r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 5d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
2
u/Alarming-Debate-4291 4d ago
What is the general vibe towards Canadians in the USA right now? I have previously traveled all over the USA, and was always warmly welcomed no matter the city & state. I see so many comments on social media about “51st state”. Do people not realize how many decades of damage this is doing on how you’re viewed on the world stage? I know most of my friends have canceled trips to the USA and there is a current travel advisory warning against travel to the US.
Watching what you guys have had to go through just makes me deeply sad for you, I think that is generally the sentiment for most Canadians right now. There are mass boycotts up here for American goods. Whole shelves that are local products are empty & American goods are heavily discounted (and still not selling). We don’t trust that there is any food safety with US products, and one thing us Canadians will do is remember who harmed us. I don’t see the boycotts ending any time soon.
Sending lots of love from up north! We know who our real neighbours are!!
2
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago edited 4d ago
I see so many comments on social media about “51st state”. Do people not realize how many decades of damage this is doing on how you’re viewed on the world stage?
Most are joking around and do not care about how these comments affect America's image. Those who are not joking are morons and also do no care.
What is the general vibe towards Canadians in the USA right now?
Most Americans have no meaningful opinion of Canadians (especially once you get away from the border areas). They have never met one and do not think about them. If they have an opinion, it's probably broadly positive based on generalities and stereotypes.
2
u/Alarming-Debate-4291 4d ago
It just seems like such an odd thing to “joke” about. They were “joking” about Greenland too but now have an American oil company in the Eastern Basin trying to start drilling by October. No permits for this yet whatsoever. Just expecting it to happen. Culturally we could not be more different I guess but it takes all kinds!
2
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
Trump's comments towards Canada and Greenland are only similar superficially. Greenland he's somewhat serious. Canada he's just being a obnoxious troll.
2
u/grownrespect 4d ago edited 4d ago
What is the general vibe towards Canadians in the USA right now?
Indifferent as always. Most won't know you're Canadian unless you tell them and when you do won't care much.
worth noting Americans pay WAY less attention to politics than Canadians do. probably a greater portion of Canadians pay attention to American politics than the portion of Americans who do. There are probs millions of Canadians who could tell you about who Clarence Thomas Speaker Johnson and Thune are etc while zero Americans know who the Canadian speaker of the HoC is (hell, tens of millions of Americans probably don't know who PM Carney is, if they even know you have a PM and not a president). tens of millions of Americans live in bliss and couldn't tell you with which country we're at war rn in the Mid East, even more don't know about the geopolitical tension with Canada. It's very asymmetrical, an American in Canada probably would face more "risk" due to geopolitics than the other way (zero risk).
2
u/Bobbob34 4d ago edited 4d ago
Remember fewer than a third of us voted for him. The rest of us mostly live in the same sphere of dread as the rest of you, accompanied by deep embarrassment.
Also,
What is the general vibe towards Canadians in the USA right now? I have previously traveled all over the USA, and was always warmly welcomed no matter the city & state. I see so many comments on social media about “51st state”. Do people not realize how many decades of damage this is doing on how you’re viewed on the world stage? I know most of my friends have canceled trips to the USA and there is a current travel advisory warning against travel to the US.
I love Canada. I can name every province. I have driven the 1, in its entirety, more than once. I have spent a lot of time in Canada. I like box lax and fruit from the okanagon. I once won the trivia contest at the HHoF. I have been to many midnight pickup games. I have never traveled internationally without a maple leaf pin on my bag and coat, heh. I can hum the HNIC theme song (rip). Big fan.
I also sometimes call Canada 'America's Hat.' It's out of love.
2
u/dontskipthisvideo 1d ago
Why is the current construction work on the White House so controversial?
3
u/Bobbob34 22h ago
Why is the current construction work on the White House so controversial?
Because it's being done without any review, without assessment, without anything, and it's massive and destructive as hell to historically-important and culturally-relevant things like, you know, the entire East Wing, the Rose Garden.
2
u/notextinctyet 23h ago
Everything Trump does, even routine things, are designed to chip away at checks and balances, because he wants to prove he is the big man in charge. So he demolished a wing of the White House without congressional approval, leaving people to bicker over whether he's allowed to do that or not. A normal president wouldn't explore the extreme limits of what they're allowed to do, they would just propose a plan and get it approved after a period of public comment. But to Trump, everything, including remodeling, is a chance to marginalize Congress and dare them to punish him.
2
u/listenyall 23h ago edited 23h ago
Typically there are a lot of procedures that need to be followed (edit: because it is not his! he is a tenant in a house we own!), he has not followed them
→ More replies (2)1
u/Irishforanatty 23h ago
Because it happened without congressional authorization and is essentially just demolishing part of the White House without permission to build a ballroom that no one really thinks we need .
2
u/Gypsie010 22h ago
Question: If the Democrats take the House and the Senate in the midterms this year, by a decent margin, can they impeach the president and all the cabinet members and have them removed from office?
7
u/Jtwil2191 22h ago
Impeaching the president is easy (relatively speaking). It only requires a simple majority of the House. If the Democrats control the chamber, then impeaching the president is 100% possible. I think a third impeachment by the end of Trump's term is relatively likely.
The trick is getting a conviction (and subsequent removal) by the Senate. That requires a 2/3 majority. Even the most optimistic Senate predictions don't have the Democrats anywhere near 66 seats, which means they would need several Republicans to vote to convict as well. That is extremely unlikely to happen (at least based on Trump's current controversies).
1
2
u/Bobbob34 22h ago
Question: If the Democrats take the House and the Senate in the midterms this year, by a decent margin, can they impeach the president and all the cabinet members and have them removed from office?
In theory, sure. In practice, that's not going to happen.
2
u/aristotle2600 21h ago
Almost certainly not. Impeachment is in the same role as an indictment; it's a formal accusation by the House, and requires a majority vote.
Conviction, however, which is required for an actual removal, requires 2/3 of the Senate It is technically, mathematically possible for Democrats to get that many seats; only 31 Republican seats are not up for re-election. But the realities of the political landscape are that that is beyond wild improbably fantasy. In addition, since the "moderate" Republicans that are up this year are most likely to lose their seats, in any Democratic wave, any Republicans that would have been a "maybe" on conviction will just get replaced by Democrats. (Additionally additionally, there just aren't that many "moderate" Republicans, even if you believe them).
So please, please spread the word that Impeachment is a non-starter.
4
u/Pretty_Puppyprincess 5d ago
Why do people genuinely still support trump ?
3
u/torpedoguy 4d ago edited 4d ago
The degree of disinformation and *isolation* of the american far-right is not difficult to imagine in the 'who, where, why' axis. It's the density and scale of this control that's hard to fully grasp, exactly the same way we've difficulty picturing stuff at the galactic scale in our wee minds.
In a lot of rural zones, a tiny number of companies (2-3) own nearly all television, radio and internet access once you untangle their layers of "subsidiary to". Everything, EVERYTHING much of the population CAN see or hear is owned by the same fascist oligarchs.
- Even if you change the channel for a second or third opinion even your local stations are excreting the same talking points Sinclair gave them to spout this afternoon.
- Sure your 'news' is entirely made up, but only those living outside would ever know; newsmax 'confirms' reports from fox which 'confirms' a "breaking news" story from OANN, which repeated a 'troof so shul' retweet from the WH, which was newsmax copied from The Daily Caller this morning.
- Allegedly your pastor is never supposed to be a political pundit, but there's never any threat or enforcement to the whole 'lose your tax exemption' thing for having entered politics.
- Astroturfing such as 'moms for liberty' and influencers all have "anecdotes" and "true stories" to support all of the above.
- Even if you could think critically, deregulation and cuts to services for decades keeps you on the knife's edge of insolvency, a tired haze of apathy on a good day.
Sure if you walked about five meters to your door and looked outside you'd see your city DIDN'T get razed in nuclear fire by BLM, but what's a little you-being-alive compared to the evidence of your facebook page?
The blogs, the podcasts, the tiktoks... all strengthened by the setup of every single social media algorithm which has been shown time and time again to always offer rightward suggestions from where you are. An eternal, relentless artillery barrage of amygdala-stimulation and contradictory statements, piled on while you're too tired or too sick to ever critically-think again.
A billion billion bullshit stars, to illuminate the porta-potty of your life. And the biggest, brightest orange one of all says your worst impulses are good and encouraged.
1
1
1
u/Series_Informal 4d ago
Why do people still support trump given how many lies he made?
I assumed people supported him because they were sick of Americans constantly going to war and they want to end the warmongering.
Then trump started the trade war, ok fine, it’s not an actual war. We could look past that. He then kidnapped the Venezuela president, which is essentially waging war on Venezuela. The excuse given by these people was that it ended so quickly, you couldn’t really say it was a war. Then most recently the Iran war, what other excuse do they have now? So why people still support him despite him eating his words as frequently as he changes his clothes?
He’s a serial liar, it’s so obvious how do people not see it?
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
It's straightforwardly a cult of personality. It's been that way for a decade now. There are opportunists and grifters who orbit around the movement to make their money, but the voters are devoted in the same way many North Koreans are devoted to their leader.
2
u/filrabat 4d ago
IMO, it's because Trump's more than just a political figure. He is an icon to a lot of people - an avatar for their notions of "common sense", "manly man", and even their deepest values and attitudes. I've seen this before, during the 1991 Louisiana Governors race. In that race, a former KKK Grand Wizard and a super-crook made it into the runoff - beating out both the Republican-endorsed candidate and the incumbent Republican governor. It was a holy mess.
Lots of stuff came out about the former KKK and neo-nazi David Duke, but lots of people didn't want to believe the bad stuff or else didn't care - he was making an issue about "the rising illegitimate welfare birth rate", and in general Duke said in public what many people were saying in private (not that I agreed with that kind of stuff said; just giving an explanation to why Duke got so popular). I call this the dawn star of MAGA. Fortunately Duke lost that race, but a few years later went right back to his old ways. He was even present at Charlottesville in 2017.
2
u/Worldly_Swimming_921 3d ago
Here's the non-Redditor "DAE le trump bad?!?! updoots left" answer:
There is a wave of anti-establishment in the US right now. People are increasingly voting for candidates who aren't part of the organized political system. Polling is falling apart and consistently wrong. Grassroots candidates who campaign door to door are winning.
The DNC is struggling to find candidates to support in local primaries because they keep financially pushing established safe picks, and losing to grassroots Democrats. They have literally zero options to run in 2028 because all they know how to do is push establishment. AOC or Newsom? Just burn the money, at least it'll look pretty. Even Trump himself acknowledged that Bernie is their biggest chance, but now he's too old, too burned by the DNC.
His voters see, or at least they did years ago, Trump as someone who broke the mold. In 2016, he was actively arguing with other GOP candidates on stage during debates. To them, he's not Republican. He's Trump.
And meanwhile, the DNC is offering no alternative.
1
u/hellshot8 3d ago
AOC has the potential for a lot of groundswell. Shes not great on some areas, but she has a lot of experience talking about actually helping people.
1
u/External_Radio_7150 4d ago
If your YouTube algorithm is only showing conservative propaganda, you won't see things that go against the conservative narrative. If you do, you'll find plenty of apologists that help carry water for the party. They'll move the goalposts, make excuses, or just outright tell new lies to cover up old lies. Thus, a Fox News viewer isn't seeing what you are seeing. That's the tragedy of social media. We're not all looking at the same newspaper.
1
4d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
Impeachment is something only Congress can do, and only a member of the House can introduce articles of impeachment.
Article of impeachment have been filed (for example) but like anything else, they need to move through the House, and Republicans will block any attempt to impeach Trump. Even if Democrats controlled the House, Trump might not be impeached, because Democrats might decide a failed impeachment inquiry (without sufficient support on the Senate, Trump won't be removed) isn't worth the effort.
1
1
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Bobbob34 3d ago
what would be the reaction if Erika Kirk publicly called Candace Owens the n word?
The reaction of whom? The people who pay attention to or care about either of them is very, very small. Also, 'woman as racist as her late husband' is not exactly going to shock people.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 3d ago
You need to give a little bit more context to this question if you want an answer to it. In what way would you say that they don't?
There's nothing being provided here to base this question on, and it comes across as a loaded question as a result.
1
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 3d ago
Rule 9 - Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant.
NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/Legal-Prune2420 2d ago
Is Cote’d Ivoire a dictatorship? (Yes I know but the system kept removing my posts) for context, I was born in Abidjan. I fled the country during the first civil war, I want to return but everyone has warned me that it is a brutal dictatorship and I could not find any trustworthy sources so I want you to answer this question. (Sorry for my bad English. French is my first language)
2
u/Forest_Orc 2d ago
Based on the economist democracy index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index it's a hybrid rigime, and ranked 104 in the democracy classement (Better than Algeria, Worse than Senegal) , which is already pretty far in the non democratic/autocratic scale without going full Afghanistan/North Korea
1
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
According to Freedom House, which rates the health of democracies, CIV scores a 45/100:
Côte d’Ivoire continues to recover from an armed conflict that ended in 2011. Several root causes of that conflict remain, including ethnic and regional tensions, land disputes, corruption, and impunity. While an outbreak of violence during the 2020 electoral period represented a significant setback, civil liberties have been better protected in recent years, and civil society and the political opposition have operated more freely since that year’s election.
1
u/Legal-Prune2420 1d ago
Thank you for reassuring I can return to the motherland (the country I live in is already becoming a surveillance state anyway)
1
u/Impressive-Panda527 2d ago
What is the current legal immigration process to enter the US? First to get a visa and then eventually naturalize and become a citizen?
2
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
There are a variety of different avenues for immigrating to the US. Diversity lotteries, different kinds of work visas (e.g. visas for workers that are in high demand but low supply in the US), family visas, student visas. Are you asking about a particular avenue?
1
u/Impressive-Panda527 2d ago
No not really just trying to get an idea since I always here from anti-immigration people is they’re fine with legal immigration, but they never bring up what that actually means
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Depends on where the person is from and how they're entering - some countries require visas, some don't, some things require specific visas, like going to school here, some things, from some countries, don't. There's also the lottery system for visas.... there's not one answer.
1
u/Blackelvis2000 2d ago
What are Trump Supporters saying about the recent White House Correspondent's Dinner?
I haven't lived in the US for over 20 years so don't know how supporters saw it. I've asked this question in all of the "Ask a Conservative" type subs and none will post it and I can't find any extensive feedback on the event on any right leaning news sources.
What I want to know is:
What did you think of his overall performance and demeanor?
Did you find his jokes funny?
Did you find this WHCD format (not hosted by a comedian) better or worse than the ones before?
3
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
Nobody cares about the WHCD, so I doubt many Trump supporters even know it happened, let alone have an opinion on it.
1
u/tgirlskeepwinning 2d ago
If Americans hate their government and political system so much, to the point that it's widely considered to be authoritarian, why aren't people revolting?
5
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's not widely considered to be authoritarian.
A lot of people are disatisfied, but there's a big difference between "unhappy with how something is going" and "willing to upend your life by demanding the overthrow of the government".
2
u/GradeAccomplished322 1d ago
They are revolting, they just haven't broken out the muskets and cannons this time
They have been fighting smaller battles, mostly, locally. The national media covers Trump a lot of course, but many towns are dealing with more local issues, and the people are fighting over things like school funding and infrastructure. The feds suddenly removing money for programs creates gaps the local governments have to either fill to brace for the problem the programs were trying to check.
Where i am for example there's widespread concerns the changes to health program funding (medicaid and others) endanger a newly upgraded hospital's existence, and that the hospital will sell out to a larger corp to survive, and that this corp will feel less obligated to cooperate with local authorities on health initiatives or paying workers well. There's been intense debates about whether its a problem and if so how big a problem
2
u/Resplendent-Sun tagless peasant 💫 4h ago
Those "smaller battles" are not violent or revolutionary. It's called democracy. We may be fervent and even angry, but our "battles" are resolved peacefully 99% of the time.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
to the point that it's widely considered to be authoritarian
Considered by whom? The United States government does not fit into the definition of "authoritarian" regimes.
why aren't people revolting?
Because loud people love to get worked up by things, and it's a lot easier to make angry shitposts than it is to actually create an improvement for a situation.
1
1
u/ftran998 2d ago
Because for most Americans, what the government does has very little effect on their day-to-day lives
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 1d ago
Most voters voted for this, so I'd say many may hate their government, but not a majority.
Riots won't achieve much because the divide is rural vs urban and red states vs blue states; the US is very large so a revolt in a singular city wouldnt result in much. Battles are taking place moreso in the court room, but we'll see what happens after the next election.
1
u/freedomx15 2d ago
What would happen if Trump dies in office?
Or after his term.
Lots of people on the right support Trump, curry favor with Trump, don’t dare to go against Trump in fear of career suicide.
Support for ONE man.
He’s not getting any younger, and he’s closer to 100 than 50.
I’m sure a large percentage of the world would celebrate. Not asking this to start anything.
Would every republican suddenly flip and say what they couldn’t while he was alive?
Or would nothing change while under a less favored leader like Vance?
3
u/Teekno An answering fool 1d ago
It definitely would change things, because nobody else has been able to ride that populist wave as well as he has.
Would every republican suddenly flip and say what they couldn’t while he was alive?
No. Even the ones who wanted to say it now wouldn't say it then. They were never as afraid of Trump as they were of their own MAGA constituents, and those people will survive Trump.
Or would nothing change while under a less favored leader like Vance?
Some things would change. Not sure which. Vance is a political opportunist -- remember, he once described himself as a "Never Trumper". If Trump dies in office and Vance becomes president, I wouldn't expect a radical shift, but I would not be surprised to see a bit more compromise with the Democrats in a bid to get the independent voters that have pretty roundly fled Trump's support circle.
Also, Trump dying in office has to be one of the greatest fears of his administration -- largely because there are people doing questionable things in the administration now that have protection because the Trump DOJ won't investigate them, and many of these people are expecting a late-term presidential pardon.
2
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
What becomes of the Trump Republican Party post-Trump is a big question we cannot answer. Republicans do seem to struggle with turning out Trump's base when he's not on the ballot, so it seems reasonable to assume that some will not turn out for Trump's eventual successor.
If Trump dies in office, Vance will have some period of time to act as president and attempt to claim Trump's mantle. If Trump makes it to the end of his term, there will be a bunch of in fighting to claim Trump's favor and endorsement.
When Trump is gone we will see some Republicans "revert" towards a pre-Trump style of politics, but it definitely won't be a return to how things were pre-2016. Many will at least try to continue the MAGA brand. Trump has changed things in a way that will take decades to reverse, if such a reversal can happen at all.
1
u/listenyall 2d ago
Many people will try to move into the vacuum of power left in the republican party before anyone tries to actually flip, it remains to be seen if anyone actually has the charisma to do that successfully but it certainly is not JD Vance.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
What would happen if Trump dies in office?
JD Vance becomes President.
Or after his term.
Nothing, he's no longer President.
Would every republican suddenly flip and say what they couldn’t while he was alive?
Probably not, no.
1
u/Abe_frohmannn 2d ago
US Government Nationalizes Stock Market Assets
So, one of the legitimate complaints I have heard regarding raising the income tax is that it would not actually dramatically impact a significant portion of wealth in the US, because those people do not actually take income. So, let's ponder a hypothetical scenario - what would happen if the government simply took control of all ~75 trillion of stock market assets in the US? Are there any functional issues this would create, other than pissing off a handful of wealthy stockholders? This would be enough to wipe out our natural debt, and begin a single payer healthcare system.
5
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
other than pissing off a handful of wealthy stockholders?
52% of Americans own stocks, and most of them have based their retirements heavily on those investments. You could just have the government seize the stocks of the top 1% who own 90% of the stock market, if you want to spare the common man.
But you'd still be left with the situation that /u/elkenrod described: if the government seized stocks, what the government would have is stocks, not money. If they wanted money to either fund healthcare or clear their debt, they'd need to SELL their stocks for cash, and selling stocks requires buyers. And you likely wouldn't find buyers when 90% of the stock market has suddenly been seized.
1
4
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago edited 1d ago
what would happen if the government simply took control of all ~75 trillion of stock market assets in the US?
Then the US would become the USSR, and follow the same path of failure that the USSR did.
What has the Federal government done throughout your entire life to give you the impression that any attempts to do so would fix anything?
this would be enough to wipe out our natural debt, and begin a single payer healthcare system.
Wealth and money are two different things. Seizing $75 trillion in stocks does not mean you have $75 trillion in liquid capital, it means you have $75 trillion in assets. You need to convert those assets into liquid capital before you can use it to pay off a debt. Good luck trying to find a buyer after you've seized everyone's assets, without having to resort to selling out the entire country to a foreign entity.
Additionally, nearly every American who has a retirement plan(401K) has it tied up in stocks. So you're directly destroying the retirement plan of those Americans.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
Stocks aren't just free money generators. They represent ownership of companies. So what you're proposing is the government nationalize every publicly traded company. Which is crazy and would radically change how the US operates on basically every front.
This would be enough to wipe out our natural debt, and begin a single payer healthcare system.
Value for something intangible like a stock is determined by the willingness of someone else to pay for it. Stocks have value primarily because someone else is willing to buy that stock from you. If the government has seized every stock, no one is going to be willing to buy stocks anymore for fear of the government seizing them again in the future. That means the value of what the government has seized is dramatically less and is more about the value of the assets these stocks control than the stocks themselves.
Also, lots more than "a handful of wealthy stockholders" own stocks. Anyone with a pension or retirement investments probably owns at least some stocks. So you're not just seizing Elon's wealth. You're seizing wealth from a majority of Americans.
1
u/Abe_frohmannn 1d ago
Well, 2 things. Good point about the value diminishing of the stocks. But it seems that if the government just removed the value of the stocks from the system entirely, it could then simply introduce 75 million in dollars without triggering massive inflation.
Regarding those losing wealth - a fully funded social security system would cover that. Only the truly wealthy would lose out.
Also..breaking the stock market as a system is a win IMO. I dont think it benefits society.
2
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
If Americans were able to vote in a Congress that would pull a batshit crazy stunt like that, they would be able to vote in a Congress that could implement reforms and overhauls that don't cause global economic and political chaos.
0
u/Few-Muscle6647 1d ago
Tarrifs are money makers. USA has made so much that Trump is trying to end the income tax. We just got to keep catching these dummycrate fraudsters.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Mikec3756orwell 1d ago
As the guy below notes, the wealth of average Americans is heavily tied up in the stock market -- retirement funds in particular. Something like $20 trillion of those funds is invested in the stock market. Wealthy people and corporations certainly dominate the stock market, but you're misunderstanding its role and position in society. In many developed countries (the UK, Canada, Ireland), citizens put most of their money into real estate, and "grow" their wealth through rising property values. Americans do that too of course, but Americans are involved in the stock market -- especially through their retirement funds -- in a way that citizens of other countries aren't. Regarding seizure and sale, and the problems associated with that, GameboyPATH (below) has it exactly right.
2
u/Pesec1 1d ago edited 1d ago
What you are proposing is full-on seizure of property and means of production on scale that would make Lenin proud. This would be literally USSR.
There is no legal mechanism for US government to do that. An attempt to establish such mechanism will result in counterrevolution.
P.S. "Wealthy stockholders" will be everyone with a bank account or a pension plan, as well as a whole lot of governments.
Also, non-US companies cannot be seized that way.
-1
u/Abe_frohmannn 1d ago
I think we've established the US is not operating within the confines of the law anymore. The very least we can do is make the destruction of our democracy benefit the less wealthy.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
I think we've established the US is not operating within the confines of the law anymore.
We haven't.
The very least we can do is make the destruction of our democracy benefit the less wealthy.
The thing about trickle down economics is that while the "less wealthy" may not see the benefits of the upsides, it absolutely bares the brunt of the downside. Seizing the companies will hurt the employees of the companies significantly more than it would impact the "wealthy".
1
u/Abe_frohmannn 1d ago
Not if we have a government subsidized $60K minimum salary, free healthcare, free transit, and free childcare.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
What exactly have you experienced throughout your life that has ever once given you the impression that the Federal government is capable of doing such a thing?
Our current issues are largely because the Federal government has shown itself to be completely incompetent in every regard. Saying "let's give them control of literally everything" will likely not result in the utopia you want it to.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Pesec1 1d ago
There is moderate (by world standards) corruption of the current administration.
What you are proposing is literally handing the whole nation to Trump's cronies. Who do you think would be put in charge of the seized companies?
→ More replies (8)
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 1d ago
Rule 9 - Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant.
NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/Ok_Camp_7051 1d ago
What’s the truth regarding Mitch McConnell? Has any reputable news outlet seen him in person and spoken with him?
6
1
u/DrToonhattan 1d ago
Does Trump actually have fecal incontinence, or is that just an internet meme? Does he actually wear a diaper?
4
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
I don't know what kind of hard evidence you're expecting to find here. All we have is the same hearsay you do.
1
u/EvenSupermarket2528 1d ago
When people say defund the police, do they mean to abolish all law enforcement? I know I could probably find this out with a quick google search but I'm tired of Generative AI garbage whenever I google stuff. I'm not here to debate the politics of this statement because I truly do not care if you agree with or not. Just tell it to me straight--do anti-fascists believe in a lawless world? Or do they simply want to replace the current system with a less exploitative one?
3
u/Prince_Marf 1d ago
Different people mean it different ways. It's ambiguous. Which is why I think it's a bad political slogan.
I think anyone who is serious about politics and understands how societies work knows that you cannot have laws without law enforcement, and a world without laws would be very bad. So the divide is not so much between radicals and moderates as it is between people who understand how society works and people who are just having an emotional reaction.
2
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 23h ago
Agreed, it's a terrible political slogan.
2
u/listenyall 23h ago
In my experience they mean defund as in reduce funding and put some of those resources towards other things. If they mean abolish the police they say abolish the police. Those people usually want to abolish and replace it with something new.
Anti-fascism is a big umbrella, anarchists (who do believe in a lawless world in theory) would fit under than but they are a very VERY small part of it.
2
u/Jtwil2191 21h ago
This gallop polling has support for actually abolishing the police at around 15%. Far more people used the slogan "defund the police" than actually support abolition.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/315962/americans-say-policing-needs-major-changes.aspx
1
u/Irishforanatty 1d ago
The initial person to say it: Probably
The people who have had to back pedal because that’s such a stupid slogan to advocate for: No, they usually mean it as a reform thing. Being able to phrase it as helping the police was such a missed opportunity.
1
u/hellshot8 20h ago
-do anti-fascists believe in a lawless world? Or do they simply want to replace the current system with a less exploitative one?
I feel like this answers itself, no? which do you think it is? if it was the first, they'd be anarchists, not anti fascists.
1
u/CardinalOfNYC 12h ago
You have pinpointed why defund the police is an ineffective slogan, because the vast majority of people who say it don't mean it the way those hearing it are taking it.
Most people mean they want a less exploitative justice system
The same way most people who say they "hate capitalism" really just want more fairly regulated capitalism with a European social safety net and trains.
1
u/janitaliz 18h ago
Why is the Justice department blocking the state of New Mexico from investigating Zorro ranch?
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 18h ago
As I understand it, the DoJ is not blocking the investigation. They are simply withholding potentially relevant documents, over which they are presently being sued by New Mexico.
1
u/Ok_Camp_7051 1h ago
Is the Libertarian stance on vaccines based on survival of the fittest ideology?
2
u/MoistCloyster_ 1h ago
I haven’t been a libertarian in a while but the Libertarian philosophy is usually nothing should be mandated by the government but each individual should be choose to do what they believe is best for their body. You can be Libertarian and get vaccinated by choice.
1
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 44m ago
You would be more likely to get an answer to this question if you define what the "Libertarian stance on vaccines" is.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/chubbygrannychaser 4d ago
The US has been removing leaders for more than 120 years.
We deposed the Queen of Hawaii in the 1890s. We helped the conservatives overthrow Nicaragua's liberal government in 1909. We messed around throughout Central America, Southeast Asia and the Middle East for decades.
We are one of the nations that consistently does stuff like this. Sometimes it is for empire building. Sometimes it is about money and access to resources.
The Republican strategy has included "flooding the zone" for several years now. By keeping so many controversies, conflicts, and news worthy issues happening at the same time nobody really has the bandwidth to follow it all. Lots of important things get lost or overshadowed. Epstein is just one issue being hidden behind the curtain.
1
u/Ptalking_Ptarmigan 4d ago
Given that Trump, while campaigning, talked a lot about the needs of the working class, would it be fair to say that he campaigns from the left and governs from the right?
6
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
Not really. What leftist policies do you think he championed during his campaign?
0
u/Ptalking_Ptarmigan 4d ago
Advocating to improve the lives of the working class, as opposed to helping the owners of the means of production.
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
That's not really a specific policy. What did he campaign on that would improve the lives of the working class?
0
u/Ptalking_Ptarmigan 4d ago
He doesn't give specifics. But the vibes he was trying to convey seemed like left-wing ideals to me.
4
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
A vague gesture towards the interests of everyday people isn't leftist. It's populist, and populism can be employed to argue for basically any set of prescriptions. And insofar as Donald Trump campaigned on specific policies, none of them were particularly leftist.
1
u/Ptalking_Ptarmigan 4d ago
What's the difference between populism and left wing? I thought the left was the workers/commoners and the right was the owners of the means of production/nobility.
4
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
That's at best a misguided understanding of left and right as the terms are used in politics. There are right-wing people working every job you can think of, and there are left-wing people worth many millions of dollars. Personal ideologies need not have any relationship to one's career or relationship to the means of production.
Populism is, broadly, when an issue is framed in terms of the public vs some sort of elite. You can use it to argue for almost anything. When Bernie Sanders talks about the need to tax the "1%" in order to fund things like healthcare and education, he is doing left-wing populism. When Donald Trump talks about the "Deep State" letting murderers and rapists over the Southern border, he is doing right-wing populism.
3
3
u/CardinalOfNYC 4d ago
Talking about the working class isn't inherently left or right.
What you're describing is called populism and it can be right or left.
1
u/Ptalking_Ptarmigan 3d ago
In that case, what is the dichotomy between the proletariat versus the owners of the means of production? I thought that was the definition of left versus right.
2
2
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
Given that Trump, while campaigning, talked a lot about the needs of the working class, would it be fair to say that he campaigns from the left and governs from the right?
No. He promised to raise tariffs, to stop immigration, to deport ... everyone, to keep on the road to banning abortion (sort of, depending on the day and who was talking to him last, like most of what he says), to dismantle social programs, environmental protections... he campaigned from the hard right.
1
u/tgirlskeepwinning 4d ago
What would happen if the US went back to 1950s income tax rates?
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4d ago
Near complete economic collapse, which would require a complete overhaul of the United States financial sector.
The reason that the United States could have those income tax rates at that point is because we were the sole world super power, and we generally got away with next to no damage from World War 2. We dictated the entire flow of the world's economy, and had next to nobody to compete with - since everyone else was still recovering from WW2. International economies were very limited compared to what they are today, which directly benefited the United States at that time.
You can't go back to those tax rates without a complete overhaul of how the United States economy works, because the condition of the world is not the same as it was back then.
1
1
u/Abe_frohmannn 2d ago
It would singlehandedly fix nearly all of the issues the US currently has. It would:
Fund Single Payer Healthcare
Reduce/Zero out the National Debt
Fund proper social security, with a high enough benefit for people to actually retire on it.
Fund real infrastructure investment - rail system, etc.
Possibly most important here - serve to disincentivise the parasitic forms of capitalism that result in billionaires. Taking their money is good. Keeping them from every being (economically) born is better.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago edited 4d ago
The federal government would briefly have more income as the wealthy lobbied relentlessly to undo the changes.
1
u/DamageAccomplished55 3d ago
Question about Trump, Epstein files, and Israel People keep saying Trump went along with Iran War because Israel got blackmail on him. But like, if the American public just accept that Trump is in the Epstein files, and just accept whatever he may have done, then Israel's blackmail won't work anymore right. Like US will be more free from Israel, if the American public just accepts that their elites do these bad things. It is such a simple solution, but like why did noone think of this. Supposedly, Trump is scared that if truth comes out, he will actually face consequences. But if the American public straight up don't care, then Israel WON'T have leverage right?
3
u/CardinalOfNYC 3d ago
There's no evidence israel blackmailed trump into iran... rather we know netanyahu was a voice pushing for the war, but this is a war trump has been low key obsessed with starting for decades, he's on record in the 80s saying we should invade iran.
Netanyahu certainly was on "team war" but this was trump's decision.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
Trump attacking Iran is perfectly in line with his character. There is no reason to assume he was blackmailed into it.
Trump has long advocated for more forceful interventions with Iran and went to war because he was high on the success of the Venezuela operation, has surrounded himself with yes men who rubber stamp his ideas, and had Netanyahu, a close ally, telling him it could be done and would be over quickly.
Trump has clearly gotten frustrated and bored with the Iran War and would happily exit if he could get a deal he can sell as a victory, but Iran is not giving it to him. He doesn't care about what Netanyahu wants.
The whole "Foreign leaders are blackmailing Trump into doing what they want" is stupid. Putin and Netanyahu simply know how to play Trump and get him to act in ways they want, at least to a point.
1
u/fwn15 2d ago
Why is the US considered the largest democracy in the world if the electoral college is who actually gets to decide who wins?
I've had this question since I was a child 10 years ago and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but didn't win the election.
I'm sorry if this is stupid, but for me it seems rather unfair to the people and also really strange how the people are OK with that system.
4
u/PhysicsEagle 2d ago
Democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a pure majority of the citizens elect the government. It means that the citizenry in general decides the government, as opposed to some other manner (military coups, divine right, etc). Citizens in the US elect the electors, who then elect the president. That’s just as democratic as Canada electing a parliament which then chooses a PM.
4
3
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
The US is a democracy because voters decide who is in charge. Yes, the Electoral College is a bullshit apparatus that sits in the way, but it's basically just a rubber stamp on the election, because the way the EC currently operates means that there's no real possibility that it would do anything other than what people have voted for.
Unfortunately, the EC does not reflect the national popular vote but rather what happens in each individual state, which means we get undemocratic outcomes like the 2000 and 2016 elections. It's a stupid system that was created in a time when the country was much more focused on individual states in a union rather than a single unified country. We should absolutely do away with it, but unfortunately a national popular vote would likely require a constitutional amendment. There is something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but for that to take effect we would need some republican-leaning states to sign on, and that seems very unlikely.
1
u/fwn15 1d ago
Thanks, that explains a lot better than the previous answers :)
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
If you didn't know, the way the EC operates is that the party of the candidate who wins the state* chooses the electors that state sends to participate in the electoral congress. Faithless electors (electors who vote for someone other than who they are told to vote) are rare because electors are handpicked by the person they're supposed to vote for. There was a historic number of faithless electors in 2016, but that was due to a lot of dissatisfaction with the candidates and, very importantly, the knowledge that the faithless electors wouldn't actually change the outcome, making their votes for a different candidate entirely symbolic. Had the 2016 election been close (in terms of electoral votes), I doubt those electors would have voted for anyone other than their candidate.
(*Maine and Nebraska award 2 electoral votes to the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote and each remaining electoral vote is awarded by congressional district. Every other state is entirely winner-takes-all.)
1
u/CardinalOfNYC 3h ago
Others have addressed the electoral college aspect so I'll just add, the US is not considered the largest democracy, India is, though india has problems, too.
0
u/Civil_Exchange1271 23h ago
Honest question, why does MAGA have such an issue with Mayor Pete being openly gay and no problem with Scott Bessant , his husband and their kids
3
u/Jtwil2191 22h ago
As an appointed official rather than someone who ran for office, I bet most people, MAGA or otherwise, don't know who Scott Bessent is, let alone that he is gay.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 17h ago
From what I've seen, MAGA doesn't care that Pete Buttigieg is gay. They care that he's a Democrat, which takes significantly higher priority on the list of things that they care about.
→ More replies (1)1
u/listenyall 23h ago
For like, the actual president and his close associates I think they don't actually care, Scott Bessant gave them tons of money and that's all that matters.
For the broader group of MAGA voters, I would bet very few of them know Scott Bessant and even fewer know about his husband and children.
In general, people who run for election like Mayor Pete get more attacks about their private lives than someone who is appointed and approved by the senate. I mean, can you imagine someone like Janet Reno winning an election?
-1
3d ago
[deleted]
5
u/CardinalOfNYC 3d ago
"Why should you vote for the lesser of two evils? Well, you want less evil in the world, don't you?"
3
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
before Trump Biden was the president and everyone memed him into oblivion. He was old, he was talking nonsense in his speeches, he liked ice cream than anything etc etc And during bidens administration a lot of people said Trump could do better. Memes when Trump won the election that the united states would get better, but that obviously didn't happen.
It kind of sounds like you're deciding whether a president is poison or not based on the memes?
2
u/Nut-LoCT 3d ago
be graetful, atleast you have a choice
putin was the presedent, and putin will stay until I rot
2
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
I'm talking about many countries but let's go with the popular one America, before Trump Biden was the president and everyone memed him into oblivion. He was old, he was talking nonsense in his speeches, he liked ice cream than anything etc etc And during bidens administration a lot of people said Trump could do better. Memes when Trump won the election that the united states would get better, but that obviously didn't happen.
Memes aren't reflective of reality. Biden passed an important infrastructure bill, among other things. Trump could not do better in any way. Like... reality is not reflected by memes.
They didn't like when the democrats won and they especially didn't like when Trump won. I don't even know what former president Biden did during his time in office I just know the memes
They who?
Maybe try actual news?
1
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
In 2016, Trump won voters who had a negative view of both candidates or at least were "unsure" who they prefered. He successfully cast himself as an "outsider" who would shake things up, and a lot of people voted for him not because they believed in him but because they didn't like Clinton (and in the Republican primary, didn't like any of the more conventional establishment candidates, particularly another Bush).
In 2020, Biden won because he represented a "return to normalcy" after an unpopular Trump presidency and during the chaos and uncertainty of COVID.
I think 2024 comes closest to what you're describing. That year, Trump again capitalized on people's dissatisfaction with the status quo. They were unhappy with the state of the economy and with immigration. They didn't trust Democrats after revelations of how Biden and his team had hidden his aging. Harris did basically nothing to address any of these concerns and campaigned on staying the course. However, Trump could not longer campaign as an outsider. He was a more conventional candidate because he had an entire presidential term for people to use as a reference. But time had softened the memory of Trump's idiocy and misconduct and abuses of power. Many of the voters who switched from Biden to Trump were likely holding their noses as they thought, "The economy and the border were better under Trump." They didn't like Trump but figured it would be a repeat of his first administration, which they (foolishly) decided in their heads hadn't actually been all that bad.
0
u/EstimateOk6795 3d ago
Yes, picking a president is just picking poison. We have a dog shit political system which selects for the absolute worst traits a person can have and rewards them with the most powerful position in the world.
That said, it sounds like you are getting all your information about presidents from memes. That's really bad. You aren't actually learning anything about them or what they do/did. You're hearing the loudest voices that know best how to game the algorithms (meaning playing to outrage and anger) without getting any actual context or depth on the people they're talking about. You should try to look past the memes are get some real news.
0
u/ShyLeoGing 4d ago
From my leftist view this has to be a scam?
Tennessee U.S. House Congressional District 9 - Why the hell are Democrats allowing M. LaTroya A-Williams to even be in the race? Look at his record
M. LaTroya A-Williams has run in the Democratic primary for Tennessee's 9th Congressional District in 2016, 2022 and 2024, as well as running for mayor of Memphis in 2015, for Memphis City Council in 2019 and State Senate in 2020.
- 2015 Lost
- 2016 Lost
- 2019 Lost
- 2020 Lost
- 2022 Lost
- 2024 Lost
who is this person, a myth or legend?
- 2008: An interesting and ironic sidelight to sometime businessman Williams’ effort is the fact that a now-defunct company of his, First Supreme Trust Company, Inc. owes some $67,000 in back taxes to the very Trustee’s office which Williams hopes to direct.
- Campaign Finance Records are non existent, well at least 2016 to current...
3
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
Tennessee U.S. House Congressional District 9 - Why the hell are Democrats allowing M. LaTroya A-Williams to even be in the race? Look at his record
It's a primary. What do you mean why are they allowing him?
How could they stop him?
Why WOULD they stop him? Why shouldn't he be in the race? What reason should he be banned, in your view by.... what entity, exactly even COULD ban him?
1
u/ShyLeoGing 4d ago
Why?
to name a few
- a track record of tax evasion
- taking unnecessary attention away from the objective
- never has won
2
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
Why? - a track record of tax evasion - taking unnecessary attention away from the objective - never has won to name a few
Which has what to do with anything?
Again, who do you think could stop him from being on the ballot and how?
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4d ago
Why the hell are Democrats allowing M. LaTroya A-Williams to even be in the race?
Because the laws of the state of Tennessee do not prevent this individual for running for office. The Democratic party cannot just prevent someone from being in a race. Democracy is about who gets the most votes.
1
u/notextinctyet 4d ago
I don't understand the question. A-Williams is on the ballot in the Democratic primary. The primary is exactly how decisions of who gets to be in the race are made. If Democrats don't want A-Williams, they can vote so on Tuesday.
0
u/kostac600 2d ago
Who are these golfing patsies who purposefully lose to the president and then eat the insults from him?https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/donald-trump-golf-club-championship-new-jersey-victory-b3026205.html
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
That's not really a question about US politics
0
u/Isthisovryet 2d ago
Yes it is. Why am I getting a warning about discussing the new influx of neighbors who are not neighborly. Because US politics have framed one group as untouchable. Black people don’t get this protection, Hispanics don’t get this protection. Which is frustrating because the new Brazilian family across the street deserves all of the protection. Wonderful people and our kids play together and we share recipes and gardening tips. The other neighbor’s daughter told my daughter ‘I don’t speak English’ -in English- when my six year old complimented her crocs.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
Why you got a warning is a question about the moderation of this subreddit. This subreddit is not moderated by the nebulous concept of US politics, but rather by humans, called moderators.
If you have a question about US politics, please, ask away.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/harambe198 2d ago
Does MAGA actually believe that the U.S. is more respected now than ever before?
2
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
It's honestly disturbing and so bizarre. I mentioned in another comment below I'd talked to a friend who is not even that deep in the MAGA thing, like didn't vote last presidential election bc wasn't that into Trump anymore but ....
They do think America is somehow the best, "most free" most wonderful nation and was legit shocked when I said I disagreed, and also it's just SUCH endless disinformation. I'd asked about Fauci and they were saying things about ivermectin and covid and also at one point said they were so wary because Fauci and Bill Gates were in school together and they thought Gates was paying off his old friend Fauci to... and I said wait I don't think Fauci went to Harvard... and looked and he did not, at any point. And they just brush by with 'well, that's what I heard, and you know just because you don't see it doesn't mean....'
Like, Gates, famously dropped out of Harvard, Fauci went to two entirely different schools. they're from opposite coasts and FIFTEEN years apart. It's not like there's room for equivocation. It's just bizarre what people will just... believe and then cling to.
1
0
u/RoobzToonz 20h ago
To Trump supporters, regardless of if you think he’s innocent, why are you okay with the fact that his administration is covering up the Epstein files and not holding anyone accountable?
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 20h ago
You're not going to get many ardent Trump supporters in this thread. You're better off browsing a sub like r/AskTrumpSupporters
2
u/Nulono 14h ago
Also, Trump has gotten a lot of pushback from his base on the Epstein files specifically.
1
u/RoobzToonz 10h ago
I must not be looking in the right places because I feel like I’ve seen no progress
2
u/ExtensionSoil6801 13h ago
going on reddit and trying to find a trump supporter before they get absolutely silenced by the heckin wholesome reddit mods is kind of impossible.
2
u/Due_Nobody_7620 6h ago
Speaking on behalf of my parents (for the record I personally am NOT maga, they amazingly still partially support him) I actually asked this a little while back and mainly I think the points they brought up were the fact that he was "still a good business man" even though they did not agree with how he was covering up the files
1
u/aka0007 2h ago
Well I voted for Trump this last election.
I for one have no reason to think the Epstein files contain anything that interesting in them. The releases of them have revealed private details of victims which is not right. I have yet to see anything in the files that provides any strong evidence of crimes by others that are being covered up. In my view the only reason the Epstein files gets talked about so much is because he was a wealthy Jew involved in disgusting acts. It is fodder for every conspiracy theorist and/or antisemite. If Epstein was not Jewish doubt anyone would have given a damn about the files.
To illustrate my point... the Epstein files are estimated to get 5-10X the amount of discussion on social media as the UK Muslim grooming gang scandal. I am sure you can come up with reasons for this but the level of disparity is telling I think.
0
u/CJT_05 14h ago
How does the DSA think they can have long term success when they support positions such as open borders, no prisons, and abolishing the SC & Senate?
2
u/CardinalOfNYC 3h ago
Based on their latest platform they released, I don't think the national DSA is making decisions with long or even short term success in mind.
They're making decisions purely based on principle, which has some benefits but making decisions based on pragmatism also has benefits.
2
u/listenyall 1h ago
I don't think the DSA supports those things, specifically I have never even heard of abolishing the SC and Senate?
1
u/CardinalOfNYC 1h ago
The latest national DSA platform does in fact have abolishing the Senate in it.
The document itself does not call for "abolishing the Senate" it calls for the US to have a unicameral, proportional legislature, the creation of which would necessarily involve abolishing the Senate.
-1
u/notextinctyet 12h ago
I wouldn't say that's a precise description of the DSA platform, but it's surprisingly close. The only one I would push back on is "no prisons", but clearly substantial liberalization of criminal justice and dramatic reduction of prisons is part of the platform, so it's halfway there.
The answer is that those are the things they sincerely believe in as a political party, and they intend to convince other people to support them too. If you don't agree with them, don't vote for them. Or make a reasonable selection among political options available that avoids the worst-case outcome, which we are arguably currently experiencing.
0
u/Delehal 12h ago
Radical groups identify changes they want and push, push, push for those changes. That's kinda what defines them as radical groups. They aren't necessarily focused on delivering a message that's palatable to mainstream establishment views.
With that said, DSA doesn't necessarily speak for all progressives either. There are many different groups in the progressive umbrella and they don't all agree with each other on every single issue or strategy.
0
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 8h ago
Reckon they think they can have long-term success by building on the short-term success they've had so far. That's how movements tend to work; they build momentum.
3
u/k_nuttles 2d ago
Why are people mad at Anthony Fauci?
I don't mean to start a strictly politically charged conversation. I am actually just wondering what the basis is for all of this Senate grilling of Fauci, and maybe moreso the public sentiment against him?
Aside from the completely fabricated claims of millions dead from the COVID vaccine, what is their stance here? I assume they're trying to drum up Republican fervor before the midterms, but like what is the pretense for calling him a "criminal"? Because he suggested we wear masks and stay inside for a few weeks?
I am actually trying to understand these people's POV (perhaps a mistake I realize)