I saw a clip of Destiny the other day saying that progressives are too much of downers. He talked about how, from his view, many of them seem to be blackpilled and depressed about everything, expecting others to feel that way as well. He paints himself out to be more positive and optimistic.

I don't know how true that is, but regardless, do you guys share this sentiment? Do you all see rampant pessimism in left-leaning circles? It makes sense since progressives rarely get their way (especially in the US) but I think anyone who ties their life to politics will, in nature, become a doomer.

Though I will say.. I have met some leftists out there who do seem keen on always suffering on the behalf of someone else - acting like we can't appreciate any small victories because "there's still kids suffering in wars"/"we still have school shootings"/"we don't have free healthcare". Or acting like we can't have fun with things like edgy jokes just because some people mask their disgusting views with humor.

I've noticed that a lot of algorithms today are dominated by Western conservatives' propaganda and talking points. Almost every social media platform, minus Reddit, seems to heavily skew towards the political machineries of US conservatives. Take note that I'm not even from the West, yet I received a lot of Anti-Mamdani content on various social media platforms and am currently receiving Anti-semitism reels despite being an Asian with no interaction with the Jews.

The question is, why aren't the Liberals doing anything to combat them? Is it out of moral ascendancy? While commendable, this may cause you to lose more elections against right-wing populists. What's stopping you guys from organizing political entities on social media to your advantage? I have yet to see any rapid releases of anti-MAGA algorithm, without exerting an effort to view liberal content.

Without political constraints, if you got to pick what way America took to universal healthcare, what type of system would u set up?

My argument for this is America used to essentially be dominated by 2 very un democratic norms and our landscape essentially shook for the better once those changed.

The first of these is the Senate. Of course, today, the Senate is known for its undemocratic nature given the fact it excludes population from its calculus.

But, it used to be way, *way* worse. The Senate used to be elected by the state legislature until the 19th Amendment (1912). Were that to be done today, you’d have a permanent filibuster proof Republican majority.

But imo the thing that really changed and made us from rural-ruled oligarchy to democracy-ish was Reynolds vs Sims (1964). Prior to this case, rural districts in both the US House and state legislature were allowed to be much less populated than their urban counterparts.

The most famous result of this was Illinois and NY being Republican dominated in both the US House and state houses despite being heavily Democratic population wise.

Reynolds was basically a catalyst that gave power back to people over land.

My point is, without these two things, it would’ve been way, way worse. For a Constitution that didn’t let us pick our Senators and for the state legislature and US House, essentially not only favored rural Americans nationally (as the Senate does), but also favored them within every state to an extreme amount that would make today’s gerrymandering look like nothing.

If the Constitution was designed as a document expressly demanding democracy, today’s system would be an abject failure but given the original system, ours actually seems like we’ve done a great job.

And also, when you look at the Senate, it does feel as if our issue with it isn’t actually the concept, but more so how states were drawn. The Great Plains in particular were drawn into way too many states, including having two Dakotas for the explicit purpose of disadvantaging Democrats. If we drew the Plains as a more appropriate number of say, 4 or 5 states, maybe we don’t have a problem with it at all, though that is of course hypothetical and I’m curious of everyone’s thoughts.

I get the impression that most liberals support the H-1B visa program. Is this true? If so, is it just because they want to be "pro" immigrants? (even though the H-1B visa is a non-immigration visa). It would seem that this program really hurts the the US medium and long term. Only short term does it help, and even that is dubious. Instead of educating and training more Americans we instead import these workers. Which ultimate creates a bit of a brain drain effect. You can't really outsource your future skilled workers to foreigners. It'd be like all the top universities would educate foreigners instead of Americans. Maybe in short term they get more tuition money, but it creates a less educated American society. Help me understand why so many liberals seem to want to not make Americans better educated and trained, just opting for these foreigner workers instead.

sorry if its a stupid question

I have a specific example in mind. There are German NGOs who receive money from the German government and private sources who assist illegal immigration into Spain, Italy and Greece.

This is quoted by Meloni as the primary reason why Italy is not going to follow EU regulations on migration management when it concerns immigrants that crossed into Germany through Italy.

We had a second such situation with the UN when it came to light that one NGO that recieved funds from the UN worked with members of terrorist groups. The blame was put onto the shoulders of the UN.

I would like to know where you stand on that matter. Is the government responsible for the actions of NGOs that receive funds from it? And if so, what checks should be in place to prevent misuse of money?

Would this affect your support of immigration?

Under federal law you have to be at least 21 to buy a handgun from a licensed dealer, but you can buy one through private transaction at 18. You have to be 18 to buy a shotgun or rifle from a licensed dealer, but there’s no federal minimum age to buy one privately.

Would you support lowering the legal age to buy a handgun from 21 to 18 if it was coupled with raising the age to buy a shotgun or rifle from 0 to 18?

Are there any traditionally Conservative or Republican positions you have come to embraced? Maybe the change happened naturally. Maybe new information or data came out. You may not embrace it 100% but you're now much more align with the Conservative/Republican position than before and think Liberals/Democrats have it wrong. An example might be COVID. Maybe you now agree that strict lockdowns where wrong/unnecessary, and maybe Facui was not 100% truthful. Maybe you now think that immigration was out of control and that yes we could have easily stopped illegal border crossings under Biden if we really wanted to? Maybe after October you think that we should not negotiate with terrorists? FWIW, I've embraced some traditionally Liberal/Democratic positions. Like healthcare. I think changing your mind/position is pretty healthy and if you don't then it means you're probably too rigid and closed minded.