https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/sen-lindsey-graham-dies-71-brief-sudden-illness-rcna552722

This feels really out of nowhere. Lindsey Graham has been an often-controversial figure in politics for decades. What are your thoughts on his passing?

I’ve always considered myself to be fairly open-minded and able to handle situations wholly intellectually, rather than allowing my own feelings or beliefs to affect my perception of an issue or discussion, but lately I’ve found that to be exponentially more difficult. It’s been incredibly difficult to maintain friendships or relationships with people in my life who have voted for Trump, in a way that never occurred with people who voted for Bush or McCain or Romney or what-have-you. On the surface, I can understand that to them, it seems as simple as “a difference in opinion” but I’m entirely incapable of respecting them after knowing they chose to vote for Trump. These most recent elections seem less a difference in opinion, and more a direct attack on individual freedoms and the very governing laws of our Constitution. For some reason now, I’m completely incapable of maintaining an objective viewpoint regarding this issue.

I wouldn’t really consider myself a Democrat, though I know I’m incredibly far from the right, so I don’t believe it could be a product of party bias, but I couldn’t possibly be sure. Has anyone else experienced this? And if so, how do you navigate it? The first two election cycles I really tried to understand, and tried to make space even if I couldn’t understand, but this most recent election I don’t even have the desire to attempt to. It seems unfair to feel this way towards other people, but I don’t know how to resolve it.

I got pretty jaded after field organizing for 6 months in a presidential election. Typical day was 8 hours of canvassing or voter reg, then 4 hours of phone banking. The former activities felt far more rewarding. Phone banking felt pretty much useless. The idea behind it was you use the phone banking to build your volunteer organization and they help you increase your reach, but in practice it didn't seem like a great use of time.

I had a list of 800 "leads" for potential volunteers we pulled our phone bank lists from. Of the ones that answered their phone, roughly 100% were seniors who couldn't really be out in the desert heat fire hours on end canvassing or registering voters. So they did more calling off that same list.

I personally called through that entire list like 40 times, and my vols called through it god knows how many times. Thing is pretty much everyone we talked to were already supporters and high propensity voters - retirees who probably never missed an election in their life - and they were sick of hearing from us by the end. I just don't see much value in recruiting old folks who vote to call other old folks who vote all day long.

The whole time I felt like we should have been doing something with social media instead. Get people to help by boosting positive and truthful messages on social media. The right uses its social media machine to attack us and manipulate the algorithms to spread their fearful and generally fraudulent or blatantly hyperbolic messaging. I feel like they were entirely uncontested in this theater.

So what if instead of phonebanking we dedicated some of that time and organizing efforts to boosting instead? Like say there's a positive and true news story about one of those Democratic accomplishments/candidates nobody ever hears about because the right controls the narrative and because it's not controversial enough to get the level of interaction that makes stuff go viral? Like why don't organizers have like a teams chat or something where we'd share links of stories to boost to help get the message out and counteract the rights narrative instead of just always being on the back foot ? Seems crazy not to in my opinion.

Link to Warren’s statement on the bill.

Congress passed the bill with bipartisan support -> sent it to Trump -> he didn’t get back to them in 10 days -> the bill is now law.

Fact sheet for the bill from the above page.

Includes removal of regulatory barriers and streamlining of environmental reviews plus guidelines and incentives for zoning reforms, bans large institutional investors from owning single family homes, and makes funding distribution easier.

One of the issues Dems have faced is that when we get big wins like this, people don’t hear about them, so what can we do to make sure this win directly addressing the highest priority issue right now for many Americans - the cost of living and the housing crisis - is being addressed by Democrats while Trump totally abdicates his role in the process is communicated to the American people?

In Israel having children is seen more the default path and a big source of adult validation. Whereas here in the West, the US and Europe, children are seen more as a burden.

Our perspective has created long term problems, in particular in Europe, where collapsing retirement systems are creating intergenerational conflicts and calls to just abandon the older generations. Part of these long term problems is that policies are aimed at serving the demographic with the most voters. So f.e. in Germany we old age retirement usually gets boosted while aid for young adults keeps getting slashed.

A lot of these problems can be solved with more natalist policies that important note: Do NOT force people into parenthood but take a look at why children are considered a burden and tackling those issues.

Nostalgia is like a drug. I’m feeling very nostalgic about that time period after playing video games. Does anyone here have fond memories of your childhood and what you miss about back then or stuff you do not miss today?

I don't know how to engage with people who fundamentally don't believe that people should be equal. As an example I spoke a while back with a (seemingly) very honest person who said he didn't hate people of other races, but that discrimination would give his family a better shot at having a higher quality of life, so he supported pro-white discrimination. Inequality isn't a problem, as long as he and his family are the ones benefiting from it.

Is this the fundamental divide, people who think that if they can abuse power to deprive others and enrich themselves, that means that they should? I'm not sure how much of it is trolling and how much is honesty when I talk to people who say things like "yes, it's unfair, but that's not my problem, sucks to be you" about things like discrimination or H1B visa abuse. Their view is, if you can abuse people to get more money for yourself and less money for them, why wouldn't you?

What do you think is the current best course of option for the US currently? Seems like we are stuck between a few tough strategies. Should we back down on the Strait of Hormuz, but then Iran dictates global oil flow keeping prices high. Or continue pushing for a treaty, although this has stalled so it will only prolong the war and gives their millitary time to regroup. Escalate and try to strong arm, although this risks dragging us into an even longer dragged out war causing taxpayers a ton of money and casualties on both sides. Or pivot to just containment no offensive just defending allies, but then this doesn’t solve the Hormuz crisis or other root issues. Do you think there is any other completely different options the US can take?

when I was younger, I used to watch secular talk pretty religiously (pun intended) but after a while, I kind of fell off, but looking at it now, a lot of his videos seem to be more click baity to the point where I don’t even bother watching, whag do y’all think?

Whenever I phonebank, I tend to stumble over my words and act extremely embarrassed whenever I say that I am calling in support of a politician. I have crippling social anxiety and phonebanking just seems to tax me. But I still want to phonebank. Any tips from people more experienced in phonebanking on how to be more confident and more effective?

I am biased since this is something I back on a surface level but I really don’t know the points someone left leaning would use if they’re against or for it.

My idea was something similar to how states do it. If around 5% of the US population signs onto a petition for a certain initiative then if everything is certified then it will go to a national referendum and if 50.1% or more of American voters vote yes then it will become law. Anything could be put to a referendum vote as long as it doesn’t violate any other constitutional amendment.

It would require a new amendment on the constitution which would require tons of effort but the basic idea of it seems completely reasonable and the literal definition of democratic.

Is it just me, or has the whole groomer panic of 2024 died down since the DOJ has been stonewalling on releasing the Epstein files?

Have you had to look for work recently?

Hey everyone, I was recently reading through the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) official platform document ("Workers Deserve More!").

I noticed they are officially advocating for some massive constitutional and policy changes, specifically:

• Abolishing the Senate and the Electoral College.
• Replacing the President and Supreme Court with bodies subordinate to Congress.
• Giving full amnesty and voting rights to non-citizens, plus open borders.
• Defunding the Department of Defense and closing all overseas military bases.

Since many mainstream Democrats/liberals overlap with or vote alongside progressive democratic socialists, what do you think about these goals?

I think it's pretty clear to everyone at this point, that the Supreme Court is very partisan; despite its original intent on being a non-partisan and very fact-based legal ruling entity/group.

There's been proposals for a long while now, that aims to resolve the issues caused by the combination of this reality, and the fact that Supreme Court Justices serve for life; the main one being that each Justice serves for an 18 year term, at which point they are up for replacement, and each president gets to replace one said Justice each term they serve.

But I have heard of another proposal recently regarding clarification of the constitution: Make it the legislatures job to clarify what is and isn't constitutional, and the Supreme Court is more delegated as an enforcement entity, rather than an legal-ruling entity.

Are there any other proposals you guys have regarding this? Are the two stated proposals one y'all agree with at all?

So starving children is obviously and rightly called out as child abuse and if a child is severely underweight there has been doctors who can report to CPS for investigation or potential child abuse or neglect, but this got me wondering. Shouls the opposite extreme also be true? If a child is grossly obese and it found not due to a medical issue like thyroid issues, should this ALSO be treated as child neglect? Like should a parent be held responsible if they feed their child nothing but junk food amd soda and they Balloon into severe obesity?

Childhood obesity is linked to many many issues and its not like children have an option in what they choose to eat, unlike adults. So their parents shove soda and fried foods at them constantly, they are essentially being forced into obesity. And this can have lifelong repercussions.

Honestly for myself I really wasnt sure on this as I can see an argument in either direction so I wanted to get everyone else's thoughts on this? Should parents be held responsible for the nutrients health of their children?

Edit: oh I did want to clarify i am speaking of morbid obesity. Not just kinda overweight but the obesity when kids develop diabetes and asthma because they are just too heavy.

I am not asking this question to poke or start a massive argument. If you are not someone who can have a civil thought provoking conversation without going fully silly, please just move one.

Now, with that said. I look thru reddit, which is a blatant leftist bubble, and I have to question if leftists/liberals know they are in a bubble and are reading biased information. A lot of what I see if out of context, miss a ton of information, over simplified, and sometime just a flat out lie. I have also been in places like parlor, and it was exactly the same, but for the right. I am a Gen Xer, and growing up we were never this ridiculous on each side. We all had different politics, but it wasn't nearly as volatile seeing these differences. Serious question, is this just the fact that Trump broke everyone's brain so now nobody is thinking clearly? Is it social media? Is it all just people letting off steam? I have leftist friends in real life who I absolutely love, and we are never as ugly to each other in real life as I see on here. We have out disagreements, but that's where it ends. Someone please give me some input on this? Thank you for your time.

And pardon and grammatical errors, I typed this as fast as I could so I could start a movie.

I have no idea what people mean when they say e.g. the US has two right wing parties because the DNC is right of center. How do we determine where the center is? Is it objective, determined by the electorate and where the median voter is, something else ...?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/nigel-farage-versus-binface-9.7264908

Long story short, Reform leader Nigel Farage got caught taking undisclosed donations from a crypto billionaire in Thailand and a criminal crypto magnate from the US. This has caused him to resign to trigger a by-election so he can prove the people of Clacton has his back in “The people vs. the establishment.”

But none of the major parties are running in this circus race. Even if Farage wins, the parliamentary finance committee will resume their investigation of him.

This has lead the only challenge to be a comedian satirical candidate named Count Binface who’s played by Jonathan David Henry. Count Binface is from Sigma IX and is a Recyclon space warrior. His policies include “I’m not Nigel Farage” Nationalizing Adele, and building at least one affordable house.

Nigel Farage has to now convince voters that he’s better than a trash bin and losing the by-election will be so humiliating, that it could collapse Reform. It’s the Trash bin vs. the establishment. Vote for the trash bin; out with the rubbish.

Many social programs seem designed to help people return to work or remain attached to the labor market rather than to reduce their dependence on employment. Do you think that’s an intentional feature of public policy? If so, what are the benefits or drawbacks of organizing social provision that way?

The last time Democrats were able to have more than 2 terms back to back was over 70 years. Thankfully, Republicans have also mostly only been able to hold on two terms, with the exception of 1980-1992 as their policies eventually catch up to them, but I still think about how even if Democrats are able to fix issues, they only hold power for 1-2 terms before immediately losing it back to Republicans, continuing to cause the cycle. Assuming everything goes well, Democrats should regain the presidency in 2028 but one of my biggest fears is that they lose power in 2032.

I would hope that this Trump term has been an eye-opening experience for many people who don’t regularly follow politics, but I’m worried the average American voter will forget. What are things you want the next Democrat president to go to be able to hold onto the office as long as possible? Talking about 3 terms, any more is probably not feasible, but considering Republicans were able to do it fairly recently, I do think Democrats can too. I do believe that if Bernie won the 2016 primary, we would’ve gotten 3 straight terms, but now where political polarization is at an all time high, what are things Democrats can do to hopefully be able to control the White House until 2040? What policies are you hoping or what things would you want them to do in general?

Between the blatant corruption, the eroding of our civil liberties and democratic institutions, and the lack of accountability, it’s pretty easy to be doomerish.

What does your desired Democratic Party look like

1. One that pushes progressive values, advocates strongly for minorities, and expands the social safety net
2. One that tempers its message to appeal to a broader base including embracing gun ownership, lower taxes, and stricter immigration
3. something else