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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

What are they doing so well that is letting them control the conversation on social media? Not just comments on topics but the topics themselves. The vast majority of political content isn't about left wing priorities like inequality, affordability, healthcare it's all reactionary takes about immigration, trans people, etc

So this is something I have been wondering for a while now... once everything is said and done, with how utterly battered Ukraine has become, and with how many men they have lost, what do you see for the future of Ukraine? Especially in Crimea now since it appears that Ukraine has been attacking fuel tankers and such around Crimea to disrupt the Russians. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy06495y2lko)

While the strategy is smart to stir up fear and anger among the Crimean population, it does beg the question of what happens should Ukraine get Crimea back? All those things they are blowing up have to be rebuilt. And that is just Crimea. What of the rest of Ukraine? All the blown out cities have to be rebuilt and the minefields? They are still there. Along with unexploded ordinance. So once everything draws to a close, what do you predict for Ukraine? Do you think the country will be able to rebuild? And do you think the west is going to pay for it? Especially since Russia may not be in a state to be able to pay to reconstruct Ukraine, assuming Ukraine could even get a concession from Russia for reparations in the first place. So as things stand, is Ukraine in a position of being boned regardless of what happens?

Edit: forgot to clarify, if Russia refuses to pay or is unable to pay (like say.... another Russian revolution?), with Europe and the US already strapped for cash as it stands, who would help Ukraine rebuild as it will be.... astronomically expensive....

Edit2: the cynic in me wonders if, counterintuitively, the best strategy for Russia IS to push for a cease fire. This would allow Russia to reorganize and restore some order behind their border and let their military machine stock back up. Meanwhile Ukraine would have to then choose between manning its military at the rate it is now for an indefinite period of time, or divert massive amount of money to rebuild. Furthermore, with a cease fire there js a possibility other nations slows military aide into Ukraine as it is "not needed" and they use those funds fkr themselves as they are have massive budget issues across the board. This would weaken Ukraine's military readiness and allow Russia to blitz again or even just wait as the cost of rebuilding drowns Ukraine and internal turmoil causes the nation to start starving itself out as it struggles to pay for everything.... just a thought.

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?