the aisle! Compromise!” approach.

So my authentic self was not really present.

Sure, people thought I was a nice guy. Some people liked me more than my opponent. Obviously not everybody, because I lost.

But I still had supporters.

But, the question I wrestled with was whether I was actually being authentic.

And if I was not, why not?

The Boundaries Around Authenticity

I give people the advice all the time. Just be yourself. Be authentic.

But to truly be yourself, you have to live without certain boundaries.

Even people who appear authentic are still operating within some kind of structure. Someone may say whatever they want, act however they want, and appear to live freely. But in politics that can be just as much of a gimmick as someone who carefully guards their opinions.

Sometimes authenticity itself becomes a strategy.

But the truth is that most people have something to lose.

When someone believes they have something to lose, and when the loss feels more important than the potential gain, authenticity takes a back seat.

Even when you think you are being authentic, there is always a moment where you pause and ask yourself questions.

Do I really believe this?
Do I really want to say this?
Am I willing to make this person mad?
Am I willing to make this group mad?
Am I willing to lose a friend or a family member?

Share The Angry Democrat

The Lines We Choose Not to Cross

Some decisions are easy. Sometimes you know it is time to cut the rope with someone in your life.

But most situations are not that clear.

Sometimes the question becomes what are you actually sacrificing?

I have a couple of friends where there are certain political topics we simply do not talk about. And, these are people I talk about politics with all the time.

But for the sake of our friendship, we either had conversations about boundaries or we have an unspoken agreement not to go there.

We know there are strong beliefs on both sides.

So some topics are simply better left unsaid.

Does that make me inauthentic? Do I guard myself on those topics because of friendships?

It is something I have been wrestling with.

What is there to gain by being completely authentic?

And what is there to lose?

Authenticity Fears

One of the biggest fears about authenticity is the possibility that your authenticity turns out to be ignorance.

Maybe you stand firmly on something and later realize you were wrong.

Maybe you change your opinion later.

That ignorance or misinformation destroys a friendship or burns a bridge that cannot be repaired.

And maybe you later find yourself holding the exact opposite view or that the facts around the view you held were wrong.

Those are the risks people quietly think about when they decide whether to speak their mind. When you take a hard stand on something, you are putting your identity behind it. You are telling people this is what you believe and this is who you are.

But people grow. People learn. Circumstances change.

And sometimes the thing you were absolutely certain about turns out to be incomplete, misunderstood, or flat out wrong.

If that authenticity cost you relationships along the way, the damage may already be done. A friendship may already be broken. A bridge may already be burned. A person you once respected may no longer be part of your life.

That possibility alone makes people cautious.

Because authenticity does not just carry the risk of being criticized in the moment. It carries the risk that someday you might look back and realize the person you were so certain about being was not the person you are anymore.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Authenticity Is a Privilege

I believe authenticity is a privilege.

It is something available to people whose world revolves around themselves in a way that cannot easily break. No matter what happens, their world remains intact because they are the center of it. Their decisions, their opinions, and their voice do not depend as heavily on keeping everyone around them satisfied.

Authenticity also belongs to people who have reached a realization about themselves and their place in the world. They understand that if everything around them were to fall apart because of something they said or believed, they could still live with that outcome.

They understand the consequences and accept them.

At the end of the day, they know they will still be standing.

Friends or no friends.
Family or no family.

They understand that their life ultimately belongs to them, and that realization creates a kind of freedom. It allows them to say what they believe, even when they know it might upset people or create conflict.

That realization, that willingness to accept the consequences of being fully yourself, is what makes authenticity possible. And that is why authenticity is not just a personality trait. It not just a choice. It is not a way of acting during a campaign.

It is a privilege.

The Evolution of a Candidate

As a candidate trying to find your authentic voice is hard.

It means pushing against the fear that people will be mad at you.

It means pushing against the fear that people will say your opinions are worthless or invalid.

It means figuring out what you actually believe and which things deserve a strong voice.

At the same time, it is asking does everything deserve a voice?

Authenticity is not about shouting every thought you have. It is about being thoughtful, confident, assertive, and mindful.

And it means understanding that some people will not like you. And that is ok.

Some people will not like what you say. And that is ok.

Some people will not like what you stand for. And that is ok.

Every political candidate experiences this process.

At least the good ones do.

There is a cycle I have noticed.

At first, candidates are terrified. Myself included.

They write speeches. They stand in front of people. Their voices crack. Their hands shake. They are nervous as hell trying to get through a stump speech they have practiced a hundred times.

They do not want to disappoint people.
They do not want to get laughed at.
They do not want to say the wrong thing.

Eventually they get more comfortable. They learn how to deliver the speech better.

But the speech itself usually does not change.

The candidates I watch most closely are the ones who eventually challenge themselves.

The ones who get angry at the system.

The ones who notice when the media plays favorites.
When the party plays favorites.
When the thumb is clearly on the scale.

At that point, candidates face a choice.

Some decide they just need to play the game better so that the system favors them next time.

Others cannot ignore the injustice. It bothers them too much.

Those are the candidates I pay attention to. The candidates who find their voice. The ones who refuse to accept the unfairness.

They begin their campaigns trying to please everyone. They try to get every vote possible for an abstract idea of winning.

But over time they evolve.

They begin speaking their truth.

They start raising ideas that may be unpopular but address real problems people see coming.

They begin advocating for solutions they genuinely believe in, even when those ideas are outside the normal political playbook.

They start speaking honestly about how systems might need to change.

And through that authentic voice they begin to build real alliances, real coalitions, and real change.

But even that process is a privilege.

The ability to speak up is a privilege.

The ability to have strong opinions publicly is a privilege.

The ability to lose a friend, a colleague, a job, a family member, or political party loyalty because of political disagreement is a privilege.

And the ability to not fear those consequences is privilege.

Subscribe now

Share The Angry Democrat

The Hard Road to Authenticity

I describe this moment as a realization.

The realization that you have to live your own life.

And that if you do that, the people who truly belong in your life will remain.

But not everyone reaches that point.

The journey is difficult.

For some people it never gets completed.

Sometimes people lose more than they gain. They live with regret.

For many people, inauthenticity becomes the only way to survive.

And that is not something I say with judgment.

When I say authenticity is a privilege, I mean that very literally.

A Question Worth Asking

Through my experience running for office twice, interviewing candidates for podcasts, working with the party, and now writing as The Angry Democrat, I have seen many different types of candidates.

I have also seen my own evolution.

So I encourage people to ask themselves a question. Even if you are not a political candidate.

What do you do?

Do you walk away and try to figure out how to play the game better so the system eventually favors you? Or do you challenge yourself?

Do you develop clear ideas, clear values, and move forward knowing that authenticity may come with consequences?

Because authenticity always comes with an uncertain future.

And the decision to act on it is always a privilege.

“Just do the right thing. The rest doesn’t matter.” - Marcus Aurelius

Stay Angry.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Introduction and Why I Do These Livestreams
00:00 – 05:00

I opened the livestream explaining why I do these conversations in the first place. When I write articles for The Angry Democrat, I often see people misunderstand what I’m actually trying to say. So these lives give me a chance to explain the thinking behind my articles and talk …

Read more

Subscribe now

And to be honest, I’m part of that too. The Angry Democrat definitely leans into criticism. We talk about problems. We talk about what needs to be fixed. Everyone has opinions about what’s wrong.

But the other day I was at a meet and greet with Bryan Hambley, and he started the event with a simple question that has been sticking with me for days.

A question we don’t ask enough.

Not because we want to ignore the problems. Not because we don’t see what needs fixing. But because, frankly, we have a pretty damn good country and pretty damn good lives in many ways.

The question was simple:

What is something you are proud of?

Something the United States has done.
Something your hometown has done.

It sounds easy. But it wasn’t.

People struggled with it. Some would think of something they were proud of and then immediately follow it with why it’s bad now, why it’s being eroded, or why some politician is ruining it. We’re so conditioned to talk about decline that we almost feel uncomfortable acknowledging success.

At the meet and greet people mentioned public education, national parks, NASA, and other things.

When I answered, I said the Great Lakes.

But the thing I’m actually most proud of about the United States is something else entirely.

And it took living abroad for me to fully understand it.

To see the full interview with Bryan Hambley please click the link below.

The Angry Ohioan

Russo and Hambley: Two Democrats. One Office. Same Questions.

I recently sat down with former State House Minority Leader Allison Russo and Bryan Hambley. Both are Democrats running for Secretary of State here in Ohio…

Listen now

2 months ago · 7 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Seeing America From the Outside

Subscribe now

Some of you know that I lived in China from around 2005 until 2017. After that I spent about two years in Taiwan. I’ve also traveled to many other countries.

When you live abroad that long, you don’t just visit. You navigate their systems.

You deal with landlords.
You sign contracts.
You open bank accounts.
You get a phone plan.
You start businesses.
You pay taxes.
You deal with bureaucracies and corruption.

You experience daily life inside another country’s system.

And doing that changes how you see America.

It allows you to take experiences from other places and compare them to the United States. It allows you to crowdsource ideas and solutions from different systems.

But there is one thing I have never seen done better anywhere else in the world.

The universality of American constitutional rights and the ability of people from anywhere to become part of Americanism.

The United States is a beacon of inclusion.

Not perfect inclusion. But inclusion that is universal for all.

Equal Rights Under the Constitution

Immigrants come to America from all over the world and become citizens.

And once they are here, they are protected under the same Constitution as everyone else.

They can open businesses.
They can buy property.
They can work.
They can criticize the government.
They can practice religion.
They can defend themselves.
They can vote once they become citizens.

It doesn’t matter whether you speak with a New York accent or an Indian accent.

The rights are the same.

That is extraordinary.

You can walk into a strip mall in America and see a pho shop, a taco stand, a pizzeria, and a shawarma shop, all next to each other. Four different cultures. Four different accents. Four different origin stories.

All protected under the same law.

That level of everyday integration is something people who have never lived abroad often take for granted.

This Does Not Happen Everywhere

Subscribe now

In many countries, being a foreigner means you will never truly belong.

You can live there for decades and still never be considered one of them.

You may not be able to own property.
You may not be able to open a business without a local partner.
You may need a spouse from that country just to register the business in their name.
Working in government? Forget it.

Even speaking the language with an accent can be enough to limit opportunity.

Meanwhile in the United States, naturalized citizens serve on school boards, run companies, sit in state legislatures, teach in universities, and operate businesses in every town in the country.

The only restriction is that you cannot be President unless you are born here.

Everything else is open.

That is uniquely American.

America’s Quiet Diversity

We talk about immigration constantly in politics. But we rarely acknowledge what a massive success story American integration actually is.

Think about it.

I’ve been to about 40 states and countless small towns.

And I have yet to find a town without at least one of these:

A Mexican restaurant.
A Chinese restaurant.
A pizza shop.

Often all three.

For a country that is constantly accused of xenophobia, it’s remarkable how even the smallest towns embrace some sort of cultural diversity in everyday life.

Yes, the Mexican restaurant might be Americanized.
Yes, the Chinese food might be Americanized.

But the people running those businesses are still immigrants.

And they are protected under the same laws as everyone else.

That phenomenon is far rarer globally than Americans realize. You don't see a immigrant American family in Wuzhou, China running a burger shop sending their kids to to school as the first generation, while running for office to join the Board of Education.

Why I Came Back

Subscribe now

Living abroad taught me something important.

No matter how long I lived in China, I would never be Chinese.
No matter how long I lived in Taiwan, I would never be Taiwanese.
The same is true in many other countries.

But in America?

You can become American.

And once you do, the Constitution protects you the same as anyone else.

Freedom of speech.
Due process.
The right to own property.
The right to bear arms.
The right to criticize the government.

Those protections apply regardless of your accent, background, or where you were born.

I genuinely don’t know if anything quite like that has existed before in world history.

Pride and Responsibility

None of this means America is perfect.

But people who come here see that too.

They see the places where the country can grow and change. And because they come from different places, with different accents, different backgrounds, and different origin stories, they bring ideas with them.

All of those perspectives operating under the Constitution of the United States allows people to participate in government and civic life, to recognize what works well and what does not, and to contribute their own experiences to improving the system.

The universality of constitutional rights makes that possible. It allows everyone to take part.

It is also why so many people who came here, built a life here, and made something of themselves eventually feel a responsibility to give back.

Share

Take a Moment

So let me ask you the same question Bryan Hambley asked that night.

Stop reading for a second and think about it.

What is something you are proud of in the United States?

And don’t allow yourself to start saying how it can be improved or how it is getting worse. Just acknowledge what you are proud of.

What are you proud of in your home state?

We’ve spent a lot of time criticizing America.

Sometimes rightfully so.

But pride in what works is not nationalism in a dangerous sense. It’s recognition of the principles worth protecting.

America has survived nearly 250 years because of those principles.

And they’re worth defending.

Stay Angry

The first Iraq war happened when I was 11 or 12.
9/11 hit when I was 21. I remember exactly where I was. Everybody does.

Then we were told we had to go into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. That was the justification. That was the urgency. That was the moral frame.

They never existed.

I protested that war in college. I remember standing there and being told I wasn’t patriotic. That I didn’t support the troops. That questioning the mission meant questioning America itself. On the other side were people saying no more foreign wars.

That tension? That was democracy. That was freedom of speech. I appreciate that part.

But fast forward years later, and the facts start to unravel. The WMD narrative collapses. The intelligence was wrong. Fabricated. However you want to describe it. The result was the same.

Millions of Iraqis dead.
Trillions of taxpayer dollars spent.
More trillions in Afghanistan.
Twenty years of “war on” whatever slogan we needed to justify the next deployment.

And here we are decades later still asking: what exactly were we doing there?

Now I’m at the age where my age group is retiring after 20 - 30 years in the military. I meet more and more people who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If you work in healthcare, if you run for office, if you talk to veterans groups, VFW halls, disabled vet caucuses, you meet the people.

Some came back fine. Some didn’t.
Some came back with skills.
Some came back with chronic back pain.
Some wake up in cold sweats.
Some drink too much.
Some can’t maintain relationships.
Some never came home.

And let’s be honest about who signs up.

It’s not the elite class. It’s not the politicians’ kids. It’s not hedge fund families. It’s 18-year-olds from working-class neighborhoods staring at a $100,000 a year college bill, knowing they can’t afford it, not wanting to drown in debt, and deciding the military is their only real shot at upward mobility.

They roll the dice with their lives because they feel they are too damn poor to have another option.

And then we sit here and tell ourselves this is just how it works.

We could fund affordable college.
We could build a stronger safety net.
We could create real opportunity without asking someone to risk PTSD or death for it.

Instead, we find the money for $100 million fighter jets. Every time.

(p.s. I just heard bathrooms are leaking into the cafeteria at some of our Clevleand public schools that we cant fund so they have to eat in the gym). Whats the fix? 1/16th a jet? I digress.

This is what I call a scar on the national psyche.

Now, people say, “Why are Americans so anti-war? Why are they so reluctant? Why don’t they support protecting America?”

Let’s be clear. America has not had bombs falling on our cities in modern times. We haven’t had neighborhoods flattened. We haven’t watched our currency collapse because a foreign army rolled through our streets. My Russian friend has said that to me more than once. He says Americans really don’t understand war because we haven’t experienced it at home.

He’s right about that part. We’ve been fortunate. Extremely fortunate. Privileged even. And I don’t say that as an insult. I think everyone in the world deserves that level of security and comfort.

And it's very hard to make the case that it isn't because of our military actions.

But here’s what we do have.

We have the moral weight of knowing what our taxpayer dollars fund overseas.

We don’t approve of bombs hitting schools.
We don’t approve of toppling governments without clear justification tied directly to protecting American lives.
We don’t approve of watching our brothers and sisters come home broken.

And we definitely don’t approve of being told one thing during a campaign and shown another once power is secured.

This repetition leaves a mark.

Money in.
War out.
Veterans return changed.
Debt climbs.
The justification shifts.

That’s not isolationism. That’s pattern recognition.

There’s a psychological tension in this country. We know we’re powerful. We know we’re wealthy. We know we’re comfortable compared to much of the world. And at the same time, we know what our power projects abroad.

That tension creates guilt.

My stepfather worked for the same company for 42 years. It was employee-owned. The year he retired, it sold. His shares made him a millionaire overnight. He told me the guilt ate at him. His siblings were struggling. His kids were grinding. He didn’t understand why he got lucky while others didn’t.

I’ve heard similar stories from wealthy investors. They talk about guilt. About responsibility. About trying to give back not just out of generosity but out of discomfort.

Scale that up to a country.

We know we have it good.
We know we have power.
And we know that power has consequences.

We also know millions have died in conflicts funded by our taxes. Even if it sits in the back of our minds. Even if it’s uncomfortable to say out loud.

That’s collective trauma.

Not trauma from bombs on our soil.
Trauma from repetition.
From promises broken.
From trillions spent.
From watching the same cycle play out again and again.

People wonder why we don’t have the same patriotic enthusiasm for military action that we had in World War II.

Because for decades what we’ve seen is not a clear existential fight on our shores. What we’ve seen is a rich country repeatedly spending billions — tens of billions — sometimes trillions — projecting force into countries that cannot realistically fight back.

I’m not in intelligence briefings. I don’t see classified memos. Maybe there are decisions made in back rooms that are more complex than we understand.

But I know what happens in living rooms.

People remember.

They remember Iraq.
They remember Afghanistan.
They remember being called crazy for opposing it.
They remember being proven right years later.

And until our leaders acknowledge that history and not spin it or rebrand it, they will continue to misread American reluctance.

Stay Angry.

Because right now, most of the conversation is speculation.

Subscribe now

Everything from “this will turn into boots on the ground” to “this will spiral into a regional war for years” to “this sparks a civil uprising and Iran becomes a democracy overnight.”

On the optimistic end, people are imagining a kumbaya internal reform where the military hands power to civilians and thanks America for removing the Ayatollah. On the pessimistic end, people are predicting another Iraq or Afghanistan.

The reality is we do not know what happens next.

So let’s not pretend we do. Let’s talk about what we actually know.

The Past Is Not a Crystal Ball

Yes, Iraq happened. Afghanistan happened. We have spent trillions of dollars over the last two decades on foreign wars and the military budget sits in the hundreds of billions to almost a trillion dollars annually.

But past outcomes do not automatically dictate future outcomes. In investing, you learn quickly that historical performance does not guarantee future results. Patterns can inform you, but they do not bind the future.

So while history should make us cautious, it should not make us intellectually lazy. History should sharpen our questions, not replace them. The strategic conditions, regional alliances, technology, intelligence capabilities, and domestic politics are not identical to 2003 .

We cannot simply say “this equals Iraq 2.0” and call it analysis.

Now let’s talk about what we do know.

We know that the President campaigned on no new wars. The MAGA movement and the America First message was sold as an end to forever wars. The pitch was clear: American taxpayer dollars would not be used to drag us into new foreign conflicts. No more blank checks. No more endless military entanglements.

That was the campaign.

From Venezuela regime change to Iran, from continued funding in Middle East conflicts to unilateral military action without clear congressional authorization, the results are different from the marketing.

And this is not about being naïve. I am not an isolationist. Geopolitics exist. Threats exist. There are times when force may be justified.

But the American people were told one thing and they are watching another.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Congress Has Abdicated Its Role

Another truth is that this is not just about one administration.

For years, Congress has steadily handed power to the executive branch. The Patriot Act era expanded executive authority. War powers have blurred. Major foreign policy decisions increasingly happen with minimal meaningful congressional oversight and debate. Presidents from both parties have operated with broad interpretations of authorization, and Congress has too often chosen political convenience over confrontation.

An impotent Congress that refuses to exercise its authority eventually stops having authority. When you consistently defer hard decisions to the White House or wait for the Supreme Court to resolve every major conflict, you are not governing. You are outsourcing your job. Over time, that becomes habit. And habit becomes structural weakness.

The American people see it. They see representatives more active on social media than on the House floor. They see hearings that generate headlines but not accountability. They see military actions initiated, funded, or sustained with little real debate and even less clarity. And they are left asking a basic question: what exactly does Congress do besides argue on television and collect a paycheck?

When military actions occur without transparent rationale, without clear objectives, without defined endpoints, and without direct congressional debate, wtf are we doing? The public is kept in the dark about intelligence assessments, strategic goals, and exit plans. Decisions feel unilateral. Information is filtered. Oversight is nonexistent.

The Information Environment Is a Disaster

Here is another thing we know: trying to understand what is happening in Iran right now is extraordinarily difficult.

The amount of unreliable information circulating is astonishing. Old videos from unrelated conflicts get reposted and labeled as current events. AI-generated images and clips are passed off as firsthand footage. Anonymous accounts push dramatic claims with zero verification. Even established outlets sometimes report in real time and then walk things back hours later because the initial information was incomplete or wrong.

We hear about an American aircraft going down and within minutes there are five explanations floating at once: Iran shot it down, it was friendly fire, it was mechanical failure, it was a classified operation gone wrong, it never happened at all. You are presented with every possible narrative simultaneously and no confirmed clarity. Everything and nothing at the same time.

Trying to parse through it becomes exhausting. Even people who care deeply about policy and foreign affairs hit a wall. When every update feels like it could be false, manipulated, or emotionally engineered for engagement, skepticism turns into fatigue. Fatigue turns into apathy.

We are living in a post-truth, information-saturated environment where overload replaces understanding. And that breeds more doubt, less empathy, and less courage to take a firm position on anything. When citizens cannot confidently identify what is real, democratic accountability weakens.

That is dangerous.

Share The Angry Democrat

Many Things Can Be True at the Same

It is possible to say that the Ayatollah’s regime was brutal and that tens of thousands of Iranians protesting for freedom faced horrifying repercussions.

It is possible to hope that the Iranian people get an opportunity to build a freer, more prosperous country.

It is also ok to say they should not have a nuke!

And it is also possible to ask: why are we here again?

Why are American taxpayer dollars once again funding military action overseas?

Why can we always find money for war, but struggle to fund infrastructure, healthcare, education, housing, water systems, or debt reduction?

Why does the military-industrial complex remain the one industry that never seems to face budget constraints?

Both of those thoughts can coexist.

At some point, this stops being about Iran specifically and starts being about trust.

We are tired of being sold one thing and shown another.

We are tired of campaign promises evaporating when governing gets hard.

We are tired of opaque intelligence briefings and classified rationales that the public never sees.

We are tired of being told that everything is necessary, urgent, and unavoidable.

My grandfather used to say there are two certainties in life: death and taxes.

It increasingly feels like there are three: death, taxes, and America striking another country.

That cynicism does not come from nowhere. It comes from repetition.

Here is what I am asking.

Do not get sucked into the speculation hype. Do not pretend you know how this ends.

Instead, go back to basics.

If a campaign was built on no new foreign wars, hold leaders accountable to that promise.

And Republicans, this applies to you first. If you believed in America First, if you believed in ending forever wars, then say it clearly. Hold your own administration accountable.

Accountability is not betrayal. It is citizenship.

We cannot keep shrugging at broken promises because it is politically inconvenient.

The American people deserve clarity, transparency, and honesty when it comes to war.

Stay Angry.

In this Angry Week livestream, I opened by briefly acknowledging escalating tensions involving Iran and U.S. military action, but clarified that the focus of the show was domestic politics. I then moved into three major themes: a forceful argument for Democrats to run unapologetically on Healthcare for All, an analysis of the Ohio Secreta…

Read more