/r/AskALiberal

Photograph via snooOG

Welcome to AskALiberal! This online community is a dedicated space for individuals to ask liberals questions about their beliefs and engage in insightful discussions. Our subreddit encourages open dialogue and seeks to foster understanding by facilitating conversations that explore the diverse perspectives within liberalism. Here, you can pose thought-provoking questions and engage in respectful exchanges with knowledgeable liberals.

Announcement: User flair is required. User flair can be found in the sidebar. Desktop users click here for an example.

Mobile users click here.

Welcome to Ask A Liberal

  • Have a question for Liberals and Democrats, alike? Want to know why some people have their viewpoints, their opinions on current events or political candidates? We can help!

  • This sub is focused on American politics but questions regarding the politics of other countries are welcome.

Community Rules

Please see our Rules for a full explanation of our rules.

1. All posts must have a question in the title.

  • The original post must have a question in the title of the post with the possibility of fruitful and constructive discussion. Posts that are deemed similar to a recent question may be removed.

2. Posts must prompt discussion.

  • Posts should provide enough context for discussion. An ideal post contains a sentence or two explaining your reasoning and, preferably, a credible source article.

3. r/AskALiberal is for discussions, not rants.

  • Posts that are self-indulgent or self-gratifying behavior will be removed. For example, long rants about very general or specific topics, or questions like “why are conservatives terrible?” are not acceptable. r/AskALiberal is for asking questions and fostering discussion; it is not a soapbox to lecture the sub or community.

4. Questions will be removed if the topic is subject to a moratorium.

5. Not a civil discourse

  • Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.

6. Bigotry in any form will not be tolerated.

  • Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.

7. Flair

  • Accurate user flair is required to post or comment. Having a false flair is not allowed and will result in a permanent ban.

8. Account Age

  • Accounts must be at least 30 days old to participate in discussions and there is a minimum comment karma requirement of 100. Throwaway accounts are not welcome. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Community Etiquette

  • Everyone is welcome to post or comment here, regardless of their political leanings.

  • Provide sources when asked for.

  • Questions should be posted with the intent to understand, not the intent to win an argument.

  • Up/downvote based on quality of contribution, not agreement or disagreement. Users who have comments throttled for low karma may request to be white-listed if they've been active for 1 month without rules warnings and if their accounts are older than 6 months.

Community Resources

  • New here? Check out our Wiki and FAQ.

Transparency Reports

Voting Infomation

/r/AskALiberal

53,093 Subscribers

0

Do you think an attractive, feminine woman presidential candidate would perform well?

In the wake of Kamala Harris's election loss (and in the context of Hilary having lost as well) there's been some talk about whether women can win the presidency at all in the midst of sexism, or whether the first woman president might end up being a Republican / right winger.

However, another factor occurs to me, related to overall patterns of aesthetics and presentation:

There's no way to put this that isn't either rather crude or rather euphemistic, so I'll go with straightforward:

Do you think a woman candidate who was sexually attractive to straight men would perform well?

76 Comments
2025/01/08
21:40 UTC

2

What would the Second Amendment have to be to make Heller and Bruen conventional and straightforward?

This will mostly be relevant to people who think that the Heller and Bruen Supreme Court cases were "extreme", "judicial activism", or otherwise not straightforwardly based on the Second Amendment.

Many right wingers and gun rights supporters think the the 2nd Amendment clearly supports Heller and Bruen and straightforwardly significantly limits what the government can do to regulate or restrict weapons.

Here, and in other left wing spaces, I have often heard the opposite opinion, that the right wing view of weapons rights is "made up" or unorthodox, that it historically wasn't supported, that a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment only supports the use of guns by the government or by a militia under the direct control of the government, or that the Heller and Bruen cases were "extreme" and have no constitutional basis.

If you believe this, what do you think the text of the 2A would have to be so that the Heller and Bruen decisions would indeed be straightforward "shall not be infringed means the government isn't allowed to infringe it" decisions?

17 Comments
2025/01/08
21:23 UTC

4

Do you guys REALLY think that Islam is the 'religion of peace'?

About me: I'm an ex-Muslim (or, as the Qur'an would call me, an apostate). I would legally be killed, imprisoned, or otherwise punished if I were to go anywhere in the Middle East (barring Iraq), Malaysia, or Nigeria.

The other day, I read this article in the New York Times about the motivations behind the New Orleans terrorist. I saw this comment in there:

[L]ittle kids... should also learn that people have different religions yet they're all peaceful. If you look you can find people of every religion who've committed terror in the name of their religion or social group.

This kind of thinking genuinely boggles my mind, and it reflects a deep and serious disconnect from reality on the part of today's liberals. Of course not all Muslims are violent, and the vast majority don't commit terror attacks. (I'm reluctant to outright say that 'most are peaceful', given my anecdotal experiences, along with consistent Pew polling, that indicate that vast majorities of Muslims are more than willing to abide and support violence in the name of Islam, but your lay Muslim is certainly not violent themselves).

That said, quite frankly, it is asinine, in my view, to ignore that Islam, as currently practiced by the vast majority of its adherents, demands the conversion of nonbelievers and total conquest to form a Caliphate (Islamic scholars more learned in the Quranic arts than I have spoken on this). See the Pew polling above for more on this.

I've heard people argue the "what about [insert religion (normally Christianity)]" point here. To this, one thing: Even if Christianity was equally violent, truly fundamentalist Christians are few and far between by this point –– even rural America's evangelicals aren't nearly as bad as literalist Muslims. If nothing else, at least they don't call for beheading anyone who disagrees with them. Christianity as currently widely practiced is relatively peaceful, even if the religion in the book is not.

That's my side of the story. I guess what I'm really asking is: do you, as liberals, truly believe that "Islam is no worse than any other religion", that "Islam is a peaceful religion", and that it does not pose a uniquely grave threat to Western liberalism?

EDITED for clarity and to remove an unnecessary point wrt Christianity.

Edit: Also, for what it's worth, I'm a Kamala voter, I lean Democrat, and I'm a social liberal on most issues.

72 Comments
2025/01/08
21:13 UTC

5

Do you support controlled burns?

For thousands of years, Native American tribes have used controlled burns to manage the forests of America. In particular California.

Now, controlled burns are so regulated in California. (Not to mention lawsuits from environmental groups about air quality, carbon capture, and protected species.) They’re extremely difficult to do and not done wide scale at all.

Would you support legislation allowing for quick and efficient execution of controlled burns?

Could you see how this is a microcosm of over regulation preventing something good from happening? The same type of issue comes up with railroads, wind farms, etc. Hence why Republicans want to get rid of unneeded regulation.

Edit: to answer this question. I 100% support controlled burns regularly happening on a schedule.

38 Comments
2025/01/08
21:12 UTC

0

Why is it so difficult to understand that immigration doesn’t improve an economy for the working class and often harms it?

Immigration lowers wage growth and lowers job vacancies. It was also shown that during Covid, when immigration restrictions were enacted, real wages increased and unemployment decreased.

Another point - if we have 300 million people (let’s assume all native born citizens) and the unemployment rate is 4.2%, then we have 12.6 million unemployed US native born citizens. And let’s say we add 100 million immigrants to the population, unemployment skyrockets, but the Fed saves the day with lower interest rates, and over 7-10 years we arrive once again back at 4.2% unemployment rate (“full employment” but with 400 million people) so we now have 16.8 million unemployed. If that unemployment is distributed evenly, we still have 12.6 million unemployed US native-born workers and 4.2 million unemployed foreign born workers. So over the long term, immigration hasn’t helped the native born population (and it hurt them over the short and medium term). But given that the foreign born workers were initially hired due to their lower wages, we may even have a higher portion of unemployed US native born workers after this period.

Further, a microcosm of this is the effects of the H-1b visa on tech wages and employment. H-1b immigration lowers employment and wages (paper showing H-1b CS degrees reduced wages of US native-born CS degrees by 2.6% - 5% and employment would have been 6.1% - 10.8% higher for US native born workers if not for H-1b). 1 in 3 tech workers are now foreign born after decades of these types of visas and them gaining permanent residency and green cards - these are high standard of living roles that could have been going to US native-born citizens and would have encouraged more investments in our own education and training systems.

And still further, when people quote statistics that immigrants are more likely to start a business, it is often because they require a tax identification number if they are here illegally in order to open a bank account and do other commerce. The study that showed they hired more employees only showed they hired 1% more and this could have just been due to the industries immigrants tend to work in/open businesses in.

And even furthermore, we only have 144 million housing units, with a shortage of 4-8 million housing units left over from 2008. We build 1.4 million housing units a year but population increases by 1.7 million people a year (66% of which is due to immigration). So it is impossible to lower housing costs at our current immigration levels, much less bring them back in line with historic norms, without reducing immigration.

Note - I, too, used to support unlimited immigration because of the propaganda I believed. But after researching the economics, it simply doesn’t make sense… unless you’re at the top of the pyramid (and seeking to exploit the working class and immigrants) or you have a savior complex and believe we can solve world poverty by bringing 750 million people living on less than $2 a day here to the US to alleviate their poverty.

82 Comments
2025/01/08
20:18 UTC

0

Would you support "Operation Warp Speed 2: Chicken Edition" to fight H5N1 and lower egg prices?

Some context:

There's been a massive global H5N1 Bird Flu outbreak over the past few years. This has various implications, including a risk of spread to humans, that have been in the news recently. The outbreak has also played a big role in eggs and other poultry products (such as turkey products) costing so much over the past few years.

The current method of dealing with bird flu outbreaks in agriculture is "stamping out", which basically involves mass-culling all chickens or other birds in the group at the agricultural facility. The hope is that this would stop the spread, but despite over a hundred million birds being culled over the course of this outbreak, the spread has not stopped. The mass killings are a big reason for why egg prices have gone up so high over the past few years (when you are raising birds for agriculture but have to kill off so many without getting productivity out of them, its going to impact the business)

There exist vaccines, and potential vaccines, that we could use to vaccinate chickens and other agricultural poultry, in order to fight the outbreak without resorting to the mass killings. These vaccines could be relatively cheap (vs the current economic impact of repeated mass cullings that have failed to stop the spread) and appear to be pretty effective. So theoretically we could have a pretty effective and cost effective way to fight the bird flu spread, in agriculture at least, by mass-vaccinating our chickens and other poultry

Some potential issues exist though, such as trade regulations (currently it would be difficult to export vaccinated chicken/poultry products due to trade regulations in various countries, though perhaps the US could apply diplomatic pressure to bypass those), factors of detecting infections in vaccinated birds with asymptomatic infections, the logistics and cost of vaccinating our birds, and matters of vaccine hesitancy (I imagine a decent amount of folks would consider it literally insane to vaccinate chickens, even if just as a gut reaction

Some sources for further reading on the bird flu, its impact on egg prices and agriculture, and vaccines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932025_H5N1_outbreak , https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111 , https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/362527/bird-flu-100-million-chickens-dead-risk-humans , https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24155545/bird-flu-vaccines-h5n1-avian-flu-cows , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234114679_Technical_epidemiological_and_financial_implications_of_large-scale_national_vaccination_campaigns_to_control_HPAI_H5N1#pf12 , https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-build-new-stockpile-bird-flu-vaccine-poultry-2025-01-08/

So... would you support the government engaging in a concerted national program, an "Operation Warp Speed Cock" if you will, to mass produce and administer bird flu vaccines to our nation's agricultural cocks, hens, and other poultry, in order to drive down egg prices and fight against the bird flu outbreak?

16 Comments
2025/01/08
20:12 UTC

7

What are your thoughts on Robert F Williams, and the concept of armed self defense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

Robert F Williams was a pivotal figure in the American Civil Rights Movement. Where MLK jr championed the non-violent approach, Williams championed that the Black American arm themselves and respond to violent threats and actions with force.

He inspired people like Huey Newton and Fred Hampton.

I'm a supporter of those who want them to have the means of self defense, and think as long as those who want to harm me are armed, I will remain armed.

41 Comments
2025/01/08
19:17 UTC

4

How is this type of ideology called?

Basically Conservatives who are athetists/not religious by nature, They are not homophobes who came out of caves like religious ultra-conservatives, they like to talk about the free market and economic freedom and define themselves as "classical liberals". On the other hand, even though they supposedly seem liberal and secular, they believe in increased nationalism, "traditional values" and you won't see them supporting liberal democrats, but fitting in better with Conservative, religious nationalists. Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin, Benjamin Netanyahu, they more or less represent what I'm talking about. Is there a name for this ideology within the categories of conservatism/liberalism?

64 Comments
2025/01/08
17:30 UTC

16

What will gun control have left after AWBs are found unconstitutional?

The supreme court has several 2nd amendment cases now listed for conference including Snope regarding Marylands assault weapons ban. Given it is likely they take the case and strike down assault weapons bans what will be the next steps for gun control. Will the Democrats start to move on from gun control for the foreseeable future as it wont have much room for results and unlikely to be a topic to garner much additional votes at that time?

266 Comments
2025/01/08
16:42 UTC

12

Electability aside, who do you think would be the best option for President of the US?

If you could pick anyone to be president, regardless of whether or not they’d actually be able to win an election or even be elected at all, who would you pick?

152 Comments
2025/01/08
14:35 UTC

0

It has been over 2 years since Biden cancelled hundreds of billions of student loan debt. Was the economic impact of that worth it?

Ok so I opposed it then because it was regressive. High income folks gained more from it compared to poor folks. Poor folks obviously need the money more. I wish that money was used for CTC or reparations for African-Americans.

163 Comments
2025/01/08
14:25 UTC

6

What do you think is the president's most important role?

The U.S. president is undoubtedly a very powerful person, however, many people tend to overestimate how much the president really controls. What do you think is the president's most important role? Me personally, I think it's their role as commander in chief, aka the head of the military.

11 Comments
2025/01/08
14:10 UTC

2

When does a state's economic performance definitively demonstrate a state of failure?

Partisan politics often involves assigning blame for economic failures to the opposing party. If a state government is controlled by the opposing party, economic hardships can be easily attributed to their policies, even if the situation is complex and influenced by various factors. Yet the public perceptions of a state's economic performance is evident everywhere on Reddit.

What are in your views definitive signs of political failure with regards to state economics? Which of any of these would you consider to be a metric you would use?

  • GDP: Does GDP per capita provide a crucial measure of a state's overall economic output per person?
  • High unemployment rates: Should we be considering both overall unemployment and youth unemployment rates, as well as the duration and severity of unemployment?
  • Extreme poverty and inequality: Should we look at income and wealth distribution? What about access to essential services (healthcare, education, sanitation)?
  • Economic stagnation: Do long-term trends in economic growth, productivity, and investment, while accounting for potential factors hindering growth (e.g., corruption, lack of innovation, inadequate infrastructure) count towards definitive failure or success of a state?
  • High levels of debt: Does examining both public and private debt levels, their sustainability over the long term determine a successful or failed state?
  • Vulnerability to external shocks: Can the diversity of the economy, its reliance on specific sectors (e.g., agriculture, tourism, natural resources), and the effectiveness of government policies to mitigate the impact of external shocks be considered a failure?

The last question is, what are the most effective strategies for improving communication and transparency regarding the economic performance and policy decisions of various states?

12 Comments
2025/01/08
08:19 UTC

14

Do you believe there is a country out there that is overall better than the USA?

I have not traveled much of the world. I just recently took my first trip outside the USA this last week. In the past 2 decades I have however met very many people who migrated from China, countries within both Eastern and Western Europe and also countries within Africa. After hearing from people who grew up in different countries I still to this day think the USA is the best country and by far. Sure we have wealth inequality, we are soon to have T back in office and we have no real social safety net (at the federal level).

Even through all of this the USA is the land of opportunity. It is 1 of the few countries where someone can still go from poverty to wealth within a couple decades if you work hard. I am a gay guy, live with a relative for dirt cheap and have since the day I graduated from the university in 2016 and I have worked on average 60 hours a week since 2016. Yeah it sucks having to live in a small room, working long hours, etc. However I soon will have a net worth of $300k and also be close to debt free.

To an extent the USA does need reforms. Universal healthcare not being a thing in 2025 is ridiculous. T being our president again is crazy.

However I do not think I would even consider another country to live in at this point. I think blue cities like New York, Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago are still much safer for LGBT+ people than a city in say Germany or Australia. Even through everything happening the last few years like Roe being overturned or rollbacks on affirmative action I still think the USA is the "best" country and by far.

184 Comments
2025/01/08
04:33 UTC

4

Is the "education polarization" that Democrats keep blaming for losing the election based in a falsehood?

Check this out.

Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Despite all the talk about how college education is the biggest division among voters in the 2024 election after the gender divide narrative got debunked, college educated White men still narrowly voted for Trump over Harris and even college educated White women voted for Trump at 41%, making the division close to 50/50.

Also, non-White college grads and those who didn't complete college voted at very similar levels as well. And Asian Americans who are generally very educated narrowly voted for Harris over Trump at a measly 54% of the vote.

Asian Americans favored Harris but shifted right by 5 points

Overall, the college educated vote was damn near close to 50/50 in this election cycle to the degree where people with Associate's Degrees voted for Trump over Harris and even people with Advanced Degrees voted for Trump at close to 40%.

Imgur: The magic of the Internet

So, with all this information out which has been around for basically 2 months now, where is this "big educational gap" in voting that the press and media keep harping on about?

All the election data I've seen on the 2024 election shows no indication of a truly major educational gap in voting despite some disparities still existing.

And the fact that Trump is one of the most controversial politicians ever to college educated voters but still won so many votes by them should keep Democrats on alert imho because, as soon as an articulate and professional MAGA guy like Vance comes along, he could pose a real threat in future elections.

59 Comments
2025/01/08
04:08 UTC

0

In a multi-party system, what various parties do you think we would have instead of the Democratic Party?

As has been discussed here extensively, our political system heavily encourages there to be only two major political parties. That means the parties are large coalitions of interests that would might have their own distinct parties in a multi-party system.

If the United States had a multi-party system, what parties do you think we'd have on the left side of the spectrum instead of the monolithic Democratic Party we have now? What various factions or interest groups exist in the party that you think would be their own thing if the system supported it? It can be as few or as many as you think would be reasonable.

23 Comments
2025/01/07
22:24 UTC

4

Would you say that we should nominate a Southern/Midwestern white Democrat man for the 2028 democratic primaries in order to win the 2028 election?

I am thinking that in order to win the 2028 election, we had to elect a young Southern/Midwestern white democratic man with progressive policies that the whole American people support for the 2028 primaries because we need to get the white working men class back that we lost since 1964. We need to turn some of the states blue for the 2028 election and we need to get the country to trust Democrats again when Trump's second administration fail this country again just like he did in his first administration. Would you agree with me on this?

148 Comments
2025/01/07
21:40 UTC

29

Is it safe for LGBTQ people to live in Florida anymore?

I am asking this because yesterday a federal court ruled in favor of forcibly detransitioning transgender inmates In Florida.

Source: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-forcibly?publication_id=994764&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=8bker&utm_medium=email

102 Comments
2025/01/07
21:22 UTC

1

Is there a country with both Left and Right wing parties where the Left Wing isn’t considered incompetent?

Is there a country with both Left and Right wing parties where the Left Wing isn’t considered incompetent?

I was talking to a Canadian friend about how he considers the left wing party in his country as grossly incompetent. This also culminated in me watching Youtubers talking about the UK and French left wing groups being very incompetent.

My guess is that most governments are designed to make big changes difficult to do while keeping things as they are or removing things is easy (a typical conservative tactic).

There are places where there are only 1 party, but they tend to be a lot different in structure. Hence why I’m asking this question in the way that I am. Are there countries with a left wing party that is competent against their opposition?

(I’m not looking for an answer like North Korea or China where there is effectively only one party)

34 Comments
2025/01/07
21:09 UTC

29

North Carolina's Supreme Court has ordered the state election board to not certify the election of Democrat Justice Allison Riggs. How should we as liberals respond?

Justice Riggs won the election by less than 1000 votes. Her challenger is attempting to have 60,000 votes discarded. If her opponent Jefferson Griffin is able to get this election overturned, how should people respond?

https://www.wral.com/story/nc-supreme-court-orders-elections-board-not-to-certify-riggs-griffin-court-race/21797288/

20 Comments
2025/01/07
19:07 UTC

17

Are there any Politicians on the other side of the aisle that you respect?

For the Democrats here, are there any Republicans who you think genuinely are doing the right thing for the country? And vice versa for Republicans.

EDIT: are they any INCUMBENT Republicans/Democrats (if you’re conservative) who you respect?

158 Comments
2025/01/07
17:44 UTC

65

Would you say we've left the Information Age and are now in the Disinformation Age?

If so, when do you think the beginning of this age was?

72 Comments
2025/01/07
17:21 UTC

12

Who is your favorite world leader at this point in time?

With Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau stepping down and Trump retaking office in two weeks, there seems to be a dearth of solid progressive leaders around the world outside of a few bright spots like Zelensky in Ukraine and Sanchez in Spain. Who are your favorite world leaders as we head into a new era?

49 Comments
2025/01/07
17:10 UTC

22

Thoughts on recently announced FB and Instagram moderation changes?

Zuckerberg just announced big changes to Facebook and Instagram moderation policies, to make them more similar to X/Twitter, including the use of "community notes".

source

What do you think about these changes?

212 Comments
2025/01/07
16:26 UTC

16

What are your first-week predictions of the second Trump presidency?

Off the top of my head, I recall the "Muslim Ban" happening the first weekend after inauguration, the crowd size debacle via the introduction of Spicer, "American carnage" mentioned during his inauguration speech, declaring war on the media, "alternative facts" was born, and a wonky speech/address to members of the CIA.

What do you think might happen, just in week 1, this second go around?

For reference, here is a nice day-by-day breakdown of significant events starting in 2017 and continuing on, starting with Jan. 20, 2017, which was updated daily. People seem to have forgotten just how much chaos and absurdity there was and this was (and still is) an excellent running record of it all.

106 Comments
2025/01/07
14:44 UTC

7

Will the Oligarchs like Bezos, Zuck, Tim Cook, etc abandon Trump when his second terms inevitable goes down in flames?

If shit hits the fan during the next four years, will these oligarchs who have propped up Trump abandon him and pretend like they never supported him or have they made a Faustian bargain they cannot get out of?

40 Comments
2025/01/07
14:05 UTC

2

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat

This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.

231 Comments
2025/01/07
14:01 UTC

11

Would you agree to disallow political content on social media?

Most of hybrid warfare is conducted on social media. In Germany we are currently battling a wave of misinformation that our president might annul the election results if the AfD wins which he never said but the AfD is in a frenzy. Some reports link this to either Russia or Elon Musk depending on the news outlet.

Bottom line is that in the current climate social media are quite harmful to democracy. So I am wondering if we should just remove them from the equation

71 Comments
2025/01/07
11:28 UTC

0

What are your thoughts on Senator Deb Fischer’s husband refusing a handshake from VP Harris?

The outrage of the day was the husband of Senator Deb Fischer appearing to refuse to shake VP Harris’s hand after taking a swearing-in photo with his wife and the Vice-President.

All the usual engagement farm accounts on Twitter went nuts over it. Accusing the guy of being disrespectful, racist, misogynist, etc. Don Lemon called him an “old racist POS.”

As it turns out, Sen. Fischer’s husband was actually holding a cane in his right hand, and holding the Bible that Sen. Fischer was sworn in on in his other, not having a free right hand to shake with the Vice-President. He uttered “Thank you” to Harris, and then appeared to look down.

Now, maybe he did intentionally refuse this as an act of disrespect, maybe due to political differences, maybe due to racism and misogyny, or a combination of everything. In which case, it is condemnable.

But it could also be the case that there was no bad faith at all. Perhaps he is recovering from a stroke, where mobility, even in speech and facial movements, are limited. If this is the case, those asserting the former allegations against an elderly private citizen look, well, like absolute assholes.

While this incident might not be important in the grand scheme of things, I highlight it and ask about it because I think it is germane to how we pick our battles going forward in the Trump years, how we deal with possible disinformation, how we rehabilitate the party’s image, how we attract new voters, and ultimately how we win.

No one who actually witnessed the event in person has made a statement yet - not Sen. Fischer’s office, not the Vice President, nor anyone else in the room. It’s solely based on online speculation. But there are some personalities with large followings that are jumping on this before more facts come out.

What are your thoughts on this?

https://nypost.com/2025/01/06/us-news/liberals-accuse-sen-deb-fischers-husband-of-snubbing-harris-handshake-heres-what-happened/

56 Comments
2025/01/07
09:22 UTC

0

If Canadians wanted it, would you be fine with them joining as the 51st state?

Obviously this won't happen since Canadians don't want to join, but it's funny that republicans aren't realizing what would happen if Canada joined. I would be fine with it, the House + Senate would change a lot in dems favor.

83 Comments
2025/01/07
04:14 UTC

Back To Top