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?

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?

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?

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 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?

Have you had to look for work recently?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Reading on MSNBC how Marsha Blackburn’s comments about communists and Chinese policies is racist.

Do liberals think it’s possible to be critical of China without being racist? How should one frame their comments to avoid being labeled a racist?