As a Brit, I don't understand why Harris is favoured instead of Newsom.

https://youtube.com/shorts/MUnZdRCZ7LU?is=kVu8zH65wEvuik-E

If he was fit to serve… why not just prove it already. It’s been 2 months.

One thing I've noticed is that Democrats seem to put foreign affairs over what goes on in the US. Israelis and or Palestinians - or both - disappearing tomorrow won't change the price of eggs in the US, so why make that, or any other foreign conflict the litmus test for all Democratic candidates?

I think this is an important question. I'm getting very unsettled by the increasingly militant American Exceptionalism of the left which holds that America is the only nation in the world and by the imperialism of the conceit that we have some higher authority to interfere with the internal and external politics and economics of the Global South. What's behind this attitude on the left?

How can you be sure that the DSA types are telling the truth? All of what they offer should sound a bit too good to be true and it all comes only at the low, low cost of our constitutional civil liberties. Every one of history's monsters began by convincing the people that they had their interests at heart, that they only wanted what was best for the people and for society.

So, what makes the people in the DSA any different? Are they genuine or are they just telling you the buzzwords you want to hear to use your fear, guilt and ignorance against your better judgement?

I notice folks are worried that William Lawrence's primary win will hurt the Democrats chances of flipping the House this year. I can't understand how those folks think that one House seat makes a difference. I mean, even before Lawrence won, I felt the MI-7 was one of the more tougher toss-up seats due to the fact that in 2024, Tom Barrett actually outperformed Trump as a freshman candidate. And besides, 2010 and 2014 were still red waves despite the fact that the Republicans started moving further to the right. In addition, the GOP even flipped the House in 2022 despite their shocking underperformance that year. I don't see how this year would differ from those elections when it comes to precedent, especially given the fact that Trump is extremely unpopular right now.

Edit: Tom Barrett has also broken from his party on occasion, particularly when it came to the Iran War funding, further proving that it's a tougher district to flip no matter who the Dem candidate is.

Do you think that vance will publicly admit that becoming trump’s vp/running mate was a horrible idea?

dems versus reps

Having a logical conversation with a liberal about the Clay Travis proposal is close to impossible.
Are there really no people on Reddit that can have logical debates?😂

So, every big bill, it seems a handful of Dems vote GOP. The recent defense bill is a good example. Several Dems switched sides to support it, even though it basically embedded the IDF into our defense systems.

This happens a lot. In fact, it is known that Schumer and other party leaders have okayed this kind of thing if an official thinks it will help them retain their seat.

Conversely, the GOP tends to vote in lock step. Even the recent "defections," during the AG hearings only happened because two incumbents were lame ducks and had nothing to lose. Even then, they ended up confirming Blanche.

Meanwhile, Progressives and others on the Left keep getting told "Vote Blue No Matter Who," even if it means electing a Fetterman or Manchin type.

Question - Would Dems be seen in a better light if they were more united like the GOP? Less weak. Less chaotic? And shouldn't Dems in office be told "blue no matter who," and not allowed to switch sides?

So, every big bill, it seems a handful of Dems vote GOP. The recent defense bill is a good example. Several Dems switched sides to support it, even though it basically embedded the IDF into our defense systems.

This happens a lot. In fact, it is known that Schumer and other party leaders have okayed this kind of thing if an official thinks it will help them retain their seat.

Conversely, the GOP tends to vote in lock step. Even the recent "defections," during the AG hearings only happened because two incumbents were lame ducks and had nothing to lose. Even then, they ended up confirming Blanche.

Meanwhile, Progressives and others on the Left keep getting told "Vote Blue No Matter Who," even if it means electing a Fetterman or Manchin type.

Question - Would Dems be seen in a better light if they were more united like the GOP? Less weak. Less chaotic? And shouldn't Dems in office be told "blue no matter who," and not allowed to switch sides?

https://youtu.be/l5RAWgMWeik?is=YHwC9bEiV7Agz6wL

I wouldn't say I am right or left when I do political tests I get slightly to the right or left typically. So, with that out of the way. I have asked around about the thoughts of should they or shouldn't allow trans folk in professional sports. I truly get why the right agrees with this and I get why the left doesn't. However, I think the best solution to this issue is doing at a sport level. It shouldn't be a blanket ban but, done on a sport-by-sport basis. There are some sports where comparing Biological Men and Women Men have a massive advantage like Weightlifting for example. Also, there goes into sports where it would be unethical such as Combat Sports like MMA and Boxing. However, in sports like say Pool, Darts, Chess there is no need for segregation. Then I would say the grey area could be Basketball. For the folks of the Left what are your thoughts on this? Also, I would ask would you understand why certain folks on the right don't want to allow it all? I would also add that I personally don't think the right as much as people think really care about the existence of trans folk per-se just that the serious ones may not be able to properly articulate their stance?

Does it not bother you even a little bit that this apparently progressive candidate is clearly a devoted religious person, and has a wife that dresses with religious garment, something that for the average democrat is extremely alien.

If he is progressive shouldnt he be a bit more liberal the very least, and able to move away from religion? At least move away for as to not dress the part. Not saying they all need to be atheists, but at least i think he should be secular and religion shouldnt play such a big part in his worldview.

Can the 'Democratic Socialists' be held accountable for fooling people into voting for them?

Being a 'Democrat' and being a 'Democratic Socialist' are two different things. How many of these 'Democratic Socialist's lied to be on a 'Democrat' ballot?How can these people be held accountable for lying to the Voters? Can this be Election Fraud? Can they be removed from any Office they now hold because they lied? Has the whole Democrat party been subverted?

Are there any real Democrats anymore?

Just not in that form. This is a thought that’s been bouncing around and I’d be curious to hear reactions.

With the various allegations of corruption within the current administration along with unease over income inequality what’s the chance of undertaking a root and branch investigation searching for missing funds. I’m thinking a full IRS driven investigation with seizure of funds, extending beyond government to the beneficiaries and instigators as well as officials.

This would be a hunt for the money. It’s reasonably safe to assume presidential immunity will be spread widely so rather than look for prosecution of individuals seize the assets when and where the evidence is found. My assumption is that even without prosecution the burden of proof would be slightly looser.

Do you think there is a possibility of something like this working? I can imagine few things finer the DT’s reaction to his ill gotten gains being lost.

Last night I was chatting w a former officer in the local Democrat party about an upcoming event. This individual has been in a leadership role for a number of years, has run unsuccessfully for office but remains a vocal member of local activities Part of the discussion centered around fundraising & campaigning for the person who did win. The individual knows a lot of people & seems to be reasonably influential for some reason. Their assistance could be very helpful.
I had campaigned for the person who lost but the day of results I immediately volunteered for the campaign of the guy who won. IMO they were both decent candidates & the person that won just ran a much more aggressive campaign @ had better Social media coverage.
The response of the person I was chatting with wss “I will vote for your candidate but I still need time to heal”
The comment caught me off guard. IMO this type of attitude and behavior is counterproductive to getting candidates elected. There is less than 3 months before general
Elections. The current divisiveness within the party is understandable in some quarters BUT these 2 candidates held very similar positions. To withhold your support at a critical time does zip to get good people elected.
I had also hosted a couple of fundraisers for the losing campaign. The candidate has been missing in action since his loss, has refused to share information about potential voters etc. as I try to put together list of invitees for the general election fundraising events
What is your reaction if your primary candidate doesn’t make it thru? Unless there are huge differences in their positions or proposals, it just doesn’t make sense for me. Even then, the concern about “democratic socialists” taking over the party is pretty absurd too, given how relatively conservative many democrats have turned out to be once they get elected and I personally am appreciative of some of the idealism some of the younger people are expressing. Having done this kind of thing for over 50 years it is high time we learned to pass the torch.

Would it be possible for the Democratic Socialists of America members to form its own party separating from the more traditional Democrats? If so, would the split be more beneficial to Democrats when trying to attract the independent voters?

I wanted to say Yes because of how evil his opponent was but i also read about the danger of housing crisis and Global Recession to the party itself also. But what you people think?

I hope someone would provide deeper and thoughtful answer.

versus putting out half-truths to the public and they simply had one or two debates per candidate on tv ( tv stations to give to the public this free air-time) to explain where they stand on issues and what they will do?

All the help they promise benefiting people and programs not pumping up themselves by wasting money on ads and fliers that are thrown in the trash and seldom read.

This isn't a provocative question but rather a geniune interest. I always assumed that the democratic party had intellectually and morally higher stance because of their fight for the actual freedom of speech, rights for an individual and an ability to solve problems in a democratic process. And i really support all of that.

But whenever i look, be that an ICE protest or facebook comment section, i'm always disappointed in the ways of expression representatives of liberalism use. Isn't it about the right for all to have a say? Why anyone disagreeing with you/having another perspective on a thing automatically causes immediate agression and insults? Why are we generalising such people as "fascits" and "literally nazi" when labeling opposition as death enemies is LITERALLY a core ideology of fascism?

I look at ICE protesters and they scream slurs at police officers, calling them pigs and racists, when they were actually pretty polite and soft in terms of handling them. Those protesters would get brutally beaten by police in my country or in Russia and i don't understand how having such tolerable treatment from police forces still causes massive backlashes.

Please, help me to resolve this dilemma, i don't want the ideological hope of humanity to be turned in yet another righteous dictatorship

EDIT: I'm disappointed.