I just recently heard of this organization: https://braverangels.org and it sounds pretty good/ very much in the same spirit of this sub, with organized lice events:

"Braver Angels is leading the nation’s largest cross-partisan, volunteer-led movement to bridge the partisan divide for the good of our democratic republic. Coming out of the election, we’re bringing together “We the People” to find a hopeful alternative to toxic politics. The American Hope campaign is equipping Americans across the political spectrum to work together and demand the same of politicians from both parties."

So, I'm curious if anyone here has been involved or had any personal exexperience with the organization yet.

I would like to preface this post by reiterating a few things. We enforce the rules equally across all political stances and parties, and just because a decision affects one party more than another doesn't mean we are biased against that party.

That being said, it was decided about two days ago, that due to the mass rule breaking of rule seven, that the mod teams response to these rule breakers would be more severe, specifically in threads where it has become the overwhelming majority of comments made that are breaking it.

Anyone who is responding for a political party they are not a part of when the flair, or post, is asking for answers specifically from a specific demographic will be temp banned for 7 days.

The amount of rule breakers in regards to this one rule has surpassed nearly every other rule breaking offense in the time the mod team has been active. Furthermore, coming into the mod Mail to insult the mods will result in a longer ban, not because it bothers us, but because it shows a distinct lack of care for civility or the rules.

Thank you for your time everyone.

With Biden getting 81 million votes, and Kamala only get 74 million, a lot of right wingers use this as proof of voter fraud, to people who don’t believe it was voter fraud, whether left or right, what do you think was the reason for the gap in votes between Biden and Harris? (Idk if the question sounds leading or sarcastic but I promise I’m not trying to be)

This site was full of threads upvoted with tens of thousands of votes saying that the joke was an october surprise for Trump. The mainstream media was also pushing this hard. Even on election night, ABC was musing about how the joke would impact the puerto rican counties in PA

Anyone who said the joke was a nothingburger was downvoted

Trump ended up doing 30 pts better with Florida puerto ricans compared to 2020 and outright won puerto rican county in PA (unlike 2020)

Why were so many adamant that this joke would be what sinks Trump?

From Dick Cheney, to AOC, when was the last time a candidate had such a wide tent?

Why should our spaces not be protected from bad faith actors that have and will take advantage of these laws to further their own perversions? Under current laws, all someone has to do is state they are a woman, and they don’t even have to be presenting as a woman. This gives them unquestioned access to not only our bathrooms but also our changing rooms, locker rooms, public showers, and every other space where women are in various states of undress. There are documented cases of people taking advantage of these privileges and they aren’t being welcomed with open arms into our spaces right now. That’s what this debate is about.

Why should I, as a biological woman, lose my right to consent to seeing a penis? Why should I lose my right to consent to a biological male seeing my nude body? Trans identifying people are a tiny fraction of the population, so why is the need to affirm 0.6% of the population more important than 50% of the populations right to consent? Because that’s the reality of what is being asked of us. In plain and simple words, you’re asking for women to give up our right to safety and our right to consent.

This argument is not about the right of trans identifying people to exist but about the right of biological women to exist with access to private and safe spaces. If the language used here makes people uncomfortable, consider how uncomfortable it is for women to encounter penises in what were once penis-free spaces. This language is chosen intentionally to convey the gravity of the issue. Speaking in politically correct terms only downplays the very real and valid concerns women have about this extremely uncomfortable situation.

Why should 50% of the population open themselves up to unnecessary risk and trauma and lose their rights to consent to accommodate and affirm 0.6% of the population?

My Dixon Ticonderogas are made in China. Odds are that most school supplies and other necessities like cleaning products and toilet paper are too. Subsidized meals are likely to be impacted too.

The Democratic Party often presents itself as the party of inclusivity, advocating for marginalized groups and championing diversity. However, critics argue that this inclusivity sometimes feels conditional. When people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, or others within these groups express views that don’t align with the party’s ideology, they can face dismissal or even outright ostracization. This raises questions about whether the party genuinely values diverse perspectives or only supports voices that echo its own narrative.

Another criticism is the tendency of left-leaning rhetoric to advocate for one group by blaming or vilifying another, often pointing fingers at specific demographics, like white people or men. While this might be framed as addressing systemic issues, it can come across as divisive, creating a sense of collective guilt instead of fostering understanding and unity. In trying to uplift some, this approach risks alienating others, including members of the very communities it claims to support.

Ultimately, this dynamic can stifle open dialogue and deepen societal divides, making it harder to achieve the equity and collaboration the party says it stands for. By focusing on blame rather than solutions, the inclusivity they promote can sometimes feel more like a facade than a true embrace of all voices.

First things first, I wanted to thank every moderate and conservative voice that came to share their story. I've been reading them all and can relate to most. If there's one thing I've taken away from this post it's that sensible liberals are drowned out by The radical leftists And they themselves should be ostracized from their party if we're ever going to find some agreements. I double-checked for Nazis and fascists from the alt right but I have yet to find a single post. Crazy..

message to leftists You do not ever get to decide what makes somebody a bad person. You are not the arbiter of morality. You don't get to tell somebody if they're racist or if they're homophobic, etc. Your opinion, just like the rest is an opinion and carries the same weight as they all do. Thanks everybody.

i see this term used all the time by conservatives but i have yet to see a specific definition.

follow up question, why are conservatives focused on "woke" issues? if you look at a map detailing things like lack of education, poverty, shorter expected life spans, etc, red states are the ones that are the poorest, shortest life spans, uneducated and on and on. why not focus on those issues to raise those states to the levels that you find in states like California, New York and Minnesota?

As a Conservative who began this war being Pro-Ukraine funding and is now a "Get to the negotiation table to avoid more deaths" person , this has bugged me.

Russia has a bigger economy and population than Ukraine. In a long drawn out fight, the bigger army usually wins.

However a smaller sized army has a chance if they have a technoligical and logistical advantage.

Giving Ukraine our old stuff levelled the playing field logistically and technologically ( Russia is also using old Soviet era stuff and old N.Korea shells too) but demographically Ukraine has fewer people and hence fewer men eligible to fight than Russia so that disadvantage remained.

If giving them actual troops to make up the numbers deficit to Russia isn't possible( without mass volunteers), then the only way to give them a legitimate winning chance to hold their borders is to give them a technological upper hand?

Of course this is all assuming the aim for us was to ACTUALLY help Ukraine maintain their sovereignty and not use them as a geopolitical chess piece for our industrial complex to dump their old stuff for money to spend on making new stuff ( Cost of Ukrainian lives be damned)?

He's let them off the leash now but it's too late. They have lost a couple of hundred thousand men to desertions alone( likely caused by low morale) not to mention that even more have died.

The path to winning for Ukraine ( getting back Donbas ,Crimea and the rest of their occupied lands) seems almost impossible without getting outside troops.( You still need more troops to annex land back).

There's even been pressure from Washington to lower the draft age in Ukraine to make up for the soldier deficiency( it's been rejected by Zelensky insisting he wants better weapons).

Why did Biden wait till now to do what he should have done at the start, when there was still likely bipartisan support for giving Ukraine all they needed ?

This should happen at some point.

Seems to me to be the best compromise position.

I mean this might be very sheltered of me, but illegal immigrants.. aren't really supposed to be here. If someone comes here legally I have no qualm with them but illegals literally just walked into the country and decided to take advantage of government programs. So, why is it so bad he's banning it?

It seems like nobody has any actual interest in it. If you're even slightly right of center, you're constantly dogpiled into oblivion with personal attacks, if you're left of center, it's assumed you have no interest in actual dialogue. Is there a point or should we just accept we hate each other, and neither side actually has the slightest interest in understanding each other?

It seems to some of us part of the "not contributing fair share" problem is that a fair number of NATO nations are semi-pacifists. They may view being taken over by Russia as highly undesirable, but not the end of the world, and thus don't put as many resources into prevention as we would.

But them getting seized would still create a problem for the USA because if enough NATO nations were controlled by Russia, then Russia's larger empire could become a direct threat to the USA itself.

Thus, for selfish reasons perhaps we need to subsidize the military protection of those semi-pacifists. Think of them as a defense buffer that needs maintenance on our part.

People could delegate thier votes to their loved ones more politically active than them

Or people could delegate thier votes to any organization that they trust

If the predictions are correct, states that typically vote red will gain ~15 electoral votes combined, and states that typically vote blue will lose ~15. With these changes, Harris wouldn’t have won in 2024 even if she won WI, PA, MI, and NV. I don’t really see how democrats can win with this map. They would need candidates that can win red leaning swing states. I don’t know if those exist these days.

Edit: maybe I should change the question: Is the Democrat Party going to be dead in the 30s if the 2030 census predictions are correct? I doubt either party will be dead forever anytime soon.

I know X is a cesspool but I still use it for updates on stuff I’m interested in. I get occasional tweets from right leaning/left leaning people and the replies are just people ragging on them and not even having a thoughtful discussion.

It’s like they dedicate a part of their day to being negative. I’ve started muting all politics on X whenever it comes across my feed.

I can see if people tried to reassure the other side and have an open discussion, but no it’s simply just negativity from both sides. I do primarily see it from more of the right, but the left also partakes in this.

I just don’t get it, the election is over. If you think we’re gonna have a prosperous country coming, why hate on fellow Americans and put them down? And if you think the country is going to collapse, why waste time on X when that’ll absolutely do nothing?

I wonder why Republicans seem to be far ahead of Democrats in putting forward proposals aimed at attracting new constituents. (I am not commenting on their proposals being good, bad, plausible or not.)

Take the idea of not taxing Social Security payments, for instance. I understand, progressive taxing, but even so, shouldn’t this be a natural Democratic plan?

My real question is, are Democrats clinging to the status quo and just attempting to avoid offending anyone, while Republicans are not?

Is this what Bernie Sanders is talking about?

Hey all. I'm fairly new to politics but have studied a lot to educate myself. One thing I don't know much about is what the GOP republican party was like before Donald Trump's MAGA entered the scene. Can you tell me some things that have changed since that time? Positive or negative. Any values or goals, willingness to compromise etc? Personal opinions are fine but if you are presenting info as a fact please include a source and follow the rules. Thanks!

It seems to me that back in 2020 there were dozens of investigations and lawsuits over potential election fraud. I’m hearing similar conspiracy theories from people on the left about election fraud and I was wondering if people could point me to any lawsuits or investigations this time around.

I guess my point is that 4 years ago election concerns were taken seriously, looked into, and concluded that there was no evidence for foul play. Is that taking place this time around or are all concerns being completely dismissed?

I keep seeing posts from r/somethingiswrong2024 and all I just see is the most baseless and ridiculous claims. So much of it just makes no sense at all to me and some are just strait up lies and misinformation. And the thing I don’t understand is no one even says or admits that Biden was incredibly unpopular and Harris and the democrats did nothing to distance themselves from him and his polices.

Is there something I’m missing here? Or was there cheating or something I’m missing? I very want to know.

For the history buffs out there, what was Stalin really like and how does he compare to Trump?

I don’t follow politics at all so I’m curious to why people voted for who they did. I feel like both sides just lie about the other so it’s hard for me to even get into it. I personally voted for trump because I think he’s funny that’s about it but curious to what other people have to say

We have been visually assaulted with musings about how the Electoral College needs to be abolished, but Trump handily won the Electoral and popular vote.

Where do we go from here?

Is his second Presidency the End Game or the source?

Like, aren't all countries just something human beings made up?

What makes any country "real" in some objective sense?

I think if millions of people are living in a country and they have their own laws and currency etc., then it's effectively a real country now.

Why wouldn't a new country count?