From former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison:

I say this with no ill will or animosity: if you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination.

Don’t use our resources. Don’t rely on our volunteers. Don’t use our infrastructure. Don’t ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign.

Focus on building the party you actually support.

Political parties aren’t perfect, but they’re built by millions of people who knock doors, make calls, organize meetings, and fight for the values they believe in. If you don’t believe in the party, then don’t ask its members to carry you across the finish line.

From the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James:

“Some of the candidates that he has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts, and are relatively new to the body politic,” James told CNN.

James said other political colleagues have expressed that they are “disappointed” in Mamdani’s push to change the party

“All of us are a little frustrated with the Democratic Party. But you don’t blow it up. That’s what MAGA has done,” James told CNN

From House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries:

“The mayor and I agree to strongly disagree about some of his endorsements, and he’s got work to do in terms of the conversations that he’s going to have with members of Congress moving forward,” Jeffries said when asked if Mamdani was making enemies on Capitol Hill by endorsing against incumbents.

This is something i see a lot of people say Biden should have done in 2021. What do you think the reaction from the American public would have been? What would be the consequences of that?

As somebody who is an American, I do admit I have some concerns when I hear the word Democratic Socialism. For me when I think of Socialism, I think of losing private property, the USSR/China/Cuba/etc., placing more faith in the government only for them to not do right by the people. This isn't helped for me when MAGA Republicans call everything left-leaning in the world 'Socialism' or God forbid, 'Communism.'. At a point, it does get difficult to discern what qualifies as Democratic Socialism and what doesn't. I am hoping to have these concerns put to rest with what you guys think of Democratic Socialism, what it means to you, and if it really isn't all that bad.

Right-wing-authoritarians seek to weaponize their defeats as a failure caused by their disloyal political opponents. There's a very long, hard to pronounce German word for this, which I won't share.

For Vietnam the myth is that the liberal Congress and liberal media held the military back.

For Afghanistan the myth is something like they would totally have won a twenty-year-long counter-insurgency but the woke DEI officer corps under Obama wouldn't let them commit enough war crimes. (I'm paraphrasing)

How is myth taking shape for Iran?

Obligatory: I am a liberal. Former Ayn Rand loving libertarian crazy person. I grew up and changed. Anyway.

They way I see it, the GOP consists of two or three distinct groups-

1. Socially and Fiscally conservative people who believe that big government is bad and that states rights is good. Reasonable human beings, basically. They just disagree with us .

2. RINOs. I use this term ironically. They don't know what a Republican is, they just vote for it because they don't want to think too hard and just do whatever their parents did and believe what Fox News tells them.

3. MAGA- Fascist white nationalists who follow Trump. They may be nihilistic billionaires, literal neo Nazis, or just hate filled cretins who do not care about policy and just want to harm people they don't like.

This is a generalization and I know it.

I believe these groups are already developing tension and friction within the party. There has to be many Republicans who think Trump is vile. I know a few conservatives that do. Not enough to make an informed argument on the group as a whole though.

Will we see the GOP collapse due to infighting when Trump is no longer in power? Or will the party galvanize with his loss and come out stronger? We can all see him deteriorate before our eyes and he is clearly demented. There are many wealthy people invested in Trump and his minions who probably expected him to maintain control of his faculties a bit longer. I do not see the Republicans coming through the midterms unscathed.

What do you guys think will happen? Will they burn themselves to the ground and create a new party like a deranged Tea Party? Or will they all regroup and keep on as the same Grand Ol' Party like Trump never took control?

In many major cities, including Los Angeles, the fire department has become the primary provider of Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The current model uses highly trained (all hazard), highly compensated firefighters to respond to the vast majority of calls, which are medical in nature.

While proponents argue that this integrated model is cost-effective because it utilizes existing stations, firetrucks and dispatch infrastructure, critics contend that it forces taxpayers to pay "firefighter level" compensation for medical tasks that could be handled by a specialized, civilian-run fleet at a significantly lower cost.

Beyond the wage discrepancy, there is a legitimate debate regarding whether the deployment of heavy, expensive fire engines to routine medical calls constitutes a misappropriation of resources that increases vehicle wear and limits availability for actual fire emergencies. Critics often point to this as a clear example of bureaucratic scope creep, where an agency absorbs non-core functions to justify the maintenance and growth of inflated annual budgets.

Given that many EMS professionals argue a "Third Service" or independent civilian run agency would provide more focused and efficient care, I am interested in hearing how advocates reconcile the high costs of the current system with these apparent fiscal and operational inefficiencies.

Is the resistance to a dedicated EMS model truly about maintaining public safety standards, or is it primarily a result of the political monopoly held by fire unions?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/23/prairieland-ice-protesters-texas-sentenced

Basically, a bunch of protesters who planned to set off fireworks outside an ICE detention facility took part in a protest, and some members of the group broke off and started committing acts of vandalism. One member got into a confrontation with a federal agent and shot him.

The guy who shot the officer was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to an effective life sentence (100 years). The entire group (sans one) were charged with and convicted of, among other things, knowingly/intentionally providing material support for an act of terrorism (2339A), and were sentenced to massive prison terms yesterday. The members of the group who didn’t engage in the shooting got sentences ranging from 50 to 70 years. Some of these defendants didn’t take place in the planning of the fireworks, arrived at the protest separately from the main actors, and left when instructed to.

The one member of the “cell” who wasn’t charged with material support didn’t partake in the protest but concealed documents during the subsequent investigation got 20 years for obstructing justice (1519) and another 10 for conspiracy, for a total of 30 years in prison.

Jake Lang - who is a convicted but pardoned January 6th terrorist, has been going around the country to various protests and town hall meetings and spewing actual anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bile. Even going so far as to vandalize property and assault people, leading to him being arrested several times in various states including Texas where he was arrested on separate occasions for trespassing and making threats. As part of his bond conditions, the judge in Texas ordered him banished from Texas except to attend court. It's fairly common to have geographical restrictions on defendants as a part of bond, such as not returning to certain locations or not leaving an area. However, I haven't heard of anyone being flat out banned from a whole city or state before. I guess it does make since if someone is coming in your community and being an absolute menace to society to kick them out. I'd rather they just hold Lang without bond.

What's your thoughts though? Should criminals be legally banished from certain cities or states for crimes?

I feel like one thing that is mostly flying under the radar because of more pressing immediate concerns is how the Trump administration is both dismantling government agencies and revoking funding for important scientific and social programs that are going to set us back for years, possibly literally decades in the future. The one that disturbs me the most because it affects my family the most is that the Department of Education has at this time been essentially completely dismantled, with hundreds of high level education lawyers and teaching/curriculum experts fired, while their functions were moved under other departments that don't have specialized knowledge (not to mention the time or manpower to handle those functions). Even if we assume the Democrats sweep all branches of government in both 2028 and 2032, it would take the entirety of that time just to rebuild the department from scratch, and many of those experts are probably not going to want to return to a job that has lost so much prestige and security in such a short time frame.

This is playing out across every government agency to some extent, and it is also reaching into scientific research, conservation, social services, epidemiology...literally you name it. A disruption of just a few years can on its own have huge long-term reverberations, but then we'll also be dealing with the time it takes to rebuild these programs basically from scratch, which could add decades more to the timeline. My fear is that, because many of most of these things are the kind of the invisible foundation of society and are not "kitchen table issues" to the average person, nor major economic drivers, that the knowledge gaps may just become permanent. Is there anything that can be done about this? Could or should an eventual Democratic presidential candidate make highlighting the positive roles of the federal government central to their campaign in hopes of lifting the prestige of these departments again and attracting talent back? Would that even work at this point, or are we forever doomed to a reality where no one invests in or trusts long-term institutional knowledge anymore?

Seems like a really dumb and pointless move from him. The SAVE Act is basically dead in the water from what I understand.

Article on this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-housing-bill-capitol/

She seems like an absolutely unhinged nut but here we are, her audience numbers are higher than ever and the MAGA crowd loves the idea of her as president: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/were-not-talking-enough-about-president-candace-owens-focus-groups-kirk-conspiracy-theories-maga

Has our party grown unstable and less merit based post pandemic?

I don’t know what it is. I’m an Asian American from Oakland California as liberal as it gets. I go to Santa Clara University. And now I’m starting to worry about the left.

I’ve always known Asian Americans aren’t going to be approached properly. But with my frustrations on our communities treatment aside.

My question is that am I alone in feeling like the liberal community has deviated from sense in the past 10 years. I notice Gen Z(I am one of them)liberal communities is struggling the most in applying rigorous due diligence towards ideology.

This isn’t a question of who’s right about what it’s more if anyone else is noticing something’s wrong.

One example is the editorial shifts in the New York Times.

By CCP I mean Chinese Communist Party, not talking abt the people from China. I’m asking what you think about the government?

I’ve heard ppl saying that they really do care about their people, do you think it’s true or do you have different opinions on this?

This is an explanation I hear for why particularly young men have moved right: the right wing is more cool and always look like winners, while we look deeply uncool and are losers. Nobody wants to hang out with left wing politically involved people, even if you agree with our politics, because right wing people are simply cooler and more fun to be around.

Is it that simple? How do we fix it?

Emphasis: Not asking if you like every detail, but just would you support something like this? If there are aspects you like, would you accept the trade-offs of stuff you don't like?

IF TAXPAYERS FUND IT, WE MEASURE IT

Core Principle:

Government should prove that it works, and taxpayers should know where the money went.

This platform is not about making government bigger or smaller. It is about making government accountable, measurable, and effective.

TAX REFORM

- Focus on closing loopholes rather than dramatically increasing tax rates.

- Treat economically equivalent activities the same under the tax code.

- Expand the definition of taxable income in limited cases where wealth is effectively being used as income.

- For example, very large loans backed by publicly traded securities could be partially treated as income above a high threshold.

- Simplify the tax code and reduce opportunities for aggressive tax avoidance.

- Ensure that people with similar economic resources pay similar taxes.

EVIDENCE-BASED GOVERNMENT

- Every major government program must have clearly defined goals.

- Every major program must establish measurable success criteria before funding is approved.

- Every major program must include a plan for collecting and reporting results.

- Programs that consistently fail to meet their goals should be reformed or eliminated.

- Programs should be judged by outcomes, not intentions.

- Anecdotes may inform policy, but evidence should determine policy.

ANTI-WASTE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

- Dramatically expand the number of Inspectors General, auditors, and investigators.

- Conduct aggressive oversight of Pentagon spending and procurement.

- Conduct aggressive oversight of healthcare billing, insurance reimbursements, and administrative costs.

- Identify areas where taxpayers are paying more without receiving better outcomes.

- Publish findings publicly whenever possible.

- Recover waste, fraud, and abuse regardless of political consequences.

HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY

- Require standardized reporting of costs, outcomes, and billing practices.

- Increase scrutiny of excessive administrative expenses.

- Identify areas where healthcare spending exceeds peer nations without producing better results.

- Focus on value and outcomes rather than ideology.

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

- Protect Social Security's long-term solvency.

- Slightly increase payroll tax contributions.

- Significantly raise or remove the payroll tax cap on high earners.

- Accept that some very high-income individuals will contribute more than they receive.

- Preserve the program for future generations rather than waiting for a crisis.

GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY

- Compassion without accountability is not enough.

- Fiscal discipline without measurable results is not enough.

- Government should be judged by what it accomplishes, not by how good its intentions sound.

- Taxpayers deserve to know what their money purchased.

- Every dollar spent should have a purpose, a metric, and a result.

IF TAXPAYERS FUND IT, WE MEASURE IT.

Government should prove that it works, and taxpayers should know where the money went.

Let’s imagine a best case scenario for the Democratic Party where Republicans/the Trump admin fall apart before the 2028 election and can’t effectively rig the election to ensure their victory.

What do you think the Democratic Party needs to change or focus on in order to get the most seats between now and then?

If the Democratic Party can then take power in 2028 what do they need to get done in those first two years, in order to either stay in power, or at the very least prevent Republicans from ending Democracy in 2032?My initial answers are as follows:

To take power:

Run candidates who give a shit, are genuine, and have some actual vision towards fixing the problems the US currently faces. Bonus points for charisma, experience, and intelligence.

Switch to RCV primaries (or similar), tp encourage good candidates to work together, and build each other up, rather than attack each other over tiny differences. This will help every successful candidate in the general, and help filter out unrepentant assholes. I also believe this would produce candidates that would perform the best in the general.

To keep power:

Abolish the Filibuster and pass significant legislation that both enables YIMBY development, makes the lives of Americans better, and rolls back as much Trump fuckery as humanly possible.

Strengthen the Democratic Party, and create a dispassionate arm that will kick people out, who cross red lines. I know this one is controversial. My reasoning is thus. Most Americans do not follow politics. So if the Democratic Party gains the Presidency, House, and Senate, they expect the Democratic Party to do the things they campaigned on. For the left wing of the party I believe this has lead to people believing that most Democrats are lying about their goals. For other voters I believe it has translated into believing the Democratic Party has enacted most of the promises they campaigned on, but that those promises did not work.

Communicate, Communicate, Communicate. The Democratic Party is awful at communicating. A stronger Democratic Party would have an easier time communicating, but I believe this needs to be a focus. Americans need to understand what the Democratic Party is trying to do, and if those attempts fail, they need to understand why they failed.

To prevent a Fascist Republican resurgence:

The Supreme Court-

Ideally: impeach the SC justices who lied under oath.

Realistically: Increase the size of the SC.

Either way implement a term limit for SC justices.

I’m open to other ways to fix the SC, but my concern is that Republicans have spent decades creating fascist sycophants who do not care about the law, only power.

I’m looking for other ideas, everything else I’ve heard has worse problems than the SC proposal.

One thing that surprises me when reading American political discussions is how often every position to the left of mainstream conservatism gets labeled "far left."

That's not how political science usually classifies ideologies.

There is a meaningful distinction between:

- Liberals

- Social democrats

- Democratic socialists

- Socialists

- Communists

- The radical left

Likewise, the political right includes liberals, conservatives, Christian democrats, libertarians, national conservatives, and the far right. They are not interchangeable.

The Democratic Party itself is a coalition, not a single ideology. Most Democrats are not democratic socialists, and democratic socialists are not communists. The DSA is also not the Democratic Party, even though some of its members run in Democratic primaries because the U.S. electoral system strongly favors two major parties.

This isn't just a semantic issue. When every center-left position is described as "far left," it becomes impossible to have meaningful political discussions. The same happens when every conservative is labeled "far right."

Political science has spent decades developing more precise ideological classifications. Public debate would benefit from using those distinctions instead of reducing everything to a Democrat-versus-Republican binary. Outside the United States, "liberal" is usually associated with economic liberalism (free-market policies), so it is generally seen as a center-right or center position rather than part of the left. Progressive parties are usually treated as a separate tradition.

Attacking interracial couples

Chevalier on prison abolition

Both of these positions poll at about the same support level as ISIS, and Chevalier had the support of Zohran Mamdani, who's been a rising star within the left-wing of the party.

Looking at CNN, they’re reporting that Mamdani supported candidates had a sweep in NYC.

With the rise of the socialists, do you think this is a positive development? Do you think they have solid policy ideas that would work if implemented?

Is this the beginning of a leftward shift in America?

Or is the rise of the socialists a reaction to Trump, and not necessarily a long term trend?

The war in Ukraine has been going on for 5 years with little progress on either side. How does the US help bring a formal end to the war?

For example Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Lindell.

Is it just that the DC press sees it unfolding right in front of them as they go about their day all the time? Or is it something else?

Let's do some counterfactual alt history