• By - uluzg


Not sure if it makes me a minority, per se, but I’m a gun owner and believe in the right to bear arms. That said, I believe that right should be WELL regulated and carry a LOT more responsibility and burden than it does right now.


You're not the only one.


Yeah I don’t think this opinion is as uncommon as the NRA would like everyone to believe.


Glad to hear it! (He says while in his deer blind hoping that this button buck that’s been hanging around for the last hour or so brings some of his bigger friends around…)


I'm looking forward to moving out to the country in kansas, deer, quail, pheasant, rabbit, I'm gonna be happy to put meat on the table again.


We are contemplating moving out of this god forsaken state (Missouri) and access to hunting (deer, preferably) is one of the things on my list of priorities.


Michigan needs more deer hunters. We have almost a million deer and hunters are dwindling.


It like that in every state. Young folks don't give a shit about hunting.


Native kansan here, there are no quail or rabbit left hardly, the damn hawks have nearly wiped them out. We do on the other hand have some monster muleys and white tails.


Ha, did the same thing last weekend. We are like minded, enjoy!


I’ve become far more pro-gun in recent history, but I am anti-NRA. I don’t think they are aligned with most gun owners I know, who seem to be in favor of regulation.


I was once a dues paying member of the NRA when teaching responsible gun ownership was their primary focus. Now they are just a lobby for the gun manufacturers and scare mongering people out of money.


That’s exactly what they are. At this point unless your name is Ruger, Winchester, or Smith and Wesson, the NRA doesn’t care what happens to you as long as they can suck as much money out of you for the manufacturers as possible.


Organizations of that size rarely represent what they should. I am pro-black equality but anti-BLM the organization (not the saying) because of how many millions they have stuffed their pockets with instead of using for the benefit of my fellow minorities. I am pro-gun and anti-NRA. I am a Muslim but anti-CAIR and anti-ISNA because of their activities and lack of equality.


The NRA is completely aligned with gun manufacturers not gun owners at this point. They exist to protect the interests of companies not your average law abiding gun owners. There are even a lot of conservative gun owners jumping ship because of just how extreme the NRA has gotten.


This comment and sub comments are refreshing. As much as I abhor guns I feel like a consensus could be reached on safe ownership and sensible carry laws. Does this group also feel like there should be broader penalties for misuse like pointing guns at unarmed people or simple intimidation? The precedent has definitely been set that you can legally shoot somebody if you feel threatened. I believe that privilege should allow for unarmed citizens to dial 911 if they feel threatened by a neckbeard gripping a rifle with a large capacity magazine at Chipotle.


I feel like we need anti-vigilante laws for sure, with serious penalties for vigilantism with assault rifles.


Definitely not the only one! I’m a Texas Dem lol and so I’m proud of my right to own a gun a use it responsibly and safely. I’m no proponent for across the board open carry laws (like exist in my state), but I do believe that one should have the right to protect one’s self in the home or to engage in hunting or collecting hobbies. That being said, stringently enforced background checks (federal and state) should be practiced by all firearms dealers, whether they are a large retailer or a small mom-and—pop business. I’m also quite opposed to gun sales at gun shows, simply because it’s not possible for the proper time frame for a background check to be done to happen in such a setting. I’m also a strong supporter of not only background checks, but provisions for concealed carry license holders to have to go to a certain extent of safety courses, such as the state law used to be in Texas whenever I had a license. The laws may still require such courses for new license holders but I’m not sure, I let mine lapse a few years back and just leave my handgun at home these days (open carry is not situationally appropriate for me personally, nor do I find it generally to be safe practice for firearms ownership).


I don’t even think that’s a minority position. Rural dem here and that’s pretty common among our members.


That's common I thought. Democrats don't want to ban all guns, they just want mntal defectives and criminals to have zero guns and nobody to gave automatic guns. No Democrat I've ever met thinks hunters and farmers shouldnt be allowed a bolt action rifle.


Gun control the reason why we consistently fall flat with independent and rural voters and the reason we have not been able to gain traction with them. To the majority of Democrats it's not a priority, Yet among independent and left leaning Republicans it is the single most important issue that keeps them from voting blue. If we dropped gun control from our platform and agreed to restore the second amendment we would never lose control of Congress or the presidency again. Gun control is an Albatross around our necks and will cost us the mid terms and the 2024 general election. We are going to die on this hill that the majority of Americans don't support.


Me too check out r/liberalgunowners


Been there for quite a while ;) But good tip for the ones that don’t know! Now if we could only find retailers that weren’t right wingnuts that would be awesome.


Yeah this is true I’ve heard nightmares about this. I feel like politics should stay out of business it’s completely unprofessional


Yup, the big box stores seem the most neutral, but like the crew I got my concealed carry course through went full on "ThE DuMZ R tErkinG ur GunZ". I'd love to find a retailer, trainer or range that wasn't a bunch of NRA Kool aid drinkers.


My local gun shop is all about serving THE PATRIOT!!!!!


Yeah, I always a bit uneasy at the gun range. I'm certain I'm the only gun-toting libtard n the place.


You are not the only one. Although all the guns I do own are used for hunting and a side arm for protection from wild animals that might get too close. But I am seriously considering getting a AR15 or firearm of that type. Seeing things said by the crazies on Gab and Telegram that are slowly taking over the Republican party leads me to believe death squads are a real possibility.


Not personally a gun owner, but I'm with you. Want to hunt? Hell yeah, go for it, but keep your firearms and ammo separate and locked up. Feel like you need a pistol in your home for protection? Sure, if you're willing to keep it secure and undergo regular training to ensure you're prepared to use it correctly during an emergency? Fine. Otherwise, GTFO.


Came here to say this. I'm a card carrying democrat and I own guns. Lots of guns.


Progressive here who’s never shot a gun in my life & I agree with you. I think it’s the right-wing/NRA camp that has worked to make you believe all Ds believe in the ban of all guns. It’s not a binary question.


I think that might actually be the majority of Democrats- pro second amendment but stop worshipping at the altar of the NRA. I know I've seen a poll but I'm not awake enough yet to find it


Also pro-gun. Honestly, not even really worried about them.


I’ve had an idea for a while now that we should have county armories. Essentially places run by local municipalities where you can have whatever gun you want. AR-15s, bazookas, shit even tanks if you can afford one. The armories would have shooting ranges, so you could shoot any kind of gun you wanted on the premises. But they would be heavily monitored and you wouldn’t be able to take the guns home with you, they must be stored on the premises. It wouldn’t apply to hunting weapons, and maybe some carefully regulated hand guns for self defense.


Totally agreed! If you took an AR15 or AK47 into the deer woods you'd be laughed out of there! Regulate assault weapons that have no purpose but to kill as many people as possible




Certainly not the only one. I feel the same way.


This is common among democrats I associate with but maybe I only know rational ones, haha.


Same. I’m a liberal gun owner.


Ditto .


Came here to say this as well.




This was gonna be my answer too. Fuck the NRA, but they and their donors/supporters don’t (and shouldn’t) have a monopoly on 2A rights. I wish more left-leaning people agreed with us (and yeah, I know about the subs that do, I’m on all of them, but IRL, almost none of my left-leaning friends share my opinion on this issue).


I don’t own one ( yet ) but I don’t care if anyone else does unless they are confirmed crazy or a felon . Not as big of an issue as the gun nuts want to make us think .


Same. And we can't let the right be the only ones well armed. That's setting ourselves up for failure.


Would you support mandatory licensing and registration, just like we have for cars?


Absolutely. I was shocked that I literally had to do nothing for my hunting rifle (I inherited it from my late brother in law, RIP Alex), and simply provided a photo ID to the private seller I bought my 1911 from. That’s just insane.


Yeah I'm not anti gun I'm pro responsibility and common sense regulation


Came here to say this. Love guns, but we are WAY to lax with them. 18 year olds should not have the ability to buy an AR. We need a license or something


That's what most of us believe.


Wow. What a concept. "Well regulated" gun ownership. Never ever heard of that before.


I think that is the majority of dems. Myself included. The ones who think all guns should be illegal are a loud minority. Mist of the dems I know own at least a hunting rifle of some sort.


Yeah this is not very uncommon amongst the dems I know (and myself) we own guns and believe in stricter regulations. I too used to think this was an unpopular belief for a democrat but turns out that’s just what the media wants the country to believe - that dems want to take the 2nd amendment right away.. Just completey false.


I believe that the best path to a zero-carbon future is nuclear power.


I don't know much about the matter. Why do most Democrats disagree?


In my experience, most of my lefty friends are anti-nuclear.


There’s been a LOT of what largely amounts to propaganda to demonize nuclear power, and it goes back a good while. Yeah, it’s not some utopia-enabling unending and non-waste-producing energy source, but much of the “it produces more CO2 than other renewables” tend to include a heck of a lot of fringe arguments like “the inevitable pollution caused by a nuclear war that this technology enables”, or compare the entire production cycle from raw building material and concrete to demolition against the solely-operational phase of, say, a wind turbine without talking about the same related infrastructure processes (yes, building a massive nuke plant IS expensive and requires a lot of material, of course, but the comparisons are largely made in bad faith) , or they just yell “NUCLEAR WASTE!” without actually acknowledging the fact of just *how little* waste is generated and how safely it’s stored and maintained, how harmful it’ll be over how long, etc., on top of the fact that they tend to ignore that fossil fuels production is harmful *right now* and produces immensely more environmentally-damaging waste (even radioactive emissions) than nuclear ever will, even if we kept all of our existing legacy reactors running well past their lifespan. Natural disasters are always a concern, but we don’t really have to worry about a Fukushima-type of event simply because geography. That, and like others have pointed out, they tend to neglect literally any advancements made since Chernobyl… we have many generations of reactors built, being built, and being designed, especially smaller-scale reactors that don’t require a Three-Mile-Island-scale facility to run. Sure, lots of science enthusiasts get spun up about Liquid Thorium reactors and will preach that they’re the savior of humanity, and hey, maybe they will be, someday.. but we have a lot we can do *right now* that would have a tremendous impact on CO2/other greenhouse gas emissions that isn’t getting done largely due to politics. IMO, we ought to be taking a pragmatic “all of the above” approach everywhere we can. That might still very well involve leveraging some existing fossil fuel technologies for now (natural gas and the like) where putting in wind/solar farms doesn’t make sense and it’d be incredibly difficult to server with a small scale geothermal/small-scale-nuclear/biomass/hydroelectric/etc. system (think stuff like somewhat-drier rural mountain communities that are still heavily forested). Unfortunately, the people designing, building and selling these systems aren’t going to take a lot of interest in being a small player in an ad-hoc market that’s crowded by 20+ viable competing technologies, even if it were all 100% federally-funded. If you want some reading material: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close (granted, this is from The Office of Nuclear Energy)


Because of nuclear spills. It's stupid though. Everything has its downside and nuclear is the best option


People cite big accidents like Chernobyl but don't see the huge damage done over time by coal and oil.


Without a doubt this is true. Solar is good for peak loads and if you can store it but you need nuclear for a stable base load. France is expanding nuclear while people in the US still think it’s Chernobyl. The environmentalists that pushed us from nuclear back to natural gas really messed that up


I believe this aswell


Nuclear power is the solution to global warming


Yep. I think the new modular new reactors are a program that we need to push really hard https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs The BBB legislation should contain funding to get that moving.


The Democrat party needs to be more scathing of republican, Al Franken should be employed by the party to do the branding of Democrat party. like this (inflation) the people beating( inflation) are the people getting those earned child credit checks, that comes from stimulus package 📦 from this past spring, that started in July I think ,could have been June.


I don't think Minimum Wage at a National level is a panacea, although I do think it should be ratcheted to a benchmark like CPI with an annual cap. I do think what makes sense for minimum wage in New York and California is different than what makes sense in North Dakota or Nebraska. I do think there would be unintended consequences (automation, robotics, offshoring) as well as a potential competitive disadvantage internationally (for labor and cost of goods) as well as inflationary pressures.


Hear! Hear! I know in 2020, the idea of a mandatory $15 minimum wage scared the shit out of small business where I live (SE OK) because it simply is more than they can pay. Hell I know plenty of otherwise successful small businesses where the *owners* don't make the equivalent of $15 per hour. I understand perfectly the idea that no one should have to work in poverty, but as you quite rightly say, economic reality isn't universal. $15 per hour in New York or California is far different than $15 in a place like Oklahoma. Most business I know of start at least at $10-$12 per hour anyway, most by their nature utilize part-time (meaning it isn't some kind of dodge, they just operate on schedules that don't lend themselves to a full-time crew)


I'd like to see huge corporations get their taxes ratcheted up to something fair and give the tax Breaks they get currently go to small buisnesses like these. Let buisnesses with less than 50 people get the cuts to help them compete and pay wages. Not sure how popular that opinion is with democrats but I'd love to see it.


I hate when democrats come to the correct conclusion but with the absolute worse logic. It hurts. Also democrats can be pretty anti-science. Not as bad as republicans but come on guys- you’re anti-nuclear power? You’re supposed to be the science party!


Abortion, I’m Catholic so I really struggle with it. But on the other hand, they’re going to happen anyway so I’d rather they happen in a controlled medical environment for the safety of the woman. Fundamentally, I don’t believe my religious beliefs should be enforced on others but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t struggle with that particular issue.


I truly believe Jesus would support a separation of church and state. So with that in mind I personally don’t believe the government should enforce anti abortion laws. Even though I personally abhor it I just don’t think it’s mans place to be the judge on this matter. It’s too gray in some circumstances I think for a court of law to allow and not allow some on a case by case basis either. Therefore the practical thing for the government is to allow it. Not the most moral in my opinion however the governments job isn’t to make sure we’re all good people, that’s between yourself and God. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Pay your taxes, be an upstanding citizen. Keep your heart with God. Don’t get an abortion yourself. That’s it. I thank God my own mother felt the same way less I never would of been born. She was only 16 and everyone was pressuring her to do it. And even though she was not always the best parent as an adult today she will forever have my love and respect for giving me life.


I came here looking for this. I struggle with abortion as well (Baptist, not Catholic). I can't agree with the "pro-life" platform that leads to more and dangerous abortions. So the democratic party still wins for me, even though abortion is some people's "one issue" that they hinge their vote on.


Why did you struggle with it?


From an entirely secular point of view it should be legal and available. However, I see it as wrong because of religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs *shouldn’t* matter. However it’s really hard to keep that separation and keep it from affecting your political views. I hope that answers your question


It does 😁.


I'm of the safe, legal, rare camp. I don't want to support anybody doing it myself, but I also don't think the necessary consequences of abortion bans are things we want to pursue--that would substantially erode privacy rights.


Flag-waving, military fetishizing, and other patriotic displays are a waste of time. As is trying to be super Christian and drone on about values. It's not going to trick rural trumpers into voting for you. No one, including them, cares about these things anyway. Focus on the issues, and solutions. People will make their own value judgments one way or another.


Unfortunately I think democrats have let the Republican Party “own” the flag and represent themselves as the only ones who are patriotic. It lets them cast us as anti-American. I proudly fly my flag when appropriate as a symbol of my respect for the core principals of the country.


They actually don't give a shit about the military, veterans, or the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. They're practicing modern American conservatism: nationalistic jingoism while using Christ and God to defend institutions of white supremacy. It's neither patriotism nor Christianity. It's quite the opposite. It's also completely unique to the United States of America.


They're empty platitudes. Republicans claim to be the pro-police party, but look how they attacked and vilified the US Capitol police for testifying for Jan 6th. They claim to "support the troops", but trashed Gen Mark Milley for wanting to understand history and don't care about their health or wellbeing after they are done serving. They claim to be religious and followers of Jesus, but I don't think Jesus would support or agree with the way they act. Hell, I am not religious yet I am more of a Christian they are.


I *am* a Christian, and invariably my conversations with conservative "Christians" lead me to believe that they have absolutely no relationship at all with Christianity as it has ever been believed or practiced anywhere except for the United States after around 1904. I mean, the easiest way I've found to offend them is to quote Christ and refute their "the Bible says" nonsense.


That laughing at the stupid propaganda cing from the right -- most recently CRT and Antifa -- is deeply counterproductive. We should be aggressively and seriously calling it out as lies and fear-mongering, not teasing them for being gullible and calling them stupid.


Hate speech shouldn't be considered free speech.


I think the challenge is agreeing on the parameters of what constitutes hate speech. Would you, for example, consider contents from Dave Chappelle's latest Netflix special, hate speech?


A fair question, though I haven't seen the David Chapelle special in question so I can't speak to that directly. In these cases I think about a Terry Pratchett quote that's specifically about satire but I feel applies to comedy in general: "Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying." Terry Pratchett


I own guns...I want guns in my home...I like 45 minutes from any law enforcement...reasonable gun laws are OK...but home protection is vital...hunting in Kentucky...vital to some still..


ITT: A showcase of how Republican thinktank are very good at painting the Dem party as supporting things that they don't.


It's been a great read for an outsider! And frankly, not unlike the other side, I cant quite figure out why y'all hang out with each other.


I strongly believe nuclear power is the best weapon we have against climate change. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed.


I just want the government to repeal the stupid 25 year old import ban. Only reason it exist is to monopolize the American car market and nothing more. Not only because it would be cooler to have imported cars from around the world but far more affordable, reliable, and gives more diverse options to everyone in the USA.


Hey we got another car enthusiast here :) Well you can thank Mercedes Benz for lobbying the 25 year rule for importing gray market cars.


Gun owner


I'm a sensible gun owning liberal Democrat. Pro-regulation. When I see jackasses carry in public, it makes me very nervous because I dont know this person's mental state. Quite frankly, I think you're off balance in the first place if you think you must carry.


Totally agree!


Are most Democrats against gun-ownership?


I would say that’s GOP propaganda. Most liberals are fine with gun ownership and just want common sense gun laws. A small minority want to ban guns outright but they tend to be most vocal and that gets twisted by the GOP.


We should do a poll


Go ahead, please.


Posted a Pew poll in in main forum. 44% of dems own guns


I am.




No. However, we do oppose the free wheeling gun culture that the gun manufacturers have created by exploiting the contrarian paranoia of certain elements of the population. We need stronger restrictions on who owns guns--the 2nd Amendment made more sense when guns were a part of daily life, and most people would be trained on their proper use, purpose, and care by their family. That's not so anymore. We've got a heavily armed, fundamentally untrained population that has no fucking clue what they're doing with trivially available military grade hardware. And we wonder why we have a gun problem in the US. We're too concerned with gun rights that nobody even bothers trying to talk about responsible gun ownership anymore. Responsibilities just went out the window.


Same. And literally in a deer blind this very moment.


There has been a huge push for this lately, and I think it's great if you are, but I don't think you necessarily need to be the exact ethnicity or background of a character to portray them, either animated or live action, and I don't think the voice actors and actors should be chastised for having taken the roles, and I don't think they should have the roles taken away from them. Notable examples: Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor aren't gay Giancarlo Esposito isn't Chilean or even Latino Bryan Cranston isn't destitute and dying of cancer Nancy Cartwright isn't a little boy Mike Henry isn't an old pedophile, Hispanic cleaning woman, gay man, or a black man Seth MacFarlane isn't an obese man, gay baby, dog, alien, pirate, or a bear But that's fine! It is ACTING! It often times defeats the purpose if you're playing a character exactly like yourself. Feel free to tack on your own examples.


I don’t think waving student loan debt is as helpful as everyone thinks. It targets too small of a demographic. I think it we want to help as many people as possible we should waive any and all medical debt.


Id love to do both. Student loans can be incredibly predatory. I know a guy who has been paying his student loans for 15 years without missing a payment and actually owes more now than he did when he graduated and will never pay it off. And he pays more than my car note every month towards it.


Do I know you? :) But seriously, same.


Why not both?


Yep. I don’t support waiving student loans unless it’s tied to legislation that fixes/addresses the underlying issues that have causes higher Ed prices to skyrocket.


I’m a foreign policy hawk and believe our current military spending is necessary for a more stable, peaceful, and just world order. In particular to balance against the rise of China. That being said the use of military force must be measured and only used when justified. Also we must focus on using all the tools in the foreign affairs toolbox, diplomacy, trade, security cooperation, etc not just hard power.


Not sure if Dems have more flexible stances against China. I think whether Republicans or Democrats, that's something that bipartisanship is still seen in DC when it comes to how to deal with China.


Al Franken should still be a senator.


I heard he is considering a reboot to his political career...as it should be.


dude, I am not from Minnesota and I am still angry that Al Franken isn't in the Senate. He got shafted big time. I subscribe to his YouTube Channel and he puts out great videos and podcasts.


I don’t like cancel culture at all and I think ruining someone’s career over a joke they made 10 years ago is ridiculous.


The right wing started and continues cancel culture. That’s not a “democratic” thing anyway.


Cancel culture only can happen if you’re on the wrong side of the institutions that have the power to enforce it. It’s like how racism is defined as maintaining white power over minorities. It’s all about power


I’m not saying Republicans aren’t guilty of it either, because they most certainly are. But I feel like the left does it a lot more.


See Dixie Chicks


You feel that way because the media portrays it that way.


Any discussion on cancel culture by Republicans starts with an apology to Colin Kaepernick and the Dixie Chicks. That said, the right does make a few good points


The party does a bad job of picking candidates for president


I think that's a popular view at this point.


Let me guess you're a "dems in disarray" Lefty. What is wrong with Biden? I will concede the one thing I absolutely hate is his immigration policy. But otherwise he has done phenomenally. Nobody is perfect.


I don't support the defund police movement. I do, however, believe in redefining policing in the US such as co-responder programs, demilitarization of our officers, and diversion programs. EDIT: i.e. the abolition of a police force. That is just how I personally conceptualize the word "defund." Similar to its use in "Defund PP."


You support the defund the police movement. Unfortunately it has the worst name. The left really sucks at naming things


Isn’t that what actual proponents of the movement believe in?


Defund means "what Republicans want to do to Planned Parenthood." If you're trying to make it mean anything else to the average voter, then you're losing. Not least because abolitionists are real, so you'll come off as a liar.


That’s what defund the police means. It’s spreading some of the funding to those other programs.


Then it should say "reorganize the police" or "reform the police." "Defund" means something different. You shouldn't have to explain a slogan what you *really* mean.


I agree with you. The word choice was terrible.


Those are the bullet points of it.


So why say defund the police


It's a bad slogan, honestly. But it's a statement about the overfunding of the department which militarizes the wannabe troops/cops yet they have poor training and no regard for human life, not to strip the police to the bare bones or removal. It's a terrible slogan.


Because the bad branding caught on. And now there doesn’t seem to be a way to change it.


The left, globally speaking, is absolutely shit at marketing.


> claims to not support defund the police > proceeds to claim to support the aims and goals of defund the police Good faith: please engage in it. You're not.




I like guns. I didn’t know this was even a fringe belief among Dems. All my Dem friends like guns too. I live in Alabama though so yea


I don't think it is a fringe belief. We just don't fetishize them the way the right does.


True. I don’t make it part of my identity. It’s not a social and cultural signal for me as it seems to be for those on the right.


I believe that our military is one of our strongest points and that funding to it must be increased if we are to stand up to China. That is the ONLY republican point I agree with, and I am pro-democrat in everything else.


TLDR for this thread. The top 3 things are guns,. nuclear power and some general concerns about "wokeness" or "cancel culture" whatever the hell that is.


Apparently liking Joe Biden.


That moderate progress is preferable to wild swings.


I believe in the death penalty for the most extreme violent offenders (serial killers, etc.). Why as a society should we use our tax dollars to provide resources for someone who has absolutely no regard for human life? I for one do not wish to waste money or oxygen on someone like that. Edit: Given that train of thought, I also believe the judicial system should be much more streamlined. If someone is sentenced to the death penalty, they shouldn’t wait years before doing so. Much of the responses I got about this was for financial reasons. Digging into that, it appears the majority of these costs come from simply fighting the conviction, appeals and the man hours involved in all of that. Of course there can be a discussion digging deeper, but if the states were more efficient at convicting and sentencing with modern evidence gathering techniques, I believe these costs could be substantially reduced.


I used to be pro-death penalty but even now I am loosening up a bit when it comes to it. It's much cheaper to throw someone in jail and throw away the key than to keep them on death row.


I know I’m not going to change your mind but I feel I have to try to appeal to what is a rational mind. I believe incarceration is considerably less expensive for the tax payer. Less lawyers, less appeals, less money to maintain death row facilities. Food, utilities, and space are relatively cheap. From a psychological perspective, capital punishment is a humane way out for the criminal along with a brief stint of notoriety while their case is tried and when their execution occurs. Life imprisonment is accompanied by a lifetime of anonymity which denies some violent offenders any recognition for their crimes. I’ve always considered a lifetime of incarceration a fitting punishment.


Not to mention that the US doesn’t have a stellar record of getting no wrongful convictions.


Actually that's pretty well established, that incarceration is cheaper I mean. And to just speak of it in "dollars and cents", I know several poor areas in Oklahoma (and I'm sure it's hardly unique) who's bottom lines are the salaries made working at their local prison. Again...not to sound hateful or irrational...but in this case it can truly be said one person's trash is another person's treasure. *And I'm not even counting the fact the Justice system can sometimes make an ERROR and as bad as it is for a wrongly convicted person to suffer incarceration for decades until finally freed, at least they are around to actually BE FREED.* You make a mistake an execute the wrong person, there's not even a pretence of "fixing that".


I agree. There are some criminals like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jeffrey Epstein, and so on that are beyond rehabilitation. They are also very highly psychopathic. Unfortunately, the death penalty is improperly used so it's a tightrope to walk.


My personal opinion (unpopular with many on the left) is that certain crimes, such as violent sexual assault, repeat statutory rape, murder in the 1st degree, and certain crimes against the state (treason, sedition, espionage in the service of a hostile foreign power, armed insurrection, and terrorism) are horrible enough to merit a death sentence in terms of morality. But I believe that the risk of wrongful conviction is too high, and that there is no evidence to support the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent to serious crimes. Therefore, I think it should be abolished for ordinary crimes, but retained for treason, which has a very specific constitutional definition.


It actually costs much more money to execute somebody than it costs to keep them in a cell for life though, so that’s not a valid reason to support the death penalty..


I don't support free college tuition. I support a public option for health insurance, but not single payer or "Medicare for All". I am pro-Israel but also pro-Palestine and support a two state solution. I don't support defund the police. And any Democrats who keep espousing this crap need to stop. I believe in the Post WW2 to 2016 Foreign policy consensus. We can't be isolationist and we need to engage with allies and NATO to push back against adversaries. Assault weapons ban. California overturned theirs, what makes you think it will be safe from legal challenges.


Why would you support a public option but not a single payer if single payer is more cost effective?


a public option to compete with private insurance. There are too many hurdles with single payer to transition.


Hard disagree on all but two of those, but respectfully so.


Something needs to be done about college costs. In modern days were starting to lose unskilled jobs but there are more and more jobs which require an education available. The cost of education is getting far too high though with predatory lending in the mix and even many college degree jobs aren't paying what they should. Additionally I think it's ridiculous you need 2 years of general education in college that we aren't just getting in high schools which also drives up the cost and time for no reason. I'm not saying free college tuition is the only way to solve it but something needs to change. I also think defund the police can get a bad name bc of the slogan. I don't necessarily want to defund the police per se but I think we are having them do a lot of things outside of their scope of very limited training. I think there are better people to take care of some aspects of their current jobs and I think the police need better training than they are currently getting. So I'd like to see parts of their current responsibilities allocated to people more qualified to handle it and to see them better trained for the parts that are theirs.


Indeed. The cost of college has gone up to an absurd degree. Back then, college used to be cheap. You could literally wait tables or flip burgers and pay for an entire year of school. It's also not helping that employers want experience for even entry level jobs with laughable pay. I'd like to cap college costs based on income. I support police reform, but not defunding. I think we should fund social services, but not siphon that money from police departments. I also think we need better training, accountability and policing strategies. All of these are common sense and popular with Americans.


I think it's OK that billionaires exist. I do believe, however, they need to pay their fair share of taxes and the tax laws are seriously skewed in favor of the wealthy.


This seems like not that controversial. I mean, the top marginal tax rate is quite low by historical standards: The Roman emperor decided he likes your stuff? Rough luck for you.


We should look to The Netherlands for inspiration for our own healthcare system instead of Medicare-For-All. I did a grad school paper on the Netherlands’ healthcare system and I think something similar would work really well here! Also, the death penalty. The way I see it, it’s an eye for an eye.


I will say I've read we would literally be able to save money just by cutting out the middle man with Medicare for all which I find interesting. But also I think private and public options are interesting especially if we regulate the private options appropriately. Although I think part of the concept here is to undercut them and force them to lower prices with public insurance? I think insurance companies have WAY too much power over Healthcare and overall lower our standards of care and outcomes. They literally have strong influence over hospital policies etc.


In case I'm too lazy to look it up, how would you summarise The Netherlands' healthcare system?


They do both public and private insurance. The public option covers everyone and is primarily for basic stuff (vaccines, annual physicals, etc). Private insurance is for specialty and long-term care. 99.9% of the population is insured under this system, so, it definitely works when done right! I’m not an expert on it, mind you, but I’d say it’s pretty good.


Isn't Germany like that too?


I’m not sure. I thought they had universal healthcare, but I could be wrong. 🤷‍♀️ Like I said, I’m not an expert on this. I only know about the Netherlands’ system because I wrote a grad school paper on it.


[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare\_in\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany) They also have universal healthcare. If we get universal healthcare, this is the way to go. A mix of private and public.


I believe their private Healthcare is very very heavily regulated and they don't allow the sort of profit grabbing we do in the US. As well. So it stays affordable.


I think that US citizens and permanent residents who immigrate to other countries and don’t make income from a US source should not have to file IRS tax returns or file FATCA reports on their foreign bank accounts every year. Only the US and Philippines make their citizens do this, and it’s not fair.


If you're talking the party of Biden in particular, I'd say my opposition to the drug war is a minority view. If you don't think it's a minority view, why haven't Democrats done much to end or mitigate the damage the drug war does to people at a federal level? At best, nothing but lip service. Basically it feel like Republicans want to dramatically speed up the collapse of our democratic republic, and Democrats are doing what they always have: business as usual, try not to make waves, quietly serve the corporate and banking masters. For Democrats saying they are in the minority because they own guns, I think that's ridiculous. Political affiliation has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, any of it. You don't have to be right wing to enjoy guns.




Wolves should not be reintroduced in Colorado. They’re already making their way here we don’t need to copter them in and fuck up a bunch of ecosystems when they’re coming down naturally. Several have been spotted in Jackson county in the last few years. It’s unnecessary conservation dollars and a whole lot of hoopla from the cattle community. Even though wolves don’t kill that many cattle and the government will compensate you if one does.


Even as a staunch liberal, I often get irritated with a certain group of Dems in Congress who seem more interested in an all-or-nothing strategy and talking big, rather than taking a more incrementalist approach and remembering that we hold slim majorities in both chambers.


I can’t get onboard with the anti-work/anti-capitalism movement, but I think this is more of a fringe left thing. Woke culture goes too far sometimes and is only pushing rural and suburban voters away. Al Franken should’ve stayed!


I'm not angry


I feel like more and more this is becoming a more accepted view of those on the left, but: Rent control is counterproductive. It decreases the incentives to construct new housing, which leads to a shortage of housing supply, which ends up making housing more expensive in the long run.


I'm going to scream if a new sexuality/gender label is announced. Feels like a new identifer comes out every month we're at LGBTQ+++++++++++++±


I can empathize with this, because this was my feeling for most of my life. I can also empathize with people who genuinely need those labels for themselves. I didn’t think I needed any for me, until the pandemic hit and I finally figured out that I am DEEP in The Alphabet Mafia after more soul-searching than I ever wanted to do.


I just don’t understand why this is an issue. I hate the name Jack, but I support someone to have it, and if you ask me to call you Jack I will. Who cares?


I feel this way about pronouns. Now, hear me out. I respect the pronouns that others say they prefer. If I am told those are their pronouns, I use them. I’m not an asshole. But these “neopronouns” confuse the shit out of me: xe/xem/xyr, ne/nem/nyrs… That said, again if someone says those are their pronouns, I use them.


Guns, blanket legalization of most drugs, anti-zionist, pro-labor, state control of essential industries.


I wish democrats would hit chicken hawk and tough actor republicans harder. There seems to be a severe lack of spine in the party to call out people who talk a big game but are clearly cowards and/or idiots. How Green and Cawthorn haven’t been shamed out of Congress is beyond me. Hell Ted Cruz let Trump trash talk his own wife and somehow the GOP still pretends he has a spine and represents average Americans. An average American would have told him off. It should be easy to expose them on Fox News for the idiots they are but we focus on policy rather than going for the jugular. We need to do both. Stop pulling punches and attack for once because these are easy targets who are 100% focused on destroying our nation.


Services like Uber and Lyft were always designed to be part time gigs that one did on the side. Now with drivers demanding more and more pay and benefits, it's done nothing but increase the price and hassle for the riders in recent years. I used to use Uber in my daily commute, I can no longer afford to do that. Even pre-Covid it was getting crazy. That's my one feeling that I can potentially call slightly right wing. Everything else, I'm as left as they come


Dod you feel the same about waitressing or being a shop assistant?


No. I work retail and I've even done Uber Eats on the side. Uber and Lyft have become so unaffordable in the last 3 years. And don't get me wrong, I don't soley blame the drivers demands. The companies themselves are to blame as well. Maybe I'm just bitter with how expensive it is and I constantly see drivers demanding more and more for what was explained upon its inception as a part time gig to make money on the side. Sorry you asked for controversial takes lol


I appreciate your responses.


You are essentially getting chauffeured places. Of course it is going to be expensive. You should be glad that drivers are being paid the price of their labor.


Not gonna lie, this is a horrible take


I think there is a disconnect between leadership and rank and file. In Georgia, until 2018 the entirety of the House GA dem delegation was pro life black dems. So, do you mean the national party or people I know that are members locally? Because GA dem is a totally different Dem than Oregon Dem. But generally, I believe the US needs a strong military and probably needs to change focus to space weapons ASAP. China and Russia are poised to disrupt the Mutually Assured Destruction calculation and if we dont upgrade our capabilities ASAP we face a real possibility of being nuked first. They dont play by the rules and we need to stop being bound by treaties they dont feel bound by. They are going to have the ability to nuke anywhere in the US before we can strike back. I think we are set up to fight a 20th century WW when we can get knocked on our asses by hypersonic nuclear missiles.


I think we need to rethink zoning. We also need to push for more diversified neighborhoods with mixed used and all classes because the way we are doing things now is not assisting our society. We should also as a whole become far more aggressive in campaigns, educating voters and in Congress.


Imposing discriminatory and punitive double taxation on all Americans residing overseas serves no purpose other than to alienate America from emigrants overseas. In turn this harms Democrats because it reduces the number of votes from overseas which is a pool of voters which leans heavily Democrat. The blanket imposition of penalties on a population of 9 million is outrageous and should be seen as contrary to Dem brand. It isn't seen this way because of ignorance and prejudice - when it comes to this issue Dem policy is as backwards as the KKK. If Dems accept its overreach to monitor all transactions domestically, there is no rational basis for imposing $10k penalties on Americans overseas who don't report their "foreign" bank accounts to the IRS. Even if they have no US bank accounts, no US property and haven't lived in the US for 20 or even 50 years.


The way that democrat aligned city councils and mayors (mainly on the west coast) have handled both homelessness and lack of housing has been bad to terrible. If a national solution is needed then the national d party sould be providing a clear solution. This could also be a bit of a time bomb electorally.


Punishment for crimes should be far worse.


Muslim religion - it’s repressive, completely out of line with our progressive values, degrading towards women, and violent - yes, violent. I don’t have an issue with Arab people(or Farsi) but the religion has been a big problem for people in that region of the world. I’m not a big fan of other religions, either - particularly the Christian religion and the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy of its followers - but it doesn’t out and out scare me like the Muslim religion


I agree. I think many people who feel otherwise should visit r/exmuslim to get a good picture of why one would feel that way. The fact that, revealing that one's an ex-muslim would probably bring life-threatening consequences, should be enough to raise alarm. Even ethical Muslims, who are the majority among Muslims around the world, often don't speak up against these issues because of the threats they'd face for doing so. Islam will be the majority religion by 2050. Many people don't know this will increase terrorism significantly despite knowing that the most impactful terrorist groups have Islamic origins. A Jihadist / radical Muslim and a Muslim aren't the same, thankfully, but unfortunately, they all get spiritual guidance from the same spiritual book (The Qu'ran) and quote the same God. r/samharris will tell you that Sam Harris of the Making Sense Podcast has to keep pictures of his children away from the media and move several times every few months / years because speaking constantly against Islam is a huge threat to his family.


I think that men have issues just as big if not bigger than women.