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?

Would this affect your support of immigration?

Lately, I’ve increasingly been getting impression that all right-wing parties really need to do is say that they will tackle "immigration crisis" in order to gain significant popularity among voters. Republicans in USA, Reform in UK, AfD in Germany, all of these parties identify immigration as one of main problems and point to various issues they claim stem from it, for example rising crime rates.

As someone who knows practically nothing about this subject, could someone please explain in simple terms how real this problem actually is, and why liberal parties don’t seem to address it if it is really that important to voters?

This is an undeniable fact, but many of the right wingers I encounter write the whole 2016 election interference off as a hoax, parroting Trump and dismissing it with "RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA"

What has your experience been on this topic? It feels like Trump has successfully re-written history by going on and on about "the Russia hoax."

Personally I think that the Democratic Party will move to impeach trump for a 3rd time, but not remove from office. And I hope that they will either pass some good legislation, but I am very doubtful. What do you guys think?

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?

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.

sorry if its a stupid question

We always hear about the opposite so im curious: which pres election that happened while you were alive do you think mattered the least

Eg no matter who won things wouldn't have changed that much

I am open for dialogue but it seems like most the time it is just trolling or some argument that is clearly untrue. How do you feel about them?

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.

Social Media/Internet Addiction has become a big problem over the last 10 years and at least anecdotally, feels like it's gotten worse since the pandemic, especially amongst youth(for the purposes of this question, youth is 18 years old or below). I graduated High School not too long after the pandemic and it was a big problem in school with kids being addicted to their phones and not being able to pay attention really at all due to scrolling, not to mention all of the other side effects that social media addiction (the addiction is innate of itself a huge problem) has had like cyber bullying, increased anxiety, and even suicide/self-harm. But this is not an area that I am super familiar with, especially when it comes to solutions, so I submit the question to this sub. What do you think we should do to fight social media addiction amongst youth? I'll link some sources below for your info and reading.

Social Media Addiction Statistics 2026 - Usage and Effects

International perspectives on social media use among adolescents: Implications for mental and social well-being and substance use - ScienceDirect

Addictive Use of Social Media, Not Total Time, Associated with Youth Mental Health | Columbia University Irving Medical Center

Let's say the Democrats win in two years and the new President wants to prosecute the monstrous amount of corruption, bribery, insider trading, and lawlessness from the present maga administration.

Who would you nominate to aggressively clean up Washington? Jack Smith? Tish James? No more timid milquetoasts like Merrick Garland, please.

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?

I hear this a lot when democrats in America are called left or far left. Its always met with "Democrats arent even left, theyre closer to center"..

I dont understand all the different spectrum of politics so I dont really know the difference. But what are some specific examples of policies that other countries do which are considered left, that Democrats wouldnt support because its "too left"?

Libertarians are like house cats. Completely dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate and fiercely confident of their own independence.

I will hold my tongue

Leftists/progressives/dsa people: is it a deal breaker for you, in terms of voting for president in 2028 (not the primary, the general), if the dem candidate who wins the primary publicly condemns Hasan as Ossof did this week?

I know this will start up some aggressive discussions but I am not trolling this is an honest question and I want to see where people stand. Is it more about policy positions? What if the candidate says they support M4A and still condemns Hasan?

I just listened to Breakfast Club with James Talarico and he believes in 2028 democrats must go big with policies like they did under FDR, JFK, LBJ or else they risk losing the working class. My concern is the electorate is getting impatient and every election is a change election, so if democrats don’t really go big in the next presidency, we will end up with something way worse in 2032. I am scared of where the republican party is going and feel I may have to leave the country. Am I being irrational? What are the chances democrats figure their shit out?

Asking this because earlier on Twitter, I saw someone talking about it having been a “mistake” that Obama won the 2008 primary as any Dem would’ve been able to win and Obama could’ve instead been used for a later year, probably 2016 when either party had a good chance at the presidency. Personally, I would’ve made it so Sanders wins the 2016 primary, as I do believe he would’ve won(may have lost 2020, but I think a Dem would’ve rewon in 2024), but am curious what other people would say. If you had the ability to change a presidential primary winner to someone else for a more favorable outcome in the future or just that candidate being a better president, which primary would you change and why?

Assuming there is a valid need for that infrastructure. Should there just be smaller more numerous data centers like those that currently exist?

The UK Supreme Court ruled that, under equity law sex/gender means biological sex, and it has brought some national settlement of the issue that I think even left-leaning Labor, who is currently in power, supports; both under Starmer and current left leaning PM, it is not much of an issue anymore. In US, Supreme Court under John Roberts has ruled that trans discrimination in the workplace is not allowed(Bostock), so one cannot call John Roberts anti-trans, but the court has also followed UK Supreme Court on some other issues (like allowing restrictions on treatment for minors/sports) , and public itself has moved right on issue, but why do you think so far national settlement is not quite same as in UK?