Aolish
Posts: 229 +56
The following link shows Frances Gill struggling to defend the group's calls to abolish prisons and defunding the police and even tries to sidestep the issue multiple times when asked questions on this topic.
I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on this also, just like how the right has a "radical right" the left also has a "radical left" and the DSA is it.
Google's Gemini: "Yes, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is widely considered part of the radical left (or far-left) in U.S. politics, though its relationship with the broader Democratic Party is complex and a major source of internal."
The DSA is an independent, member-driven political organization, not an official wing or committee of the Democratic Party. It has over 120,000 members.
The DSA advocates for structural and anti-capitalist changes, including proposals to replace or abolish major U.S. institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College, dismantle ICE, expand public ownership of corporations, and enact sweeping economic policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.
Electoral Strategy: Rather than running as a standalone third party for every race, DSA members and endorsed candidates frequently run and win primaries inside the Democratic Party. High-profile figures include New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib
Critics and Republicans: Republicans, conservative commentators, and moderate or "establishment" Democrats often point to the DSA's far-left platform—such as foreign policy stances critical of Israel or proposals to restructure government—as extreme, toxic, or out of touch with the mainstream electorate.
Center-left and moderate Democrats frequently distance themselves from DSA policies, warning that association with the group hurts the party's broader electoral appeal.
Progressives and Supporters: The insurgent left and progressive wings view many DSA-backed short-term goals—like universal healthcare, affordable housing, and labor protections—as necessary social-democratic reforms, even if debates continue over the group's more radical long-term aims.
Wait a second, the DSAs verbatim position says, word by word: "The Abolishment of Private Property" and your interrupting that as the DSA not supporting the abolishment of private property. I'm not sure which one to believe, the Abolishment of Private Property or not abolishing private property. If the reasons are that simple than why word it in a way that is verbatim to the topic at hand? I'm just curious.
This really can go both ways, during Joe Biden's presidency (January 2021–January 2025), the Pentagon failed to obtain a clean department-wide audit in all four fiscal years: 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. But in any case, this is still no excuse in defunding ourselves if war were to ever happen. No nation can defend itself without proper funds and right now Russia and China might have their eyes set upon us. In addition, every single war in history has had civilian casualties since the beginning of time. Why is the US the only country you condemn when it comes to civilian casualties? What about what happened on October 7th, 2023? You talk about innocent people from being killed. Do you condemn Hamas coming into Israel with Go-Pro cameras on October 7th and viciously murdering, burning, cutting heads off of infants and civilians and putting them on the internet for all to see? How about their charter that states that the Jews have to be wiped out? Isn't that considered a genocide statement? Obviously none of us advocate for civilians from being killed, but when two nations decides to bump heads against each other and decides to throw bombs then you can know for sure civilians will unfortunately be in the crossfire. Lets not also forget when Harry Truman dropped the atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki it literally incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians and children.
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this. There is documented pattern of governments that identify as socialist restricting religious freedom, particularly when religious institutions are seen as political rivals or sources of opposition. Cuba and Venezuela are useful examples to examine, although their records differ. Socialism and communism are closely related concepts in Marxist political theory, except one is a more SEVERE form than the other. And in almost every single Communist country religion is at the forefront, restricted. Look at North Korea, one of the DEADIEST countries that a Christian can be in, North Korea consistently ranks as the single most dangerous and oppressive country in the world for Christians. When Russia turned Communist, 49,000 churches were closed down and today only 500 remain etc. So there is evidence that Socialism/Communism restricts freedom to worship.
