Washing Post published this story on the Democratic Party's terrible polling numbers.

Views of GOP are more or less split (43 good, 45 bad)

Democrats are polling at 31 good, 57 bad.

These are massive numbers for the Dems.

The article tries to soften the news by mentioning that, by the numbers, the party did not actually lose the last election that badly (though I bed to differ). It also did beat Trump in 2020. However, I think the only significant support the party has in the eyes of ordinary people is mostly in virtue of them being not-republicans.

They've proven themselves to be made of a losing coalition that fewer and fewer people connect with. It is my opinion that they're too tied to certain industries and upper middle-class suburbanites, and therefore fail to provide any convincing support for lower income people, people without college, and those who benefit from the industries that support the GOP (fossil fuels, big agriculture, etc).

I think these monied interests are too intwined within the party infrastructure, rendering the party incapable of the kind of reform it needs to form a viable popular coalition. They are a pathetic opposition party and extraordinarily timid when actually in power--never opting for the bold vision or aggressive tactics.

Is it time to move on and build something else? I personally have long lost patience with them.

https://cis.org/Richwine/Impact-Immigration-US-Fertility

I've noticed personal responsibility as a concept is one of the terms often digested and molded by the internal workings of capitalism into a very different form than we understand it elsewhere, colloquially or philosophically.

In general we understand personal responsibility as a connection between an agent performing an action and the consequences of the said action. In order to perform an action as an agent, individual needs the power required to do said action, and given the power, they are responsible for what they do with the said power.

If I'm given the responsibility to take care of an ice cream cone in front of the ice cream parlor, my responsibility only extends to the factors I have power to control. I'm not responsible for the chemical reaction of the ice cream melting in hot summer air, nor am I responsible for the biological decay of it. I am, however, responsible for intentionally dropping it on the ground, or leaving it out for too long. The same can be extended to most human hierarchies. If I'm given the adequate resources (=power) and position to run a government agency with the task of upholding the public parks, I'll be responsible for whatever the outcome of the actions of that agency are.

Now, capitalism and markets completely flip that dynamic between power and responsibility. There's no responsibility outside acquiring power, and actually using (or abusing) power is almost entirely detached from responsibility. In the case of homelessness for instance, the production and distribution of housing is entirely in the hands of those who have capital to fund building, and to buy, buildings. Yet, they are not considered to be in any way responsible for the outcomes, such as the quality of the urban fabric, environmental impacts of the built environment or homelessness. They have ALL the power in creating or eradicating homelessness, yet none of the responsibility. The homeless themselves are blamed for not acquiring the power to control the production and distribution of housing. In other words, individual is only held accountable in gaining power to influence others, but they are not responsible over what they do with the power they have.

Attaching power and responsibility under capitalism would be a greatly beneficial change in the way we view societies.

For example, in a socialist model, perhaps an option would be to provide a legal right for employees of a business to buy the business at market value and turn it into a cooperative, and they must have refused to buy it or failed to meet a deadline to do so (say 90 days or some other period) to do so in order for the owner to do anything else with it, probably including after someone passes away when the employees can also opt to buy it at that point or else let the heirs to the estate deal with it then. Something similar can be done for tenants who might wish to buy a piece of property in land or buildings. And you can provide loans on generous terms with a banking program for those who wish to exercise the option.

If the goal is to create a socialist society, in the sense of people owning the means of production in a literal sense, this is a fairly straightforward and peaceful way of doing this over time. There might be specific rules so that people who have a home for generations with specific sentimental value might not be included in the buy program. You could even create an incentive for someone to sell early in some way, maybe lowering the taxes on the profit that might be gained from the sale, maybe giving those who do priority for other things like contracts which are made available by the procurement process any government has, or incentives for employees to try to do this such as making them also be higher up on the priority list of who to give contracts to if they can provide an adequate product or service at reasonable cost. There are a lot of ways a scheme of this nature could be devised.

Germany's dual nature boards on many corporations where a third to half the board are elected by employees (the chairperson is chosen by mutual agreement, or if this fails, arbitration) could also give trade unions power that doesn't need to come from striking on a day to day basis (along with those workers councils, Betriebsraten IIRC), and could give those elected by the employees and/or unions experience in how to actually run things.

Some reforms can't, or shouldn't, be done gradually, you don't want to do things like phase out ethnic cleansing in Syria for instance, some can be done fairly rapidly if desired without much ill effect like a program to build a large amount of wind turbines in less than a decade as the UK shows by adding 20 gigawatts of wind power from 2013 to 2023, and many reforms would benefit if they can be negotiations done on a broad scale with a lot of consensus.

With 51.5 million students enrolled in public school across America, that represents potentially tens of millions of kids failing to make the grade.

Just 67% of eighth-graders were able to meet or exceed basic skills on the 2024 test, 2% fewer than in 1992 when NAEP testing began.

Fourth-graders’ reading proficiency was also lower than in 1992, with just 60% meeting basic skills in 2024.

What is the cause of this decline?

I tried as best as I could reading about them, even meeting an AfD party member six years ago, but I can't figure out what exactly makes them a Nazi party.

Having lived in Germany before the Iraq War and after Trumps first election, I can see why the people there want to vote for AfD.

So what's stuff that they actually believe that's Nazi adjacent? All I can find concretely is that they are against mass immigration like Sweden has... Inform us. Using sources from the AfD would be helpful.

I thought things would calm down after the federal funding freeze was rescinded on account of everybody and their mother blasting the decision

Whatever optimism inspired that has been completely drained from me

Today, the Laken Riley Act was signed into law which mandates federal detention of undocumented immigrants suspected of theft, burglary, and assault. Trump then ordered a preparation of a mass detention facility in Guantanamo Bay 756 people have been detained in a facility where they were all initially sentenced to death. At least 15 were children, many of whom were water/dry boarded, hanged, and paralyzed. 90% of detainees were released without charge, and 9 men were murdered also without charge. Many committed suicide. Mohammed El Gharani had his head banged against the floor, and cigarettes put out on him. His detention lasted 7 years, and he was released uncharged. He was only 14 years old

Not only have there been multiple landmark Supreme Court cases ruling several aspects of Guantanamo Bay unconstitutional, but the facility is considered one of the most expensive prisons in the world. Tax payers shell out $445 million dollars a year to hold the 40 remaining prisoners amounting to $29,000 per prisoner per night. This is, as you might guess, far more expensive than any other federal prison; we typically pay $43,836 annually or $122 per day according to 2021 Federal COIF data

This new operation to house 30,000 migrants, a vast majority of which will be detained without due process despite having a right to it, will cost the American tax payer billions as children are wrangled and tortured as they were in the past. Compared to US citizens, immigrants are 60% less likely to commit crime yet it is apparently necessary to prepare to hold 30,000 of them who will be not be charged with any crime as the Laken Riley act only requires somebody to be suspected of a crime to be detained despite there being little to no domestic threat. He's streamlined and expanded the process of filling Guantanamo Bay on your dime

This will undoubtedly harm children. People will die, people will be tortured, and we as tax payers will pay for it. There have already been several cases of US citizens detained by ICE as of the recent raids, so you can kiss any idea of this being just for migrants goodbye too

The poem on the Statue of Liberty, a monument which once welcomed immigrants from all around the world reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The same country touting that poem has now vowed to prepare a concentration camp which will house uncharged women and children who will face deprave conditions and torture; the same tired, poor, and huddled masses we vowed to protect. Great, right?

Trump supporters, is this what you asked for? He tried to take your benefits, prices are increasing, and now he's preparing a concentration camp where children and US citizens will be tortured and kept in terrible conditions without trial

Happy now?

Aside from fossil fuels, the biggest issues our environment faces are the linear supply chain and the endless growth perpetrated by the stock market. We should instead work to have a green economy that looks like this:

1. Citizen Ownership of Natural Resources: Citizens collectively own a special class of shares in all businesses, granting them direct control over the natural resources used by firms via the Circular Supply Chain Model. This model is built-in to every business and enforced by the public to ensure businesses do not exceed the Earth's ecological limits. The Circular Supply Chain Model works as following:

• Businesses must use recycled materials to produce new ones. Thus, consumers are incentivized to return used products for material recovery (similar to Patagonia)
• Firms collaborate with recycling centers and material processors to maximize resource re-use.
  • Raw materials must come from somewhere, thus citizen-held resource shares give citizens the right to set quotas on the amount of materials that businesses can extract from the Earth.

This replaces the linear supply chain, where raw materials are extracted, manufactured into products, consumed, and ultimately discarded as waste.

2. Getting rid of the unnatural stock market:

All businesses must be ESOPs or one-vote-one-share co-ops. This is not just a social policy, but gets rid of the stock market.

• Without a stock market, you get rid of the endless growth and speculative value that it perpetrates

I'm the only left leaning member of my family. I've gotten into sceaming matches with them in the past. This time I didn't lose my cool and lowered my expectations of them.

My brother was walking around with his MAGA hat. I asked him, "now has Trump made America great?" And he replied in the affirmative. I then questioned him and he answered "mass deportation". I was shocked. My own brother, who is descended from Ashkenazi Jews would say such things. Because in Nazi Germany they made Jews non-citizens.

I asked "why is mass deportation a good thing?" He then replied "do you want the child to be separated from their parents?" He's implying I'm the heartless one here. (This might be the fallacy of "loaded question".)

I then asked "why is being an illegal immigrant a bad thing?" And he replied with a tautology, "they are illegall".

I then changed my tactics to test for inconsistency and to see if he could understand analogies. I asked him "do you know they're building a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay? And that the Nazis did the Holocaust outside of German borders where they are under military law?" He then replied with glazed eyes "I see no problem with this". The analogy is that society is finding a justified outgroup to persecute.

I then asked him "did you hear about the story of a white European illegal immigrant that was deported do you think that was good?" And he answered "yes". A test of subconscious consistency.

Later on he gave an alternative reason for opposing illegal immgiraiton. He said, "the illegals could be ISIS members so they need background checks, do you want another 10/7 happening again? We already have enough crime in this country."

I then asked "is it sensible to bar an entire ethnic group from immigrating?" And his reply was that since terrorism is possible better safe than sorry.

We then rattled off some less important pieces. I said that Elon went to a Nazi rally. He said that doesn't mean he's necessarily a Nazi because Jews attend Nazi rallies to keep an eye on them. I said he funds the AfD and he said "you hate Germans because of their ancestors, the AfD of today isn't the AfD of the past!" I said to him the AfD is the descendant of the Nazi party because it's cadre was the same. I then pointed to this happening in Argentina that caused another pogrom against Jews because of the Nazis in government there. He claimed the Nazis were neither left nor right. I asked him "why did the Nazis persecute the labor unionists then"?

You need to know they are rabid extremist Zionists. I've heard on the dinner tables of many Sabbaths among ultra-orthodox Jews where they would say "why don't we just bomb all of the Palestinians so we won't have terrorism that kills us anymore". Advocating genocide. Even then I understood the horrid parallels. Again this "better safe than sorry" attitude applied to whole ethnic groups. I want The State of Israel to stop being a settler-colonial enterprise. They are obsessed with leftist antisemitism real and fake and Palestinian activism. I understand why Palestinians join Hamas, it's the only organization that is able to fight back even a little bit in the miserable ghettos they are put in and bombed in. I don't buy the "human shields collateral damage" argument anymore. It's in this context where I'd tell them about rising right wing antisemitism and they'd brush it off as small fry compared to the Palestine Question. To them a right of return for Palestinians is not something they can entertain. They'd "joke" that "you can't be a refugee if you're second or third descendant" without any hint of irony to the Jewish diasporic condition. I don't care if Jews were there first. The Hutus were there first as well.

My Mom then came in and attempted to justify mass deportation. Mind you she is Filipino which is Latino. And there are many Jews who fled the Holocaust to the USA illegally with forged polish passports. I know people alive who still are illegal immigrants and they keep it a secret to the feds. They're also often anti-illegal immigrant with no hint of irony. She said "imagine if someone broke into your house and gave birth in your house and now that child can use all of your furniture". She's comparing a state to a house. That it is wrong for an illegal immigrant to partake of the services provided here. That this is unfair somehow. She then rattled off about how Biden was giving illegal immigrants mansions with US payer tax dollars and taking their jobs. This rhetoric is fascist rhetoric where you claim another group is backstabbing you.

Another addition is that my brother was upset that I claimed the AfD were fascist. He said "are they explicitly fascist?" I said "far right". He then replied "oh well that's okay". It was then I realized I could no longer sway them.

(My user flair is just closet to my real world politics I'm trying to figure out. I tend to not take much stock in the concept of nations and I believe very strongly in the freedom of movement.)

Our national parks are one of the jewels of The Republic. Some call it the greatest idea humanity ever had. In a world where profit and modernization are the standard there are parts of this country where nature and conservation reign with little competition. California alone has 9 national parks with varying climates and regions but all dedicated to a single mission: conservation, recreation and preservation.

That's why it's an insult that one of the most famous national parks in the world has an entire section of it dedicated to profit and use by a small section of The People. The Hetch Hetchy Project is a manipulation of The National Parks Service. The project consists of a dam blocking The Tuolumne River to create hydroelectric power and provide water to The San Francisco area. However this is a blatant disregard for the national park it sits in, the millions of people who stand to benefit from the valley's restoration and the valley itself.

The entirety of the reservoir sits within Yosemite National Park. Before the valley was destroyed by the damn many who visited it compared it to the Great Yosemite Valley just south of it. Now it's buried under hundreds of thousands gallons of water. Water that is being used by The City of San Francisco for profit by selling to its citizens, nearby cities and to private companies in a way that was allowed by the act that gave them the water.

Furthermore, because the water is set aside for the city, there is very little recreation allowed in and around the reservoir. The city puts unfair regulations around what The National Parks Service is allowed to do with what is effectively their territory. Recreation is how common people connect with our national parks. But this part, despite not being dangerous or set aside for conservation, is being held hostage from The People for profit.

Finally the use of this valley to hold water for a few has made preservation impossible in the area. How can history or nature be preserved correctly if buried under a gigantic for profit project by a group that doesn't care for anything but their water? The use of this ancient glacial valley, under the protection and responsibility of The National Parks Service, for profit and urbanization is antithetical and wrong.

So with Trump looking to reassert control and correct the mistakes of California's water mismanagement it is time to drain The Hetch Hetchy reservoir and begin restoring the valley to its original state.

The dam could easily be cut at the base, allowing water to drain without fully demolishing the dam. Smaller, less damaging, dams can be constructed down river to feed into the hydroelectric plants and the nearby Don Pedro Reservoir could be expanded to take in the extra water and send it to San Francisco, or better yet reallocate some of the water to The Central Valley.

The National Parks Service believes that the valley would only need 100 or so years to return to something close to pre reservoir state. That opens up a new place for Yosemite's tourists to go and newer places for trails and conservation efforts. If restoration and new tourism infrastructure are funded well that timeline can be cut down and the forest can return healthier and bigger than ever.

The San Francisco Area is not the most important area in the world. So why does it get to take from the most important idea in the world for profit? Donald Trump has an opportunity to add to protected land and fix the mismanagement of California's water in one blow. This is a moment where part of America can be made great again! We should seize it while it's here.

Many people mistakenly believe that the opposite of dictatorship is democracy.

Let’s reflect on this idea using the example of 20 people having dinner together.

A dictatorship is a situation where decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a single person. In our example, it would be a dictatorship if one person among the 20 had the sole authority to decide what everyone eats for dinner, while the others had no say in the matter.

Democrats mistakenly believe that dictatorship is neutralized by democracy—meaning that instead of letting one person decide, all 20 people participate in a vote. Various menu options are presented, and everyone votes.

However, they are wrong!
If dictatorship consists of the extreme centralization of decision-making power, then democracy is not its opposite. In other words, democracy is not the maximum decentralization of power possible.

What is the true maximum decentralization of power?

It happens when every person at the dinner table can order their own customized meal. 20 people, 20 different decisions. As many intellectuals have rightly observed, democracy is simply the dictatorship of the majority.

Thus, if one truly wants to fight against the logic of dictatorship, they should not promote democracy alone, but rather a system based on individual freedom—one in which as many decisions as possible are left to the individual, and democratic decision-making is limited to matters where individual choice is not feasible.

The ideal system is one where democracy is subordinate to individual liberty, not the other way around!

This concept aligns with a liberal democracy, but with a strong liberal component—a solid constitution that declares certain decisions as exclusive rights of individuals, preventing the state from legislating on them. In essence, the democratic aspect of democracy must be significantly restricted in favor of individual rights: even if 90% of the population, for example, wanted a law to suppress sexual freedom, such a law would be impossible to implement because sexual matters are the domain of the individual, not the state.

This is a classic “house divided” situation where no one with any real opinion on this issue will be satisfied until it is all one or all the other

Sincere “pro life” people will never be satisfied as abortion remains legal in the vast majority of the nation and not all that hard to get even for women in the ban states who almost all live a few hours drive or quick flight from a place where it is legal

Pro choice people will never be satisfied with such pointless hurdles being placed on access to abortion but I do believe the fact that it remains accessible has taken a lot of the political blowback out of the air

This, I believe, is the intention of politicians like Trump that are pushing the “states decide” line. I highly doubt he has any sincere view on abortion itself, knows that his “pro life” base will mostly be satisfied with a mostly symbolic win, and does not want to cause political problems for himself by pushing for a much more effective national ban

I don’t think this is sustainable because he won’t be the president forever and most “pro lifers” that sincerely care about this issue won’t be satisfied with abortion being pretty easily accessible for most women, including those in the ban states. The pro choice people similarly will never really be satisfied until the return of the Roe status quo, especially with a steady stream of ban state medical horror stories coming out

The house divided can’t stand. Eventually we will be all one or all the other. Probably all pro choice based on where public opinion is

I'm from the UK and very much on the outside looking in, however we cannot escape media coverage of the US as we are downstream from it's policy decisions. However as an observer it appears Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do and more when it comes to shrinking the government (and more on top but that's another conversation).

Here in the UK and Europe we are much more statist because we see the benefits that such arrangements have for us; I can break my leg tomorrow and have it set, casted and be home the next day without an out of pocket expense. My taxes are taken directly from my payslip through a government scheme rather than me having to file a tax return every year. A bus journey in my city is a flat, low charge regardless of duration due to state-run transport, etc.

As such my daily life is improved by state action in a tangible way that I can feel and appreciate. It seems in the US that a large part of Trump's victory is a deep seated mistrust of government, and the "tear it down" approach is what people seemed to want, certainly conservatives. It's not clear to me how much US conservatism has become equivalent to right libertarianism in terms of shrinking the state, but regardless we are seeing the biggest assault on the status quo in my lifetime.

My question is this: when all is said and done, the federal money stops flowing, when the employee base of the federal government withers, when the visible and invisible services that US voters use, will we see a newfound appreciation for the institutions of the US? Or are US voters happy to see these mechanisms fundamentally changed or removed?

For the record, I believe in and I am convinced by the scientific evidence for manmade climate change and believe that catastrophic damage from human activity is already present. I feel the need to emphasize this as I do not consider it a point of political debate; it is scientific consensus based on extensive and corroborated data. Climate denial is purely unscientific and I'm not here to debate this point; I'm here for a political discussion based on established scientific fact.

-----

How can we prevent severe environmental damage in a non-authoritarian context?

Individual actors or groups can have global impacts through activities which pollute and/or release excessive emissions. As a species, we've only recently learned about the damaging impact our actions are capable of inflicting on the environment.

Human civilization is faced with a potential existential threat. While it is not as imminent as a large asteroid impact or a direct hit from a gamma ray burst, degradation of the one suitable environment of permanent human habitation poses a great danger to our species. So far, the problem has been identified and the main reaction has been various voluntary agreements between nations. Climate scientists warn that existing measures are insufficient, however.

I consider myself a non-authoritarian, and genuinely believe in the principles of voluntary participation in any sociopolitical system. However, my struggle with the climate issue comes down to not seeing a realistic solution to the problem of global pollution in a purely voluntary system.

Without some involuntary enforcement structure, can an effective response to climate change be achieved?

If so, what would that response look like and entail?

Here is more info on this. I feel like people often oppose "foreign aid" in the abstract but don't really consider what this means in practice, so I figured I would provide an example

Is there any difference between the political ideals of these groups and what America used to be? Wasn't America always a white supremecist culture? When people call Trump and his political ideals fascist or Nazi is there any difference between Trump/alt right in comparison to old ideals of the USA? I am struggling to see a difference.

I understand that the left has platforms designed to help people from different groups. Such as the 600k homeless people, the 1.6 million trans identifying people, 6 million black people living in poverty and other various groups. But the US has 334 million people.

What does the left offer to the average middle of the road middle class white American family with 2 kids in the United States that will noticably improve their daily lives at the federal level that validates the $30,000 dollars they pay in taxes to the federal government?

I never wanted to post about this subject, but after a heated debate with a friend of mine I can't help myself. First, I 100% condemn Hamas and what they did on Oct 7th. I also believe in a 2 state solution, and am not anti-Israel. I’m writing this because I believe the Israeli govt + media comparison of Hamas to the Nazis has contributed directly to innocent Palestinian suffering.

First, let’s see how Hamas is not ideologically like the Nazis:

• They have not attempted to “cleanse” Gaza of different races and ethnicities, and this includes Jewish people who live in Gaza
• Hamas are indeed dictators and bad people. But being a dictator and/or bad person doesn’t automatically equal being a Nazi. Stalin was a bad person + dictator who killed millions of Nazis.

Second, Hamas is nothing like the Nazis when it comes to their power and influence:

• The Nazis were a superpower. They had airplanes, ships, submarines, tens of millions of soldiers, and powerful allies. Hamas has what? Iran? Who is so afraid of Israel they warned them hours before striking them in retaliation.
• By comparing Hamas to a superpower like the Nazis, Israel has brainwashed their citizens into thinking they are in extreme, red alert level danger, which leads to Israeli citizens being OK with the ethnic cleansing the IDF has/is conducting
  • Remember: Poland could not have stopped the Nazis from invading on Sep 1st, 1939. Israel could have stopped Hamas on Oct 7th, 2023.

Pretty self explanatory. I know most of us on the left agree, but with people more conservative, it seems to be more about “pragmatism” and not harm. Curious if you agree with that, and if it matters to you if it does cause harm. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

There were 4 phases of policy discussion before we ever got to social justice: Government, Economy, Labor/ Industry relating to economy, and social rights.

Prior to ww1, most governments were authoritarian, monarchs (or both), or some form of a republic. During this time, political activism was largely government oriented due to widespread dissatisfaction over government power. Early American politics, Federalists vs Democratic republicans (1789/92), and later shifting towards the National Republican Party (1825), and Democratic Party (1828), were mainly about Government control. This aligned with the very “revolutionary students assassinating monarchs era of the world”.

This period went on and the US decided to jump into the issues of economy, sparking interest in the Whig party (1833) and finally the Republican party (1854).

The populist party (1891) comes into play, demonstrating to the rest of the world how much more superior democracy is at absorbing new movements. Then the Progressive and socialist parties (1912 & 1901) formed, mainly covering industrial policy relating to economics. (Labor unions, workers rights, and all that..). It wasn’t until near WW2 that we began to see these extremely dramatic, emotionally driven ideologies jump onto the stage and heavily influence the romantic side of politics. Only after these ideologies were crushed in ww2, did we start to really see the push for social rights and only then did the left and right begin to establish its modern tongue. Prior to ww2, the parties contained principles that would be polar opposite today. In the 1800s you could have an extremist modern liberal and conservative both agree on economy or government and fall under the same party. There was never really a “flip” as the parties consisted of entirely different coalitions. So rather than “flip” it’s more accurate to say both parties transformed into something totally different.

Hello.

So I'm sure most people have heard about the tariffs that will be implemented on imported goods coming into America, and the many different points people have on it. But I genuinely don't understand how a tariff on goods coming into the country would benefit it; especially in terms of making things cheaper. And I was hoping to have a discussion where people could help me understand, correct me on things I could very well be wrong about, etc.

From what I understand in a very dumbed-down version: The prices of things imported from other countries will be marked up for the businesses receiving them. In turn, the price difference would be put onto consumers to make up that loss; making things from businesses and companies who continue to buy from out-of-country manufacturers more expensive for us. The purpose of the tariff is to encourage businesses and companies to go to American manufacturers instead of ones from other countries.

I know that the intent behind tariffs is to force American businesses to source their products from American manufacturers so they can boost our economy and create more jobs. And although I think that would be a good thing on paper, and maybe if I was more optimistic I could believe that more job opportunities and the switch to local manufacturers could offset the guaranteed rise in the cost of big businesses that will come (ex. Walmart), wouldn't the price of American manufacturers ALSO become more expensive and the loss of jobs for both bigger and smaller businesses too?

With the way this country is, there's a more likely chance than not that American manufacturers will raise their prices as well; whether it be because that specific company has to receive products from other parts of the world and needs that loss made up, American manufacturers knowing that a lot of companies and businesses do not have another choice but to go to them with these tariffs in place and will try to receive more of a profit, or both. This will leave a lot of smaller businesses as well as the bigger ones to either raise their prices by a large amount to get any sort of profit or have to close because they couldn't keep up. Which, in this hypothetical, means more expensive goods/services and fewer jobs for the average people.

I could very well be wrong, and if I am I ask you to PLEASE tell me so. But no matter what way I look at it, I don't see how a tariff can help the average American citizen in the ways that people are saying that it will. Especially if the things that I said above come to be. I appreciate anyone who can help me understand, and I hope you have a good day.

"The US military will not allow a civil war"

IF Trump promotes civil unrest, with hopes he can declare Martial Law and suspend the Constitution.

What happens if the U.S. Military has to seize power in America, to protect the U.S. Constitution and the Nation it serves?

• The U.S. Military will not allow a Civil War to commence on American soil. They have everything they need to shut down and destroy every right wing antigovernmental group and every race hate group across this country and make it an act of terrorism against the United States if they ever form or try and form such groups again.

The sworn leaders of the Military know "No Man" is more important than the country they have protected for 248+years.

Trump does not understand the "U.S. Constitution" does not grant unlimited power to any man, and not to any officer of any branch of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Trump does not understand the great limits of the power of the President.

• Those limits was assured by the U.S. Constitution, which ensure that America does not have a King, it does not have a Dictator, and its will not Tolerate a Tyrant.

Trump still does not grasp the gravity of the egregiousness and seditious and subversive and treasonous act he promoted on Jan. 6, 2020. Trump does not understand his threats to the world's countries, is very dangerous and very dangerous for America.

To be clear, I'm not saying indirect elections are universally better than direct elections, but here's why I believe that they possess advantages over direct popular vote (including the U.S. Electoral College, which is basically a direct election with special rules). Note this is only about leaders, NOT representatives.

1) Personality over Policy
Direct elections often turn into popularity contests where charisma and spectacle overshadow competence. The best campaigner isn't always the best leader, and focusing on superficial characteristics can result in poor governance.

2) Polarization over Consensus
In direct elections, candidates tend to prioritize energizing their base over building broad coalitions. This fuels partisan divides and makes it harder to achieve consensus.

3) Deliberation over Demagoguery
Indirect elections enable informed decision-making by representatives (who are democratically legitimized). This reduces the risks of populist rhetoric swaying the masses into impulsive or irrational choices based on perception rather than policy. Potential Demagogues can rise through direct elections by appealing to emotion rather than reason

4) Competence over Charisma
Indirect systems encourage a focus on governance ability and coalition-building, which promotes institutional stability. Leaders are evaluated more for their capacity to govern, not just their ability to deliver speeches.

5) Accountability
While directly elected leaders are theoretically accountable to the electorate, voters often lack the tools to enforce this accountability. In contrast, leaders in indirect elections must maintain the confidence of the assembly that elected them (not necessarily continuously but at least in some way for example when it comes to re-election), ensuring more ongoing collaboration and accountability.

To clarify that indirect methods are not necessarily better, I would like to present a few counterarguments:

A) Elitism
Indirect systems may concentrate power in the hands of a political elite, potentially leading to decisions that serve elite interests, rather than the interests of the general public, which risks alienating voters from the process.

B) Reduced Voter Engagement
Without a direct popular vote, voters may feel disconnected from the process, which could lower overall political engagement. When citizens don't have a direct say, they might be less motivated to participate.

C) Erosion of Trust and Legitimacy
When people don't directly choose their leaders they may question the legitimacy of the system, feeling that their voices are ignored. This undermines trust in both the process and the leaders it produces.

Ultimately, both direct and indirect elections have their pros and cons. Indirect elections can help avoid the hype and focus on effective governance, but they also risk making voters feel left out. A mix of both systems might be desirable: making sure people are heard while keeping things practical and focused

Would it be constitutional for a city to implement a lottery? Let's say a small city wanted every citizen to pay one dollar a year to live there with a chance to win 90 percent of the fund at the end of the year. So theoretically a population of 200k, and one person wins 190k while the other 10k goes to funding that the people would elect. Would this mot be attractive to get more people to live in the city as another benefit?

Edit clarifying: This question is for those who voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024.

Original post: This question is not for MAGA people. This is for the so-called swing voters that tilted the election in favor of Trump.

Are you satisfied with your vote right now? We are less than one week into his presidency, and here is a non-exhaustive list of things he has done so far:

1. Pardoned or commuted the sentence of EVERY SINGLE person convicted for January 6th, and ended pending prosecution. This INCLUDES those who assaulted police officers.
2. Begun the largest deportation effort in history. Schools, hospitals, and churches are no longer off-limits.
3. Ordered the deportation of migrants and asylum-seekers who arrived in the US LEGALLY under Biden.
4. Issued a blatantly unconstitutional order seeking to end birthright citizenship. This directly contradicts the text of the 14th amendment.
5. Nominated clearly unqualified or morally corrupt people to cabinet or other important positions.

Pete Hegseth was just confirmed as Secretary of Defense after Vance cast the tie-breaking vote, despite numerous allegations against him for sexual misconduct and alcohol abuse. His rank in the military? Major. Biden's pick was a four-star general who was confirmed by a vote of 93-2.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the nominee for Health and Human Services. Without going into too much detail, he has frequently spoken out against vaccines and promotes pseudo-scientific conspiracies.

Elon Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency. He clearly did a Nazi salute, TWICE, at an event celebrating Trump's inauguration. The only thing that was missing was the "Heil Hitler!" He took to X to make jokes about it. (Bet you did nazi that coming)

6. Revoked security detail for his enemies despite recent threats. This includes Dr. Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo.

7. Threatened 25% tariffs on our trading partners Mexico and Canada beginning Feb. 1, despite instituting a new free trade agreement with them during his first term. Tariffs will INCREASE prices. If you don't know how tariffs work, the importer pays the tariff. The country's government does not. The price of the goods will increase to cover that increased cost. We get a lot of our groceries from Mexico.

Finally, he has essentially admitted that he lied about the stated most important issue for swing voters: lowering the price of groceries. The price of eggs has skyrocketed since he was elected. This is largely outside of his control, but do not pretend that Kamala would not be getting crucified on this issue right now. We would not be distracted by the above list of actions.

The consensus among people about what hand gesture he did surprises me. Because people have been defending what he did in multiple ways: it was a “Roman Salute” not a “Nazi Salute”, he’s autistic, it was a tossing his heart to the audience gesture. I added an other option in case people had other explanations.

I’m curious where the consensus falls on this one.

My personal opinion, people are taking huge leaps of logic to justify what he did. It was a Nazi salute.

View Poll

Anarchist thought triumphs personal freedom and freedom from authority and coercion.

Capitalism is predicated on property rights, the freedom to own private property.

Restricting property rights through establishing a hierarchy is less preferable to Anarchist logic than allowing the accumulation of power through property rights?

Selling your labor power is "voluntary" under capitalism. Some Anarchists may argue that there is economic coercion involved, but this economic coercion is not something that can be removed without restricting the rights of property.

The alternative is to allow Capitalist property rights but to advocate for the "weakening" of Capitalist hierarchy through other means.

But this is the issue. What other means exist? To somehow create a society in which accumulating Capital/Power and creating a hierarchy based on Property rights is simply culturally discouraged but not restricted by any authority?

Do Anarchists disagree with this?

Hello!

So I've been hearing a lot of news of ICE being spotted around my area after trumps election, and people warning others about it on social media. And the more that I thought about it, I realized I truly don't understand how this will effectively work; especially with a bunch of articles telling me different things. And so I have a lot of questions.

Are they going to be going door to door no matter if suspicion is involved? If so, if someone doesn't have available documentation to prove they're an American citizen but they ARE an American citizen, how would that work? What happens to kids of illegal immigrants who gave birth to American citizens; especially if they're minors? Are they just deported with them, or put into the adoption system if they have no family in America?

If not, is it going to be based on people reporting people and possible businesses/schools that may have illegal immigrants? And if so, what happens to people who were falsely reported OR immigrants who aren't suspected at all?

Does this apply to all immigrants? I know this is a dumb question, but I majorly see hispanic people as demonstration for these for people who illegally jumped over the border, but most immigrants are people with overdue visas. So are they also tackling both people with overdue visas and people who hopped the border or is it mainly focused on the second?

Sorry if these questions are dumb, but everywhere I look has been very conflicting to the point where I'm not exactly sure where to look.

Our support for Israel is a waste of resources, badly hurts our image, and incongruent with our values of respect for international law and human rights

It used to be that both Dem and Repub administrations would use the influence our support got us to curb their abuses and encourage them to be better, but this has not meaningfully happened since an abortive effort in Obamas first term to get them to pause illegal settlement expansion

By moving to a position of neutrality we would stop being harmed by association by Israels highly unpopular and illegal behavior, stop wasting not inconsiderable financial resources that we send to them as military aid, and potentially allow us to serve as an honest broker to make peace should an opportunity to do so eventually arise

Nothing we get back from them is remotely worth the enormous financial and reputational cost that we spend maintaining this alliance. They wouldnt even meaningfully back us on Ukraine, despite the enormous effort we have spent building up their defense capabilities