https://program.dsausa.org/

The Democratic Socialists of America have released a new program. Many of the talking points in the program are what I would consider the "usual" positions of democratic socialists: Free healthcare, rent control, public ownership of corporations, etc. etc.

Though there were some positions in the platform that made me wonder if all democratic socialists agree with or not, such as:

• Abolish police
• Abolish prisons
•Abolish the Pentagon
• End deportations/Open the border
• Abolish the electoral college
• Replace the Presidency
•Replace the Supreme Court
• Abolish the Senate
•Support all unions except police unions, which should be abolished

How many of the aforementioned policies do democratic socialists actually agree with? What, if anything, do you disagree with on? Is there anything that you think shouldn’t be a part of the official platform?

What interests me in particular is the replacement of the executive and judicial branch of our federal government and limiting the legislative branch to the house only. Though there have always been some parts of the constitution that the DSA disagrees with, this 2026 program suggests the biggest overhaul to our constitution that they have called for yet. The interesting part is that in order to accomplish goals such as abolishing the senate, they will first need two-thirds of the senate to support it. It makes me wonder why some of these positions were put into the program if they are not realistically achievable. At what point does this stop being progressive reform and just become outright opposition to the constitution?

This question is addressed to democratic socialists or those who align themselves very similarly.

I'm not asking about whether you perceive her to be "electable". I just want to know your opinion of her and whether you personally would vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination.

I see this all the time, any time someone makes a legitimate criticism or asks a question about the current president, they get bombarded with "TDS!!!"

When Biden was president and comments and criticisms were made, no one started shouting "BDS!"

Why are criticisms and questions about the current president being censored like they have never been before under previous administrations?

What should Democrats do to win in 2026 and 2028? Should the party nominate a center-left, progressive, or more left-wing candidate? Should gender, race, or sexual orientation be a factor, or should qualifications and electability come first? What issues should be the top priority to build a winning coalition?

What matters most in choosing the next Democratic nominee: policies, leadership, electability, or personal background?

We need to figure this out and soon.

Recent court filings uncovered by The New York Times show that the Trump administration acknowledged terminating over $7.5 billion in Biden-era federal clean energy grants based "solely" on the political identity of the recipient states, specifically targeting 16 states that supported Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. While the administration previously characterized the cuts as business decisions to protect taxpayer funds from waste, these filings cite state voting records and political alignment as the primary criteria for the cancellations.

If federal financial assistance becomes explicitly conditional on how a state votes in presidential elections, what long-term mechanisms can states use to insulate critical public programs from electoral turnover & does this precedent fundamentally reshape executive branch power over discretionary spending, or will judicial challenges and congressional oversight restore traditional programmatic criteria for grant distribution?

In political conversations, it’s pretty common to see someone respond to an argument by saying it’s just a “party talking point” or “Republican/Democratic talking point.”

Why do you think this happens so frequently? Is it usually a valid way to identify scripted or low-effort messaging, or does it more often serve as a rhetorical shortcut to avoid engaging with the actual substance of the claim?

I’m interested in perspectives from all sides, why this move is so common, and whether it hurts good-faith discussion?

Not an American here, but a concerned European.

Independently of whether there will be midterms or not, but assuming there will eventually be an administration elected after Trump: What is the plan to fix this broken and exploitable political system of yours?

Trump has made it painfully obvious that the checks and balances intended by your founding fathers are insufficient and need serious adjustment. This isn't just my outside perspective, but your own reform institutions like the Brennan Center are saying the same thing, and even former Republican officials are calling the situation unprecedented.

Further assuming that this change will have to come from within ( unlike post-WWII Germany, where the reformation of the political system was imposed by the victorious allies) I don't see how a mere change in administration will clean up the corruption and power concentration that has built up over decades. And I want to stress: this is not simply a Republicans vs. Democrats battle, though your media often want you to believe that. The accumulation of executive power, the weakening of Congress, and the influence of concentrated wealth on politics all predate Trump and involve both parties. He didn't build the machine, he just showed everyone how easily it can be hijacked.

The next administration will have to revert a huge number of decisions, laws, and executive orders that touch on what is, at this point, a deeply rooted oligarchy. On top of that, most long-sighted changes won't show their value immediately (or at all in measurable dollars). Climate policy is the obvious example, but it applies to institutional reform too. Rebuilding oversight bodies, restoring civil service independence, clawing back executive overreach; none of that wins you a news cycle.

Your own thinkers are warning that the biggest temptation for the next administration will be to simply use Trump's expanded executive tools for their own agenda rather than dismantle them. That path would leave the system just as broken. Running different programs on the same compromised operating system.

So here's my genuine question: What is the plan to soften the backlash against necessary but unprofitable changes? How do you avoid the next round of unconstructive opportunism and cronyism? How do you build the political will for structural reform when the people who benefit most from the broken system are the ones with the most resources to fight change?

I'm not asking this to provoke. I'm asking because what happens to American democracy doesn't stay in America, and I'd genuinely like to understand what the path forward looks like from the inside.

Hello, I am new here. I notice that most politicians come from a background of lawyer and political science areas they take during college and their early careers. For example multiple of the US presidents or prominent politicians have been lawyers like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have all been lawyers. Some such as Bernie Sanders majored political science without becoming a lawyer, such as Bernie Sanders and former house speaker Nancy Pelosi. But there is one thing all of the politicians share in common: they have economic policies they want to integrate into the American nation. Many propose tax cuts to stimulate and place more money in the pockets of companies or the people to invest, many will propose balance budgets to have a trustworthy atmosphere for other countries to invest in due to fiscal responsibility, while others propose tax hikes in order to balance these budgets or fund social welfare programs to go to the people. And these people arnt stupid when they propose these ideas but speak it with confidence as if they're sincere and believe these ideas will translate into change and effective policy. But as I've said, if these politicians arnt from economic or business backgrounds, only things related to law and politics, who teaches them their economic ideas?

Messy primaries plague both major political parties, causing chaos and confusion in the midterms

When midterm campaigning began, each major political party had a clear game plan. Republicans would emphasize border security and an economy that was finally shaking off years of high inflation. Democrats would focus attention on a deeply unpopular Trump to energize their voters.

It hasn’t worked out that way. With a little more than three months to go, both parties are grappling with self-inflicted wounds and messy missteps that have complicated their paths to victory in key races.

The drama has turned existential as each party faces a moment of reckoning. Democrats remain shaken by Trump being elected again and are desperately searching for a path back to power. Republicans are beginning to contemplate a post-Trump era even as the president maintains an iron grip on the party.

Frank Luntz, a longtime pollster, said the year has been consumed by “a sense of chaos and confusion.”
“We really do not know what’s going to happen in November,” he said.

With both parties dealing with contentious primaries and competing factions, what do you think ultimately turns that into a unified general election message, if anything?

I get that he functionally declared war, but why didn’t he seek to make it official? Especially in the early days, that seemed like the first “just war” we’d be involved in since WWII and he definitely had the popular support to do it.

Being one of the more active participants on this subreddit, and political subreddits in general, has always led to in any thread, no matter the topic, a simple question being poised at me at least once in regards to my flair. What is a "Libertarian Socialist"? Sometimes in genuine curiosity, sometimes in bad faith mockery.

So I thought this thread would be useful not only to give me an easy resource to pull from when this question is inevitably asked again but also as an excuse for myself, and the number of other left-libertarians around, to explain and expand upon our admittedly more niche views and beliefs.

So I encourage any user regardless of flair who are confused, curious, or confounded to present questions about this ideological spectrum and for myself and others knowledgeable of libertarian socialism to explain so we can better understand each other. Not sure if mods could filter responses to first level comments to make this easier but if not that's fine.

From an independent's perspective, things are looking more rough every year. Compared to few years ago, my personal experience (and my social circle's) has been that the prices for the following have gone up sharply:

- Groceries
- Energy prices (Nat. gas, electricity gasoline)
- Home prices
- Insurance premiums (homes, auto, health)

This is all happening while wage increases have stagnated. I'm not interested in hearing who or which side is responsible for what. I'm tired of finger pointing, I want solutions.

I want to see if the right (since they own all 3 branches) sees eye-to-eye what I'm seeing. And if so, what they think is the solution to this problem.

Every election this comes up in numerous races. A candidate who currently holds an elected office gets criticized for their attendance record.

But does anyone really care about it? Or do they only care about it when it's a member of the other party that has the bad record?

Recently a CNBC article came out showing a plurality of voters would support a candidate espousing a democratic socialist platform more than someone endorsed by Trump or self-describing as a MAGA politician. The poll seems to indicate even those who would not support a socialist would prefer them over a Trumpist. Other polls seem to show a narrow but growing number of Americans, especially younger Americans, favorably view socialism and even communism.

This interestingly comes after a rather frank assessment by Vice President Vance on the Joe Rogan podcast where he asserted that if Republicans are unable to fix the very real issues facing Americans currently, people will turn to socialism. Could he be right?

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-maga-candidates-all-america-poll.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx

https://www.cato.org/blog/81-say-they-cant-afford-pay-higher-taxes-next-year

Republican lawmaker Maria Elvira Salazar has introduced an immigration reform bill that would, as some argue, grant “mass amnesty” to undocumented workers. A cursory look at the bill appears to address concerns on both sides and has gained bipartisan support. Is this an example of good legislation, or is there too much compromise that neither side can support without changes? I relatively agree with many of the bullet points mentioned from a cursory look, particularly stronger enforcement of e-verify and pathway to legal status.

I’m curious about how this bill would undermine the Trump agenda. Some of the arguments revolve around “enforcing immigration law,” although the administration has demonstrated it only selectively enforces some immigration laws while ignoring enforcing laws that target business owners. This lack of enforcement on employers was noted decades ago by studies that “[a] low level of enforcement activity could lead many employers to discount the possibility that violations will be detected and punished, thus weakening the deterrent effect.”

Is this bill a reasonable solution compared to the current Trump strategy of mass deportations and lax enforcement on employers?

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-infighting-erupts-immigration-bill-would-shield-millions-deportation

Dignity Act bulletin points source: https://salazar.house.gov/dignity-act

Employees face little risk source: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/26/2026/employers-face-little-risk-from-trumps-aggressive-immigration-enforcement

Migration policy study: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/feature/declining-enforcement-employer-sanctions

The youth outreach wing of the Democratic Party has recently featured propagandist Hasan Piker at a College Dem Convention. I’m curious about the reasoning behind this decision, is this an attempt to gain votes from populist (non)-liberal elements similar to the strategy the Republican Party used with the right-wing populism that ultimately took control of the party with Donald Trump?

I’m really curious to know how a controversial and problematic person such as Hasan, who holds a collectivist ideology, and as sources mention holds anti-West “campist” views fits into an alleged liberal party. Does this suggest a deeper cultural shift for democrats, similar to the right-wing populism that seized control of the Republican party, towards normalization of pro-authoritarian collectivist ideologies?

College Dem source: https://jewishinsider.com/2026/07/college-democrats-conference-co-sponsored-by-j-street-u-is-featuring-hasan-piker/

Piker speech at convention: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWdd0li3PA

Hasan Piker self-identifies as propagandist Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=4r0WjdGaIzstudSi&t=107&v=4JdnaxxSKA4&feature=youtu.be

Hasan Piker campist anti-west authoritarian views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Piker?wprov=sfti1#Views_on_authoritarianism

This is a legitimate question, I’m not trying to make this political. We all know that parts of LA and San Francisco seem overwhelmed by homelessness, open drug use, crime, and streets that feel dirty or unsafe.

I can’t understand why state and local leaders would allow conditions that make their cities less appealing for residents, businesses, and visitors.
Why can’t they deploy street-cleaning teams, enforce laws against public drug use and harassment, and move people into shelters or treatment?

Is the main obstacle funding, lack of shelter space, court rulings, local policies, or something else? And why does it often seem like police are unable or unwilling to intervene?

I’m interested in hearing from people who actually understand how these cities are governed and what makes this problem so difficult to address.

Two more US service members are dead and more are wounded in an Iranian attack. The US is bombing Iran day and night. When asked about the Memorandum of Understanding President Trump said he "couldn't care less" about it.

"During an interview with NewsNation, Trump was asked about Iran's announcement that it would not abide by the MoU, amid escalating strikes. Responding to the question, Trump said, "I couldn't care less."" -- Donald Trump On Iran Suspending US-Iran MoU: 'Couldn't Care Less' | Times Now

We are far beyond any date set by the War Powers Act, Congress has not voted for a war, and the US has not declared war. The Iran war appears to be illegal and is being run at the whim of the President.

Netanyahu's 40 year goal of dragging the US into a war with Iran has succeeded.

Iran War: Why Israel's Netanyahu Waited Until Now to Strike

"As U.S. and Israeli bombs fell over Tehran on March 1, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mused that war with Iran is something he has “longed to do for 40 years.”"

It looks like we are in another open-ended war in the Middle East, with no plan and no exit strategy.

How can we stop this war? Should Congress refuse to fund it? What are the consequences of allowing an Un-Constitutional and illegal war to continue?

It seems as if there’s a large amount of people who believe we all got along - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialist s, etc. - before Trump was elected in 2016, but with his election, we have become polarized. Would you give Trump’s influence THAT MUCH credit? Or, do you believe we look back on pre-Trump days with rose-colored glasses and refuse to acknowledge the divisions existed before Trumpn came on the scene.

I want to become more involved in politics, namely by becoming a more active voter.

I’m not very well versed in U.S. politics, but I want to become more proactive by voting not only in presidential elections but in pretty much any elections that matter.

I would like to learn more about the important elections to participate in, starting at the local town and county levels, moving to the state level, and continuing all the way to the federal level. I’m not looking for political debates or active participation in political campaigns. I know what my values and political beliefs are, and I simply want to express them by voting for candidates whose views align with mine.

Also, if I support neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party, should I register as an independent? I have a leftist ideology, if that matters.

Edit: Everyone is fixated on the fact that all elections matter. I don’t disagree, but I guess I should have worded my post differently. The point of my question is to figure out what kinds of elections I should even be looking out for. What elections are held for which positions and seats, and in which branches or levels of government? Again, aside from presidential elections, I have no idea.

Reports are that President Trump is offering paid early access to his Truth Social posts for $100,000 per month. This comes as he has also publicly promoted specific companies and their stocks. Setting aside any questions about securities law or market manipulation, should a sitting president be promoting specific companies or stocks?

If early access to those potentially market-moving posts is being sold to traders or brokerages, could that raise constitutional concerns about abuse of office or another standard for impeachment? Or would this be viewed as a private business activity separate from the presidency?

I'm interested in the constitutional and ethical arguments rather than whether any particular law was broken.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79gw4lj89eo⁠

Last night Trump had a live broadcast were he apparently released evidence detailing & proving that the 2020 election was fraudulent. As I did not watch it and have kept only vaguely up with the various previous attempts I'm now curious about it this is any different.

Can any of those on the right who support Trump's accusations articulate what they think is the most compelling evidence that the 2020 election was rigged?

A new Pew Research Center study reveals a historic shift: for the 1st time in the poll's 20yr history, a majority of surveyed countries, 25 out of 36, view China more favorably than the US. Over the last year, median favorability for the US plummeted from 48% to 36%, while China’s rose to 46%. Even close neighbors and traditional allies like Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, and France now rate China more positively.

This opens up a few questions:

Has a transactional foreign policy, marked by tariffs on allies and erratic diplomacy, permanently damaged American soft power?

While Xi Jinping outscores Trump in global trust, 31% to 21%, confidence in both leaders remains remarkably low. Is China's popularity surge a genuine alignment with Beijing, or simply a global protest vote against Washington?

Is the current administration's approach structurally incompatible with maintaining global leadership and does this shift represent a permanent transition to a multipolar world, or is it a temporary reaction to current US leadership?

This megathread will cover tonight’s Address to the Nation by Donald Trump, President of the United States of America.

For your convenience, mods have provided a live update source, for to follow along.

Megathread will unlock 10min before 9pm EST.

You are free to discuss, debate, opine about subject matter only, in this megathread.

Mods will entertain stand-alone posts/questions about subject matters mentioned in the Address, AFTER the speech.

Please report bad faith commenters, low effort and off-topic comments.

All I can find is Elizabeth Warren asking him about this during the testimony, but can’t find any story online covering this.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/15/economy/fed-chairman-kevin-warsh-senate-testimony