One might suspect nary a word was read.

Handing the keys of government over to the GOP by running on radioactive DSA branding is what makes better things impossible.

In the end... "better things" are passed by electing actual majorities, not by writing unachievable wish lists and manifestos that cost us the House.

...that what works in one locale won't work in another, and so on.

Is it your contention then that the DSA is radioactive across the board?

Winning a handful of deep-blue, +40 partisan districts doesn't deliver a national majority. To win the House, Democrats must win competitive swing districts where that branding is completely radioactive. A national platform built on messaging that is toxic in the suburbs hurts the frontline candidates who actually determine which party holds the gavel.

Period.

Have a nice day.

... and weaponize them in a multi-million dollar TV ad campaign in Nebraska.

That "voter in Nebraska" scenario is a total strawman. I never said a voter in Nebraska cares about a local New York endorsement. The real-world issue is how national opposition super PACs take the literal text of the DSA platform and plaster it across swing-state airwaves, forcing our local candidates to waste precious time and money disavowing it.

It distracts from being able to deliver a message that resonates with the swing voters that we need.

As I've always said... when we're explaining and defining (and re-defining) we're losing. That is how national political messaging actually works in the real world. No useful purpose is being served by denying how modern campaign advertising actually works. That does not protect our candidates in swing or R+5 districts.

This back and forth is a waste of my time, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Have a nice day. Goodbye.

Replace public ownership with tightly regulated, and I’m in.

It’s called a parliamentary system, and the parliament chooses the prime minister, who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

The court doesn’t report to parliament, but the Canadian constitution has a notwithstanding clause, which allows either a provincial or federal government to set aside a Supreme Court ruling for the remainder of that government’s term (until the next election IOW). Not necessarily a good thing (Quebec has used it to continue discriminatory laws against religious garb in the workplace), but it’s a check on the legislation-from-the-bench seen in the US nevertheless.

So it’s still a government chosen by the people, but without the electoral college, Second Amendment, or lifetime appointments to the court.

Its members are chosen by the prime minister when a vacancy occurs.

It is modeled after the House of Lords in England, and IMO, is a superfluous body, just as the senate in the US is, and both should be abolished. The Canadian senate, unlike in the US, does not serve as an obstructive body, and rarely blocks the passage of legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

And the Canadian senate, unlike the US, rarely obstructs legislation.

Like the US senate, it is a superfluous body that should be abolished.

...and it is the predominant form of government in the EU and Oceania.

Why would you be against public ownership and instead choose tightly regulated?
I don't know about you but I have absolutely no reason in the world to trust wealthy CEO's or wealthy elites who run corporations. I'd much rather have worker owned entities that are all unionized! 😀

Just as church and state should be separate so should commerce and state, but the commerce should be regulated with the well being of the citizens as the priority not profits.

utilities etc. which is not unusual and occurs in many countries successfully. Makes it more accessible and cheaper and better. People may immediately think China but it’s available in countries like France, Scotland,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Japan etc.

Are all among the largest.

Since that’s very typical of Social Democracies. And sounds more like what they articulate

Note that they were specific in stating "largest corporations" followed by "and essential industries". Words have meaning and it says what it says. No speculating required.

At this point, I mainly see Prime as a cat litter delivery service. I figured out two years ago that I didn't need to throw heavy boxes around in a Target/Tarket Parking Lot and could just have them magically appear on my porch. It may have been a happier day than my wedding day.

But we have to mad at them, another too. No one ever really talks about how Big Cat Litter holds us hostage.

...that I disagree with. Not even a little.

starting a negotiation with "this is the absolute least we can take" is a way to get....nothing.

So that frees up a lot of money.

Public ownership of corporations (the one part I disagree with) would remove profits and shareholders, freeing up billions more.

Otherwise, look to the high tax, highly regulated capitalism of successful Social Democracies like Norway and Denmark to see where they get all the money for all those social programs.

Will they buy me out at current cash values, or just seize my retirement accounts I spent a lifetime saving ?

I disagree with the part about public ownership of corporations, so you can keep your stock.

But the companies you hold stock in would be highly regulated, and pay much higher taxes, so the profits and dividends you receive might be lower, in exchange for a government funded pension, paid sick leave, generous vacation, parental leave, etc.

They will be in the 99% tax bracket, with no exemptions or discount rates for capital gains.

So, for every billion they make, the IRS gets 999,000,000…

They just wouldn't live in the US, which would likely be a net negative contribution.

Norway and Denmark get much of their revenue from oil and gas sales, which help support a much smaller population than the US has. In general they also also have much higher personal tax rates than the US. And those tax rates start at the upper middle class, not just on the the rich/wealthy. From memory, something like a 36% tax rate in Denmark and 35-37% in Norway compared to 15-20% in the US. (I believe Sweden's rate is as high as 40-45%)

Edit - meant to reply to Fiendish's post, not MichMan's.

If that is the case, I'll take the 3 bedroom ranch house and pole barn on 10 acres, instead of the 1 bedroom studio apartment.

Abolishment of police and prisons?

What other social democracies are you referring to?

They'll need a place to put all the undesirables won't go along with the new soviet system.

Without public ownership of corporations (which the US under Trump is rapidly expanding, and the part of DSA’s platform I have said repeatedly that I oppose) Democratic Socialism loses its Marxist roots and becomes Social Democracy, a highly regulated capitalist system.

Citizens of Social Democracies would take offence at their governments being called “Soviet”.

Can we speak publicly of the days before bread lines and scarcity? Or about price signals and supply and demand?

Another question, if a majority of people decide they want private ownership and don't want socialism, wouldn't that be the end of Democratic Socialism? How do you stop people from voting out the socialists?

Do your own research.

People didn't want to give up their farms so they were starved off the land.

So far this has worked exactly nowhere.

Sure, that’s how they do it in Norway and Denmark.



Read up on the corrections systems in Social Democracies like Norway.

But nobody goes without a home.

What happens to all the mortgages and rental units owned by others, so people can live there without paying?

Social Democracies, which I support, don’t own all housing, but nobody who needs a home goes without one due to disability, low income, etc.

They stated what their own platform is. They are the ones running multiple candidates in 2026.

What is done in other parts of the world really isn't relevant to what they are running on.

I explained what I disagreed with in the DSA platform.

Germany has plenty of shelters for "Obdachlosen," Denmark has its Mændenes Hjem, etc. etc.
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/norway-proving-homelessness-solvable-problem/

The goal is for no one to go without a roof over their heads, even the homeless, but there are homeless.

A liberal democracy that collectively chooses to socialize certain segments does not make it a socialist country.

Making America a nation we can be proud of is all about building a government that protects our individual rights while providing the public infrastructure and services we choose to provide ourselves.

In the course of our history these fundamental principles are a constant and central to our identity as a nation.

The DSA candidates and platform are stating a fundamental principle: With sufficient political will, "We the people" are capable of creating the vital public sector and services we want for our nation.

Will we choose to enact all they propose? Maybe. Maybe not.

The point is that achieving big things requires thinking big. Expanding the vision of that which is in the realm of possibility is the start.

They are not the ones seeking to destroy the essential character of this nation. What they propose IS doable in a functional liberal democracy.

The destroyers are the fascist corporatists seeking to corrupt the executive branch to ensure OUR WILL, as represented in our body of law, is NOT manifested; the destroyers are the fascist corporatists who are seeking to cut the people out of the process of shaping their government completely.

DSA are an essential part of the Pro-Democracy coalition opposing the fascist corporatists.

And consider this: There is a good bit of overlap between the DSA platform and the 1956 Republican platform.

See excerpts from the 1956 Republican Platform here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221341879

to a couple from Denmark. They were flabbergasted.

Note, for example, the remarkable anti-fascist reforms passed in Hungary via the will of the people alone.

America’s democracy is failing – and it’s only going to get worse.

I have no problem with every state being represented equally in the Senate no matter it's population. Say what you want about California or NY should get a lot more but that goes both ways. I sure as hell don't want TX or FL having almost as much power. Thats why they set it up that way, to prevent large states, especially ones with large concentrated urban centers, having Senatorial power over smaller states populations. The House is meant to counter that. It makes complete sense to me. Every states citizens get an equal amount of Senatorial power. Fair stuff IMO. I don't exactly care for multi party politics either, but its already legal to have more than 2 parties. Slam me if you want but I like the system we have. Could it be tweaked? Hell yes. Dump the EC (we need power and lots of it to do that) and more realistically, get the grotesque amount of money out of the game. That one thing will heal A LOT!

The platform of the full fledged DSA is unrealistic and shouldn't be attached to the Democratic party as far as I'm concerned. I'm 100% a social Democrat. There's a big big difference. The DSA is another Nader or Anderson or Perot or the phreaking Green Party as far as I'm concerned. Its there to bleed votes from our candidates and empower the wealthy. Potential wolves in sheeps clothing stuff as far as I'm concerned. We need to get back basic power first and then work from there once we have our feet back in the right places of power. Lets do the stuff we can, please. This country will be gone in 3 months if we don't all get it together.

Until there is a serious effort at passing one, all the constant complaints and hand writing about it are meaningless.

And then Republicans get elected, it is a problem. See 2016 and 2024.

It's good to aspire for more. Not so good for democracy when ideals are used as purity tests, with the effect of electing fascists.

and are as dedicated to defeating Democrats as much, if not more so, than Republicans.

These quotes from the linked page are illustrating:

One is in on it and the other is asleep. Does that sound like the same thing to you?

One is in on it and funded by criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.
The other is asleep at the wheel and is funded by a criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.
You don't see a difference there?
They are exactly the same?

the DSA does not view themselves as Democratic partners. They see Democrats as convenient allies which they will sweep aside in time.

If not then there goes your "DSA views Democrats the same as Republicans."

I don't see Republicans cheering on the DSA

Have a good night

Thanks!.

They publicly and enthusiastically espouse many fundamentals of the Democratic party... "big tent," right? They disagree with a number of behaviors that are unfortunately common amongst both parties and they are taking a stand as they point out those behaviors. That's a good thing.

to being spoilers and giving us two terms of trump and bush which have given us the Supreme Court we have today.

Their agenda is pure ideology, and they could care less who wins elections.

I am a member of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, not the DSA party OR activist group, or whatever bullshit they like to frame themselves as.

I put them in the same group as the Greens, Nina Turner, David Sirota, Brihana Joy Gray, Cornel West, etc. etc. etc. who not only refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, but actively encouraged others to do likewise.

THEY ABSOLUTED CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUPREME COURT WE HAVE TODAY.

In ever critical swing state in the 2016 general election, Hillary lost those critical swing states by less than 1%, while Jill stein received 1% of the vote in those critical swing states. It didn't take much.

I do not forgot their contribution, or those third party "supposed progressives" what they did in 2016 by either not voting, or voting third party in the GENERAL ELECTION.

The same as those who refused to vote for VP Harris in 2024. They are so f**king upset what is happening in Gaza, will maybe it is about time that THOSE who refused to vote for VP Harris look into the mirror and realize that their refusal to vote for Harris in 2024 made them just as responsible as those who voted for trump.

The words of Susan Sarandon saying that Hillary would be worse then trump, and more likely to get us into a war, or the words of Michael Moore, "a vote for Gore is a vote for bush", or the words Nina Turner comparing President Biden to a "bowl of s**t".

I am as tired of their pronouncements as I am of the magas.

Never take responsibility for their own actions.

...you don't like what they're advocating, but I'm going to guess none of what concerns them actually affects you personally.

Things like housing, food, retirement, and health care which so many Americans are struggling with today.

Amnesty would eliminate the need for an immigration enforcement regime engaged in mass deportation. President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, granting legal status and a path to citizenship to approximately 2.7 million undocumented immigrants who had lived in the U.S. continuously since before January 1, 1982

Whether DSA has any appeal as a political force is another question.

They are advocating for open borders with free housing, food, health care and retirement for everyone who comes.

...wrong guy to gaslight with this.

Show me alternative action on the things they offer solutions to. I don't understand the effort to denigrate them without offering alternatives, because the problems they're addressing are real and worsening.

even though the official 2024 platform refuted that claim. (Page 66) Note, it does not include what the DSA is advocating for, nor have I heard one Democrat go on the record as supporting open borders.

Poll voters on whether they want open borders, with free housing and food for everyone who shows up at the border and let me know if that is a winning message.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

...and one demagoguery is as good as another with republicans.

I don't advocate based on what republicans will say or do, and neither should the party.

I don't get the problem here. They exist, but so what? They have little political influence and certainly not enough support for the more strident of their proposals.

Conflating them with the Democratic party is what republicans do, along with every other shitty thing they politic about. Not getting what this is supposed to accomplish.

Again, show me alternatives, and make this more than just some screed about a splinter org that republicans like to play their politics off of. You're not going to stop them for advocating these things by denigrating them here, so what is this, actually?

Advocate for the things they're concerned with like they're real and important, because they are. Not providing alternatives along with these objections just leaves this denigration of DSA which supposes they're some problem because republicans dishonestly exploit their views.

I don't get this post. Or, maybe I do.

And also a lot of shit that’s never going to happen. No issue with being aspirational as long as it’s not used as a bludgeon by those who think everything is terrible if it’s not exactly the way they want it. But again, broadly, I don’t disagree with much.

the art of the possible. While it is a good idea to state broad principles to aspire to, they can’t become purity tests. Living in a democracy requires compromise. The needs to be to build coalitions where common ground exists to enact what is possible without letting the perfect becoming the enemy of the good.

and do what the Heritage Foundation tells us?

It's so simplistic and unrealistic that it must have been written by folks who want to make socialism sound foolish. They could have discussed Nordic-type socialism, which works with capitalism. Feels like sabotage.

Everything will be free!!!! Yay!!!!

I remember telling someone that there's a registered sex offender living near me and he responded, "Oh, that's wonderful....". It kinda reminds me of that.

I have nothing against RSA's in my neighborhood, but I canvass alot, so I really don't want to spend hours talking with one! I found out after I had spent about 1/2 hour talking with the guy..LOL I would not consider my experience to be wonderful. YMMV

Just tax billionaires. And abolish billionaires. Done.

The progressive establishment even admitted once that Medicare for All would raise everyone's taxes. That fact seems to have been locked in the vault again.

But their platform does not mention them.

populist revisionist history, taxing the wealthy and corporations can't exist because of the belief Democrats are not progressive, so they ignore it and pretend they're the only ones who want to "stand up" and "fight for" things Democrats have already been doing all along.

For some reason promises are thought to be better than actually doing things.

People would rather be fed unrealistic lies and pixie filled dreams than achieve even incremental progress.

In fact it sounded good a few weeks ago that I became a dues paying DSA member! 😀

understand that this platform is saying they would take it. If the government is going to provide housing then you don't need that home you own. The government will decide what house you live in and where that house is.

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2026, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

It is an aspirational platform designed to shape Democratic politics in the rest of the 21st century

We would not have had FDR without Eugene Debs.

The 20th century ended 25 years ago.

Last Friday I was on the road most of the day. I happened upon Killmeade’s radio show. He’s even dumber solo on the radio. He and a guest were discussing the “DSA platform”. DSA over and over and over. I was thinking “What the hell is the DSA?” but couldn’t look it up since I was driving. When I finally got a chance I saw that it was the Democratic Socialists. They portrayed it as being THE Democratic platform.

Here is the 2nd page of the Texas Democratic Party's



https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62f42174f784a152c018b705/t/6a3fca2c746a1a18becfa3f5/1782565436497/2026-2028+TDP+Platform

His listeners are already a sunk cost/vote I know.

You haven’t be pretty stupid to willfully listen to him in the radio. The local station dumped Glenn Beck for him (I think for a personal appearance at an event) and the local listeners did not like it.

Fox News would be proud that their chosen version of what democratic socialists actually believe made it into an ostensibly left space.

We should be better than this.

This is on the DSA website. Are you saying it's not the DSA platform?

And broadly just state that this sounds like it’s written for a post-money world. The part that especially amuses me, is the “you don’t have to worry about… because it’s free”. All of this sounds wonderful but it also neglects basic human motivation and incentives, usually which involve…money.

I know some will argue that some countries do work closer to the aspirations set forth in their platform, and I agree. They are fairer societies in many ways, but at their core they’re still capitalist countries, with a strong safety net and regulations.

Last I also checked their health care isn’t free. It’s often publicly funded — meaning it’s funded by taxes, either as a single payer or a mixed public/private system. Even in those countries the lower and middle class aren’t able to get away from paying taxes. But the important thing is those systems provide universal coverage (better than anything we have here).

I’m not going to even get into college costs and everything else. They’re so much more complex than painted. I’m in agreement about foreign wars and ICE for the most part, but like with most issues there are so many nuances.

Anyone remember Star Trek First Contact? This is the world in which this platform exists. There’s simply nothing here of substance. It’s really just fantasy. I’m not really attacking it, but it’s like taking John Lennon’s Imagine and saying, that’s a policy platform for a political party.

Never going to happen? Is that a prediction, or a wish?

All progressive social and political change started with people advocating for things that were "never going to happen."

No mortgage--housing is a right. So, I have a house. Can I sell it? For how much? Who pays--because the new inhabitant has a right to housing.

Unicameral, all-powerful legislature. Separation of powers = one House has all of it.

I look at a lot of this and it sounds familiar. Very familiar. I read about it all in '97, I think it was my wife spent the summer abroad. And back in the late '80s, working through my master's program reading list (3k pages of literature, 1.5k pages linguistics, 3k pages of other--some lit crit, some history, some politics ...), a lot of platforms and speeches advocating and pushing exactly the same party line. I got tired of reading all about it in 1917, 1918, through around 1930. It was going to be great and lead to a flowering of so much cultural activity among the proles.

All those speeches and platforms had an augmented woman's freedom from drudgery where there'd be neighborhood cafeterias where you present your proof of employment and get three free meals a day--and 1-2 weeks after giving birth there was guaranteed day care, should you want to use it. (And free medical care included abortion.)

When things didn't go as the utopians believed would 100% go, well, 'democracy' needed to be managed. The '97 was Chavez. The 1917ff. was Lenin and other Bolsheviks. Sadly, when making a utopian omelette sometimes eggs need to be broken.

Oh--and this is still the official Democratic Party platform in the absence of any organ that could alter it. Notice how much of it is actually what everybody wants and is pushing for. Can't see any daylight between what commoner (D) want and that platform, yessiree.

We believe in evening things out. But we still believe in free markets.



The DSA platform sounds like it was written by a young teenager! About this girl's age



It doesn't show how funds for programs will be generated. Just this wonderful eutopia where everything is free.

These programs are all good, but it seems one sided. Like money is just gonna fall from the sky or something...

Sometimes an animated gif does beat a thousand words.

Something about this does not pass the smell test

Then Republicans get elected. Who does that benefit?

Keep asking who benefits.

I have questions about the rest. I'd like to keep the Presidency and Supreme Court but abolish the Electoral College and have term and age linits for the Supreme Court. I'm also good with abolishing the Department of "War" but I do think we need a Department of Defense, however I agree with ending foreign wars and interventions as of now (ithat includes covertly messing around in someone else's elections or government and I think foregn military bases should only be there if the other country asks for/consents to them. I don't agree with abolishing the Senate but I think there should be term limits there and in the House.

Who benefits?

The literal text of the platform commands to 'Defund the Department of War' and 'abolish the police.'

Abandoning our international commitments while expecting vulnerable down-ballot candidates to defend that language in competitive swing districts is political fantasy. Frontline Democrats don't have the luxury of treating this as an academic exercise! Instead, they have to survive real-world attack ads that quote this text verbatim.

Abandoning Ukraine and our global allies to dictators isn't just a disastrous foreign policy... it's a catastrophic messaging strategy. Pulling the plug and abandoning our democratic allies while autocrats are invading sovereign nations is a massive liability.

When our candidates in swing districts are forced to answer for literal text blocks like this, it sucks all the oxygen out of the room. It gives opposition super PACs a free pass to run attack ads quoting this word-for-word.

We can’t build a durable governing majority when our branding is anchored to positions that are completely detached from real-world global security. People who are trying to tie those phrases around the necks of mainstream Democratic candidates are giving an absolute GIFT to the opposition.

If you cannot realistically enact your aspirations, they may as well be fantasy. And going off what you said, the US may be a bad actor on the world stage right now, but that doesn’t mean we’re necessarily the only one. Some are arguably worse.

The same goes with security at the local level. This “abolish prisons” nonsense assumes that everyone is inherently good and deserving of a second chance in society. The reality some should never see the light of day for the crimes they commit.

But I guess we should just replay the democrats’ greatest hits (blunders) in the eyes of the population — abolish the police, anything Michael Dukakis said on that debate stage (sorry it was a disaster), democrats are weak on national security, democrats are socialists…let’s double down on all the BS… much of that “platform” is basically a parody.

"Follow the money" is more relevant than ever.

A lot of billionaires have strong interests in making sure that Republicans get elected.

The strategies are many. They have the funds and the power. They own social media platforms. They own the news and entertainment media. They own the data. I think they own a number of supposedly grass roots movements.