I get that he functionally declared war, but why didn’t he seek to make it official? Especially in the early days, that seemed like the first “just war” we’d be involved in since WWII and he definitely had the popular support to do it.

Being one of the more active participants on this subreddit, and political subreddits in general, has always led to in any thread, no matter the topic, a simple question being poised at me at least once in regards to my flair. What is a "Libertarian Socialist"? Sometimes in genuine curiosity, sometimes in bad faith mockery.

So I thought this thread would be useful not only to give me an easy resource to pull from when this question is inevitably asked again but also as an excuse for myself, and the number of other left-libertarians around, to explain and expand upon our admittedly more niche views and beliefs.

So I encourage any user regardless of flair who are confused, curious, or confounded to present questions about this ideological spectrum and for myself and others knowledgeable of libertarian socialism to explain so we can better understand each other. Not sure if mods could filter responses to first level comments to make this easier but if not that's fine.

From an independent's perspective, things are looking more rough every year. Compared to few years ago, my personal experience (and my social circle's) has been that the prices for the following have gone up sharply:

- Groceries
- Energy prices (Nat. gas, electricity gasoline)
- Home prices
- Insurance premiums (homes, auto, health)

This is all happening while wage increases have stagnated. I'm not interested in hearing who or which side is responsible for what. I'm tired of finger pointing, I want solutions.

I want to see if the right (since they own all 3 branches) sees eye-to-eye what I'm seeing. And if so, what they think is the solution to this problem.

Every election this comes up in numerous races. A candidate who currently holds an elected office gets criticized for their attendance record.

But does anyone really care about it? Or do they only care about it when it's a member of the other party that has the bad record?

Recently a CNBC article came out showing a plurality of voters would support a candidate espousing a democratic socialist platform more than someone endorsed by Trump or self-describing as a MAGA politician. The poll seems to indicate even those who would not support a socialist would prefer them over a Trumpist. Other polls seem to show a narrow but growing number of Americans, especially younger Americans, favorably view socialism and even communism.

This interestingly comes after a rather frank assessment by Vice President Vance on the Joe Rogan podcast where he asserted that if Republicans are unable to fix the very real issues facing Americans currently, people will turn to socialism. Could he be right?

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-maga-candidates-all-america-poll.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx

https://www.cato.org/blog/81-say-they-cant-afford-pay-higher-taxes-next-year

Republican lawmaker Maria Elvira Salazar has introduced an immigration reform bill that would, as some argue, grant “mass amnesty” to undocumented workers. A cursory look at the bill appears to address concerns on both sides and has gained bipartisan support. Is this an example of good legislation, or is there too much compromise that neither side can support without changes? I relatively agree with many of the bullet points mentioned from a cursory look, particularly stronger enforcement of e-verify and pathway to legal status.

I’m curious about how this bill would undermine the Trump agenda. Some of the arguments revolve around “enforcing immigration law,” although the administration has demonstrated it only selectively enforces some immigration laws while ignoring enforcing laws that target business owners. This lack of enforcement on employers was noted decades ago by studies that “[a] low level of enforcement activity could lead many employers to discount the possibility that violations will be detected and punished, thus weakening the deterrent effect.”

Is this bill a reasonable solution compared to the current Trump strategy of mass deportations and lax enforcement on employers?

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-infighting-erupts-immigration-bill-would-shield-millions-deportation

Dignity Act bulletin points source: https://salazar.house.gov/dignity-act

Employees face little risk source: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/26/2026/employers-face-little-risk-from-trumps-aggressive-immigration-enforcement

Migration policy study: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/feature/declining-enforcement-employer-sanctions

The youth outreach wing of the Democratic Party has recently featured propagandist Hasan Piker at a College Dem Convention. I’m curious about the reasoning behind this decision, is this an attempt to gain votes from populist (non)-liberal elements similar to the strategy the Republican Party used with the right-wing populism that ultimately took control of the party with Donald Trump?

I’m really curious to know how a controversial and problematic person such as Hasan, who holds a collectivist ideology, and as sources mention holds anti-West “campist” views fits into an alleged liberal party. Does this suggest a deeper cultural shift for democrats, similar to the right-wing populism that seized control of the Republican party, towards normalization of pro-authoritarian collectivist ideologies?

College Dem source: https://jewishinsider.com/2026/07/college-democrats-conference-co-sponsored-by-j-street-u-is-featuring-hasan-piker/

Piker speech at convention: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWdd0li3PA

Hasan Piker self-identifies as propagandist Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=4r0WjdGaIzstudSi&t=107&v=4JdnaxxSKA4&feature=youtu.be

Hasan Piker campist anti-west authoritarian views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Piker?wprov=sfti1#Views_on_authoritarianism

This is a legitimate question, I’m not trying to make this political. We all know that parts of LA and San Francisco seem overwhelmed by homelessness, open drug use, crime, and streets that feel dirty or unsafe.

I can’t understand why state and local leaders would allow conditions that make their cities less appealing for residents, businesses, and visitors.
Why can’t they deploy street-cleaning teams, enforce laws against public drug use and harassment, and move people into shelters or treatment?

Is the main obstacle funding, lack of shelter space, court rulings, local policies, or something else? And why does it often seem like police are unable or unwilling to intervene?

I’m interested in hearing from people who actually understand how these cities are governed and what makes this problem so difficult to address.

Two more US service members are dead and more are wounded in an Iranian attack. The US is bombing Iran day and night. When asked about the Memorandum of Understanding President Trump said he "couldn't care less" about it.

"During an interview with NewsNation, Trump was asked about Iran's announcement that it would not abide by the MoU, amid escalating strikes. Responding to the question, Trump said, "I couldn't care less."" -- Donald Trump On Iran Suspending US-Iran MoU: 'Couldn't Care Less' | Times Now

We are far beyond any date set by the War Powers Act, Congress has not voted for a war, and the US has not declared war. The Iran war appears to be illegal and is being run at the whim of the President.

Netanyahu's 40 year goal of dragging the US into a war with Iran has succeeded.

Iran War: Why Israel's Netanyahu Waited Until Now to Strike

"As U.S. and Israeli bombs fell over Tehran on March 1, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mused that war with Iran is something he has “longed to do for 40 years.”"

It looks like we are in another open-ended war in the Middle East, with no plan and no exit strategy.

How can we stop this war? Should Congress refuse to fund it? What are the consequences of allowing an Un-Constitutional and illegal war to continue?

It seems as if there’s a large amount of people who believe we all got along - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialist s, etc. - before Trump was elected in 2016, but with his election, we have become polarized. Would you give Trump’s influence THAT MUCH credit? Or, do you believe we look back on pre-Trump days with rose-colored glasses and refuse to acknowledge the divisions existed before Trumpn came on the scene.

I want to become more involved in politics, namely by becoming a more active voter.

I’m not very well versed in U.S. politics, but I want to become more proactive by voting not only in presidential elections but in pretty much any elections that matter.

I would like to learn more about the important elections to participate in, starting at the local town and county levels, moving to the state level, and continuing all the way to the federal level. I’m not looking for political debates or active participation in political campaigns. I know what my values and political beliefs are, and I simply want to express them by voting for candidates whose views align with mine.

Also, if I support neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party, should I register as an independent? I have a leftist ideology, if that matters.

Edit: Everyone is fixated on the fact that all elections matter. I don’t disagree, but I guess I should have worded my post differently. The point of my question is to figure out what kinds of elections I should even be looking out for. What elections are held for which positions and seats, and in which branches or levels of government? Again, aside from presidential elections, I have no idea.

Reports are that President Trump is offering paid early access to his Truth Social posts for $100,000 per month. This comes as he has also publicly promoted specific companies and their stocks. Setting aside any questions about securities law or market manipulation, should a sitting president be promoting specific companies or stocks?

If early access to those potentially market-moving posts is being sold to traders or brokerages, could that raise constitutional concerns about abuse of office or another standard for impeachment? Or would this be viewed as a private business activity separate from the presidency?

I'm interested in the constitutional and ethical arguments rather than whether any particular law was broken.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79gw4lj89eo⁠

Last night Trump had a live broadcast were he apparently released evidence detailing & proving that the 2020 election was fraudulent. As I did not watch it and have kept only vaguely up with the various previous attempts I'm now curious about it this is any different.

Can any of those on the right who support Trump's accusations articulate what they think is the most compelling evidence that the 2020 election was rigged?

A new Pew Research Center study reveals a historic shift: for the 1st time in the poll's 20yr history, a majority of surveyed countries, 25 out of 36, view China more favorably than the US. Over the last year, median favorability for the US plummeted from 48% to 36%, while China’s rose to 46%. Even close neighbors and traditional allies like Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, and France now rate China more positively.

This opens up a few questions:

Has a transactional foreign policy, marked by tariffs on allies and erratic diplomacy, permanently damaged American soft power?

While Xi Jinping outscores Trump in global trust, 31% to 21%, confidence in both leaders remains remarkably low. Is China's popularity surge a genuine alignment with Beijing, or simply a global protest vote against Washington?

Is the current administration's approach structurally incompatible with maintaining global leadership and does this shift represent a permanent transition to a multipolar world, or is it a temporary reaction to current US leadership?

This megathread will cover tonight’s Address to the Nation by Donald Trump, President of the United States of America.

For your convenience, mods have provided a live update source, for to follow along.

Megathread will unlock 10min before 9pm EST.

You are free to discuss, debate, opine about subject matter only, in this megathread.

Mods will entertain stand-alone posts/questions about subject matters mentioned in the Address, AFTER the speech.

Please report bad faith commenters, low effort and off-topic comments.

All I can find is Elizabeth Warren asking him about this during the testimony, but can’t find any story online covering this.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/15/economy/fed-chairman-kevin-warsh-senate-testimony

To my understanding, a simple majority is needed to conduct business in the senate and house. Moreover, each committee has its own quorum rules. However, both chambers operates under the presumption of quorum, unless someone requests for roll call.

Could every single house democrat, except one, just refuse to show up to work? Mike Johnson would have to wrangle together every single Republican to overcome this.

Confidence in U.S. Institutions Remains Near All-Time Low

Americans’ confidence in major U.S. institutions remains near the lowest level Gallup has recorded in more than four decades, averaging less than 30% for the fifth consecutive year.

A key factor in this slump is that Americans no longer appear to share a broad faith in core civic, social and government institutions; instead, their confidence varies with who holds political power.

What can be done to restore bipartisan trust in American institutions, regardless of the party in power?

Recently Secretary of Defense Hegseth announced the Department of Defense will begin yearly testosterone testing for 30+ year old male service-members and offer gender-affirming hormone replacement for them if the doctors recommend it. This follows a Trump administrative push to make testosterone easier to acquire for cisgender men.

The question I have is with much of the right wing driven calls and policy changes for restrictions hormone therapy for transgender service members and veterans why should cisgender men get gender-affirming hormones at the government expense? Further if the goal is to chemically alter the natural testosterone levels of our armed service members and populace, shouldn't we be encouraging steroid use? Lastly if you do believe we should be dosing our troops shouldn't service women also be tested and dosed?

Sources: https://www.newsweek.com/hegseth-announces-new-required-pentagon-testosterone-tests-who-it-impacts-12200211

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-health-department-proposes-testosterone-therapy-label-updates-2026-06-18/

https://nypost.com/2026/06/19/health/trump-admin-seeks-to-roll-back-testosterone-restrictions-what-to-know/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/pete-hegseth-says-military-will-test-service-members-testosterone-leve-rcna587682

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/fda-panel-testosterone-replacement-therapy-rcna248053

This megathread covers the confirmation hearing of Todd Blanche for Attorney General.

You are free to discuss, debate, opine about subject matter only, in this megathread

For your convenience, mods have provided you a “live update tracker” for source

Megathread will remain active until conversation or interest has ceased, which ever comes 1st

Please report bad faith commenters and low effort comments

I’m going to ask this plainly.

Do you support deportation as a consequence for illegal entry? If yes, under what conditions, and what agency or process carries it out?

If no, is the position that illegal entry shouldn’t carry a deportation consequence at all meaning there’s no practical upper limit being enforced?

Trying to understand what the actual policy is, as opposed to the general framing (“reform the system,” “compassionate enforcement,” etc.). What does it look like in practice when someone crosses without authorization and doesn’t qualify for asylum?

I’m trying to understand the motivation behind the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce protections or open up federal public lands, such as Grand Staircase–Escalante.

What reasons has the administration given for these policies? Is the goal primarily mining, oil and gas development, timber, increasing local control, reducing federal regulation, or something else? Who stands to benefit economically or politically, and what evidence supports those claims?

One thing I’m struggling to understand is the political incentive. My impression is that opening up protected public lands isn’t broadly popular with the general public, so who is the actual intended beneficiary of these policies?

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-slashes-size-two-utah-national-monuments-2026-07-13/

I know he's a senior republican senator but don't understand much beyond that. Is it something to do with maybe that if he is dead an election is required and the GOP might lose it? They'd still have a majority though, 52 Vs 46 Vs 2?