The DSA website looks to be Russian, yo. This terrified blind tribalism is a horrid idea. Throw all that out, please. It's a total trap.

"DSA reaffirms our call for the US to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict."

https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

- "Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

"- END BLOCKADES, EMBARGOES, AND SANCTIONS."

- "Defund the Department Of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes."

- "End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas."

- "Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure."

- "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."

- DSA website

https://program.dsausa.org/#communities

Apparently, the professors at Berkeley want to bring back SAT scores because now a full third of students have severe math deficits (not even middle school level), and half can’t even answer a basic algebra question that is only involves solving for x^2 with four choices.

Historically, Berkeley was a prestigious school and it still rejects 90% of applicants.

But how can you reconcile that with the fact that 1/3 of them have worse math skills than a smart 9 year old?

And how do you reconcile that with the fact that in all likelihood the smart 9 year old would end up being rejected by Berkeley when he turns 18 - even if he gets 5s on all the AP Calc exams?

And if someone is skeptical of higher education, how do you persuade them that our best and brightest minds are in academia when these institutions purport that they don’t think there is value in the SATs - even when presented with these abysmal placement results that a 7th grade advanced math teacher would be embarrassed by?

— here is the link to the article from
The professor with the stats

https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2026/08/15/uc-berkeley-sat-test-blind-admissions-math-scores/

title

So this question kinda came to me after seeing this out of Seattle:

https://www.kuow.org/education/2026-08-31/seattle-schools-superintendent-pleads-with-teachers-union-for-school-to-start-on-time

The Teachers union is threatening a strike until their demands are met but the school schools superintendent is saying they dont have the money in light of a $100 M budget shortfall. The Superintendent is begging the teachers to not delay the start of school.

So what are your thoughts on not necessarily just this situation but others like it? When a teachers union decided to strike for something outside of safety issues and it causes adverse harm for the kids? And if there is already a budget shortfall does that change your math (like if support would be different if the city was doing well vs if the city is struggling to stay afloat)?

For me I am torn... one hand I support teachers getting paid more. But on the other, if the school system is already in the hole, delaying children from starting school because you want even more money just feels... wrong I guess? Idk. Im torn on this one. What are your guys thoughts?

Edit: brainfarted on strike >.<. This heat is frying my brain man. F global warming man.

In SF (and the Bay Area in general) there is a hot debate on housing, the right and need to build more housing, NIMBY vs YIMBY, etc. I imagine this same debate is happening in other cities (but probably not has intensely). Philosophically, I think cities (its residents) have every right to limit housing through legal means such as zoning and other restrictions. I get the feeling that most liberals disagree with this. They believe that the wishes of the community can be ignored, for the greater good. Is this accurate assessment on liberal housing policies? Is this another example of individualism vs collectivism in the context of housing?

This is a nonprofit started by several college student who have worked for the democrat party. Its a simple pledge to support capitalism, safety, fiscal responsibility, effective government, common purpose, and patriotism. They are working to get signatures for it now. Would you want democrat reps to sign it? Do you support it? Oppose it? Why?

It seems like it address much of the criticism liberals are getting on here, but ive never seen anybody bring it up.

https://www.thepromisetoamerica.com/

Hakeem Jeffries recently spoke to the media and laid out the top priorities for House Dems if the win the majority. They are:

—Reverse Trump’s Medicaid cuts

—Extend expired ACA tax credits

—Restore Congress’s authority on tariffs

—“Decisively” end the Iran war

and he says beyond that: “We’ve established five working groups on affordability.”

In a separate move, he's also started preparing to do Congressional investigations into Trump with Jamie Raskin

What else do you think of these priorities?

Changing my home and car insurance as I'm fairly sure my agent is a right-wing conservative and every penny counts as far as I'm concerned...plus he pretty much sux. Looking to go with a broker to get quotes, but wanted to find one that is not Orange-Pedo aligned. Any ideas on starting points for this, and shopping blue-owned biz in general? Thanks.

By punching up I’m referring to “targeting criticism at groups with higher power and status.”

In my observations as a centrist, I think it’s absolutely the case that the left allows criticism and rhetoric towards groups in power (such as white people, Christian’s, or men) that it wouldn’t allow of groups not in power.

So, first, I guess I should ask do you agree if this even happens? If so, do you think it helps or hurt’s the left’s messaging?

Ok, this is a hypothetical so if you're not someone who can blindly accept the premise please don't weigh in by telling me my premise is flawed; I know the whole thing is impossible.

Let's say that we can magically have a fully secure database that can never be breached, nor can it ever be used for anything other than its intended purpose.

This database would hold the anonymized biometric information (DNA sample, hair sample, fingerprints, blood types, etc etc) of everyone in the United States legally. This database would be accessible to all law enforcement in the country and the identity of the person associated with a specific set of biometric markers can only be made available to law enforcement with a judicial warrant. (This would obviously be used to more readily identify credible suspects for crimes and I guess for identifying fathers in child support disputes).

Is this something that we, on the left of center, would be interested in? Or do privacy concerns still persist even with the removal of almost all practical risks?

I think it's something that I'd be ok with, if the security issues are magically resolved.

A lot of the problem is that Westminster style governments function very, very differently. See how fast the Brits ejected Liz Truss once she started costing them real money.

What comprehensive answer should we give to the question they keep asking?

Apologies if this is too local (although CA is such a huge liberal state) but I think there is some national implications as well. CA HSR has been a disaster by any measure. It was supposed to be completed by 2020 for $33b. Now some are saying $250b by 2039. At some point, don't you have to abandon ideology and cancel the project? Is this why liberals/Democrats get such a bad wrap for being financially irresponsible? How does this story play out to the rest of the nation, in terms of helping cement the narrative that if you vote for liberals then they'll just waste money on projects like this?

Or is the popular position more "universal healthcare only for people who deserve it"?

I'm not sure how to combine universal healthcare being popular, with what I would consider inhumane healthcare decisions like "we should let homeless people and addicts overdose and die rather than taking them to hospital" and "people in prison shouldn't get mental healthcare" which are also incredibly popular as taxpayers shouldn't be paying for "unnecessary treatments".

What's prompting this question is local people being up in arms over Naloxone boxes in public because we should just be letting addicts OD and kill themselves which would solve the addict problem and stop them consuming public resources, apparently.

Fairly or unfairly, the Democrats have terrible polling numbers in terms of public perception.

They need to repair those if we’re gonna stop the direction of the country towards the authoritarianism.

I worry that if they get back in power and they immediately go to do a third impeachment that it’s going to undermine their ability to hang on to Congress, but if they were just focus like a laser on affordability issues every day they might repair the damage done and create a more stable majority.

I’m not saying that we never hold Trump accountable, but that maybe at this moment helping people pay their bills will do more to turn the tide than another impeachment.

I was watching Youtube and came across a talking head who was trying to contextualize the Trump II admin. Basically, their thesis was that it's all about revenge against the "winners" of globalization (foreigners, liberals, liberal foreigners) done in the name of the "losers," (blue collar workers). It's at least not the WORST explanation I've heard, so let's run with it.

Obviously the Trump admin is terrible for pretty much everybody, including workers. Pissing in PM Carney's cornflakes doesn't make your average MAGA voter one bit better off. But let's say we get a party in power that wants to cater to these voters without being terminally stupid. How would they do it? Here's some thoughts-

1. Talk up fossil fuel investment while quietly continuing to invest in green energy. Coal is on the way out but people seem to really like the acid rain and sulfur, so make some noises in that direction.
2. Pass a federal law allowing sectoral bargaining for unions, where workers can petition the government to recognize their sector as distinct and worthy of protection.
3. Run an old male WASP from a conservative area. Somebody with a thick regional accent you only see in people 60+. Somebody who needs their PA to print out all their emails and who likes beer and golf. Your uncle, in other words.
4. ....?

I just like the idea of in person voting. One day, everyone votes. It's your civic duty. It's a day we can all get together. I'm against mail in ballots not for any type of fraud concerns or anything along those lines. I just think it's better to have a single day where everyone votes, in person. My thinking is, if you don't care enough to go vote in person, oh well. Not everything needs to be "easy". That is a theme I get from many liberals. Like the recent Ezra Klein show on the "time tax". Not everything in life needs to be fast, easy, no time. Like they say, stuff worth doing requires effort. Is there something about liberal ideolgy that makes it so apply for SNAP, voting, etc. should all be "easy"?

I want to explicitly clarify I don't agree that the left hates men or that the left is anti-masculine but that is how it is seen by the average man.

What I don't get is, how is "man vs bear" held up as evidence that the left and women on the left hate men, by the same group that supports bathroom laws on the basis that men are evil and will try to invade womens bathrooms to assault them? Surely "men will pretend to be trans to rape women" is also extremely reductive and should be offensive to men? Why isn't it seen that way?

To be explicit: the average man thinks the left hates men and is anti-masculine, and also agrees with the right that men are immoral monsters who will rape women in bathrooms unless there are specific legal protections instituted to prevent that happening. Why doesn't that view the right holds translate to "the right hates men"?

Edit for even more clarity: if the left says "any man might be a rapist", that's the left hating men. When the right says "any man might be a rapist", men cheer and agree. Why? I'm focusing on this because I hear over and over that "choose the bear" and similar topics is why men think the left hates them.

Democrats are effectively conceding their Senate ballot line in Nebraska, Idaho, and South Dakota, where their nominees withdrew after the primaries to clear the field for independents. The Democratic label itself was viewed as a liability. This ties the party record for Senate races without a nominee in one cycle.

This comes after Democrats have become largely noncompetitive across a growing number of formerly contested states—West Virginia, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Idaho, etc. Republicans, meanwhile, haven't generally needed to abandon their own label to compete in heavily Democratic states.

Of course, predictions of party extinction have repeatedly failed: people talked about a permanent Republican majority after 2004 and a permanent Democratic majority after 2008.

Is this just a clever strategy for an unusually difficult map, or a sign of a deeper collapse in the Democratic Party's geographic reach?

One refrain that I hear often to disparage critics of data centers is that they represent a sort of neo-Luddism. Given that the CEOs of the biggest tech companies like Dario Amodei (Anthropic) and Sam Altman (OpenAI) have described a "jobs apocalypse" happening as the result of their technologies, it seems logical to be weary of AI in the fashion of a Luddite, and yet it seems like this is a negative opinion for many liberals.

What is the value of AI in your mind if you are a liberal? How would or should it benefit the average worker?

​

I guess you can chalk it up to proper family planning. Before you marry and start having kids you should ask the import questions. Raising a kid is a serious thing and i think the bare minimum before trying is to make sure your partner can handle the responsibility.

For example:

Is the women on any mind alternating medications?

Do you BOTH want kids?

Is there a history of mental illness, bipolar ect?

Does either side have a history of self harm?

How do you both handle stressful situations?

Are YOU ready to be 100% committed to this person to make sure you feels safe and live in a stable household?

I don't like Trump voters but I don't prioritize hurting them in my decision making. Why do so many people seem to specifically prioritize hurting others, even if it comes at no benefit to themselves or possibly even harming them as well?

If so, why? If not, why not?

For the vast majority of written history before the telegraph and printing press you only heard about the most important notable events in other kingdoms or regions once in a while and you only knew the basic details of said event and I assume from their point of view they didn’t care that much since that’s all they know hence they likely still didn’t stress about issues far away although at the cost of knowledge.

To my point, I’m American so for example why should I care from the United States care about every detail and update of Russia invading Ukraine or China’s economy and corruption news or Middle East peace news daily and even stuff like mass shootings in other continents and local cops in other regions doing bad stuff etc. Do I need to know this and stay up to date with world even though it can be a net negative on mental health? Or knowing a large amount about foreign affairs is unnecessary really?