The inauguration of the Donald is upon us. What do you think will be the most insane story of his presidency?

I recognize that this is a broad question but I couldn't think of a way to phrase my full question concisely. I'm hoping to avoid any answers that are similar to "liberals answering questions."

The context for this is that people will often treat this subreddit as if it's a campaigning arm of the Democratic Party and as though discussions here should be framed in the way you'd hope the Democratic Party frames it. I'll use an example.

It's objectively true that the United States had the best economic recovery of any G7 country after the pandemic, that real wages are at or higher than 2019 levels, that unemployment is historically low, and that inflation was well-managed compared to the rest of the world. Any truthful examination of the economy will tell you that America did great under the Biden administration. But how should those facts be discussed in this subreddit? If you simply state those things, many of the users of this subreddit will accuse you of not being sympathetic enough to people who perceive the economy as being worse than it is.

That would certainly be a salient criticism of somebody running for office, because a large part of their job is to listen to people and try to validate them, not to say that their feelings are wrong. Think about the way so many politicians were validating people freaking out over the drones on the east coast, which really weren't a big deal. That's probably still good behavior from a politician, because they want to appear to have their constituents concerns in mind, even if their concerns are wrong.

It'd probably be a meaningful criticism of a Democratic-leaning pundit, who would be more likely to turn people away from the Democratic Party if they didn't at least temper their acknowledgement of the facts with some validation of people's feelings. If a pundit went out and said "people are all just wrong about this and not using their heads," that would start to cause problems for the party they align with.

But is that a meaningful criticism of random users of this subreddit? I think that comes down to what you think the purpose of the subreddit is, which is where I'll circle back to my question. Do you think the purpose of this subreddit is to have honest discussions about the world we live in, regardless of the optics seeming to be harsh or invalidating the opinions of some people who feel like they're worse off? Do you think this subreddit is for us to act as mouthpieces for the Democratic Party and try to act as politicians would, validating concerns that are kind of meritless so that we can seem more in tune with the population? Do you think there's some kind of balance that needs to be struck, and where would you estimate that balance to be? Do you have any other thoughts about this topic?

I'm curious to see what other people think about this (the meta conversation about the subreddit, not the state of the economy), where they stand, if anyone has any other examples, or anything else.

I'm generally liberal/progressive-leaning while my family is quite conservative.

My mom insists that her conservatism is based on facts, history, and education. I can't get a lot of detail from these discussions (without being told "do your own research") but I'm assuming it amounts to things like "The founding fathers/early settlers believed XYZ, therefore that's what this country is and what a True American should stand for" or "This is in the Constitution, therefore it's an integral part of our country that can never be challenged or changed."

By contrast, she insists that liberalism is based on absolutely nothing, certainly not any kinds of facts. It's just rampant emotion at best. This often tends to slide into claims that I must "really" be a conservative because I don't live a "liberal lifestyle". Really, our opinions of each others' politics is heavily colored by stereotypes and that's how this conversation started.

And if I'm 100% honest with myself, I haven't read anything political, ever. I'm a terribly uneducated voter basing my beliefs on what "feels right". So even I need an answer to this to hash out my own stances.

What is the modern "liberalism" based on? Historically, scientifically, sociologically?

(And yes I know those are all different things and the modern Dem party is more center-right approximately because they're ok with capitalism)

I could be wrong on so many levels, but i was watching a bunch of the Sunday politic shows (at least that’s what i call it, Face the nation on CBS, this week on ABC, State of the Union on CNN), all these programs today to me gave me the impression that trump has the respect of a lot of democrats and it doesn’t make sense to me why?

Did they forget what he did 4 years ago? Do they not realize who he is? How had he is? Yet dems like Suozzi, Fetterman, and so many more have said they plan to work hard with trump which disgusts me. I’m sorry but i’d much rather watch the country crumble then help him, and quite frankly i can’t wait to vote out any and all democrats who work with him these next 2 years.

Furthermore, i still cannot stomach the fact democrats did not show up to prevent him from taking office, and those who did show up but voted for trump should not be allowed to vote anymore.

Democrats should vote no on every and all bills created for the next 4 years and should not under any circumstances be nice to trump or help him succeed, let the country get what they deserve.

Maybe I should ask this in “Askconservatives” but I think if I do, I’m going to get uncritical people explaining why they’re right all the time. Is there someone who can critique conservatives?

Any medium is okay. I’m not judging. Books, Youtube-videos, etc. I don’t think one is better than the other.

Listened to Zuckerberg on JRE and was surprised that he said that the Biden administration would call and scream at him about censorship or misinformation about vaccines. I really can’t see this being true and I’m worried I’m blinded by my own political beliefs. I feel that this narrative was cooked up with his meeting with Trump since the Hunter Biden laptop was under Trump’s admin. Can anybody provide a more elaborate explanation of what happened and did liberals go too far?

Context: German Elections

We have the three parties that formed the old government (SPD [Social democrats], Greens [Well... greens duh haha] and FDP[Market Liberals]) under Scholz and there is a tendency that the old parties seek to shift blame away from themselves and solely upon their old allies. Nothing is my fault but my two partners.. they are the worst! - This kind of rethoric is used frequently by higher party functionaries of these three parties

I for one do not trust these parties.

With Elon Musk making recent ideas of funding Reform party, getting cozy with Italy prime minister (brothers of Italy) and hosting a podcast with AFD leader, do you think it’s time to heavily regulate these apps or even worse ban them like TikTok (in Europe of course).

Categorically, aid could mean:

1. Money and other resources sufficient to support the defense of Ukraine’s borders per 2014 (after Russia annexed Donbas and Crimea)
2. Money and other resources sufficient to retake Donbas and Crimea that were previously annexed by Russia
3. Money and other resources sufficient to attack Russia directly to destroy enough infrastructure to dissuade Russia from continuing the war
4. Money and other resources as requested by Ukraine without trying to differentiate between 1,2,3 above

Because the 4 categories above are actually somewhat different in terms of money / resources required, time required and feasibility.

I feel like it’s not always clear the extent of aid when Liberals say we should “aid” Ukraine - so I’m asking here.

Edit - and if you don’t mind, can you also describe if there should be any limits to the duration such aid should be provided. Like “not more than 5 years” or like “indefinitely” - if you think there should be such.

Also feel free to provide more clarification if your perspective doesn’t neatly fit into the categories I’ve listed above. There are of course infinitely granular permutations.

Thanks for the responses.

Edit - in summary:

It sounds like most here are saying (per #3) that the U.S. should provide money and resources indefinitely for Ukraine to attack Russia directly to destroy enough infrastructure to dissuade Russia from continuing the war. Or even going further and saying(per #4) that the U.S. should provide Ukraine with whatever Ukraine asks for indefinitely regardless of the details.

It's always something that has puzzled me as a Belgian/European conservative.

It represents a system where each state receives two directly elected senators, which is quite understandable due to the history the US has had with states' rights.

However, it seems illogical to me that liberals aren't arguing to reduce the power of the senate, as it implies an inequality in the relative weight of your vote. As most democrats (broad sense of the word) in general, go by "one vote, one person", it seems odd to me that this doesn't have any consequences for the Senate.

It takes it even further when either chamber should be, in theory, the higher one and more stable than the directly elected lower one. (e.g. House of Lords in Great-Britain)

But, due to how the American system works, this distinction becomes redundant and you've effectively remove any advantage that the Senate could have.

Would you support a unicameral government, similar to Sweden and Denmark? And, as a subquestion, should a term that a representative may serve in the House not be longer?

Trying to resolve real life, political issues in 4 years is already quite a challenge, yet the US only allows a 2 year term for Representatives. That seems quite short and an almost guarantee for instability and chaos, as this short period allows parties to be (1) incooperative and (2) in a near eternal campaign.

DeSantis just nominated Scott Yanor to serve on the board at UWF.

"Speaking at the National Conservatism Conference in 2021, Yenor detailed what he sees as the “evils” of feminism, labeled “independent women” as “medicated, meddlesome and quarrelsome” and decried colleges and universities as “the citadels of our gynecocracy” — a form of government run by women."

“Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers. Ditto for med school and the law and every trade,” Yenor said.

“If every Nobel Prize winner is a man, that’s not a failure. It’s kind of a cause for celebration,” he added.

Yanor is part of the Heritage Foundation.

Curious for how his decisions change your view of his presidency and where he stacks up historically.

Obviously we don’t know how things would’ve played out had he not run, so I’ll leave it to you to personally decide what you think it would’ve meant for the 2024 election.

As the title says.

From my own personal experience and from what I have seen living in a swing state now, the biggest factors that drive moderate swing voters to not be full democrat is pretty much the progressive wing of the democrats.

Many of things used by republicans to smear all democrats come from the hard leftist/progressive wings and come off as distasteful or aggressively hostile to the moderate. For instance, giving kids puberty blockers and hormone therapy. I say this as a transfem myself, hormone and surgical trans care for minors is still VERY unpopular generally speaking and even the very liberal UK banned hormone blockers for children until further research is conducted. And many of the people who “left the left” in the past decade have done so because of hostile and negative interactions with progressives primarily. And even Obama’s circular firing squad was mostly an admonishment of progressives for their propensity toward ideological purity testing.

With all this, I have to wonder if the Progressive wing and the Moderate liberal democrat wing can still maintain a party cohesion in the long run.

Above.

I consider myself liberal. In the last 3 US elections, I supported Clinton, Biden, and Kamala. I am skeptical of traditional values and open to alternative lifestyles. I don't feel any attachment to my race (a minority) or gender roles, and I don't believe that there is correct life trajectory (education, marriage, kids, house). But I also think alternate lifestyles can coexist with traditional lifestyles.

I feel it is increasingly difficult to associate the American left with liberalism. They have taken up causes against free speech, wanting to ban conservative accounts on social media, spreading the usage of political correctness. As a non-white, my company's DEI training was deeply uncomfortable, as it advocated for conscious reminder that non-whites were being unconsciously oppressed by systems of injustice. I don't believe in that; I believe in meritocracy, that people should be treated equal, but each individual has unique strengths and weakenesses.

I oppose strict adherence to conservative/reactionary tradition. But also leftist adherence to ideological purity. I have heard over-and-over that you cannot be a liberal supporter of human rights if you also support X, e.g. You cannot be liberal and capitalist because capitalism is the exploitation of human workers. Or that meritocracy is inherently racist an sexist by propagating existing inequalities that is already pro-white and pro-male. Or that being liberal means being pro-Islam.

I have been on twitter to check out news about the LA fires, and what people there say makes me cry. When this video was posted to twitter, they called the victim racial slurs and said he deserved it for helping the homeless. When pictures of innocent civilians fleeing the fire were posted, people were mocking them. The most despicable thing I read was someone saying they should r@pe the displaced victims because they deserved it for being "woke", whatever the fuck that means.

My parents left a backwards and conservative India in search of freedom and liberty in the US, now my mom laughs at the fire victims for being from California. Instead of fighting against the fascism we fled from we are trying to spread it to other places. I just don't understand how someone can say such hateful stuff about their fellow countrymen. I don't feel safe living in a country filled with people like this, especially as a brown person. I wanted to study abroad thinking that the US would not vote for fascism, but it has, and I don't know how to cope with the violence that is about to come.

Was it a gradual change? An event? An epiphany? I really want to know especially as someone who has shifted from being more center-left to center-right.

I have personally seen the Federal Poverty Guideline as grossly out of touch with reality, and in need of a serious update. So, I've set out to create my own Poverty Guidelines:

1 Person - $24,646 Post-Tax; $35,462 Pre-Tax

2 People - $28,927 Post-Tax; $41,622 Pre-Tax

3 People - $34,018 Post Tax; $48,947 Pre-Tax

4 People - $42,189 Post-Tax; $60,704

5 People - $53,403 Post Tax; $76,839 Pre-Tax

6 People - $62,497 Post Tax; $89,924 Pre-Tax

7 People - $66,060 Post Tax; $95,050 Pre-Tax

8 People - $70,641 Post Tax; $101,642 Pre-Tax

9 People - $85,052 Post Tax; $122,377 Pre-Tax

10 People - $89,633 Post-Tax; $128,968 Pre-Tax

Note 1: All Pre-Tax values are assuming the average tax wedge for a single income earner.

Note 2: These are guidelines set via national averages, and may not reflect the local cost of living that may result in a higher or lower poverty threshold.

Components of Guideline:

Shelter - Utilizes 40th percentile Fair Market Rents as surveyed by the DHUD. For HH sizes 1-3, 40th %ile FMR for Studio apartment is used; 2 Bed has max capacity of 5 in this model; 3 Bed has max capacity of 8 in this model; 4 Bed has max capacity of 10 in this model.

Food - Averaged Low-Cost Monthly Food Budget for 19-50 y/o from USDA is used, also utilizing the recommended household size adjustments.

Internet - Assumption is made that the first 2 members will have a monthly bill of $75/mo, and +$25 for every additional member. Value will be adjusted for inflation or based on the actual data on monthly rates for certain plans, whichever data is available at that moment.

Transportation - Department of Transportation data on spending on transportation is utilized. Value is divided by average vehicle count per household, and adjusted on a “full utilization basis”, aka, assuming a 4 person vehicle is being fully utilized. For every additional vehicle, the transportation cost increases by calculated per vehicle cost of transportation.

Clothing & Personal Cleansing - Utilizes the BLS’s Household Consumption Expenditures for Clothing/Apparel, and Personal Hygiene, and divides it by average household size. For each additional member, the per person expenditure is added.

Healthcare is not included due to it not being a daily consumable service or product for the majority of households. (No, this does not mean I think that people who consume healthcare everyday should go fuck themselves. No, this does not mean I don’t think everybody needs access to affordable healthcare. Yes, I have genuinely had people accuse me of this because I didn’t include healthcare in this guideline.). I am going to post a chart including healthcare costs anyways, in order to satisfy that demand:

1 Person - $27,173 Post-Tax; $39,098 Pre-Tax

2 People - $33,982 Post-Tax; $48,894 Pre-Tax

3 People - $41,600 Post Tax; $59,856 Pre-Tax

4 People - $52,299 Post-Tax; $75,250 Pre-Tax

5 People - $66,040 Post Tax; $95,022 Pre-Tax

6 People - $77,661 Post Tax; $111,743 Pre-Tax

7 People - $83,752 Post Tax; $120,506 Pre-Tax

8 People - $90,860 Post Tax; $130,734 Pre-Tax

9 People - $107,799 Post Tax; $155,106 Pre-Tax

10 People - $114,907 Post-Tax; $165,334 Pre-Tax

Healthcare is added on a per person basis, based on the BLS’s Household Consumption Expenditures for healthcare, divided by average household size.

What do you think of this? Do you have your own guideline to share? Would you change anything here?

For the record, I think it should be!

1. Slavery is bad.

2. Days off are good.

Just curious about why you think it should be. Yes, it is a federal holiday. No, it is not recognized by all states. In my state, for example, state employees get a "personal observance day" that they can use throughout the year instead of specifically having Juneteenth off.

Say someone is actively psychotic or manic and refusing to accept care and needs involuntary admission to a hospital. Would the plan be to then call the police or will the mental health specialists also be trained for use of force when de-escalation fails? Also during these mental health crisis calls, will ambulances also be automatically dispatched to the situation in case the patient needs transport to the hospital or will the response team need to call them?

I see a lot of Democrats/liberals saying that the party needs to move more to the center in order to win.

But when they say this, it seems to only apply to certain things. They seem okay with moving to the center on things like healthcare and taxes and other economic policies. But if you suggest being doing so on social issues, or immigration, or other things like that, that seems to be a no go because it will impact certain minority groups too much.

So how do you decide what we are “allowed” to become more moderate on?

To me, the clear answer is the opposite - people like progressive economics, and dislike what they see as far left, woo woo social policies that don’t help them (DEI, illegal immigration, trans surgeries in prisons, etc). I think those people are wrong, but if we need their votes to win, why wouldn’t we do the things that appeal to them instead of doing the exact opposite?

As the title says. What are your thoughts on free speech?

I thinking about this in another thread and wondered where the pulse is now a days on it. I remember growing up it was the liberals who ran on a platform of “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it” and great organizations like the ACLU who actively took up defense of even the most repugnant groups to defend their free speech.

But now a days I am seeing more calls for limitations on speech for things not overtly criminal (I.e. CSEM, calls to direct violence, etc) but instead on more… “moral issues” I suppose would be the best way to call them (hate speech, disinformation, etc), from the left and the RIGHT now claiming to champion free speech.

An example of this was actually on The View recently when Whoopi and Sunny were arguing for hate speech censorship from Facebook and that one conservative (brain farting her name) was giving the argument WE used to give (dislike the speech, defend your right to say it though).

So what do you guys think? Are you for free speech absolutism or as some say “the principle of free speech” or do you believe that there should be limits on it for the betterment of society?

I was seeing a ABC7 interview with the LAFD fire chief and it seemed like she was very much trying to pin the blame on the mayor by blaming the budget cuts, claiming they were not informed when a reservoir was empty, and other such things. During such a massive disaster like this, what do you guys think of this? Did this come off as petty or slimey or do you think the mayor really is to blame? And was this really the best time to attack the mayor like this?

I had a debate the other day in a thread i made, where i said that in Sweden we do not allow, or look down on people asking for religious adaptations in school. Like gender separated classes, religious exceptions for food or even the city itself having separate swimming times for men and women

I was quite baffled reading some comments about this, since I always felt compared to Republicans Democrats/Liberals were the open treat everyone same party. Also some commenters did not think separation of state and church with no religious elements in school wasn't a thing to care about, like not shaking hand with women/opposite gender which to me is the definition of sexism and discrimination.

Is this a common thing to think really, or is it just some commenters here saying that? From what I've seen, i did not hear any politician, from either party in USA, complain about those things so either it is not existing or they do not think it's important

here are 3 links describing the problem and reactions translated

https://sverigesradio-se.translate.goog/artikel/nya-skolmaten-uppror-elever-fruktansvart?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www-aftonbladet-se.translate.goog/nyheter/a/zGvK2v/muslimsk-skola-har-haft-konsseparerad-undervisning-i-22-ar?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www-svt-se.translate.goog/nyheter/inrikes/skilda-badtider-vacker-debatt?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

I'm just curious as to what things are held in high regard when it comes to making an ideal 'liberal' society

Three issues I have with the college financial aid system in the US:

1. It assumes that parents will provide tons of assistance to their kids for college expenses, even if they don’t. Short of getting married in your teens (which the government bizarrely encourages) there’s very little recourse if your parents decide not to.

2. It contributes to a cycle of dependency where it’s assumed parents will be providing tons of support to their kids into their 20s.

3. It doesn’t even make sense. I was fortunate to have assistance paying for college from someone who wasn’t my parents. That other relative existing wasn’t counted against me at all for purposes of determining the amount of aid I was given by the government.

Any thoughts on how to untangle this mess?

Edit: An example of what I'm talking about. This isn't about bad actors in foreign nation states, or media outlets that spin the news to make their side/owner look better. This is about culture war issues being specifically manufactured/amplified to, as the post I linked to states, keep us docile and angry at each other, within our own borders (US).

This seems to be a conspiracy that both the left and right buy into (at least in the US anyway), even if the two sides don't agree on who 'they' are. If you happen to be a believer, then I have some questions.

First of all, who exactly are these people, specifically ones in the US? Do they have secret meetings where they discuss culture war talking points they can use to keep fucking over the poor and middle class, while they twirl their mustaches and laugh maniacally? Is all of mainstream media involved? And if so, does everybody who works for those outlets know what's going on?

Also, what happens when people who have drank the kool-aid for years start getting elected into public office by other people who have drank the kool-aid? I can't imagine that every right wing politician from congress to small town mayor is in on the con, so where is the dividing line between the super villains and useful idiots, and how do the former decide who gets to join the club? Do they send out a secret memo to specific individuals who have demonstrated a sufficient amount of psychopathy? Is there some sort of initiation process?

Last but not least, how does this gel with some progressives insisting that everything right wingers pretend to care about is just a dog whistle for white supremacy? (I have a lot of questions in that regard too, but that's a different topic for a different day.)

In 9 days the fascists will have complete control of the government. Trump will replace any dissenter with yes men. Purge military leadership of anyone not willing to kneel to him. Tarrifs will drive us into a Great Depression, invading Greenland and Panama will trigger a 3rd World War, the erosion of civil rights. I’m a trans woman so I wouldn’t be surprised if I end up in a camp at some point. Everything just feels so hopeless. Fascism has won and I honestly don’t think I will survive what is coming.

Title

I've been noticing from both sides of the political spectrum people acting like the California wildfires don't matter for political reasons. Honestly it makes me sick to my stomach that people could have such little empathy for such a horrific tragedy. Some of the posts are mocking the libtards in commiefornia who have to deal with this. I've literally seen multiple posts by people claiming that they prayed to God for this to happen, and their prayers have been answered. Meanwhile on the other side, I see all these people acting like the fires didn't matter, because they mostly impacted rich people. I saw one mocking the victims of the fire for having to move to their second home in Aspen. Even if they were rich, money can't buy sentimental things lost in the fire like pictures, family heirlooms, even pets.

I'm curious what other people think of this?