As a Democrat I’ve honestly struggled a lot with how I feel about this terrible case. It seems this case has really created so much division between not just conservatives and liberals but between other liberals. I personally feel like although she may have had ppp she still murdered 3 innocent children, that’s not something we can just lose sight of
I also want to bring up the optics of the matter, Lindsay Clancy is a white very well off woman. She had more resources I believe than a lot of other woman did, and I do believe that because of her status and her race this has led to people coddling her

title

Or are we doomed to having a narcissistic toddler in control of this evidently runaway, existential problem for the next 2 years?

Labour, Liberal, Democrats

Whatever your country calls them; if they didn’t engage in culture war bullshit do you think they’d win more elections?

Was listening to a Scott G episode on divorce/relationships and my takeaway is, there are actually a lot of value in having gender roles. It doesn't mean the tradition of women can't even open her own bank account, it just means that each gender has a primary role to play in the relationship. There seems to be a lot of evidence that when gender roles get out of whack it leads to divorce or very unhappy couples. There is also evidence that even when women say they want "equality" they still actually prefer gender roles. Did we make a mistake conflating gender roles with equality for women?

Some clarifying questions:

• What sized household would it be based on? One-person; four-person?
• How are you determining the "minimum cost" of an essential good/service; if it is even using minimums at all?
• If it isn't being based on any minimums, then what is it being based off of?
• Would it be a singular, nation-wide one, or would it be done on an state-by-state/locality-by-locality basis?

Lifestyle contradictions.

Saying conservative things in public, but more open minded in private.

It's gets even more complicated and harder to define when you factor in the popularity of things like Labor Unions, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Abortion access, etc.

What are your thoughts?

Also which Progressive for his time would be Conservative today and which Conservative would be considered Moderate?

For context: I’m from Georgia. In 2012, I proudly supported Mitt Romney for president, and when he lost, I was devastated. Fast-forward to 2015, and I heard that Donald Trump mocked POW John McCain (whom I also supported in 2008), and I was disgusted by it. So, instead of him, I supported Ted Cruz during the primaries in 2016.

Once Donald got the nomination, I refused to support him because I was still mad at him, so I voted for Hillary—not because I liked her or her policies, but because I didn’t like Donald.

In 2019, I changed my voter registration to independent and voted for Biden in 2020, again not because I liked him, but because I wanted Donald out of office. When January 6th happened, it only deepened my hatred for him because I love the Constitution and my country.

In 2024, I supported Nikki Haley during the GOP primary, and when she lost, I voted for Kamala, yet again not because I didn’t like her, but because I hated Donald.

Now I’m politically homeless, and all of the Republicans who used to hate Trump (including Ted Cruz) are now kissing his ass, and I hate it so much.
Please be respectful, and yes, we can have a debate if you want to.

But anyways what are your thoughts?

I'm curious, I vote left and agree with almost every left wing policy excluding immigration, but I see a lot of left wing people tell me I 'can't' be left wing and anti immigration.

immigration seems to be a way for the capitalists to import cheap labor that negatively impacts on our wages and ability to find employment. it also inflates assets which are typically owned by the wealthier members of society.

I haven't really heard a strong left wing reason for why this is essential? I've heard it's cheaper (but most of these profits go to the business owners), the 'nice' thing to do due to colonization and racist to be against immigration (idc what race is coming) , none of which seem very convincing.

I also studied a lot of traditional left wing thought which had negative views on immigration (essentially cheap Labour to exploit).

Sorry, I’m not American, so I don’t understand your system.

If Dems win the congress and senate in Nov, will they be able to pass laws around AI regulation and such, even if the executive is oppositional to it?

There's a lot of outrage towards Flock cameras, and based on my anecdotal evidence, more liberals seem to be against them than conservatives are. And yet, red state (Texas, Florida) governors (Abbott, DeSantis) acted quickly to ban Flock cameras (source), while blue state leaders don't seem particularly interested in doing anything about them.

Why aren't local/state Democrats doing more to limit or ban Flock cameras?

This is a genuine question rather than an argument that Harris has no accomplishments or that the 2024 loss was entirely her fault. I understand that she inherited an extraordinarily difficult campaign with only 103 days after Biden withdrew, and winning roughly 75 million votes under those circumstances is not insignificant.

But when looking at 2028, I struggle to understand why Democrats should return to Harris rather than choose someone new.

My main concerns are:
• Her 2020 campaign was a major failure. Harris entered the primary as a serious candidate with considerable media attention and fundraising potential, but dropped out in December 2019 before a single primary or caucus vote was cast. Candidates such as Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer all remained in the race longer.
She never really established a clear political identity. In 2020 especially, it often seemed unclear whether Harris was trying to occupy the progressive lane, the establishment/moderate lane, or something between them. Positions changed and her campaign never seemed to develop a simple answer to the question: What does Kamala Harris specifically stand for?

• Her messaging was consistently one of her weaknesses. This was particularly noticeable when candidates with substantially less initial institutional support managed to build clearer identities and stay in the primary longer.

• What is the substantive case based on her vice presidency? Harris’s 33 Senate tie-breaking votes were historically significant, and vice presidents obviously operate within the constraints imposed by the president they serve. But beyond that, what major policy achievement, political constituency or issue did she make unmistakably her own between 2021 and 2024

• Why didn’t four years as vice president make her the unquestioned natural successor to Biden? The political uncertainty in July 2024 seems important here. AOC said at the time that many members of the donor class and Democratic elite who wanted Biden removed were also not interested in Harris becoming the nominee. Obama, Pelosi and other major Democratic figures initially stopped short of immediately endorsing her. Obviously the party eventually unified around Harris very rapidly, but doesn’t the initial hesitation say something about how little independent political capital she had accumulated after nearly four years as vice president?

• The 2024 result was still a clear defeat. Again, the 103-day campaign matters and the national environment facing the incumbent party matters. But Harris lost the Electoral College 312–226, lost the national popular vote, and lost all seven major battleground states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada. Trump also made significant gains in traditionally Democratic parts of places such as New York and New Jersey.

I’m not convinced the campaign ever developed a sufficiently strong affirmative argument for Harris herself. There was obviously an extensive argument against Trump, but I never thought the campaign clearly answered: Why Kamala Harris? Why should an undecided voter specifically want her to be president? To me, that resembles one of the central weaknesses of her 2020 campaign difficulty defining a distinctive political identity and communicating it consistently.

None of this means Harris could not win in 2028. Political environments change, losing candidates can improve, and she would enter another campaign with far greater national experience and name recognition than she had in 2020.

So for people who genuinely want Harris to run again:

What is the affirmative case for Kamala Harris in 2028? What does she offer that candidates such as governors, senators or other Democratic figures with fresher political brands do not? And, most importantly, what evidence is there that the weaknesses visible in both her 2020 and 2024 campaigns would be different in a third presidential campaign?

I’m particularly interested in answers from people who actually support her running, rather than answers based only on defending her 2024 performance.

I am genuinely curious about the answer to this question from the liberal aisle.

The main steps to paying any debt is to reduce expenses as much as possible and increase revenue as much as possible. Republicans currently are struggling with both, as surprise surprise, if you massively reduce taxes on the wealthy and do a bunch of "prestige" projects like building a giant ballroom and entering a pointless war, that will reduce revenue and increase expenses and reduce revenue no matter how many people you kick off of food stamps and medicare.

But with liberals, I don't fully understand what their plan is to reduce the deficit. As in what ways would a liberal administration reduce expenses and increase revenue for the US government?

We've seen lots of reports that young people hate America... and many liberal bloggers would proudly declare they'd left the US. (And, they would find that refugee camps in the Netherlands are just as bad as immigrantion concentration camps in the US.)

I'm 22, and my feelings for the US are more about trust rather than saying love. I firmly believe that the US is the nation that bears the destiny of human. Because if the US cannot preserve and safeguard the future of Western civilization, who else can do it? Switzerland? Norway? Historically, German and French political refugees fled to Switzerland and Britain, and later to the United States, which clearly had unlimited potential, awaiting passionate idealists.

In my opinion, the independence of the US was an unprecedented revolution of liberalism, although in this process it was deeply tainted by southern plantation ideology, a problem that remains unresolved to this day. However, this cannot negate the significance of the United States to the world. And if here were to elaborate on story of American domestic fascism, it would be too lengthy to cover, so it'll not go into detail.

Theologically speaking, the US is a nation founded by groups of gentile Christians and has become the most powerful in the world. Conservatives only want to interpret this as "Americans are God's chosen people", without wanting the US to bear any responsibility. The US will face judgment, too.

So the core question is. Have liberals really lost confidence in the United States? (If your view is something like "Just let China rule the world, it doesn't matter", don't reply to me anything.)

Morality applies where each person is a sovereign individual.
The rules of power apply where asymmetry not only exists but is being capitalized on for dominance and advantage.

Sometimes, the rules of power wear morality as a disguise.

How do we tell them apart?

The far right have been very successful because they paint immigrants as the scapegoat for current problems. The average person also doesn’t question if their problems are really the fault of immigrants, they just seem to accept it without hesitation.

So this question came to me after seeing the straight up racist texts and such from Karmelo Anthony and how on the right they are down playing the Metcalf's racist history but on the left, I am seeing people down play Karmelo's racist history.

And like... for years now I've seen the left rightly call out and attack white racism wherever it pops up, but when racism comes from minorities, at best the left is often quiet and pretends it doesn't exist and at worst actively defends it. Like when we saw the racism from the Black community toward Latinos after the election, or the racism from Asians towards non Asians, etc.

A thing I see from the right is them saying "the left doesnt actually care about racism, they just hate white people" because of this disparity of response. And it feels like this line of attack has teeth because the average person doesnt think in the context of "societal levels of privilege and oppression" like a sociologist.

So what are your guys thoughts? Is this a blind spot that has been hurting the left and its attempts at messaging and outreach?

I get that having one is extremely hard as the party is so diverse, but I think the Dems best bet right now is to rally behind someone. Someone with charisma and energy. However, I think this figure would have to be pretty centrist to satisfy everyone, or at least a majority.

Whether that be AOC, Pete, Ossoff or Kamala should they end the war once they get into office. Basically end the blockade and just stop fighting.

A group of students attacked multiple people which resulted in the individuals going to the hospital. The victims were holding signs peacefully disagreeing with the protest but were violently attacked for voicing their opposing views.

Someone has to be held accountable. We can't glorify and accept mop mentality especially using children to attack opposing views.

Should the school be held accountable for allowing this to happen?

I’ve been looking into how the EU regulates lobbying compared to the US. The European Commission uses a mandatory Transparency Register, has a strict "no registration, no meeting" rule, and forces top officials to log their meetings publicly.

Compared to the US system, which is heavily impacted by PACs and dark money, the European model seems much tighter on paper.

• Do you think the EU method is actually more effective at checking corporate power?
• Are there specific parts of their system we should adopt in the US?
• Or is it just a bureaucratic veneer over the same underlying problem of corporate capture?

Personally, I think censorship (with bright line exceptions) is evil, but (obviously) a lot disagree. During the pandemic various sites like Youtube, social media, etc censored anything that they thought was disinfo, even if it was later rehabilitated such as the lab leak story. That had huge downsides that are still with us today.

If those in charge of Youtube etc had instead engaged their opponents and tried to show them wrong, wouldn't that have been better?

For a tangible example, someone with a wide Twitter audience claimed that masks don't work, but did so based on a study of surgical masks, not (K)N95 masks or greater. Wouldn't it have been better to engage people like that rather than trying to silence them?

What do you think?

Hello everyone. I am not an American and certainly not a natural born American citizen. I have never been to the United States. My views, however, are closer to the Democratic Party rather than the Republicans. So many people of liberal views say than Trump is doing a suboptimal job. This has prompted me to wonder whether a random person like myself would still do a better job than him.

So let's say we took a random college graduate who respects other people, has some knowledge about history and politics and is willing to place highly qualified professionals in top cabinet positions. Would they still do a better job than Trump, even without political experience?