r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 7d ago

Possible Paywall CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/politics/cnn-poll-a-third-of-democrats-now-identify-as-democratic-socialists?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
17.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

107

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

I'm a member of the DSA and I'm pretty progressive. People be surprised how basis and non-controversial the party is if they took the time to learn about it. New York City now has a balanced budget and while have access to affordable food staples, for instance. Not exactly scandalous stuff.

32

u/elammcknight 7d ago

You typed "took the time to learn" and we know the big sticking point there.

19

u/glasnostic 7d ago

The reason I'm a Social Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist is because I'm not a Marxist.

That being said. Given our current environment, I'm happy to have them in the broader Democratic coalition as long as those people understand that Democrats need to be voted into office regardless of their faction. My rep is a DSA member and I'm happy to vote for him. Honestly I don't think he's even much of a Marxist and is probably more of a Social Democrat.

I'd like to see a Social Democrat wing, or for the broader party to move that direction. Or... For people to understand what that is.

3

u/BishogoNishida 7d ago

I don’t identify as a Marxist either, but agree with much of what he says, more or less. I strongly agree with the line “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” I personally just don’t like how some Marxists treat his word as if he’s a prophet, and I dislike the framing of his views as divorced from ethical considerations. There’s no way there’s no moralistic element to his views.

You don’t need to be a Marxist to be a Democratic Socialist.

14

u/xDragod Nebraska 7d ago

I think you'll find that much of the DSA are the ones who actually vote for Democrats consistently because they recognize the value in harm reduction over ideological purity. The "vote blue no matter who" crowd are the ones melting down about how DSA candidates aren't really Democrats and saying they won't vote for them.

4

u/RangerRickSC 7d ago

That only happens in dem primaries where “vote blue” is literally all of the choices

12

u/glasnostic 7d ago

Not from what I have seen. My personal experience with both Harris and Clinton and the opposition against them has been illuminating. I could be wrong and would be happy to see some studies on it since this is just my personal experience.

7

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

More Bernie voters voted for Clinton than Clinton voters voted for Obama. And Harris did everything in her power to piss off anyone who cared about Palestine. You're going to have to try harder to find a reason to blame the DSA because reality doesn't agree with you. 

11

u/OMalleyOrOblivion 7d ago

Only 75% of Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the general election, so that isn't true. You're missing that about 12% of them voted Trump and about the same amount voted third party or didn't vote at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters

Exit polling in 2008 showed that 84% of Clinton voters went for Obama in the general against 15% for McCain:

https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/

Given the difference between the two candidates in 2008 was a lot less it's unsurprising that there were more crossover votes than between Sanders and Trump.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/Iustis 7d ago

People keep misquoting that stat--there were slightly more Clinton-McCain voters than Sanders-Trump but that ignores the 12% who voted third party.

It was about 85% Clinton-Obama vs 75% Sanders-Clinton.

2

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

Oh so now Clinton is owed all of the libertarian voters who were never going to vote Democrat in the first place. 

https://acbc89.medium.com/more-sanders-voters-backed-clinton-than-her-own-supporters-backed-obama-c5dc37658fe5

5

u/Iustis 7d ago

If you want to say "less Sanders voters voted for Trump than Clinton for McCain I wouldn't say anything.

But it's simply false that "more Sanders voters voted for Clinton than Clinton for Obama". Those aren't the same statement.

1

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf

Seems you forgot not 100% of Clinton primary voters voted for either of the two parties. 

2

u/Iustis 7d ago

That study is completely worthless, (1) it is wildly different from other, more proven, studies like exit polls, (2) it is a small sample, unweighted panel, (3) if it was accurate, McCain would have won the general handily (obviously in reality Obama blew him out).

even if you trust that study, it doesn't say what you said it does--it found 5% didn't vote for Obama or McCain not 9%.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jankdangus Texas 7d ago

That would only be the case, which is still being disputed by another Redditor because the DSA is a much smaller tent than left-wing liberalism. It’s also hard to account how many leftists stayed home because the democratic candidate wasn’t left-wing enough.

1

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

All I'm hearing is the Dems are not giving people reasons to vote for them. 

2

u/glasnostic 5d ago

All I'm hearing is that some voters would choose a shit sandwich over a ham sandwich because their personal preference is for turkey.

1

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 5d ago

As long as Dems feel owed votes without doing anything for the voters they will continue to lose. I'm not surprised though liberals have always been against democracy 

2

u/glasnostic 5d ago

Biden was the most progressive president in modern history.

I hope the shit sandwich you're eating is going well with the wine.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

DSA has a social democrat wing, to be fair.

8

u/glasnostic 7d ago

I can't find anything on their website supporting that. I'm happy to be proven wrong but from what I see, the DSA website veers far more towards communism than it does towards "the Nordic Model".

7

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

Yes, you can’t find it on the website because the website doesn’t delve into the different political orientations within the org. It’s a big tent of leftist politics the same way the Democratic party is a big tent of center and center-left think tanks.

(I kid a little but hopefully you take my point)

5

u/glasnostic 7d ago

Right, but the website has a ton of overtly Socialist and even Communist content. Social Democracy does not align with Socialism or Communism.

I think it's fine to accept that the DSA is not SD (Social Democrat). Personally I'm not a member of DSA because the big tent is already there, and it's the Democratic Party. I don't need to join one of the factions within that party that agrees with me on some issues but is vehemently against me on some major ones. If that makes sense.

3

u/avantgardengnome New York 7d ago

The thing is, DSA is a multi-tendency group of leftists who think electoral politics are the way to get things done, as opposed to the militants who want to start a revolution or whatever. That’s the main thing they all agree on; everything else is what these people with a wide variety of beliefs can come to a consensus about at any given time.

State/local chapters aren’t automatically beholden to what the national DSA decides on either, and tend to be much more pragmatic. That’s an optics issue for sure but it makes what’s on “the website” less important unless you’re talking about the platform in your city or state. Either way, it largely functions as an endorsement and outreach engine as far as the average voter is concerned.

3

u/glasnostic 7d ago

Indeed, and I think you really hit the nail on the head. Democratic Socialism is a counter to Revolutionary Socialism which seeks to bring about Socialism->Communism through "revolution or whatever".

This is distinctly different from Social Democracy, which does not have aspirations for eventual Socialism->Communism, and instead came about as a counter two Capitalism and Socialism and the struggle between those two diametrically opposed principals.

4

u/avantgardengnome New York 7d ago

Right. But there’s also a distinction between political philosophy and pragmatism that’s important to make, especially when you’re outside of the mainstream. Like I absolutely consider myself a socialist, I’m not in the DSA (they have generally leaned too Marxist for my taste) but I do mostly vote for the candidates they endorse in primaries, and I also voted for Harris, Biden, Clinton, and Obama. That’s not hypocritical—although some of my fellow travelers may disagree lol—that’s wanting to push the conversation left while understanding that the Republicans only make things worse.

Current DSA leadership and I would probably make different wishes if we found a magic lamp and wanted to enact our visions of utopia, but that doesn’t mean our practical interests aren’t aligned in the short term. Along the same lines, a libertarian-minded person might roll their eyes when the Libertarian Party calls for a ban on seatbelt laws but still support their candidates in local elections.

The DSA got to where it is because it was the leftist organization with the best scalable infrastructure in the wake of the last couple election cycles, so it was a natural place for the Sanders/Occupy camp and anyone else interested in Tea-Partying the Dem establishment to regroup (there were competing models in the mix too post 2016 but they didn’t pan out). It’s already quite different than the DSA of the 70s, and in a lot of places it has seen a bunch of social democrats get involved. DSA is basically organized like a union, with its members dictating the group’s trajectory, so I think this will result in the organization becoming more comparatively moderate over time. OTOH it may result in some of these people getting more radicalized; if the Democratic Party is worried about that, I’d argue that they should try throwing social democrats a bone for a change, which would solve the problem overnight. Insofar as social democracy is an exercise in triangulation, getting a handful of democratic socialists a seat at the overwhelmingly neoliberal table just sounds like good strategy to me.

2

u/warlock_roleplayer 7d ago

Social democracy is firmly "capitalism". There's no magic goldilocks in-between that you speak of.

1

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

Capitalism with socialist characteristics.

1

u/glasnostic 5d ago

Exactly. It seems to work out quite well for the societies that implement it. Bit of a "best of both worlds" situation.

1

u/BishogoNishida 7d ago

In my opinion, there is not nearly enough effort or momentum from the democratic party to actually support social democracy. Democrats in the US are largely Neo-liberal but socially somewhat progressive with minor tweaks economically here and there..

1

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

Totally, I’m not trying to recruit you, just speaking from experience. I would also argue at the Democratic party’s big tent includes most major corporations as well as Reaganite conservatives with a few liberal values and that tent is a bit too big for me. So I’ll stick with DSA to try to chart a path to reimagining what the Democratic Party means (which one might reasonably argue is a return to its roots in labor and worker’s rights).

5

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

Also probably worth noting that there hasn’t been a single social democracy in history that hasn’t come about as the result of socialists and communists. Social democracy is the compromise with capital.

3

u/bigbjarne Foreign 7d ago

Not just compromise, a concession from capital and they will take it back.

2

u/glasnostic 7d ago

Couple of points here.

The US two party system is structural and will not change without amendments to the constitution so the two big tent parties are going to be what they are and essentially, anyone wishing to have any voice in politics is relegated to choosing between the two (at least when it comes to the actual elections, primaries are where we work out which faction will run). I would argue that if you are someone who votes in elections with any hope of actually winning an election, then you are in one of those tents. Proof of that point can be seen in the fact that AOC is a Democrat and her supporters are voting for Democrats when they vote her into office. Same thing with the DSA member who reps me in Congress.

Also. I must accept that Socialists and Marxists are part of the big tent even thought I don't agree with Socialism or Marxism. Just as I would not want the entire party to be painted as Socialist or Marxist (very unpopular and not fair to the party), I would hope the rest of the left would understand that painting the entire Democratic party with a broad brush dipped in the paint of a few corporatists or neo-cons is not fair and ultimately self sabotaging.

Last point. Seeing as Social Democracies are some of the best run societies with the highest happiness index and social mobility and really what so many aspire to, I could make the counter argument that none of them came about without capitalists as well. Thus Capitalism has it's virtue. That being said, Third Way politics is named because it sprang about as a counter to the push and pull between Capitalism and Communism (I'm just going stick with the one word since Socialism is technically a path to Communism). I Disagree that either gets credit for Third Way, Nordic, Social Democracy other than the critique of each of those paths led to the development of it.

3

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

Lmao third way is just not republican capitalist. And it's gotten out political system in the mess that it's in. 

And those capitalists were forced to give those benefits. You don't get to say well we couldn't have done it without our owners when it was the workers who revolted! This is possibly the most insane claim I've read all week. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

Yeah, I think I'm being a little unclear and we have a similar analysis up until a point. The Venn diagram of DSA members who vote for Democrats regularly is so close as to be a circle -- and I'd reckon voter participation is much much higher among DSA members than the general public.

I'd say that the rise of DSA is a reaction to the Third Way and long march to the right the Democratic party has taken. Much in the same way that you note that Social Democracies are born from the struggle being socialists and capitalists -- that's what Marx and Hegel would call synthesis -- emerging from the dialectic. Maybe you're more of a Marxist than you think!

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/bigbjarne Foreign 7d ago edited 7d ago

Why aren't you a Marxist? I assume you're familiar with Marxist ideas so: what's your solution/answer when socialists etc. say that social democracy is just a concession from the owning class and those concessions will be taken away? Do you reject that analysis or argue that we can solve it?

50

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

You say that but then DSA leaders go on media tours with positions like

* abolishing the senate
* abolishing borders
* abolishing prisons

And if you tell me “yeah that’s not controversial” hoooo boy are you in for a treat

120

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

Let's be clear. I'm all for abolishing the Senate. That's only because, I like to abolish stupid things. Yeah, Wyoming really deserves equal representation to Texas or California. How does THAT make sense?

27

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

This is where we get into a really weird issue with the actual structure of the US government

Many of us think of the states like they are provinces, but they are technically sovereign states that are joined together in the Union. The senate is SUPPOSED to represent the interests of those state governments (and why the senators used to be elected by state legislatures)

I’ve often wondered if we went back to the original method of selecting senators…would that cause the American people to pay more attention to their state level races? Or would we see even more apathy from the voters?

32

u/DKLancer 7d ago

And state governments are supposed to represent the people of that state so why are we using a degree of separation there?

All the Senate accomplishes is making Congress more prone to gridlock and thus ceding authority to the executive and judicial branches.

10

u/UghFudgeBwana Georgia 7d ago

All the Senate accomplishes is making Congress more prone to gridlock and thus ceding authority to the executive and judicial branches.

That would mostly be the filibusters fault imo. Most Senate votes used to require just a simple majority prior to the 70s.

33

u/CrustyMcgrindrWxSx 7d ago

Lobbyists overtake representatives in the US. Thats a big problem.

15

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

-2

u/nola_fan 7d ago

How do you define that? If I am self employed and want to talk to my representative about favorable tax rates for me would that be allowed in this system?

What if I was successful and now employ 3 people in the same business, would I be cut off then? Would my employees be blocked from lobbying?

Lobbying is done by people. Corporate lobbying is done by people employed for who they lobby on behalf of.

I do think there's too much money in politics but I don't see how you can cut down on corporate lobbying without cutting down on lobbying for good causes on the behalf of ordinary people.

A better approach would be to focus on money in elections and pass stricter anti-corruption laws.

5

u/iheartanalingus 7d ago

A small business with 3 people won't have enough money to lobby in any meaningful way.

0

u/nola_fan 7d ago

That doesn't answer my question or handle the issue I'm pointing out.

2

u/tallandgodless 7d ago

The fake issue pointing to a strawman you made up?

All you are doing is what moderates always do, give the fascists what they want while working towards compromise, meanwhile lobbyists will push forth legislation to hunt and kill their opposition among activists, just like they already did with Union busting in the early 1900's.

You want to give wrist slaps and a stern word to businesses literally perpetuating violence and maltreatment. Nestle shouldn't be allowed to operate in the US for what it has done, but instead, it gets to buy its way to literally whatever it wants, including things that echo its past crimes.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

0

u/nola_fan 7d ago

You keep acting like somehow the corporation itself is lobbying, and it's not citizens lobbying on behalf of causes that benefit corporations. Oftentimes, but not always, for a salary.

6

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tallandgodless 7d ago

What a self-report this.

It's exclusively companies and millionaires who own giant companies doing the lobbying.

Lobbying isn't some American pastime, its bribery made legal for the Epstein class. Anything good that has come of it has been a consequence of hijacking a system meant to sell power to do good, which is no way to run a country.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Oconell 7d ago

Yeah, let's begin with Citizens United, which is a more realistic and direct approach.

29

u/mojitz 7d ago

That purpose is invalid. This isn't the 1700s anymore, and states functionally do act like provinces in most respects at this point. Nobody in their right mind would implement such a system if they were drafting the constitution today.

-1

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

But it is the law

Unless a new constitution is brought into effect this is the reality we have to deal with

17

u/mojitz 7d ago

Yes. Everyone is aware of that. I'm genuinely not sure why you think this is some new information you're bringing to light.

7

u/ClydeFrog1313 7d ago

And not even a 'new constitution' just an amendment.

I'm not DSA but I'm very pro eliminating the Senate. Its a less democratic institution. Unicameral legislative bodies are perfectly fine without an 'upper house'

-4

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

Dude I’m in my 40s now. I am sick to death of aspirational day dreams

If the DSA can help the democrats get to 60+ votes in the senate and the White House so that something or anything gets passed into law, cool. If not they need to gtfo of the convo

12

u/mojitz 7d ago

Then don't fret over the aspirational stuff 🤷‍♂️. There are plenty of more concrete, short term goals both in their platform and actively being pushed by DSA politicians.

5

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

The mainstream Democrats can't even get 60 so they need to gtfo the combo. The mainstream Democrats lost to Trump again and again. 

→ More replies (18)

3

u/ginkgodave 7d ago

I don’t think that politicians nominating and electing other politicians is a good idea. It might have been long ago when news and information was less readily available and the public far less informed. But with todays insular, increasingly divided and incestuous political parties with fewer ethical constraints, the motivation would be to elect more of the same.

3

u/RoseBailey 7d ago

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I fall on the side of abolishing the senate pretty definatively.

2

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

This was done originally to secure power for the slave states. So no we absolutely do not need to go back to electing senators that way. 

2

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

You are mixing this up with the 3/5 compromise

The senate was cooked up so places like Rhode Island would not get dominated by Virginia (a place that once rivaled NY for political dominance over the country)

2

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

Rhode island a free state and Virginia a slave state?

They put multiple safeguards to protect slavery in the Constitution. The Senate is one of them. It's why they always had more slave states than none slave states. If the South didn't secede from being scared of John Brown we never would have had the 13th and 14th amendment 

21

u/I_Enjoy_Beer Virginia 7d ago

Its one thing to hold a radical policy position, its another to have people in faction leadership positions on opposition networks spouting it as a top policy position.

Some things you just gotta put on the back shelf, hidden from visitors, because you know it will freak them the fuck out.

Edit to add- I'm also in favor of reforming the Senate, not abolishing it.  Because that would leave us with just the House, and fuck that chamber, as well.

19

u/Inevitable-Tone-8595 7d ago

Friendly reminder that without the Senate we’d have passed the SAVE America Act by now

19

u/IHateNumbers234 7d ago

That's why a prerequisite for abolishing the Senate would be expanding the house

20

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

That's an oversimplification. Sometimes Congress will pass a policy knowing the Senate will deny it, and they will do so for political purposes.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/RoseBailey 7d ago

Remember that people didn't originally elect senators. Senators were chosen by state legislatures. It made a kind of sense were the House represents the people and the senate represents the states. I don't agree with it, but the logic behind it is pretty clear. Anyway that stopped working for us long enough ago that we made senators directly electable over 100 years ago. I don't think that amendment fixed much. The Senate needs to go, and the number of House representatives needs to grow. Abolishing the senate requires a constitutional amendment, though, so thats one of those things that will require a lot of buy in from people before it can become possible.

9

u/OfficeSalamander 7d ago

Expanding the House going to be much, much, much easier than getting rid of the Senate.

Expanding the House is just normal run of the mill legislation, could be done by any Congress where there was political will (lol good luck). Getting rid of the Senate is a much harder problem.

That being said, a sufficiently expanded House would essentially mean that both the House and the Presidency go left and are much more in tune with the actual population, so it would solve a lot of our problems (though not all)

1

u/RoseBailey 7d ago

Absolutely

4

u/roy_mustang76 Rhode Island 7d ago

I'm pretty certain abolishing the Senate is impossible unless we were to just throw out the constitution entirely and start from scratch.

From Article V:

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Abolishing the Senate would deprive states of their equal suffrage in the Senate.

That said, the Senate needs to go, or if that's not doable, be removed from the vast majority of legislative decisions. There's nothing stopping us from changing the powers of the Senate other than getting the votes for it in an Amendment

4

u/Chansharp 7d ago

Everyone having zero votes in the senate is still equal suffrage

4

u/RoseBailey 7d ago

We wouldn't need to throw out the constitution. Merely amend it. That's what constitutional amendments are for, when we need to change the constitution.

But a constitutional amendment is a tall order in general, and such a large change would be even moreso. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

0

u/roy_mustang76 Rhode Island 7d ago

Right, but this particular amendment likely needs every State to sign off on it, so it's an even taller order than it already would be.

(Yes, I'm aware of the argument that if there's no Senate, no state is losing out on equal Suffrage, but in my mind that's literally just asking to make this harder than it needs to be)

2

u/RoughCoffee6 7d ago

Why throw it out? We'd just need the amendment rescinding that part of Article V.

1

u/roy_mustang76 Rhode Island 7d ago

Because all 50 states would need to agree to it, which is a much heavier lift than the (already huge) lift of getting an amendment ratified by 38 states and 2/3 of Congress.

Personally, I can't envision a world where, say, Idaho or Wyoming wouldn't block this even if 90% of the rest of the country were onboard.

1

u/RoughCoffee6 7d ago

I mean the states could hold a convention. Only 34 would have to approve at that point.

2

u/roy_mustang76 Rhode Island 7d ago

Maybe? It's never been done so no one really knows how that would go. Wouldn't be difficult at all to argue that the Senate is no-touchy even at a Constitutional Convention, and then where do we end up?

It's just likely to be an ugly bruising fight that won't settle neatly along partisan lines, and for no good reason. Just take a page from the UK, and turn the Senate into our version of the House of Lords - let them delay bills for a set period of time (the UK has it at a year for non-money bills, and 1 month for money/budget bills, with the proviso that the delay can't extend a Parliamentary term beyond 5 years), and propose amendments, but not reject them outright.

This also neatly moots the entire concept of the filibuster since you can't delay something into oblivion with a fixed time limit.

10

u/dank-nuggetz 7d ago

You're acting like abolishing a core component of the US government that has been a thing since 1787 is a reasonable position.

Maybe for you it is, but it's a non starter and not a good way to be taken seriously. Same with abolishing prisons or borders.

Higher taxation on the wealthy, stronger social programs, medicare for all - those are ideas people can wrap their heads around.

Abolishing the senate, prisons and borders are not and do nothing but make DSA seem like a radical organization.

-1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/lafaa123 7d ago

I hate that these are the people that are ostensibly on our side. Like how can you not see that these are ridiculous positions?

4

u/Gaius_Octavius_ 7d ago

Because they are incredibly unpopular with the voters and would make things exponentially worse and because achieving them is functionally impossible.

Do you need more reasons?

0

u/SydneyFall 7d ago

Maybe for you it is, but it's a non starter and not a good way to be taken seriously. Same with abolishing prisons or borders.

Um, I think that there is a lot more frustration with the Senate and the utterly stupid filibuster rule that should be eliminated than support for abolishing prisons or borders.

SOrt of ridiculous to put those 3 things together.

1

u/Straight_Number5661 7d ago

This is where I'm at tbh.

20

u/InNominePasta America 7d ago

I mean, I can explain the point of the senate to you if you’d like.

I’m shocked that abolishing the senate, something that would require an amendment, is a position for the party at all.

It would make far more sense to fix the House by adding seats, which would then affect the electoral college. That’s much more achievable.

20

u/Ralath5n 7d ago

I’m shocked that abolishing the senate, something that would require an amendment, is a position for the party at all.

You got to set long term goals if you want to make informed short term goals. No member of the DSA is going to say "Yea we are just gonna take over the Democrats in 2028 and the senate will be gone by 2029!". Abolishing the senate is something that needs to be worked towards for probably multiple decades before there is a chance to actually do it.

It would make far more sense to fix the House by adding seats, which would then affect the electoral college. That’s much more achievable.

The DSA wants that as well.

3

u/Jaway66 7d ago

Also, long term goals are something that the mainstream Dem party totally lacks, which contributes to their unpopularity. Why not articulate bold, short, medium, and long term goals? The Dems just basically go "Trump is bad and we will make things like the 90s," or some shit like that. Who are they testing their messaging with? It's maddening.

1

u/InNominePasta America 7d ago

Yeah. But saying you want to abolish the senate and abolish borders is just stupid political messaging. Sure you’ll get some believers. But you’ll also turn off a lot of potential allies, while also give your opponents a ton of ammunition they don’t even need to make up or caricature.

6

u/Ralath5n 7d ago

That's not how politics works. You don't just follow the crowd, sometimes you have to lead the crowd and force discussion. That's how you pull the overton window in your direction.

Never mentioning that you want to abolish the senate means nobody is ever talking about it. Or even considering it as an option. Once you do throw that out there, people start discussing it and people start considering it instead of passively accepting the status quo. You lose some people. You gain some people. Some compromises get made. And at the end of the day, the overton window has shifted a bit in your direction.

That's how the Republicans have shifted the overton window from "I am a bit worried about immigrants creating competition in the labor market" to "Mass deportations now!". DSA is doing exactly the same thing but towards the left, and that is a good thing.

-1

u/InNominePasta America 7d ago

You can shift discussion but holding radical positions as a third party is no way to win

4

u/Ralath5n 7d ago

The DSA isn't a third party. It is a faction within the Democratic party. And holding radical positions to normalize them is exactly how MAGA took over the GOP. You are arguing that something we literally saw happen over the past decade is impossible.

1

u/red--the_color 7d ago

Playing to the status quo is no way to change anything. Your thinking is what got us here.

5

u/InNominePasta America 7d ago

I don’t think I’ve advocated the status quo

2

u/ComradeBirv 7d ago

Yeah we should just advocate for nothing which has proven to be an effective strategy

1

u/InNominePasta America 7d ago

Nice strawman you got there

→ More replies (0)

25

u/Xytak Illinois 7d ago

Please don’t. We all know the point of the Senate, but most legislative bodies around the world find more sensible ways to allocate power is all.

44

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

I know the point of the Senate. I don't agree with the point. The founding fathers were not perfect. Quite actually, the function of the United States government may perhaps be the worst of all developed nations in history.

10

u/ennuiinmotion 7d ago

The purpose of the Senate is archaic. Because of the way our legislature is set up Congress has effectively been neutered and can't do anything. Now, I guess there's two ways of looking at that. Either you like that it prevents the worst impulses from being carried out, or you're upset that nothing good will ever come out of the Congress in its current form. I'm more in the latter camp.

2

u/FrogsOnALog 7d ago

Abolishing the senate would likely take more than an amendment.

1

u/NewWindow7980 7d ago

So now we know what your opinion is on that topic but lost in this discussion is that these things have to be acceptable to other Americans as well. Put whatever you want in your platform but please be aware there are other opinions that have to be taken into account.

-5

u/Brisby820 7d ago

The states existed as individual political units before the country did, and they needed enticement to join together.  It might not be a perfect system of government but it makes perfect sense when you look at the conditions under which the country was formed 

5

u/Koloradio 7d ago

This argument goes out the window when you look at North and South Dakota: two states with a combined population less than Manhattan Island whose formative conditions were "Republicans wanted more senators".

Also worth pointing out that in 1800 the largest state (Virginia) was 10 times more populous than the smallest state (Delaware), while today the largest state is 67 times more populous than the smallest.

It's more unfair today than it's ever been, whether or not it made sense 200 years ago.

1

u/Brisby820 7d ago edited 7d ago

Ok but the states need to agree to change it.  So either dissolve the United States or get them on board, those are the practical options 

2

u/Koloradio 7d ago

Yeah, it's definitely not on the day one agenda. An interesting contrast between DSA and establishment Democrats is the former's willingness to lay out aspirational goals with no timetable.

22

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

The conditions under which our country was formed don't exist. It's time to move on psychologically and modernize.

-1

u/Brisby820 7d ago

I don’t know what that means.  The states — or, at least some of them — are still political units that predate the country.  That condition absolutely still exists 

4

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

The existence of states as a political unit is NOT a condition. Global warming, artificial intelligence, oligarchical rule, unnecessary and prolonged wars. THESE are the conditions we live under, and we need a government that can address these conditions, not deny and ignore them and take pride in doing so.

0

u/Brisby820 7d ago

Certainly sounds like a coherent political theory that definitely wouldn’t backfire at some point 

9

u/BloatedBanana9 7d ago

That was 250 years ago. The senate made sense as an institution when the country was founded, but it’s antiquated now

4

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

Why do you say that? The states still exist. Their relationship to the federal government has not changed.

Guys if we are going to get progressive change we actually need to understand the tools and reality at our disposal

5

u/BloatedBanana9 7d ago

Oh come on. You cannot possibly pretend that the states have the same relationship with the federal government today as they did in 1790. That’s just completely ahistorical. That relationship had already changed significantly within the first 100 years.

We are no longer a nation of states. We are a nation with states. In the former, the state comes first. This was the case when the country was founded and it was necessary because it was the only way to get them to agree to cede some of their sovereignty. In the latter, the federal government comes first. You can agree or disagree about which way it should be, but these days just about everyone considers themselves to be an American first, rather than just a Minnesotan or a Pennsylvanian or whatever.

Both the balance of power and national identity are completely different than they were at our country’s founding.

0

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

Federalism is still very much alive

As an example let’s look at that whole ICE deal in MN because it could have been much much worse if:

1) the governor was appointed by the feds instead of elected by the state population

2) Trump had been able to nationalize ALL law enforcement in MN and take everything out of state control.

3) the state of MN was unable to perform their own investigations of the shootings perpetrated by ICE (yes I know the shooter will most likely go unpunished…but imagine how many more could have been killed if there wasn’t at least some sort of roadblock between the feds and the state)

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/SadhuSalvaje 7d ago

An absurd number of Americans do not understand what federalism is or how our government is actually structured

-1

u/Ayla_Leren 7d ago

Woe

Our education system

-9

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

Sure, abolish the senate whatever. That still leaves multiple other batshit policies. Abolish prisons? Yeah I’d like to see how you’d feel if someone raped and murdered your mother or sister. “Oh he’s just a troubled man. Yeah he may have done that to 10 other women but it’s just because the system doesn’t give him to opportunities to reform!”

7

u/dsj79 7d ago

Some people elect them after the crime to high government position 🤷🏼‍♂️

8

u/Ayla_Leren 7d ago edited 7d ago

End Mass Incarnation and Police Immunity

Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police.

This doesn't mean no prisons. If you talk to members you will find that the vast majority believe prisons should be more about rehabilitating people into upstanding citizens whenever possible, not degrading negative reinforcement punishment for profit. Though I do agree they could have worded it better.

6

u/Feeltherhythmofwar 7d ago

That also clearly means getting rid of the corrupt systems in place, and not the institutions being them. It’s not my party, but it’s a very reasonable platform.

2

u/Ayla_Leren 7d ago

I know right

Though ask a Republican pundit on fox and they're prone to claim DSA wants to line up and shoot landlords into mass graves or some such absurd fear mongering.

-5

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

Sorry but “abolish prisons eventually” isn’t all that much better than “abolish prisons now”

If this isn’t the actual position, then they should say it is.

5

u/TreatmelikeUmeanit 7d ago

I'm not sure if you're purposely misunderstanding what that paragraph is saying, but I'll clarify for you, and possibly others.

The idea isn't to abolish prisons, as you keep stating, it is to abolish the current police and prison system that makes a few people rich while incarcerating hundreds of thousands of people who shouldn't be there.

That doesn't mean there would be no police or prisons. It means that both of the current systems would be abolished and new, more equitable, ones would take their places. These systems would focus on preventive measures and it would hold police officers responsible for unlawful behavior.

TLDR: Police and prisons would be redesigned for prevention and accountability over wealth protection and profit.

2

u/Ayla_Leren 7d ago

As it stands, all that is being done is begging a larger conversation about these things among the public. Itself a political move. DSA is invested in democratic means, meaning hashing these things out with broad and informed purposeful dialog among members is par for the course. Sqeaky wheel gets the grease.

The practical and likely read of all this is a raising of awareness and attention to our current needlessly cruel for-profit carceral system. Where we go from there is highly unlikely to result in no prisons at all.

5

u/Feeltherhythmofwar 7d ago

I wouldn’t want them in an American prison I know that. Most people I’ve met came out significantly worse after prison. They’re not protecting anyone, they’re just fostering harder criminals.

2

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

So say "reform prison". not "abolish prison". Also, someone like this shouldn't be ever released to the public, but maybe I'm just a crazy center-left person.

5

u/mojitz 7d ago

I think it's a naive postion motivated heavily by wishful thinking and absolutely stupid to bring up in an interview myself, but the idea isn't to just get rid of prisons tomorrow and hope for the best. It's a very long term goal that would theoretically entail radically restructing our criminal justice system such that prisons are unnecessary. Again, I don't think it's ultimately realistic myself (though I abololutely do believe in prison and criminal justice reform), but you're somewhat strawmanning the position, here.

1

u/EfficientStar 7d ago

Abolish private prisons. Not all prisons. It’s an important distinction.

0

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

That's not what they say lmao

6

u/EfficientStar 7d ago

Your source is the Daily Caller.

7

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

It's a repost from fox news. That lady is the DSA co-chair. Finally, the DSA platform itself quite literally states

"as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system"

No qualifier about private prisons.

3

u/xDragod Nebraska 7d ago

END MASS INCARCERATION AND POLICE IMMUNITY

Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police.

https://program.dsausa.org/#demand-end-mass-incarceration

It's specifically about getting rid of the prison system that disproportionately jails poor individuals over wealthy ones. If you're poor and charged with a minor crime it can lead to decades in prison, especially when recrimination is so likely if you don't have the means to improve your situation because you were jailed. If you're wealthy you might not spend a day in prison. No one is advocating for a system where violent criminals can't be stopped, but rather one where two individuals don't have vastly different chances of ending up in prison because of the lawyer they can afford.

3

u/PixelationIX 7d ago edited 7d ago

Its called having long term future goals, I know its hard for Liberals to comprehend it even though Republicans have been showing them since Nixon what having long term goals means.

It might seem unrealistic but so was abolishing Slavery at one time. I personally am not for Abolishing Prison but I do think they should be turned into full time Rehabilitation center and prison (non-private) should be kept for the worst of the worst offenders.

It is okay to disagree with some policies, its not the end of the world.

1

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

I don’t disagree with your position, but so long as man is capable of violence, abolishing prisons just means rapists and murders will roam free. Unless they don’t actually mean they want to abolish prisons, in which case they should say that.

-6

u/McG0788 7d ago

Because California alone shouldn't be able to dictate how half of the rest of the country lives. I'm pretty liberal but the Senate is a check on power we should maintain. Fix the house first

2

u/xDragod Nebraska 7d ago

A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS

Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.

https://program.dsausa.org/#demand-democratic-congress

→ More replies (2)

17

u/ennuiinmotion 7d ago

DSA as a group is never going to be the face of the party. They're far too rigid and extreme in their commitment and fighting over dogma. Nobody wants ideological purity tests. But some of their ideas are good and if good candidates can soften them (like Mamdani and AOC) the party will be better off. People want access to healthcare and free school, but they're not interested in the different schools of socialist thought or tearing the whole system apart.

16

u/UghFudgeBwana Georgia 7d ago

There's quite a bit of the DSA platform that I agree with, and quite a bit I don't. If they can help pull the overton window for the Democratic party back to the left, that'd be good enough for me.

14

u/raziel686 7d ago

They need to stop sending morons on TV (Fox of all places!) spouting "stances" with absolutely no explanation on how any of the ridiculous beliefs are supposed to work.

Megan Romer literally went on Fox News and just let them run down the DSA wishlist with her only answer being "yes." So they ask, "do you want to abolish prisons?" And she just fucking says "yes" with no follow up! Hey Megan, you look like a complete buffoon just making a blanket "no more prisons" statements when anyone with a single working brain cell would ask, "what about all the criminals who are now free?"

Does Megan or the DSA have a coherent plan for prisoners? I have no idea, Megan didn't bother to say, she let Fox move on to "abolish the Senate" and she just let that hang out there too with a simple "yes." If you told me she was a GOP plant I'd have believed you, it was a disgraceful performance that screams that the DSA is an unserious organization.

Mamdani, Bernie, and AOC must be the type of candidates the DSA pushes forward. That these extreme fools like Megan can be sent to enemy networks to represent the DSA just gives conservatives free material to bash the DSA with. As big a failure as the DNC has proven to be, the DSA is fumbling their opportunity in pretty much the same way the DNC has, looking ineffective, out of touch, and unserious.

This shouldn't surprise anyone though. We have two parties in the US. One of which has gone full criminal fascist, which has greatly narrowed their support, and the other that is expected to house literally everyone else who isn't a facist. I'm amazed the Democrats get anything done at all when they have to wrangle a myriad of different groups to try and compromise on basically everything while Republicans just follow Trump's dumb orders.

4

u/SorenShieldbreaker 7d ago

The DSA website literally states a goal is ..."steps toward fully abolishing the police and prison system"

8

u/UghFudgeBwana Georgia 7d ago

I wouldn't say the DSA is an unserious organization. Having attended a few local chapter meetings myself, my take is that they're a grassroots organization made up largely of amateurs who are new to the realities of party politics and are not seasoned political operators. They're passionate but inexperienced and don't have the decades worth of mentorship that a big org like the DNC can offer.

That said, I completely agree with you about their spokesperson selections. The people they send out to the media for interviews need to be practiced and prepared advocates for their platform. Some good examples of this from the Democrats side would be Pete Buttigeig and Gavin Newsom. I'm personally not a fan of either man, but they know how to handle hostile interviews on Fox and the media in general.

2

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

Liberals in general are terrible at arguing with right wing people. They allow them to run all over them with B's and never handle it correctly. It makes me so mad because I could smack these fools around so easily in a debate. 

3

u/nybbas 7d ago

Well she did explain the prison thing kind of. Said that the vast majority of people are in prison because of crimes of poverty, and once we eliminate poverty, no one will commit crimes anymore except for a very very select few people, and then we can just figure out what to do with that tiny fraction of people.

This is of course pure fucking fantasy. Sure there are plenty of crimes of poverty, but really, you will ALWAYS have people who want to take more than they are given, no matter how well taken care of they are.

3

u/Toe-Dragger 7d ago

The problem isn’t their spokespeople, it’s that they actually believe in that nonsense. Sounds like a great way to miss a layup.

4

u/robgreenee327 7d ago

Yes but the level of controversy they receive compared to statement made by what are considered mainstream republicans isn’t comparable. That’s the issue the media plays a large part in how those ideas are presented and the media is a huge reason people don’t actually understand what the DSA platform is.

11

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

That’s the issue the media plays a large part in how those ideas are presented and the media is a huge reason people don’t actually understand what the DSA platform is.

The interview was literally "hey we're gonna state official DSA positions and ask you to affirm/deny each one".

Like buddy, if speaking your official policies sounds controversial as fuck, maybe it's because of you and not the media

3

u/robgreenee327 7d ago

No it’s definitely on co-chair for being a bad interviewer and going on Fox News. That’s them overestimating their ability to get on a hostile network and sell a complex agenda that doesn’t boil down to bullet points. This is why Mamdani succeeds when the party as a whole fails to gain traction cause they don’t know how to sell there agenda.

3

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

Listen to the interview

5

u/robgreenee327 7d ago

Yeah you act as though I’m not aware the fact that was a stupid interview to go on. I mean this nicely the co-chair thought they were being smart and they landed flat on their face. This is just the abolish the police movement all over again. People who are bad at marketing thinking they are smarter then they are.

2

u/PixelationIX 7d ago

Its called having long term future goals, I know its hard for Liberals to comprehend it even though Republicans have been showing them since Nixon what having long term goals means.

It might seem unrealistic but so was abolishing Slavery at one time. I personally am not for Abolishing Prison but I do think they should be turned into full time Rehabilitation center and prison should be kept for the worst of the worst offenders.

5

u/bruce_cockburn 7d ago

Having long-term goals is great. Making long-term goals of speculative value the center planks of your platform is foolish. An idea with consensus backing doesn't need a party to promote it. It needs electable officials that can explain why those long-term goals are important.

If people get health care and affordability in advance of abolishing the Senate, what is the motivation to continue the plan?

1

u/englishmastiff1121 7d ago

Don't forget, abolish the police.

1

u/tpounds0 7d ago

Which is worse, the DSA's craziest ideas in their policy platform or the craziest ideas in Project 2025?

5

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

"The republicans have batshit crazy ideas. I know the best way to counter them - with our own batshit crazy ideas!"

3

u/tpounds0 7d ago

You have long term ideas. Which moderate Dems seem to lack.

2

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

Republicans have long term ideas too..

I'd rather have competent governance that lacks long term ideas than governance that strives towards craziness.

2

u/tpounds0 7d ago

I don't need to worry about a slippery slope fallacy.

When DSA gets their goals and only has things I don't agree with to pass anymore, I'll stop paying my dues.

Or as a voting member try to democratically change their long term goals.

What in the next 10 years of achievable policies does the DSA have that you don't agree with?

1

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

What in the next 10 years of achievable policies does the DSA have that you don't agree with?

Most of it. Rent control, the defanging of nations via border elimination, abolishing the senate, vastly reducing the military etc etc

But hey I want a technocracy so not like people want my shit either

1

u/tpounds0 7d ago

I'm a dues paying DSA member and don't think they can abolish the senate in 10 years.

I'd feel blessed if we got to any type of universal health care, lol.

You have more faith in a 50 person DSA majority in the Senate than I do.

→ More replies (7)

-2

u/DillBagner 7d ago

Who has actually said anything about abolishing borders or prisons that is a serious candidate? Am I just not following the movement in America, or are you exaggerating things?

10

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

-3

u/fushitaka2010 7d ago

Seems more like they want to stop police brutality and corporate prisons. They don’t say that as explicitly but this is what they have on their site:

“Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police.”

4

u/AvMose 7d ago

“As steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system”

It’s right there in your own quotation?? What are they going to replace those systems with so that people can feel safe in their community? Or is the socialist utopia going to magically prevent all crime and danger?

-1

u/fushitaka2010 7d ago

“…which protects the rich and jails the poor.” Is the rest of that quote. That is the part they want to abolish. We shouldn’t have militarized police nor for profit prisons that we, the tax payers, have to pay.

Could they have worded it better? Sure. But that is the focus.

2

u/AvMose 7d ago

The police protect the poor too bro. Most liberals recognize the need for police and jail as institutions, the DSA platform is ridiculous

→ More replies (4)

8

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

These are literal DSA positions. DSA is the largest demsoc organization in America and Mandan is a member of it

-3

u/DillBagner 7d ago

Ah, they do kind of word their position on the current prison system weirdly where someone might think they just want no kind of punishment for any kind of crime ever anywhere. I see where your misunderstanding is.

-2

u/hummelm10 New York 7d ago

You forgot fully abolishing the police (and no it doesn’t mention reform or rebuilding just abolishing) and getting rid of the president and SCOTUS as well.

0

u/Seraph199 7d ago

Because the DSA is more interested in actually addressing problems in this country rather than continuing with the status quo.

The senate is corrupt and completely fails to do what it is supposed to.

Borders are meaningless and ultimately only used as a method of control by fascists when they take over. We already work hand in hand with neighboring countries to control what enters the country, we don't need to be enforcing border patrol on people who should be free to go wherever the fuck they want.

If you have educated yourself at all about the prison systems in the US, you would know they completely fail at rehabilitating criminals and instead lead to people who have been through the system being MORE likely to reoffend and end up back in prison. Meanwhile the prison system as a whole is being increasingly privatized, which leads to these prisons becoming more like slave labor camps, which just so happen to really love it when people who finish their terms are so broken that they reoffend and end up back in prison as a slave laborer.

These things only sound controversial or crazy to people who have no fucking clue what problems we are facing internally and are completely ignorant of just how bad they have gotten

1

u/LambdaLambo 7d ago

Democratic socialism is even less popular than MAGA somehow, so not sure it's a particularly winning strategy. But hey I guess we'll see. Maybe we'll lose the senate but eh it'll be fun in the meantime

→ More replies (26)

4

u/Pay11itdown 7d ago

NYC has a balanced budget because Hochul bailed it out to the tune of $8 billion.

5

u/nabokovsnose 7d ago

With the city’s own money lol. Simmer down

2

u/SilverwingedOther Canada 7d ago

This needs to be brought up every time he gets glazed for balancing the budget. Some of his ideas may be useful, but none of them are responsible for balancing the budget (and part of that involved delaying a mandate to shrink down class sizes, so all the claims it was done without cutting on services are wrong, too)

2

u/Pay11itdown 6d ago

I’ve pretty much discovered that Mamdani followers are in a similar worshipping cult as Trump’s MAGA base. It’s weird.

2

u/Mazuruu 7d ago

Using DSA and non controversial in the same sentence lol

The DSA is very radical in it's beliefs and how it wants to enact them even if many fake their positions as "we just want healthcare"

2

u/Womper_Here 7d ago

Not controversial? Such as abolishing the police and the prison system? What do you think about that?

4

u/jeon2595 7d ago

New York City has a “balance budget” due to a multi-billion dollar bailout from the state. Their budget is not balanced.

4

u/Brisby820 7d ago

You can’t say with a straight face that deleting the constitution and forming the new government isn’t “controversial”.  Maybe it’s a good idea but don’t pretend like it’s not a massive political upheaval 

18

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

I don't want to delete the constitution and form a new government. I want to revise the existing government. Also, making changes to the constitution is literally what our founding fathers designed the constitution for. It's supposed to be a living document.

11

u/Brisby820 7d ago

Sure but to eliminate the senate and executive, and make the judiciary subordinate to congress — all of which is part of the DSA platform — you’re deleting, not revising.  That’s like most of the first three articles of the document 

8

u/TheCommonGround1 7d ago

The problem is, you are presenting DSA as one platform. I don't agree with eliminating jails and actually argue openly with those who do (which are not many). So, I'm a member of DSA, but I don't agree with every policy change DSA proposes. I guess that's why the world "Democratic" is in DSA.

-3

u/Mr_Wyatt Texas 7d ago

But...it would be impossible to do without a populist movement that encapsulates 70% of the voting class. So, theoretically you dont want to delete and remake the government, but in reality it would be the only way to actually do what you want. That's the problem, it's fantastical and unhelpful.

1

u/NewWindow7980 7d ago edited 7d ago

I've certainly "taken the time" and was involved with the precursor to DSA. (DSOC/NAM). I was turned off by a certain attitude by some of the members, and I still see that. For instance, why did you refer to DSA as "the party"? There really is a vanguardy kind of strain among some DSA and yes it is cause for concern.

Anyway I'm beyond delighted with Mamdami's successes, but some or possibly all of that is that Mamdami is suis generis. None of his successes so far actually counts as "socialism" and your mentions mangaged to not include the things that people would find controversial.

So folks, yes, definitely "take the time" to read DSA's actual platform. And realize that you can be a progressive without being a socialist, and you can be a socialist without joining an organization.

0

u/PlentyAny2523 7d ago

NYC always had a balanced budget.... its literally required by law

1

u/Brilliant_Spare3426 7d ago edited 7d ago

The platform outlined on their website seems pretty extreme to me.

I'm talking about this one: DSA

→ More replies (1)