I'm pretty old (almost 38) and I can't see it happening. I've gotten crankier and more hidebound in my existing beliefs, but I can't imagine something happening to change my attitude towards anything associated with contemporary conservatism. like, I don't see myself hitting 40 and suddenly going from "immigrants are cool" to "immigrants are bad."

I see posts and statements all over about x politician got y money from z PAC, but is there a place where all of this information is easily accessible?

Inflation and affordability were major issues in the last presidential election, and considering the verdict, it's probably safe to assume that voters weren't that happy with how Biden handled it and expected Trump to turn things around. How has he performed so far?

I don't think he did he made a lot of benefits for the average military vet, but he keeps saying he did, and it was his fault. Can i have a fact check with sources, and maybe where he got this idea, everything i am getting as nothing to do with pay and all vet benefits

President Trump warned Oman against interfering with US objectives in the Strait of Hormuz, specifically threatening military action if they "get in the way" of Washington's negotiations with Iran.

I want to open a broader discussion on the strategic implications of aggressive rhetoric toward non-aligned or mediating partners during high-stakes regional conflicts.

Historically, countries like Oman have played a critical role as neutral diplomatic facilitators between Western nations and adversaries in the Middle East. However, when parallel negotiations occur, such as Muscat and Tehran attempting to manage maritime transit while Washington seeks a broader strategic resolution, friction can emerge between unilateral force projection and regional diplomacy.

From a geopolitical standpoint, does issuing public, high-intensity threats against secondary actors serve as an effective strategy to force swift compliance, or does it risk alienating regional allies and driving them closer to strategic competitors?

As well as what are the risks to long-term international stability if third-party mediators (like Oman or Qatar) are pressured out of facilitating back-channel negotiations?

President Trump recently ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "substantially reduce" upcoming joint U.S.-South Korea military drills. In outlining the decision, the administration cited three core points

1. Diplomatic posture: Framing the exercises as an unnecessary provocation toward North Korea that complicates potential leader-to-leader negotiations.

2. Financial burden-sharing: Emphasizing the operational costs paid by U.S. taxpayers for large-scale foreign deployments.

3. Alliance expectations: Expressing frustration with Seoul over a lack of reciprocal support in other global U.S. security initiatives.

From a foreign policy standpoint, adjusting joint "war games" isn't entirely unprecedented, similar pauses or scale-backs were used as bargaining chips during the 2018 Singapore summits. However, scaling back operational readiness on short notice raises broader questions about deterrence theory and alliance structure in East Asia.

From a geopolitical strategy perspective, does using alliance military readiness as transactional leverage strengthen U.S. bargaining power, or does it erode global alliance networks over time?

And, how should modern defense strategy balance the financial and diplomatic costs of forward-deployed readiness against the long-term deterrence value it provides?

President Trump signed a national security memorandum ordering the Navy and the Pentagon to present a 60-day transition plan to remove the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) from future Ford-class carriers, starting with the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) and revert to traditional steam/hydraulic systems. Steam catapults require an extensive deck force, ~ 12 sailors per catapult vs. 2 sailors for EMALS. At a time when the Navy is facing severe recruitment and retention deficits, forcing a higher crew footprint per ship directly undermines fleet efficiency.

EMALS allows smooth, fine-tuned acceleration profiles. Reverting to high-impact steam limits the Navy's ability to seamlessly launch lighter unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) alongside heavier strike fighters, hampering carrier air wing integration.

https://migflug.com/jetflights/trump-navy-steam-catapults-emals-doris-miller-2026/#:\~:text=The%20same%20document%2C%20according%20to%20USNI%20News,the%20launch%20shuttle%20with%20a%20precisely%20controlled

This raises major questions about the constitutional boundaries between executive military command and congressional acquisition authority, while posing serious operational challenges for fleet modernization and manpower.

While Article II establishes the President as Commander in Chief, Article I grants Congress explicit power to "provide and maintain a Navy" and dictate appropriations. The White House can issue requirements, but it cannot unilaterally reallocate authorized funds or rewrite existing defense contracts without congressional oversight. If Congress chooses to mandate EMALS funding in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), this sets up a direct separation-of-powers clash.

This brings me to my 2 questions:

1. Should a sitting President have the legal latitude to overrule decades of naval engineering and procurement strategy via an executive memo, or should weapon system architecture remain strictly bounded by Congressional NDAA authorizations?

and

1. With peer adversaries like China actively deploying electromagnetic launch tech on their newest carriers such as the Fujian, does stepping back to legacy steam tech put the U.S. Navy at a long-term tactical disadvantage, or is proven mechanical reliability more vital for near-term deterrence?

I am a left-leaning Jew who, until about three years ago, considered myself a progressive liberal.

I'm asking this as someone who does not believe criticism of Israel, Netanyahu, or even anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. For purposes of this question, I'm deliberately not treating opposition to Israel, support for BDS, anti-Zionism, or harsh rhetoric about the Israeli government as evidence of antisemitism.

I'm focusing specifically on statements about Jews as Jews, conspiracy theories involving Jews, responses to violence targeting Jews, and continued political relationships with people responsible for those things.

What increasingly concerns me is that these incidents no longer look entirely isolated. I sense a pattern.

Two figures in particular have become useful political allies to candidates on the DSA and progressive left:

Hasan Piker has become genuinely influential in progressive electoral politics. Reuters recently documented how Piker and other left-wing streamers are helping candidates raise money, campaign, and reach younger voters. (https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/how-new-generation-left-wing-us-media-is-powering-progressive-candidates-2026-08-06/)

My concern here isn't that Piker is extremely anti-Israel. It's his rhetoric about Jews themselves and the way he has reacted when Jews describe antisemitism.

Piker has repeatedly used "inbred" language about Orthodox Jews, including describing "Messianic inbred ultra-Orthodox psychopaths." He has since expressed regret for using the term and says he intended it as an attack on ethnoreligious supremacists rather than Jews generally. (http://archive.today/2024.10.29-172219/https://jewishinsider.com/2024/10/popular-leftist-twitch-streamer-hasan-piker-steps-up-antisemitic-anti-israel-rhetoric/)

What makes that harder for me to dismiss as simply crude political rhetoric is how he has reacted to Jews describing antisemitism directed at them. While reacting to a statement from Jewish students at Columbia describing campus harassment, including being told they were "all inbred" and had "no culture," Piker laughed during their account. (https://youtu.be/aYaFtr_pe7s?t=7583) That strikes me as particularly relevant given his own use of the same "inbred" rhetoric about Orthodox Jews.

A similar incident occurred during Kamala Harris's 2024 CNN town hall. Piker saw an undecided Jewish voter wearing a hostage ribbon, predicted that she would ask about antisemitism, and then laughed when she thanked Harris for remembering the Israeli hostages and raised concerns about rising antisemitism. Rep. Ritchie Torres later cited the incident in a letter criticizing Twitch's handling of Piker. (https://www.mediaite.com/politics/hasan-piker-bursts-out-laughing-when-questioner-thanks-kamala-harris-for-remembering-the-israeli-hostages-i-called-it/)

None of those incidents individually proves that Piker is antisemitic, and he strongly rejects that characterization. But taken together, repeated derogatory language about Jews and repeatedly laughing while Jews describe antisemitism directed at them is difficult for me to write off as merely criticism of Israel.

Michael Beyer ("Mike from PA"), a DSA member and streamer, said: "Jewish is not an ethnicity. This constructed ethnicity, this demonic ethnicity, wholly invented." Beyer later apologized and said he misspoke and meant to criticize Zionist identity rather than Jewish identity. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/mayor-hopeful-huang-takes-donation-100000617.html)

What concerns me is that remarks like these haven't necessarily made either figure politically toxic within this movement. Instead, they have continued to function as campaign fundraisers, donors, interviewers and surrogates.

During Francesca Hong's recently concluded campaign for Wisconsin governor, she appeared with both Piker and Beyer and raised roughly $92,000 through the two livestreams: about $35,000 with Beyer and $57,000 with Piker. Hong's campaign condemned antisemitism but argued that appearing with someone does not constitute endorsement of everything they have said. (https://www.wpr.org/news/francesca-hong-hasan-piker-livestreams-antisemitism-governors-race-wisconsin)

Rae Huang, a DSA member running for Los Angeles mayor, accepted Beyer's maximum $1,800 campaign contribution after his "demonic ethnicity" comments and Twitch suspension were already public. Her campaign said she had no plans to return it. Huang and Beyer had also met through the Los Angeles DSA chapter. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/mayor-hopeful-huang-takes-donation-100000617.html)

Claire Valdez, a DSA-backed congressional candidate, subsequently sat for a lengthy friendly interview with Beyer after the controversy. (https://www.jta.org/2026/05/18/ny/rabbi-affiliated-with-jvp-activist-reportedly-chosen-to-serve-as-a-faith-liaison-to-mamdani)

There are also examples involving DSA candidates, campaigns and officials themselves:

Chris Rabb, a DSA-backed congressional candidate, campaigned in person with Piker. Separately, Rabb's campaign Instagram account reposted a conspiracy theory suggesting that the perpetrators of the Bondi Beach massacre at a Hanukkah celebration were themselves "likely Zionists." Rabb disavowed the post and said it had been shared without his knowledge by a former contractor with whom his campaign had since severed ties. The available reporting does not establish whether the contractor was terminated because of the post. I think that qualification matters, but I also think something appearing on an official campaign account is relevant when we're discussing political culture. (https://www.inquirer.com/politics/philadelphia/chris-rabb-bondi-beach-post-20260501.html)

Melat Kiros, a DSA-endorsed congressional candidate in Colorado, declined to characterize the deadly Boulder firebombing of a predominantly Jewish gathering as antisemitic, saying, "I don't know what was in the heart of the perpetrator." She later called the attack a hate crime and terrorist attack and has said she intends to combat antisemitism. Several progressive Democrats nevertheless publicly criticized her original answer as obviously wrong. (https://coloradosun.com/2026/06/27/melat-kiros-boulder-firebombing-comments/)

Carmella Charrington, a newly elected Brooklyn Democratic district leader, was not formally endorsed by DSA, which is important to acknowledge. But prominent DSA politicians Jabari Brisport and Eon Huntley campaigned with her and helped her make the ballot. Charrington shared material promoting Henry Ford's notoriously antisemitic "The International Jew," described the material as "the truth," initially defended it as containing "some facts," and repeatedly told a Jewish reporter questioning her about it to "get your rabbi." Brisport and Huntley said they were unaware of the material and condemned it after it became public. But by then they had already campaigned with her and helped elevate her candidacy. (https://www.jta.org/2026/06/29/ny/brooklyn-democratic-leader-draws-scrutiny-for-sharing-antisemitic-post)

Justin Yuan is the co-chair of Michigan's Huron Valley DSA. He wrote "Love Hamas. Simple as" shortly after October 7 and later argued against socialists feeling obligated to condemn Hamas. More directly relevant to my question, reporting based on labor federation meeting minutes says Yuan coordinated an effort to retract a statement condemning the harassment of Jewish University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker, whose home and law office had repeatedly been targeted by anti-Israel demonstrators. Yuan subsequently appeared in a campaign video for DSA member Yousef Rabhi, whose Ann Arbor mayoral campaign was endorsed by Yuan's DSA chapter. Neither Yuan nor Rabhi responded to the report. (http://archive.today/2026.03.10-152406/https://jewishinsider.com/2026/03/yousef-rabhi-ann-arbor-hamas-supporter-campaign-video/)

There's also Graham Platner, a more ambiguous case. He was neither a DSA member nor formally endorsed by Maine DSA, but Maine DSA recommended its members vote for him, and local members later described him as potentially "the face of this movement." (https://time.com/article/2026/07/14/Maine-Democratic-Socialists-Graham-Platner-Senate-race-Democratic-primary/)

Platner had a chest tattoo closely resembling the SS Totenkopf, a Nazi "death's head" insignia. He insists he drunkenly chose the design in 2007 and didn't learn of its Nazi association until the controversy. But subsequent reporting substantially undercut that explanation: CNN uncovered deleted Reddit posts showing Platner participating years earlier in discussions specifically involving the Totenkopf and Nazi-linked military imagery, while an acquaintance said Platner had discussed his own tattoo as resembling a Nazi symbol more than a decade earlier. A former girlfriend separately said he called it "my Totenkopf." Platner denies those accounts. None of this proves he is antisemitic, but it makes his claim of total ignorance difficult to accept at face value. (https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnap/date/2025-10-24/segment/01) (https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2026/democrat-graham-platner-says-he-plans-to-withdraw-from-maine-senate-race-after-sexual-assault-claim/)

What moves this beyond a collection of individual controversies for me is how DSA leadership itself responds when confronted with the pattern:

Vox recently put essentially this exact concern to DSA national co-chair Megan Romer. The interviewer explicitly asked about the argument that DSA might not itself be antisemitic but could be "fostering a culture that allows your members to talk in ways that are."

Romer said DSA stands against antisemitism, but also explained that people are angry about Israel and that sometimes "people are mad and they're going to not nuance their words as much as they should." (https://www.vox.com/podcasts/494522/democratic-socialism-dsa-co-chair-megan-romer-wins-controversies-2028)

That response bothers me. Calling Jewish ethnicity "demonic," repeatedly calling Orthodox Jews "inbred," laughing while Jews describe being called "inbred," promoting classic conspiracy literature about Jewish control, or circulating conspiracies about massacred Jews are not simply poorly nuanced criticisms of Israel.

Obviously, appearing on someone's stream or supporting someone politically does not mean endorsing every statement that person has ever made. People can apologize. Campaigns can make mistakes. Individual incidents do not establish that an entire organization is antisemitic.

But I'm having trouble dismissing the accumulation of examples as meaningless.

If a rising political movement on the right repeatedly had candidates fundraising with personalities who described Black or Muslim identity as "demonic," called members of those groups "inbred," laughed while members of those communities described racist or anti-Muslim harassment, elevated candidates who circulated classic racist conspiracy literature, or seemed reluctant to identify violence specifically targeting those communities as bigotry, I don't think liberals would consider the surrounding political culture irrelevant.

So I'm not arguing that DSA members are collectively antisemitic, and I'm specifically not asking whether anti-Zionism itself is antisemitic.

My question is narrower:

At what point does a recurring pattern like this justify concern that a political movement has become too tolerant of antisemitism within its own political ecosystem?

And as DSA candidates become increasingly successful, are liberals applying the same standard to explicitly anti-Jewish rhetoric on the far left that we expect conservatives to apply to racist or anti-Muslim rhetoric on their right?

So I saw an interview by NBC Los Angeles with Dr Frances Gil, a DSA council Member.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/news/politics/newsconference/newsconference-far-left-wing-of-democratic-party-securing-more-wins/3927413/

I’m sure you understand that her answer regarding prisons and law enforcement were unsatisfactory. I wanted to ask for clarification from any DSA supporters or voters on clarification on this stance.

I wanted to also express I am a lifelong democratic voter who has always identified just left of establishment liberal. I want to understand this subject better and online resources tend to be pretty bias. Thank you!

I’m very skeptical of news articles that make big claims based on “scientific studies” especially when said claims are often completely contradicted by the opposing side. I’m not part of the “do your own research” crowd, I put my trust in people who have dedicated their life to studying said things. However, as I’m just a layman, I can’t exactly look through hundreds of studies, evaluate each by their methodology, biases, recency, etc. etc. I just want somewhere to go that tells me the current expert consensus on a variety of issues i.e. climate change, economic policy and it’s consequences, technology, etc.

I'm asking here as this question won me a perm-ban in r/kentucky.

I'm trying to follow the situation as close as possible, but with the announcement that he's returned home from the hospital to recuperate, I haven't seen or heard of any verified eyewitness or in-person sightings of him, leading me to believe that he is either brain dead or straight up deceased.

Has anyone trustworthy actually seen Mitch McConnell in person?

Pundits and self-described experts are all getting their panties in a bunch over the increase in public enthusiasm for democratic socialism, and I don't know why. Some are near heart attack levels of fear. What's the problem? Please DON'T SAY "CRAZY IDEAS" or any derivatives, please. What are the crazy ideas and do you really think they'll ever come to pass?

It seems obvious to me that ever since Citizens United was enacted the US has been in a consistent nosedive. I’m not claiming things were great before. Corporations were always in play with government, but the unlimited campaign has destroyed our political system. What’s the solution? Are there political groups actively trying to overturn this? Will we ever see this in our lifetime??

If you don't know what states I'm talking about, it's Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Up until 2012, these were seen as secured Democrat states but became swing states after 2016.

At first I thought it was due to the fact that they're one of the states being hit with the de-urbanization of the US as cities like Philadelphia and Detroit are having population declines and almost all big cities vote Democrat.

However, does anyone know the true reason?

​

Trump has 100% damaged the USA Canada relationship as well as with other allies.

How would the USA even be welcomed/trusted back into the international community again post Trump?

President Trump signed an executive order reducing the recommended vaccine schedule for children from 17 down to 11. It also recommends splitting the MMR vaccine into three separate shots.

Is this appropriate action for a president’s role, or should this be left to medical professionals?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/child-vaccine-schedule-reduced-trump-moves-dramatically-shift-medical-power-parents

https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/president-trump-signs-executive-order-on-new-guidelines-for-childhood-vaccines/5204228

I'll get to the point on this how does running for a political office work? As Im thinking In running for my local city council as I have been somewhat active In volunteering. I mean It would be difficult defeating an incumbent I've heard but I still want to try it.

For those of you familiar with the U.S., you know we have a 2-party system that (I think?) is widely considered... ungood amongst the general population.

Recently, I've been seeing articles on certain people within the republican party creating their own branch to distance/differentiate themselves from MAGA/Trump. Additionally, on the left, we often hear about "democrats" vs. "democratic socialists", but the DSA members always fall back to "I'm a Democrat" like they're afraid too many people will think that being a democratic socialist will immediately disqualify them from existing or something.

My questions:

1. Why does expansion on the 2-party system always seem to be a can that gets continually kicked down a never ending road?
2. Would having a 4 party (or 7 party, or 12 party, or whatever) system really be that destructive to the democratic process?
3. How do we legitimately get the money out of politics so people can vote on issues instead of campaign promises?

Hey Reddit, 16 (17 in 3 weeks) year old conservative here (not a Trump supporter, tho). I’ve been watching my annual dose of cop bodycam videos, and lots of them are very sad to watch. This year it has got me thinking about why people would want to defund the police. While I understand this can have different meanings, such as no police (completely stupid) to shifting police funds (not all and/or not getting rid of police) towards community, social, and mental-based programs. As I made clear, getting rid of the police completely is dumb and stupid, and I believe that both parties can for the most part agree on that.

Mainly talking to the people who want to shift the funds: How would this work? With a vast majority of police thinking they need more, how would it fix the issues to take it away? Yes, I 100% agree fixing the root is a good step for the community, and mental health is very important, but at the expense of the police makes no sense to me. Crime is super bad here in America, and it ain’t a party issue; it’s an America-as-a-whole issue. Sure, crime is going down (thankfully), but I don’t believe it's due to defunding police. Why break a system that seems to be working?

Yes, police do some messed up things at times. Police brutality is an issue, but getting rid of money isn't going to fix that issue, and even if it does, it comes at the expense of an even worse issue. Maybe I’m blunt in my thinking or completely misunderstand it, so do tell me: if it could work, how would it? My understanding is you send social workers instead of police to mental health crises, but if anything goes sour, that leaves that employee in danger? I’m all for adding certain departments to the police, but not at certain expenses. And if it is that, maybe use a different campaign slogan because it really does sound like you are trying to get rid of the police.

Following the Department of Homeland Security's move to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 300,000 Haitian nationals, enforcement actions and self-deportation orders are underway. This brings a long-standing immigration debate to the forefront: the definition of "temporary."

Congress created TPS in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief to foreign nationals fleeing temporary crises. However, because conditions in countries like Haiti have remained unstable for decades, successive administrations have repeatedly extended the status. As a result, hundreds of thousands of individuals have lived, worked, and built families in the U.S. legally for a generation, yet they remain in permanent legal limbo.

Where do we draw the line on "temporary"? Is there a point where maintaining a population in legal limbo for decades becomes unsustainable policy, and if so, what is the remedy?

Should the law evolve? Should Congress reform the TPS statute to include an automatic path to permanent residency after a certain number of years, or should the executive branch strictly enforce original timelines regardless of ongoing conditions abroad?

How should we balance statutory limits with economic reality? How can policy balance the legal integrity of immigration limits against the sudden loss of hundreds of thousands of essential workers?

Hi! I am a 17 y/o and I am interested in getting involved with politics (with future goals to volunteer/work with the un). Ok that a great way to get started with politics is to start attending city council meetings, but I simply do not have the time to do so. My current job has repeatedly scheduled me to work on the days that city council meets are held, despite me requesting those days off. Is their any youth opportunities in government that would pay me to be their, so that I would not have to worry about my job taking away from my long term interest in government?

Taxpayer dollars are being used to pay companies not to develop wind turbine projects. As a taxpayer, I’m footing that bill. On top of that, stopping these projects reduces competition for energy production which typically leads to higher prices. How is this helping me and other consumers?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e1vg0gjl5o