Random Thoughts.
There is an accurate emoji showing Jesus standing on the mount saying "Welcome the Immigrant, Feed the Poor, Care for the Sick. while Trump and the evangelicals are standing below Him and to the left pointing their fingers at him screaming "RADICAL LEFT SOCIALIST"
"Fact check: Trump’s false claims to the United Nations"
For those of you who refuse to believe Trump lies all the time, here is a sampling:
* "Trump, repeating a frequent false claim, said, “Since I took office, it has been my great honor to settle eight wars.” - That is a LIE
* “the very same people who said we’ll all be dead in 12 years because of global warming, a name since reborn to climate change because the planet was cooling, not warming, and nobody was dead.” - That is a LIE
* "“We’ve secured commitments for $21 trillion in new investments from all over the planet.” - That is a LIE.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/22/politics … ed-nationsI read the fact check, and I’m not going to argue that Trump sometimes overstates things. I actually think this is where Trump can be his own worst enemy. He takes things that have a factual basis and then pushes the numbers or the wording further than the facts support. He really would have been better off sticking to the facts.
But I think there is another side to this that gets lost when the discussion becomes only about his statements.
When I started looking at the actual investments behind the numbers, I found that a lot of this isn't just money that was announced on paper. Some of these projects are now being built, some are already operating, and some are already producing.
Hyundai’s new Georgia manufacturing plant is open. Toyota has started production at its nearly $14 billion battery plant in North Carolina. First Solar has opened its $1.1 billion Louisiana manufacturing facility and already has hundreds of employees there. Texas Instruments has begun production at its newest semiconductor facility in Sherman, Texas. GE Aerospace is investing another $1 billion in U.S. manufacturing and plans to hire 5,000 more American workers this year.
And then there are the enormous semiconductor projects that are physically moving forward. TSMC now says its total U.S. investment will reach $265 billion, while Micron has already reached major construction milestones on its Idaho and New York projects. Intel is continuing its more-than-$100 billion U.S. manufacturing expansion, and Texas Instruments has more than $60 billion planned across seven U.S. semiconductor fabs.
The latest BEA numbers are significant too: foreign investors spent $121.8 billion on new direct investment in U.S. manufacturing in 2025, accounting for 52.5% of all new foreign investment expenditures that year.
So yes, fact-check the $21 trillion claim. Fact-check the “eight wars” claim. Fact-check the climate statement. I have no problem with that. But I also think we should look at what is actually happening on the ground.
The manufacturing projects, factories, semiconductor plants, aerospace investments and new jobs are real. Manufacturing employment has also increased by 58,000 from its December 2025 low, according to the latest BLS report.
That’s why I think Trump would be much better served by simply telling the truth and letting the results speak for themselves. There is a substantial amount of real activity here that doesn't need to be exaggerated.Trumps whole scenario is to undermine the democracy. This by constantly proclaiming false truths, to undermine the truth. Attacking the free press, attacking the International Court (some court members are unable to use banks anymore as they are put on the black VISA list like a terrorist.)
, attacking institutions in the US that do not align with his view.
All this is a pattern of someone who sees democracies as a danger.And world leaders are too scared to take on America's dictator - Trump.
Implications. It's the reason why Canada wants to join forces with Europe, so it can withstand economic pressure from the US.
Less democratic countries join the US. As birds of a feather flock together.
A country like the UK also has to choose sides. Or it becomes a vassal state of the US completely depended on US AI, or it joins the EU and is part of a counter force against the US and China.
Typical Trump White House. It must be miserable working there.
" Court order to restore media access prompts internal chaos at White House, sources say"
"Multiple White House advisers and officials said Thursday that they had no idea what the plan was after CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters were repeatedly denied entry to the White House despite a court order — describing a sense of internal chaos.
One official said they had tried to get clarity from senior officials on their stance but questions went unanswered.
“It’s chaotic, no idea,” the official said about potential plans to reinstate the media outlets’ access. Since the court order was issued, a CNN reporter was denied entry to the White House multiple times throughout the day.""Trump’s odd midterm strategy: Give voters the opposite of what they want"
Isn't THAT the TRUTH??
What an incompetent, mentally unstable fool.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/25/politics … an-economy"White House bars CNN from covering Trump on behalf of major TV networks as he travels to Tennessee"
Isn't it time for the judge to hold Donald "the Felon" Trump in CONTEMPT OF COURT and impose a million dollar a day fine?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/25/politics … ravel-poolMore Outrageous and Depraved behavior from Donald "the Sexual Predator"[/b[ Trump.
[b]" ‘We’re not a sideshow’: Military families blast Trump’s arch observation deck for tourists"
Obviously, Trump thinks military funerals are a Sideshow!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/25/politics … k-militarySharlee observed that the angst of the Trump era has ruined so many personal relationships. I wrote a Substack article about what I think the reasons are. Since it is too long to post here and I can't make a hub out of it anymore, I posted it at scottbelford.substack.com. It is titled "When it gets personal" if you care to read it.
Scott, I thought this was a thoughtful piece, and I especially liked the personal story because it made the point in a way that statistics and political arguments really can't. I agree with you that politics becomes dangerous to relationships when we start seeing the person on the other side as the enemy rather than someone who simply sees things differently.
Where I struggled a little bit was that I think your own political views came through more strongly in parts of the article than the premise really called for. You talk about how people on both sides can become convinced that the other side is a threat, but then some of the descriptions of MAGA and the fears of Trump supporters seemed to lean toward explaining those concerns as manufactured or exaggerated. I think some of those concerns are genuine, even when I might not agree with every conclusion people draw from them.
That's probably where I see things a little differently. I don't put all Republicans or all Trump supporters in one basket, any more than I would put all Democrats in one. People can support a politician on some issues, disagree with him on others, and still have their own reasons for voting the way they do.
But I do agree with your larger point. Once politics becomes so personal that we can't imagine how someone we care about could possibly see things differently, we've probably lost something important. And your story about the sisters is a pretty powerful example of exactly that. I enjoyed the read...
Shar
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/27/politics … e-midterms
The picture in this article is ironic as hell. It shows a woman with a sign that says Keep America Red!
Here is the irony. In the 1950s at the height of the conservative/Republican Red Scare, that sign would have gotten the author hauled in front of the Subcommittee on Unamerican Activities and probably had had her life destroyed by those standing around her."Trump stirs new storm by posing as strongman in taxpayer-funded video"
One more corrupt act to add as an article of impeachment..
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/28/politics … ment-funds"Former special counsel Jack Smith testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee"
Just in time for Jack Smith to remind the voters of what a corrupt man Donald "the Felon" Trump is.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/politics … ies-senate"FBI grapples with fallout from massive data breach"
Is ANYONE really surprised about this? Donald "the Felon" Trump has spent the last two years dismantling America's counterterrorism infrastructure!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/28/politics … ch-hackingSo Hollywood and Tom Cruise got it wrong, just any ole body can hack the government?
And all because of President Trump?
Now that prompted a grin and a mental image involving Red Bull. ;-)
GA
Just a random thought ...
This popped up:
This resonated so quickly.
(faintly a voice asks; How quick was it?)
It was so quick that I worried about falling into a stereotypical response about today's youngsters, maybe muttering one of those 'passing generation vs coming generation' clichés we've all heard.
But ... did you see the recent national polls about the Democrats' favorable view of socialism?
What the hell?
GAGiven my "what's best for humanity" point of view I don't have a real issue with theoretical socialism. It is oriented around helping the society function better. In practice, it does not do as well as regulated capitalism. But, it generally has better outcomes for people than unregulated capitalism.
I don't view communism or fascism as variations of socialism, they are simply dictatorships who serve the rulers, not the people. That is the same path I see Trump on which is why it is so important that Democrats get a blow out in the midterms.I think this is where the discussion gets a little too theoretical. “Socialism” has a long and complicated history, and its real-world results can't really be evaluated by simply saying it is designed to help society, while regulated capitalism works better in practice. Intentions and historical outcomes are two different things.
I also think it's important not to separate socialism, communism, and fascism simply by saying the latter two are dictatorships. Historically, different socialist systems have also existed under highly authoritarian governments, and some of the worst economic and humanitarian outcomes of the 20th century occurred under governments that claimed socialist or communist foundations. At the same time, modern Western countries generally operate mixed economies that combine private enterprise with substantial government programs and regulation.
So I think the more useful question isn't whether a system sounds good in theory. It's what actually happened when particular economic systems were put into practice, what institutions accompanied them, and what the measurable results were. That's where the historical record becomes much more important than the label.It is Trump and his supporters who are calling ALL Democrats socialist and communists (two entirely different things, btw). Setting communism aside, which is more akin to what Trump is trying to establish, and look at why some Democrats, including me, look approvingly on socialism.
I would argue that when presented with the term, they aren't thinking socialism in practice, which has done a lot of good when it still was socialism and not a dictatorship, even though it did suppress some individual freedoms that we take for granted here. That is what I think they are responding to when combined with all the harm unregulated capitalism has caused.I think we're talking past each other a little.
I'm not saying that every Democrat is a socialist, and I'm certainly not saying that wanting to help people makes someone a socialist. I'm talking about the actual philosophy behind socialism and what has happened when governments have tried to put those ideas into practice.
You say socialism did a lot of good “when it still was socialism and not a dictatorship.” That's actually where I disagree with you most. I don't think the failures of socialism can simply be blamed on the fact that some socialist governments became dictatorships. The economic system itself involves increasing government control over property, production, prices and the distribution of wealth. And once government takes on that much control, individual economic freedom necessarily becomes much more limited.
I think this is where the Democratic Party is at a very important crossroads.
Democrats are trying to regain control of Congress this November, but they are also having to decide what kind of Democratic Party they want to be. Some of the candidates coming forward are far more radical than what many Americans have traditionally thought of as mainstream Democrats.
I'm not saying every Democrat agrees with them. In fact, I would expect that a significant number of traditional and more moderate Democrats would resist some of the more extreme proposals if these candidates were elected. That could mean a great deal of internal fighting and congressional gridlock rather than actually being able to put all of these ideas into practice.
But that's also what makes this such a gamble for the party.
If Democrats embrace candidates and policies that move substantially farther toward government control, wealth redistribution and the dismantling of institutions such as traditional law enforcement and the prison system, they are taking a chance on a very large political and economic experiment.
And this is where history matters to me. Venezuela was an extraordinarily wealthy country with enormous oil resources. It had the financial ability to support ambitious social programs. Yet as the government increasingly took control of the economy, nationalized industries and interfered more heavily with markets, the country ultimately suffered an extraordinary economic collapse. That history shouldn't simply be dismissed as “it failed because there was a dictator.” The economic policies themselves deserve examination.
So I'm not predicting that America would become Venezuela. I'm saying that when a political party moves toward policies that have never been demonstrated on anything close to this scale in the United States, there are consequences to consider.
The Democratic Party may believe this is the path to regaining power. But I see it as a genuine gamble. If the experiment doesn't produce what its advocates promise, the consequences may not just be the failure of individual policies. It could create a much larger backlash against the party itself and force Democrats to reconsider the direction they chose.
That's why I don't think we should simply look at these proposals and say, “They want to help people, so how could that be bad?” Good intentions are not enough. The bigger question is what happens when those ideas become government policy.You are probably right about talking past each other. We need to establish some definitions. What kind of socialism is Trump talking about? Is that different from what you are talking about?
What I have in mind as a largely socialist country are the Nordic states and England, especially England from 1945 to 1970.I think defining the terms is exactly where we need to start. When Trump talks about “socialism,” he often lumps together socialism, democratic socialism, communism and social democracy, even though they are not the same thing.
The Nordic countries you’re referring to are actually capitalist market economies with private ownership, combined with extensive government-funded social programs. They are generally described as social democracies, not socialist planned economies. Keep in mind all are very small Nations.
England from 1945–1970 is a somewhat different example. The Labour government nationalized major industries, including coal, rail, energy, and steel, but Britain still had a large private sector and operated as a mixed economy.
Where I think the discussion gets more complicated is with some of the candidates and organizations further to the left who are running in the November 2026 elections. The Democratic Socialists of America’s current platform goes considerably beyond the Nordic model. It calls for universal rent control, Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, but also proposes abolishing the Senate and fundamentally restructuring the Supreme Court and presidency, as well as the police and ICE... One must admit they are not hiding their ideas; yes, some are attempting to walk some of their statements back. I myself never buy walkbacks.... Are you on board with the candidates that are very open with what they hope to accomplish?
And there are individual Democratic candidates whose stated positions go even further. For example, Darializa Avila Chevalier identifies as a democratic socialist, and reporting on her deleted social-media posts found statements supporting “seizing the means of production” and favorable references to Marxism and communist leaders. She has said she is a democratic socialist, not a communist.
So I agree that we need to define what we're talking about. If you mean the Nordic model, capitalism, private ownership, and a strong social safety net—that is one discussion. If you're talking about government ownership of production or some of the much more radical proposals coming from parts of the democratic-socialist movement, that is a very different discussion.
That distinction is important before either of us simply calls something “socialism” or “communism.”
In my view, we do not need a disruptor in Congress; we already have plenty.
Sure, it's just a semantics argument.
It's like you said, theoretically, socialism is the most equitable system. It just hasn't been done right, yet.
Fortunately, the point wasn't about the difference in the mechanics of the named "systems"; your segue wasn't legit. No Trump needed on this one. ;-)
Try this: consider the 1985 picture just as it is, but envision the 2026 picture as 1960 with Hippi/anti-war style students instead of the 2026 activists.
GAAre you suggesting that the Hippi/anti-war crowd was what American society was in the 1960s? Or were they a small microcosm of society who happened to oppose the war in Vietnam?
The illustration was intended to be the older generation's view of the direction the younger generation was promoting.
For the hippies/anti-war younger generation, the older (and judging) generation would have been the WWII survivors. For the '2026 activists,' the older generation would be the Baby Boomers that survived the world's histories of the Cold War era - Russia, China, etc.- the generation that witnessed the effects of real communism and real socialism in practice, not in theory.
GAI got to be getting old. When I read "real communism and real socialism", neither 'real' seemed to be spelled correctly and I had to think on it. Sheesh.
To me, this shows how much the wording and context of a poll question matter. In the very same Gallup poll, 65% of Democrats had a favorable view of “socialism,” but 65% also had a favorable view of “free enterprise.” Those two concepts have very different historical meanings. So I think it’s fair to question what respondents actually understand “socialism” to mean. A quick answer to a broad, undefined poll question doesn’t necessarily tell us much about what people actually believe.
Yes, I think it raises a broader question about how we form opinions in a society where people are constantly asked to react quickly to complicated subjects.
The Gallup example doesn't tell us that people are uninformed, but it does illustrate a potential problem: people can respond to a political or economic label based on what that word means to them personally, rather than on a commonly understood definition. And when those answers are then reported as a percentage, the result can sound much more definitive than the underlying question really was. Yes ---"what the hell".You hit a spot with that one: free enterprise vs. capitalism. It looks possible we've seen similar sources. One of them was promoting the substitution while noting the poll results as validation.
I don't like it. Euphemisms are placaters, deceits. They're a manipulation. An undocumented immigrant is still an illegal alien. An unhoused person is still a homeless guy. And free enterprise is still capitalism.
*I think I first heard this from Dan Mitchell, but I'm still calling it appeasement.
GAI think that may very well be the same trail of sources we were following. And I understand your point about “free enterprise” being used in place of “capitalism.” I can see why you would regard that as more than just a change in wording.
But actually, that gets me back to the point I was making about the poll. If people can hear “capitalism” and “free enterprise” and attach somewhat different meanings to them, then the same thing can happen with the word “socialism.”
Gallup actually did a follow-up on this. They asked people, in their own words, what they considered good and bad about capitalism, free enterprise and socialism. What I found interesting was that Gallup itself found the public doesn't think of capitalism and free enterprise in exactly the same terms. Capitalism was much more likely to bring up inequality, while free enterprise was more likely to bring up economic freedom, competition and choice.
So I'm not saying the words are necessarily different economic systems. I'm saying that **people don't necessarily hear the labels the way we do**. And that's why I hesitate to take a number like “65% favor socialism” and assume all 65% are envisioning the same thing.
That’s really the part of the Gallup poll that made me say “what the hell?” in the first place.I'm missing something. You sound like your point is that folks can hear (or hold) different meanings for the same words, ie., capitalism and free enterprise, or socialism.
Well, yeah, that was my point. Relative to capitalism, "free enterprise" is essentially a euphemism, but, in perception, it is not synonymous — the difference being the negative connotations you mentioned.
Relative to seeing socialism differently, the point was that it was from a generation with lifetime (in a, not of a) experience of the concept in real-life existence, compared to the newest generation's 'theoretical' understanding of the concept.
Maybe the Gallup poll you mention is proof of my point. There is no logical reason for folks to perceive capitalism and free enterprise differently—without manipulation or purposeful deception.
I'm probably overreacting. The euphemism idea just seems 'shifty' to me. And the idea of 'textbook activists' seems dangerous as hell.
GAI don't think you're missing my point; we may actually be closer in agreement than it sounds.
I agree that people can attach very different meanings to the same political labels, and I also understand why you see “free enterprise” as a euphemism for capitalism. Where I hesitate is the leap from people perceiving the terms differently to assuming that the difference must come from manipulation or purposeful deception.
The Gallup follow-up is interesting to me precisely because it shows that people weren't simply choosing labels at random. When they were asked what they actually meant, “capitalism” brought up things like inequality much more often, while “free enterprise” brought up economic freedom, competition and choice. Those are real differences in how people perceive the terms, even if the underlying economic system overlaps.
And I think that's also why I'm cautious about interpreting the 65% socialism number too literally. If people of different generations—and even people within the same generation- are attaching different ideas to “socialism,” then that percentage doesn't necessarily mean 65% of Americans want the same economic system.
So I think we're actually making a similar observation from slightly different angles. You're concerned that changing the label can change people's perception of the underlying idea. I'm saying the poll itself gives us reason to be cautious about assuming everyone who chooses a label means the same thing by it.
And I agree with you on one thing pretty strongly: if someone is deliberately changing terminology to make an unpopular idea sound more appealing, that's worth questioning.
"Suspect in alleged plot against British base called police before arrest, UK media report"
Each day this "terror" plot keeps getting weirder and weirder and is beginning to look like "much ado about nothing".
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/30/uk/suspe … d-intl-hnkThis is what CORRUPTION looks like.
"Trump’s ads have cost taxpayers at least $2.5 million, with funding from Customs and Border Protection"
Enough said.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/media/tr … on-fundingWell ... I didn't need the link for this one.
You're right; it is wrong. There might be an argument as to whether it is "corruption," but it's not one worth having. This action stinks.
What stinks more is that there's probably nothing that can be done about it in the 'short term' (before the midterms).
GAProbably not after the midterms either. The most that might happens is it becomes another Article of Impeachment.
"UK says ‘strong indication’ Iran was involved in incident at air base housing US forces"
This is getting SOOOO confusing.
Here is what I understand.
1. Some UK nationals, some wearing hoodies, were standing around some vehicles near an air base housing US forces. A local sees this, thinks it suspicious and calls it in.
2. Apparently, one of the men had called police maybe an hour earlier and reported something, I am not sure what.
3. After the local call police rushed to the scene, which according to the latest story, they were already at, maybe from the first call by one of the men arrested.
4. Then the whole lot are arrested on explosives charges. except there were no explosives found, it seems.
5. And now they are saying Iran is behind it all.
As I said, I am confused.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/30/uk/suspe … d-intl-hnkThis is not the real (yes, that is the spelling it seems) America I grew up in and served. It sounds very much like Putin, or Un, or Xi, or Maduro, or the Ayatollah was president.
"Trump administration escalates feud with federal judges"
"The Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against nearly all the federal judges in Minnesota, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Wednesday, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the judicial branch.
The administration’s demand that the judges be disqualified from immigration-related cases was prompted by a recent New York Times article in which six federal judges described the Justice Department’s failure to comply with court orders during an immigration-enforcement surge as a grave threat to the rule of law."
So, once again people, judges in this case, are punished for speaking the truth.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/30/politics … es-blanche"Trump administration shifts funds from human rights to supporting far-right causes"
No Surprise There, is there? For Trump, Human Rights is the enemy of the people.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/02/politics … ght-causesYou can criticize the administration’s decision, but “Human Rights is the enemy of the people” is a political opinion, not a fact established by this story. The actual issue is more specific: the administration redirected millions in taxpayer-funded democracy money toward causes it considers priorities, including anti-communism, migration, and “Western civilizational norms,” despite congressional objections. Do none of those issues concern you? Or is the only thing that matters to you the opportunity to attack Trump?
"Trump fights on home turf as Democratic midterm hopes rise"
GEE, I wonder why? Could it be the absolutely horrible job the CORRUPT Trump and his minions did? Enjoy your high gas prices, they are around to stay for a while.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/05/politics … -home-turf"Trump is clearly trying to buy votes with taxpayer money"
Does ANYONE really doubt it given how corrupt he is?
"President Donald Trump is ramping up his efforts to use taxpayer money and resources to help Republicans win the 2026 midterm elections.
And it’s not at all subtle.
At last month’s Republican midterm convention, he severely pushed the envelope by promising every adult US citizen $5,000 if Republicans hold both the House and the Senate. That was already stunning — to offer voters money for a specific outcome. But Trump has only continued pushing the envelope since then.
Over the last 10 days, he has run more than a dozen different government-funded ads that are geared toward promoting himself and his supposed accomplishments.
The road to the 2026 midterms starts now
Each week, Aaron Blake cuts through the political noise with sharp analysis of the races, candidates and trends that could decide control of Congress. Sign up for 20/26 Vision, a weekly newsletter focusing on this year’s midterms.
Last week, Trump held two separate White House events in which he made exaggerated promises about major economic projects in key states holding crucial Senate races.
Also last week, the administration sent $500 checks to nearly 1 million Obamacare recipients.
By Friday, the administration apparently found yet more money to send out: $90 for around 20 million senior citizens to help pay for their Medicare Part B premiums.
And in recent days, Trump has re-upped his $5,000 pitch on social media and featured it prominently at rallies in Alabama and Oklahoma."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/05/politics … y-midterms"Democrats are taking big chunks of GOP voters in key Senate races, polls show"
I adjusted for the 2022/2024 polling error and determined that there is a very HIGH likelihood that 1) Ds keep all their seats and 2) pick up four more to get to 51,
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/06/politics … ver-voters"Christa Pike’s attorneys call recovery ‘medically unprecedented’ ahead of hearing over botched execution"
Personally, I am not opposed to the death penalty - when it is fairly and evenly applied. For example, Trump wanting Hasson to be killed by firing squad is perfectly fine with me.
In this case, however, it was not applied fairly and evenly. At the very least, her sexual abuse should have been presented but was not. Second, there have been thousands of murders with her circumstances where the murderer was given sentences of life with the possibility of parole and NOT botched death by lethal injection. This attempt to kill her should never had happened, in my opinion.
I agree that the governor should commute her sentence but to one with the possibility of parole.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/07/us/chris … -tennesseeRandom Thought, and it's just my opinion.
What concerns me about what I see happening to the Democratic Party is how far some on the political left are now willing to go in redefining America itself. I look at the movement toward democratic socialism and wonder how we went from debating how to improve our country to talking about replacing the very system that made this country what it is.
The Democratic Socialists of America have openly proposed fundamental changes to our government, including eliminating the presidency and Senate and replacing major parts of our constitutional system. Their stated goal is to build a new society rather than simply reform the one we have.
That is where I have a serious problem. America has spent 250 years building a constitutional republic based on individual rights, separation of powers, elected representation, law enforcement, and the principle that government exists to serve the people, not control them.
I don't believe every Democrat agrees with these ideas, and I don't believe every person who supports social programs is a socialist. But I do believe Americans should pay attention when a growing political movement openly talks about fundamentally replacing the system we have.
My concern isn't about wanting to help people. We should help people. My concern is what happens when government becomes the answer to everything, when individual responsibility gives way to government dependency, when achievement is viewed as something to be redistributed rather than earned, and when power becomes concentrated in the hands of those who promise to create a society they believe will be better for everyone.
I love America because we are free to disagree, free to work, free to succeed, free to fail, free to worship, free to speak, and free to pursue our own version of the American dream. I don't want to see that replaced by a system where government decides what is best for all of us.
Political parties can change their names, platforms, and leadership. But America should not have to change its identity to satisfy an ideology.
For me, this isn't about Democrat versus Republican. It is about whether we preserve the constitutional America we inherited, or willingly hand over the power to create something entirely different.
That is a choice every American deserves to understand clearly.I agree that "The Democratic Socialists of America have openly proposed fundamental changes to our government, ". But my question is how is that different to what you seem to (lack of criticism such as this post) do find OK and that is what Trump has "already" done or tried to do that has changed how our gov't operates?
Personally, I oppose what the DSA organization proposes just as vigorously as I oppose what Trump is currently doing or trying to do. The difference is the DSA is 95% less dangerous than Trump.I think you're comparing two different things here. Yes, Trump has taken actions that have changed how the government operates, and those actions can be debated and challenged when necessary. But changing how government operates is not automatically the same as dismantling the constitutional system itself.
My concern in this post is with the stated goals of the Democratic Socialists of America and their proposals to fundamentally restructure our government. I believe there is a significant difference between debating policies within our constitutional framework and advocating for replacing major parts of that framework.
That doesn't mean I automatically approve of everything Trump does, nor does it mean I believe a president should have unlimited power. If Trump oversteps his constitutional authority, that deserves scrutiny, too.
But I don't believe we can simply declare one side 95% less dangerous than the other and treat that as an established fact. We need to look at what each is actually proposing or doing and judge it on its merits.
My post was about the direction of the Democratic Party and the influence of democratic socialism. The fact that Trump has also been controversial doesn't make those concerns invalid. We can question a president's actions and still be concerned about an ideology that seeks to fundamentally change the system of government we have had for nearly 250 years.
That's the point I was making, and I'd rather discuss the substance of that concern than assume that because I criticized one movement, I must approve of everything the other side does.There is nothing wrong with what you say about the DCA, I totally agree. But it doesn't give a fair comparison to pick on them alone, when Trump and all his non-debatable harm he has done to our gov't and way of life is omitted.
I understand your point, but I think you're missing mine. My post was about the goals of the Democratic Socialists of America and what I see as the risks of their proposed changes to our system of government. I don't believe I have to include a list of everything Trump has done that his critics consider harmful in order to make that argument.
I support Trump as our president, and I believe many of his actions are intended to change a government that I feel has needed reform for a long time. You may disagree with those actions, and that's your right. But disagreement over his policies doesn't automatically mean he is dismantling our constitutional system.
You say the harm Trump has done is "non-debatable," but that's precisely where we disagree. What one person considers harmful, another may see as necessary reform. His actions can be debated on their merits, just as the proposals of the DSA should be.
You said you agree with what I wrote about the DSA. Then why does my criticism of that movement have to be accompanied by criticism of Trump to be considered fair? I wasn't claiming Trump has done nothing controversial, nor was I saying he should be above scrutiny. I was addressing a specific concern.
What I find interesting is the idea that because I criticize one movement, I must also criticize Trump to make my point fair. Why? Am I not entitled to express my concerns about the DSA without having to justify my support for our president?
We don't all have to see things the same way. You have your opinions, and I have mine. You may believe Trump has caused non-debatable harm, but I don't share that view. That's what having different political opinions means.
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that others can look at the same situation and reach a different conclusion? Disagreement doesn't mean someone is uninformed, unreasonable, or obligated to defend the opposite side.
We should be able to discuss the dangers of an ideology on its own merits without being told we must first criticize the president we support. That's not an unfair comparison. It's simply a different subject.I think the difference is that the DSA has ideas, and these will never come into action as they will not pass the majority of the votes in congress.
But the changes in the governmental structure proposed by Trump are already executed.
One is highly hypothetical, the other one is real.I understand your point that you see the DSA's ideas as hypothetical because you believe they won't pass Congress, while Trump's proposed changes have already been implemented. But I don't think that makes the DSA's goals any less relevant to discuss.
In my view, I believe anything a member of Congress brings forward deserves discussion and consideration, regardless of whether it has enough support to pass. That's how democracy works. Open debate allows ideas to be examined, challenged, accepted, or rejected. Sometimes that discussion puts a matter to rest; other times, it leads to further consideration. Either way, the process matters.
The fact that a proposal may never become law doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss what it represents or what its consequences might be. My post was about the DSA's goals and my concerns about them. I believe we should be able to discuss those goals on their own merits, just as we can discuss changes that have already been implemented.I know you don't want to hear this, but we all suffer from cognitive dissonance. It's human nature to not hold two opposing political views in our minds at the same time.
You choose to support Trump in your way. On the other hand, there are those of us here, who do not support him or his policies at this juncture.
It's like coming to a fork in a road. You have to make a decision to go left or right, based on the political conditions that you feel are best for you. That's precisely what voting is about.I'm not sure how your response addresses the point I actually made. I wasn't discussing why people support or oppose Trump, nor was I asking anyone to choose between two political sides.
My point was straightforward: I believe proposed policies deserve discussion and scrutiny, even when they may not have enough support in Congress to become law. We should examine what those policies represent, what their potential consequences might be, and whether we agree with them. That was the subject of my comment.
You have introduced cognitive dissonance, political differences, and the choices people make when voting. But none of that addresses the substance of my argument about the DSA's goals.
People can disagree politically without either side necessarily suffering from cognitive dissonance. Disagreement alone doesn't establish that someone is unable to hold opposing ideas in mind. Nor does supporting one politician mean a person must automatically support or reject every proposal associated with that politician or the opposition.
I can support Trump's America First agenda while still examining individual policies on their merits. Likewise, someone who opposes Trump can raise legitimate concerns about his policies. The important thing is to address the arguments being made rather than make assumptions about the people making them.
So let me bring this back to my original point: Do you disagree that the DSA's proposed goals should be examined on their merits, even if they are unlikely to pass Congress? If so, I'd be interested in hearing why. DSA is in the news today; it deserves discussion. Why shy away from the issue?
No of course you can discuss about it. You can also discuss about the the aliens and their flying sources. And it can be fun.
But to discuss a hypothetical possibility is something else than discussing actions that are happening right now.
I can talk about what to do when I win the lottery, and that's the chance of DSA is turning the US in a red country.
Or I can talk about how to spent the $20 I have in my pocket and actually spent it.
In general I feel that the news on social media is often speculation, a red herring to move the attention away from what is happening in the here and now.I understand the distinction you are making between discussing something that is happening now and discussing something that may never happen. However, I think your lottery analogy misses an important point.
The DSA's ideas are not the equivalent of imagining what you would do if you won the lottery. They are political goals being advanced by people who participate in the political process. Whether those goals have enough support to become law is a separate question from whether they deserve scrutiny and discussion.
You say social media often focuses on speculation and red herrings that distract from what is happening in the here and now. I agree that can happen. But examining the ideas and objectives of political groups is not necessarily a distraction from current events. It can help people understand what those groups stand for, what they hope to accomplish, and what the consequences might be if their ideas gain wider support.
By your reasoning, should we wait until a proposal has enough support to pass before discussing its potential consequences? By then, much of the opportunity for meaningful public debate may already have passed.
I believe we can discuss what is happening today while also examining what political movements are advocating for tomorrow. One does not have to come at the expense of the other. In fact, I would argue that looking at both is part of being an informed citizen.
You are entitled to believe the DSA's goals have little chance of becoming reality. But that is an argument about their likelihood of success, not a reason to dismiss discussion of their goals in the first place.I asked AI what is DSA:
**The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)** is the largest socialist political organization in the United States, with **over 120,000 members as of 2026**. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati … of_America)
Below is a clear, structured overview grounded in authoritative sources.
---
Core Identity
DSA is **not a political party**. It is a **membership‑driven activist organization** that works inside and outside the Democratic Party to advance **democratic socialist** policies. [Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)](https://www.dsausa.org/)
Founded in **1982** through a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the New American Movement, DSA historically focused on pushing the Democratic Party leftward. Its membership surged after **Bernie Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 campaigns**, growing from ~6,000 members in 2015 to more than 120,000 by 2026. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati … of_America)
---
Ideology
DSA’s ideology is **democratic socialism**, which emphasizes:
- Expanding **public ownership** and worker control
- Strengthening **labor rights**
- Reducing the influence of **corporate power**
- Deepening **democratic participation** in economic and political life
DSA describes its vision as a **more free, democratic, and humane society**, rejecting an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, discrimination, and environmental destruction. [Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)](https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/)
---
Key Policy Priorities
According to its platform and campaigns, DSA advocates for:
- **Medicare for All**
- **Green New Deal**
- **32‑hour work week**
- **Stronger unions and worker power**
- **Major democratic reforms** (some factions support abolishing the U.S. Senate and restructuring the presidency) [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati … of_America)
- **Anti‑imperialist foreign policy**, including reducing U.S. military spending and supporting pro‑Palestinian positions [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati … of_America)
---
Organizational Structure
DSA is highly **decentralized**, with local chapters and ideological caucuses having significant autonomy. It also has a youth wing, the **Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA)**. [Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)](https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/)
---
Role in U.S. Politics
DSA members participate in:
- Electoral campaigns (often supporting progressive Democrats)
- Labor organizing
- Direct action
- Community‑based political work
The organization remains internally divided over whether to continue working within the Democratic Party or build independent political power. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati … of_America)
Quick Summary
**DSA = a large, activist, democratic socialist organization pushing for worker‑centered, egalitarian reforms through electoral, labor, and community organizing.**
It is influential on the American left but is not a political party.I agree that voting involves choosing the political direction we believe is best for the country. That's precisely why I believe it's important to examine the policies and objectives of the people and organizations seeking to influence that direction.
However, I think we're talking past each other a little. My point has never been that the DSA's ideas shouldn't be discussed, nor have I argued that people shouldn't oppose Trump or his policies. My point is that we as a people should be willing to examine political ideas on their merits, consider their potential consequences, and debate whether they would actually benefit the country. I guess what I am trying to say is we should take the time to be informed about what we support. Discussing DSA and the candidate's agenda should be all important. I have noted not only her, but in other chats when the subject comes up, most divert and are not up to discussing DSA.
You mentioned I agree that voting involves choosing the political direction we believe is best for the country. That's precisely why I believe it's important to examine the policies and objectives of the people and organizations seeking to influence that direction.
However, I think we're talking past each other a little. My point has never been that the DSA's ideas shouldn't be discussed, nor have I argued that people shouldn't oppose Trump or his policies. My point is that we should be willing to examine political ideas on their merits, consider their potential consequences, and debate whether they would actually benefit the country.
You mentioned cognitive dissonance earlier, but I don't think disagreeing with someone politically necessarily demonstrates it. We can recognize that a political leader has done things we support while disagreeing with other decisions. Likewise, we can acknowledge that an opposing political movement may have some worthwhile objectives while questioning others.
That's the difference between supporting a political figure unconditionally and evaluating individual policies on their merits. I believe the latter is a much more sensible approach, regardless of which side of the political spectrum we're discussing.
Ultimately, voting is about choosing a direction, as you say. But making an informed choice requires looking beyond the labels and examining what each side is actually proposing, what it has done, and what the likely consequences would be. That's the discussion I was trying to have. earlier, but I don't think disagreeing with someone politically necessarily demonstrates it. We can recognize that a political leader has done things we support while disagreeing with other decisions. Likewise, we can acknowledge that an opposing political movement may have some worthwhile objectives while questioning others.
That's the difference between supporting a political figure unconditionally and evaluating individual policies on their merits. I believe the latter is a much more sensible approach, regardless of which side of the political spectrum we're discussing.
Ultimately, voting is about choosing a direction, as you say. But making an informed choice requires looking beyond the labels and examining what each side is actually proposing, what it has done, and what the likely consequences would be. That's the discussion I was trying to have.I asked AI to give me a democratic point of view of DSA and republican point of view of DSA. Therefore, this is how democrats see a positive view of DSA, while republicans see a negative view of DSA
**From a Democratic point of view, the DSA’s agenda looks like an extension of core Democratic values.
From a Republican point of view, the same agenda looks like a radical restructuring of American institutions.**
Below is a clear, sourced breakdown of how each side typically interprets the DSA’s platform.
---
Pros from a Democratic point of view
These points reflect how Democrats and left‑leaning observers often frame the benefits of DSA’s agenda.
- **Stronger social safety net and worker protections** — Democrats generally see DSA’s push for Medicare for All, higher wages, tenant protections, and expanded social services as aligned with long‑standing Democratic priorities to support working families. [factually.co](https://factually.co/fact-checks/politi … ies-4bfd74)
- **Clear moral and economic vision** — DSA’s emphasis on democratic control of the economy, stronger unions, and universal programs is viewed by many Democrats as a bold, values‑driven extension of progressive policy rather than incrementalism. [factually.co](https://factually.co/fact-checks/politi … ies-4bfd74)
- **Grassroots energy and electoral momentum** — Democrats often appreciate that DSA has mobilized younger voters, expanded membership to over 95,000–120,000, and helped elect progressive candidates, strengthening the broader left coalition. [Vox](https://www.vox.com/politics/497411/dsa … ortez-2028)
- **Policy innovation** — Some Democrats see DSA’s structural ideas (e.g., rethinking federal institutions, expanding voting rights) as a way to spark debate about modernizing democracy, even if they don’t adopt those proposals themselves. [factually.co](https://factually.co/fact-checks/politi … iew-c67072)
---
Cons from a Republican point of view
These points reflect how Republicans and conservative media typically criticize DSA’s platform.
- **Radical institutional changes** — Republicans frequently highlight DSA proposals such as drafting a new constitution, abolishing ICE, defunding the Pentagon, or restructuring federal institutions as evidence of extreme or destabilizing intentions. [factually.co](https://factually.co/fact-checks/politi … iew-c67072)
- **Anti‑capitalist orientation** — DSA’s long‑term goal of a democratic socialist republic and public ownership of major industries is framed by Republicans as incompatible with free‑market principles and American economic traditions. [factually.co](https://factually.co/fact-checks/politi … ies-4bfd74)
- **Controversial foreign‑policy and policing positions** — GOP critics point to DSA’s support for BDS, anti‑Zionist stances, and rhetoric about abolishing “carceral forces” or prisons as far outside mainstream political norms. [Vox](https://www.vox.com/politics/497411/dsa … ortez-2028)
- **Political vulnerability for Democrats** — Republicans strategically link Democrats to DSA to portray the Democratic Party as extreme, arguing that DSA’s platform alienates moderates and independents. [Vox](https://www.vox.com/politics/497411/dsa … ortez-2028)
---
Side‑by‑side summary
| Perspective | How they view DSA’s strengths | How they view DSA’s weaknesses |
|------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| **Democratic** | Energizes progressive base; expands social programs; strengthens unions; provides bold vision | Internal factionalism; some proposals politically risky |
| **Republican** | (Few acknowledged strengths; focus is on critique) | Radical institutional redesign; anti‑capitalist agenda; controversial policing/foreign‑policy stances; threat to traditional institutions |
---
Quick takeaway
Democrats tend to see DSA as a source of policy ambition and grassroots energy.
Republicans tend to see DSA as ideologically extreme and structurally destabilizing.
-.I appreciate you sharing that information, but I think it illustrates what I have been trying to say. You have provided an AI comparison of how Democrats and Republicans view the DSA, but you haven't really addressed the point I was making or shared your own assessment of its agenda.
I am not looking for a summary of what either party thinks, nor am I asking anyone to agree with my views. I am trying to have a personal discussion about the DSA's actual objectives, what they would mean for our country, and whether the proposed policies would ultimately benefit us. That requires looking beyond how each political side frames the issue and examining the ideas themselves.
There is a difference between presenting information and engaging in a discussion, sharing a personal view. I can get information from AI, news articles, or any number of sources. What I value in a discussion with another person is hearing their reasoning, understanding how they arrived at their conclusions, and being able to exchange ideas, even when we disagree.
I'm genuinely interested in hearing your personal views. What do you think about the DSA's agenda? Which parts do you support or oppose, and why? What do you believe the consequences would be for our country?
That's the conversation I have been trying to have. I believe we should all be willing to examine the ideas and policies we support, rather than simply rely on how our preferred political side presents them. We may not reach the same conclusions, but at least we would be discussing the substance of the issue rather than just repeating the arguments made by others.
I learned something new - that the DSA was not a political party. Not sure why I though it was, but I did.
It's an understandable assumption, especially since the DSA has members who run for office and serve in Congress. The distinction is that the DSA is a separate political organization, not a political party. Its members often run as Democrats, which can make the two seem interchangeable. I think it's important to understand that distinction, particularly when we're trying to understand the political ideologies and organizations influencing the people we elect.
Currently serving in Congress: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan).
DSA members running for Congress in November 2026 include Chris Rabb (Pennsylvania), Claire Valdez (New York), Darializa Avila Chevalier (New York), and Melat Kiros (Colorado).This is why I post what I do from AI. I want to present an objective viewpoint on both sides. If it wasn't for my post, Eso wouldn't have known DSA was not a political party. MAGA is also not a political party. It is an agenda, just like the Tea Party was, but MAGA is Trump's movement. Both sides have members who are congressmen.
I didn't even know what DSA was until I asked AI. Now I have a good idea about both sides, I can discuss my viewpoints. Now that I have established that DSA and MAGA are both political movements, not parties. It follows that a comparison is needed between where MAGA and DSA are right now. I think the Tea Party morphed into MAGA under the auspices of Trump.
Just in sheer size, the MAGA base is in the 10 of millions today. DSA's base is in the 100's of thousands. MAGA currently dominates both houses of congress. In terms of demographics, MAGA is older and, more rural/suburban and culturally conservative. DSA is younger and progressive.
Now let's look at the key policies priorities of DSA.
Medicare for all:
Implementing a universal, single-payer health care system would save the U.S. more than $1 trillion and some 114,000 lives every year, according to a recent Yale University analysis.
Scientists at Yale’s School of Public Health and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, found that, under the current U.S. health care system, which largely hinges on private insurance, Americans spend some $5.2 trillion per year on health care. Under a “Medicare for All” system, they estimated, that would shrink to around $4.2 trillion, with savings of $1.04 trillion.
As defined by the researchers, Medicare for All would expand the current Medicare system, which currently provides health insurance to Americans aged 65 and older, to the entire population. It’s a popular policy point on the political left, and the study has already been picked up by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a staunch universal health care proponent.
Green New Deal:
I believe the oceans of this planet are getting warmer at an alarming rate. The whole world is subject to more severe storms caused from global warming. The Green New Deal supports lowering the amount of methane getting into the atmosphere.
32-Hour Work Week.
I think that is going to happen in the next few years as AI will make life easier for us all. The effects of division of labor are already taking effect.
Stronger Unions and Workers
I think that is a good thing as long as the unions don't become too powerful.
Major Democratic Reforms
I think there are parts of our constitution that need rewriting. An example is the 2nd amendment giving the right to anybody to bear arms. Even mentally disturbed people.
Anti-imperialist Foreign Policy
Eisenhower said to beware of the military industrial complex having too much control and power over the government. Therefore, we should find ways to cut back on military spending without being a detriment to our national security.
I do support pro-Palestinian positions. I believe Bibbi has committed genocide of 72 million men women and children with the excuse of looking for Hamas. He has turned Gaza into rubble and its people into desperate, dying refugees in their own country. He is now doing the same thing in Lebanon as a result of Trump and Bibbi going into a war of choice.
These are my positions after using AI to educate me on what DSA is really about,I will add nothing here but my question and the answer from ChatGPT. I have found ChatGPT a great source on the subject, along with YouTube videos that offer interviews with members of DSA. They are very enlightening.
Here is my question to ChatGPT word for word---
"Please list a factual agenda for DSA. What they hope to do if they got the power to put their agenda in place. Note: I use the word factual." End of my question.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): A factual list of its agenda
The list below is based primarily on DSA's own published political program, Workers Deserve More, launched in July 2026, and its official organizational statements. I have separated what DSA explicitly says it wants to do from what that agenda would mean in practice.
Workers Deserve More!
An important distinction: DSA is a political organization, not a political party itself. Its national program describes both policies it wants to enact within the existing system and a longer-term goal of replacing capitalism with democratic socialism. "Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
1. Economic and government changes
1. Replace capitalism with democratic socialism. DSA's stated long-term goal is to move away from an economy organized around private profit and toward a society in which workers and the public democratically control economic resources and production. Its program describes this as building a democratic socialist society.
Source - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
2. Put major corporations and essential industries under public ownership. DSA calls for public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries so that they are democratically controlled and accountable to the public. This is a direct proposal to change ownership, not merely increase government regulation.
Source - Workers Deserve More
3. Increase taxes on the wealthy. DSA proposes aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to fund public services and infrastructure.
Source - Workers Deserve More!
4. Restructure the federal government. DSA's program proposes a new political system, including replacing the two-party system with multiparty democracy, abolishing the U.S. Senate and Electoral College, and expanding the House of Representatives.
Source: Workers Deserve More!
5. Change the selection and authority of the presidency and Supreme Court. DSA proposes replacing the current presidential and judicial structures with an executive and judiciary chosen by, and subordinate to, Congress. This would be a fundamental change to the current separation of powers.
Source: Workers Deserve More!
6. Reduce the influence of private money in elections. DSA supports publicly financed elections and ending the political influence of lobbyists, dark money and corporate campaign spending. Its program also calls for ending the legal framework associated with Citizens United.
Workers Deserve More!
2. Jobs, income and public services
7. Establish universal health care. DSA wants health care provided to everyone without individual premiums, copayments or deductibles. Its program includes reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, plus more publicly funded hospitals and clinics.
Workers Deserve More!
8. Expand government-provided housing and rent regulation. DSA proposes publicly owned social housing, universal rent control, stricter regulation of investment properties and legal representation for tenants facing housing disputes.
Workers Deserve More!
9. Cancel student debt and make education tuition-free. Its program calls for canceling student debt and providing free public education from prekindergarten through college. It also proposes making medical education and training publicly funded and free.
Workers Deserve More!
10. Expand workers' wages, benefits and rights. DSA calls for a living minimum wage, paid family leave for all workers, stronger union protections and the right to organize and strike. Its 2026 program specifically proposes a 32-hour workweek with full pay and benefits.
Workers Deserve More!
11. Guarantee jobs and expand public investment. DSA proposes a federal jobs guarantee, with government investment in employment, infrastructure and environmentally sustainable industries.
Workers Deserve More!
12. Expand public support for families and everyday needs. Its broader program envisions publicly supported child care, paid family leave, recreation and learning facilities, and essential services treated as common goods rather than primarily as for-profit businesses.
Workers Deserve More!
3. Police, prisons, immigration and civil rights
13. Reduce the role of police and prisons, with eventual abolition as a stated goal. DSA proposes demilitarizing police departments, ending qualified immunity, weakening police unions' institutional power, and redirecting some police funding to public services. Its program explicitly identifies fully abolishing the police and prison system as a longer-term objective.
Workers Deserve More!
14. Abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). DSA calls for ending ICE detention and deportations, legalizing migration, providing amnesty for immigrants regardless of current status, and creating a path to citizenship for permanent residents.
Workers Deserve More!
15. Expand voting rights. DSA proposes voting rights for all permanent U.S. residents, restoration of voting rights for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions, and expanded protections against voter suppression.
Workers Deserve More!
16. Pursue reparations and address racial inequality. DSA calls for reparations, stronger antidiscrimination protections, recognition of tribal sovereignty and substantial public investment in jobs, housing and infrastructure in historically neglected minority communities.
Workers Deserve More!
17. Expand reproductive and gender-related rights. DSA supports abortion access, gender-affirming care, LGBTQ+ equality, protection against sex discrimination and greater recognition and compensation for unpaid caregiving work.
Workers Deserve More!
4. Energy, the military and foreign policy
18. Phase out fossil fuels and expand public energy infrastructure. DSA proposes a Green New Deal, public investment in sustainable energy and transportation, and a transition away from fossil fuels.
Workers Deserve More!
19. Reduce U.S. military spending and overseas military involvement. DSA's program calls for defunding the Department of War, ending foreign wars and closing overseas military bases. These are stated goals of its national program.
Workers Deserve More!
20. End U.S. military and economic aid to Israel. DSA explicitly calls for ending military and economic aid to Israel, supports Palestinian self-determination and the right of return, and advocates accountability for leaders it considers responsible for war crimes.
Workers Deserve More!
21. End U.S. economic sanctions and blockades against certain countries. DSA proposes ending what it calls economic warfare against countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, including sanctions and embargoes.
Workers Deserve More!
What is the most important distinction to understand?
DSA's agenda goes beyond expanding social programs. Its published program includes fundamentally restructuring the American political system and changing who owns and controls major parts of the economy.
Workers Deserve More!
There are three important levels to distinguish:
- Policies within the current system: Universal health care, stronger unions, rent control, higher taxes on the wealthy and expanded public services.
- Major institutional changes: Abolishing the Senate and Electoral College, restructuring the executive and judicial branches, and expanding public ownership.
- The ultimate objective: Replacing capitalism with a democratic socialist system in which working people collectively govern the economy and society.
Workers Deserve More!
These are DSA's stated goals, not proof that every member supports every proposal or that DSA could implement them if its candidates won elections. Many would require legislation, substantial funding, and potentially constitutional amendments or other major legal changes.
For factual verification, the most direct source is DSA's own 2026 political program, Workers Deserve More. The proposals above are based on that published program rather than on opponents' descriptions of the organization." End of ChatGPT's Information.
Here are the sources
https://program.dsausa.org/
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is … socialism/
Regarding DSA -- as you can see, the agenda list AI provided was long, and it does list many radical changes that must be considered. I have done a lengthy study of the group. And I have formed a negative opinion. Through reading and, as I said, YouTube interviews, which were actually very informative, the members do not mince words and are fully open and transparent regarding their agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWsHLvBntg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YmTzlfVThEI appreciate you taking the time to research DSA and explain your views. I agree that it’s important to understand both sides, and I respect your willingness to learn about positions you may not have been familiar with before. I also agree with you on a few things, including the need to keep the military-industrial complex in check and the importance of protecting American workers.
Where I disagree is that good intentions and appealing promises don’t always translate into good policies. As a Republican, I believe we need to look beyond what a proposal promises and ask what it will cost, how it will be implemented, and what unintended consequences might follow.
Take Medicare for All, for example. I understand the desire to make health care affordable and accessible to everyone, but I also believe Americans should have the freedom to choose the health care and insurance that best meet their needs. Personally, I would never want to be forced to give up my private health insurance. I pay for premium coverage because I value the excellent care and options it provides, and I believe I should have the right to keep it. Helping people who struggle to afford health care shouldn't mean taking away choices from those who are satisfied with the coverage they have worked and paid for. Before replacing our current system, we need to consider the full consequences, including taxes, access to specialists, wait times, medical innovation, and whether people would actually receive the care they need when they need it.
I support protecting the environment, too, but I believe we need practical solutions that protect our economy, keep energy affordable, and don't put American workers at a disadvantage. And while I support workers' rights, unions must be accountable as well. No organization should become so powerful that it puts its own interests ahead of the people it claims to represent.
I agree that our laws should address genuine public safety concerns, including keeping firearms away from people who pose a serious danger. However, constitutional rights also deserve careful consideration. We should be cautious about changing fundamental protections without fully understanding the consequences.
On foreign policy, I agree that we should avoid unnecessary wars and hold our leaders accountable. I also believe America must remain strong enough to deter our enemies and protect our allies. The suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza and elsewhere is heartbreaking, and no government should be above criticism. At the same time, claims of genocide and responsibility for the conflict deserve careful examination of the facts and the applicable law rather than relying solely on political rhetoric.
My biggest concern with DSA isn't that it wants to help working people or improve health care. Those are goals people across the political spectrum can share. My concern is its broader agenda of replacing capitalism with democratic socialism, expanding government ownership, and fundamentally restructuring parts of our constitutional system. These are enormous changes, and I believe we should carefully consider what they would mean for individual liberty, economic opportunity, and the balance of power in our country.
I don't agree with everything Republicans support, either. No political movement gets everything right. But I believe free enterprise, individual responsibility, limited government, and constitutional safeguards are essential to preserving our freedom.
I think we can have a worthwhile discussion without assuming that one side has all the answers. Understanding an opposing viewpoint is valuable, but understanding it doesn't mean we have to agree with it. The real test is whether the policies actually work, respect individual choice, and leave our country stronger and freer for the next generation.I asked Microsoft Copilot Is Workers Deserve More a reliable source for what DSA is in its totality? Here is the answer I received.
**Short answer:** *No — “Workers Deserve More” is **not** a reliable or complete source for understanding DSA in its totality.*
Here’s the deeper, structured breakdown you’ll appreciate.
Why “Workers Deserve More” Is Not a Full or Authoritative Source on DSA
To evaluate reliability, you want to check three things:
**(1) Is it official?**
**(2) Is it comprehensive?**
**(3) Is it representative of the whole organization?**
1. **It is not an official DSA publication**
The **only authoritative sources** on what DSA *is* and what it *believes* are:
- The **DSA National Constitution & Bylaws**
- The **DSA National Platform**
- Official statements from the **National Political Committee (NPC)**
- Resolutions passed at **DSA National Conventions**
- Publications from **DSA National Communications**
Anything outside those is *commentary*, *analysis*, or *opinion*.
“Workers Deserve More” is not part of DSA’s official communications structure.
2. **It represents a specific faction or ideological tendency**
DSA is **highly decentralized** and contains multiple caucuses and ideological currents:
- Bread & Roses
- Socialist Majority
- Red Star
- Libertarian Socialist Caucus
- Communist Caucus
- AfroSocialist Caucus
- Green New Deal Campaign Committee
- And many unaffiliated local tendencies
A single blog, newsletter, or faction-aligned outlet will inevitably present **one slice** of DSA’s internal politics — not the whole.
If “Workers Deserve More” is aligned with a particular caucus, it will emphasize:
- Certain priorities
- Certain interpretations of democratic socialism
- Certain internal disputes
- Certain strategies (electoral vs. labor vs. direct action)
That is **not** the same as DSA’s national position.
3. **DSA’s internal debates mean no single source captures “totality”**
DSA is not ideologically monolithic.
It has **major internal disagreements**, including:
- How closely to work with the Democratic Party
- The role of electoral politics vs. labor organizing
- Stances on foreign policy (especially Palestine, Ukraine, NATO)
- Whether to pursue independent socialist ballot lines
- How radical or reformist the organization should be
- How centralized or decentralized national leadership should be
Because of this, **no single outlet** — especially one outside official channels — can accurately represent “DSA in its totality.”
---What *is* reliable for understanding DSA?
If you want the most accurate picture, use these sources:
**Primary / Official**
- **DSA National Platform**
- **DSA Constitution & Bylaws**
- **NPC statements**
- **National Convention resolutions**
- **Official DSA website (dsausa.org)**
- **YDSA national documents**
**Secondary / Analytical**
- Academic research on U.S. socialist movements
- Reputable journalism (e.g., *The Nation*, *Jacobin*, *In These Times*)
- Political science analyses of DSA’s growth since 2016
These sources give you a **full-spectrum view**, not a factional one.
Bottom Line
**“Workers Deserve More” may offer a perspective on DSA, but it is not authoritative, not comprehensive, and not representative of the entire organization.**
Use official DSA documents and multi‑source analysis for an accurate understanding.
End of AI
I can appreciate your concern of DSA and your research using YouTube. However, from what I gather, it is too organic to determine what its outcome is going to be. It is not like Trump and Project 2025 where Trump followed a play book in his first term.
It appears to be too nebulous at this point to see what effect it will have on the mid-term elections. If the Democrats win the mid-terms, it will be interesting to see how much influence it will have if Trump and Company are still a viable force. I don't think Trump's DNA will allow him to be a lame duck president.Now we have a battle between AIs. The CoPilot just didn't ring true to me so I asked ChatGPT the same question. The answer I got differed substantially on the question of "authoritative". (Until I did that, I had no idea what Workers Deserve More was.
I won't reproduce its very long answer here, unless someone asks, but seeing the difference I uploaded CoPilot's answer to let it make a comparison. Here is ChatGPT's reply.
Yes — and after checking DSA’s own current materials, I think Copilot’s answer contains a significant factual error, not merely a difference of interpretation.
The key sentence in Copilot’s response is:
“It is not an official DSA publication.”
That is simply wrong.
Workers Deserve More is DSA’s official national program. The site itself is branded “Democratic Socialists of America — Our Program,” and its authors’ note says it was drafted by a committee established through the 2025 DSA National Convention, including members of the National Political Committee, national committee leaders, and rank-and-file members. The draft was then submitted to the NPC to “amend, finalize and approve.” DSA Program
Even more decisively, DSA’s own National Electoral Commission currently tells candidates seeking national endorsement that they must:
“Commit to uphold DSA’s national policy platform, Workers Deserve More”
That is DSA itself calling it its national policy platform. DSA National Electoral Commission
So Copilot's answer becomes rather strange when it says that the authoritative sources include the “DSA National Platform” while simultaneously saying Workers Deserve More is not authoritative. Workers Deserve More is the current national policy platform it says you should consult.
The second part of Copilot's answer is also unsupported:
“It represents a specific faction or ideological tendency.”
DSA says nearly the opposite. The official authors' note says the drafting committee was designed to represent the political breadth of its “big tent organization.” It included NPC members, national committee leaders and rank-and-file members. Then the NPC finalized and approved it. DSA Program
That doesn't mean every DSA member agrees with every sentence. DSA's constitution explicitly allows members and factions to organize to change DSA policies and programs while accepting majority decisions as legitimate. And the National Convention is the organization's highest decision-making body, with the NPC exercising that authority between conventions. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
So there is one important part of Copilot's answer I agree with: the phrase “in its totality” sets too high a bar.
No single document can tell you everything about an organization with chapters, factions, convention resolutions, bylaws, elected leaders and internal disagreements. If you wanted to write a comprehensive history or analysis of DSA, you would certainly also examine its constitution, convention resolutions, NPC decisions and chapter activity.
But that's quite different from what Copilot said.
I would break the answer down this way:
Question Answer
Is Workers Deserve More an official DSA document? Yes.
Is it approved at the national DSA level? Yes.
Is DSA currently calling it its national policy platform/program? Yes.
Are nationally endorsed DSA candidates expected to uphold it? Yes.
Does it represent merely one DSA faction? No evidence of that; DSA describes the drafting process as broadly representative and NPC-approved.
Does it tell us what every individual DSA member believes? No.
Does it exhaust everything there is to know about DSA? No.
Is it authoritative evidence of DSA's stated national political objectives? Very much so.
And there is an especially important distinction if the dispute is about what DSA ultimately wants, rather than whether every member agrees with it.
Workers Deserve More doesn't leave the ultimate objective implicit. It says DSA has written the program for “ending capitalist oligarchy” and says complete victory requires “building a new society from the ground up.” It describes a future “without capitalism,” calls for public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries, and says DSA is working toward a “democratic socialist republic.” DSA Program
Those statements can fairly be criticized, defended, contextualized or contrasted with DSA's other documents. But they cannot fairly be dismissed as the opinions of some outside blog or faction, which is essentially what Copilot did.
My guess — and this is only an inference from the answer you received — is that Copilot failed to recognize what “Workers Deserve More” referred to and constructed an answer on the assumption that it was some factional newsletter or advocacy site. The tell is its repeated language about “a single blog, newsletter, or faction-aligned outlet.” That description simply doesn't match the actual source.
So I would revise its opening sentence to:
“Workers Deserve More is an authoritative official source for DSA's current national political program, but it is not by itself a complete description of DSA in its totality or of the beliefs of every DSA member.”
That, I think, preserves the valid point Copilot was trying to make without getting the central fact backwards.
I almost always have an idea of the answer when I ask Geo (my shorthand for ChatGPT) and when it deviates too far away from my expectations without a logical reason as to why, I push back. I find most of the time my question was too ambiguous or Geo did not have all the pertinent facts or context.
After several iterations of this I find out one of three things: I was wrong, I was right, i was neither because of this and that caveats.I appreciate you pointing this out. I see AI as a good tool, but I also feel that looking further is the best way to research any issue. For example, articles and, yes, YouTube, where one can find personal interviews on a given issue, really help you form an opinion.
I agree that DSA is an organic organization with different factions and that its eventual influence will depend on several factors, including the midterm elections. I also agree that no single document necessarily tells us everything about an organization as diverse as DSA.
However, I think we need to be careful not to dismiss its stated objectives simply because the organization is decentralized or because its future influence is uncertain. The fact that a movement may not be able to implement its entire agenda doesn't make that agenda any less important to examine. The same standard should apply to any political movement, whether it is DSA, MAGA, or another group seeking to influence our government.
I also think there is a distinction between understanding what an organization officially advocates and predicting what it will ultimately accomplish. We can examine its published proposals, consider the practical consequences, and disagree about whether those proposals would benefit the country without assuming that every member shares exactly the same priorities.
You mentioned Trump and Project 2025. I think that comparison is worth exploring, too. Rather than simply asking which movement is larger or more likely to gain power, shouldn't we examine the policies each supports, how they would affect our constitutional system, and what safeguards would remain if either movement gained greater influence?
Ultimately, I don't think the most important question is whether DSA will become powerful enough to implement its entire agenda. It's whether the individual policies and proposed structural changes deserve support in the first place.
I appreciate that you have researched DSA and shared what you've learned. My interest has always been in discussing the merits and potential consequences of these ideas, rather than relying on AI summaries to tell us what to think. AI can be a useful starting point, but I believe the real value comes when we examine the evidence, question the assumptions, and explain our own reasoning.
We don't have to agree, but I think that's where a meaningful political discussion begins.
Wanna bet the guy across the street from my step-daughter who was arrested for holding a gun to his ex-wife's head, for threatening to shoot somebody else, threatening to shoot my step-daughter, her husband, her grandson, their dog and hoped the dog eats the grandbaby legally owns a gun?
Fortunately, I think my step-daughter is going to file charges (hopefully Brady Acts the asshole) against him. I will also counsel her to get a protective order against him and his current wife.
I think she is going to sic child protective services against them for letting their children ride motorized bikes without a helmet.
Is this a new MAGA tactic?
"Arizona congressional candidate says she was raped while repairing campaign sign"
Yes. she is a Democrat and she thinks it was politically motivated because she thinks she remembers one of them saying Democratic Bitch while raping her.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/08/us/arizo … estigation"Vance signals discomfort after report alleges Kimberly Guilfoyle tried to exchange access for funds"
A Trump administration minion asking for bribes - who would have thought, ROFL
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/08/politics … e-reactionAnd so the USA is going for a livestreamed execution!!! . Only authoritarian failed states do this to terrorized their own citizens.
Is the US mimicking ISIS!!! Becoming the terror state it tries to fight. Public execution is medieval, something for on the market square in a Game of Thrones series but not for a modern state in 2026.
Has the moral values of the US government sunk so low!!!I think that is where Hegseth maybe getting the idea. I wonder if he proposed drawing and quartering Hasan.
Sadly, America loved public executions, we did it a lot in the 18th and 19th centuries, So did England.
Personally, I think a firing squad is fitting for Hasan, given what he did. But public? No. Think of all the toddlers who will see an invalid being shot to death.To me the death penalty is a barbaric thing, but that's an European mindset as there is no country in Europe with a death penalty. And the criminality is not worse than in countries who have the death penalty.
But to make it a spectacle is even worse. Simply disgusting in my view.
A Medieval practice. What's next a livestream beating?Consider the source. He was a Fox News Host. He doesn't have the skill set to be a Secretary of Defense (War). This job calls for qualifications that he doesn't have, just like many of Trump's cabinet members.
Trump administration refuses international election monitors for first time in over 2 decades
The Trump administration declined to invite election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to witness the midterms, meaning observers from the regional security group won’t be at a U.S. election for the first time in more than two decades.
Their absence comes as Democrats and election integrity experts have raised concerns about potential election meddling after the Department of Justice announced plans to send its own monitors.
Washington joins only Russia and Belarus in its decision to exclude OSCE observers.
The OSCE called the U.S. decision “regrettable” and Human Rights Watch said the move “fuels fears of serious human rights concerns around the upcoming elections.”
Asked why the U.S. did not invite observers this year, a State Department spokesperson said OSCE “should focus its limited resources on elections where it can have the greatest impact.”
The OSCE has observed every federal election in the U.S. since 2002. OSCE monitors typically visit some polling stations and issue a report about how the elections were conducted, among other activities.
Monitors do not interfere and have no enforcement power, with their access to polling stations decided by each state.
OSCE observers were invited to observe the 2018 midterms during Trump’s first term and more recently monitored the 2024 elections, which it deemed “well-run” with candidates campaigning “freely across the country.”
In a statement, the OSCE said the Trump administration’s decision “is not in line” with the U.S.’ existing commitments to other countries in the OSCE, in which participating states have agreed to invite observers to their elections.
“Refusing election observers is usually something that countries in a position of weakness do, when they know that they have corrupt or unfair elections,” said Dan Baer, a former U.S. ambassador to the OSCE during the Obama administration. “It’s very strange for the United States, which has been historically a standard setter in free and fair elections, to refuse observers.”Why doesn't MAGA believe there is little daylight between Trump and Putin. It is SO obvious.
If I were them, I would be very embarrassed to be associated with Trump.
[b]"MAGA watches another conspiracy theory blow up in its face"/b]
What people don't understand is that whether this crap is true or false is not important to MAGA. It is the accusation that matters - TRUTH BE DAMNED!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/12/politics … maga-trumpThe last line in your article sums it up.
Regardless of whether these people have a gullibility problem, the MAGA echo chamber now has a well-established credibility problem.
"Trump holds raucous Ohio rally as he tries to shore up base voters for GOP"
This article should make any decent American want to throw-up!! It shows Donald "the Felon" Trump at his vilest!! (and also with lots of empty seats, lol)
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/12/politics … rally-ohioHe IS scum, so are his followers. Clapping for a disgusting PoS and cheering violent men assaulting a person for asking Trump to release the Epstein files.
VIDEO
Under another administration this headline would be believed implicitly. But under Trump's despotic reign, who knows what the truth is. I certainly don't.
"Bank of America fined $1.2 billion by Treasury Department for money laundering and sanctions laws violations"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/investin … ollar-fineChatGPT
The headline is based on a real announcement made on October 13, 2026. But there is an important distinction between failing to detect and report suspicious financial activity, and proving that a bank knowingly laundered money for criminals or deliberately helped Russia.
Here are the facts established by the U.S. government's announcement and the reporting available so far.
What actually happened?
$1.2B
FinCEN penalty
Anti-money-laundering failures
The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) assessed a $1.2 billion penalty against Bank of America for failures to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering program and report suspicious transactions. The bank admitted to willful violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
+1
$5B+
Transactions
Suspicious activity that was not reported on time
Regulators said the bank failed to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions in a timely manner. More than $1 billion involved priority national-security and illicit-finance risks, including suspicious activity connected to Chinese money-laundering networks, fraud and potential trade-based money laundering. These were suspicious transactions—not $5 billion proven to be criminal proceeds.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
+1
$750M
OCC penalty
A separate regulatory action
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency imposed a $750 million civil penalty over the bank's deficient compliance program. This amount is credited against the larger FinCEN penalty, so it should not simply be added to $1.2 billion as though it were an entirely separate fine.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
+1
$11.6M
Sanctions settlement
Apparent sanctions violations
The bank also agreed to settle claims involving 475 apparent violations of sanctions programs covering Russia, Belarus, Iran, Burma, Somalia, narcotics and global terrorism. The reported causes included processing payments through blocked banks, inadequate screening and failures to update sanctions watchlists promptly.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
+1
Does this mean Bank of America was laundering money for Russia?
Not necessarily. The evidence establishes that the bank's sanctions-screening failures allowed payments to be processed in apparent violation of sanctions programs, including those targeting Russia. But the headline does not establish that the bank deliberately helped the Russian government, Putin, or Russian intelligence.
The Treasury announcement says the sanctions violations involved technical and human errors, including inadequate screening and failures to update watchlists. The $11.6 million sanctions settlement is separate from the much larger penalty for anti-money-laundering compliance failures.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
+1
What did Bank of America say?
The bank said it had reached resolutions with regulators over compliance failures previously identified in a December 2024 regulatory order. It also said it had invested heavily in compliance technology and personnel and was committed to completing the required corrective work.
AP News
+1
The key facts to take away
- The penalties are real. This is not merely a social-media allegation.
- The failures were serious. Regulators found that the bank's systems and internal oversight were inadequate, even after earlier warnings.
- Suspicious transactions are not automatically proven criminal transactions. The $5 billion figure describes activity that was not reported to regulators on time.
- Sanctions violations involving Russia were among the findings, but the announcement does not establish that Bank of America deliberately supported Putin or that all the money involved went to Russia.
- The headline combines separate enforcement actions. The $1.2 billion anti-money-laundering penalty and the $11.6 million sanctions settlement address different violations.
The primary sources are the Treasury Department's announcement and the official FinCEN release.
"A growing number of prominent Republicans are endorsing Democrats in 2026"
What do these Republicans, most hard core conservatives, know that the rest of MAGA does not???
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/16/politics … -democrats
Related Discussions
- 50
random thoughts please
by ByChanceTV 15 years ago
Please post your 'Random' Thought here please..."Sometimes I taste like Polkadots"
- 85
Random Thoughts and Words of Wisdom
by P1 SpareNone 16 years ago
Ever had a simple question pop in your head that defies common sense? Do you have random words of wisdom that you wish to share with others? Or have you heard someone else say/express something similar to this? I have these sorts of things happen all the time, and I would like to...
- 6
NBA Playoffs 2013 Random Thoughts!
by Julio E Olmo Sr 13 years ago
The first round of the playoffs this season is not looking good for any of the road teams at alll. Injuries have played a huge part on the no-drama!
- 46
Random Facts of the Day!!!
by pinkylee 16 years ago
I have these moments throughout my day that totally random things po into my head. as my boyfriend would call it "randon fact of the day" so I thought I would start sharing them with you all and see what other randon facts of the day people have. This could prove to be funny. so my...
- 11
Random Thoughts about HubPages
by Phyllis Doyle Burns 13 years ago
There has been a lot of complaining about changes, unfeatured hubs, ads, etc. I, too, have made some complaints -- yet, I do intend to stick it out and hang in here, for I have faith that HubPages is a good place to be, for me, anyway. I think HubPages will only grow better over time.I do,...
- 358
Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
by Sharlee 12 months ago
President Trump is back in the White House as our 47th President, and let me just say: he’s not wasting a single second. From the moment he took the oath again, he’s been fighting to restore American strength, pride, and sanity. This second term isn’t about revenge; it’s about results. And we’re...