We're facing a loneliness epidemic in America, and I believe our suburban landscape is partly to blame. The way we've designed our communities over the past 70+ years has literally built isolation into our daily lives, and it's time we talked about it.

The Power of Spontaneous Interactions:

Have you ever noticed how a brief chat with a barista, a quick hello to a neighbor, or a spontaneous conversation at a park can brighten your entire day? These seemingly minor interactions, what sociologists call "weak ties," are actually crucial for our mental and physical health. Research shows that these casual encounters:

1. Boost our sense of belonging and community connection
2.  Release oxytocin and other positive neurochemicals
3. Reduce stress and anxiety levels
4. Create a social safety net that we can rely on in times of need

The problem? Suburban design actively prevents these vital interactions from happening naturally.

 The Problem with Suburban Design:

Think about your typical American suburb: Singlefamily homes set far apart, no sidewalks in many areas, and you need to drive everywhere  to get groceries, meet friends, or grab a coffee. This isn't just inconvenient; it's actively harmful to our mental and physical health.

A 2023 study by the American Public Health Association found that residents in cardependent suburbs reported 13% higher rates of social isolation compared to those living in walkable urban areas. Another study in the Journal of Urban Health showed that people living in walkable neighborhoods had nearly twice as many meaningful social interactions per day compared to those in suburban areas.

The Hidden Health Costs of Suburban Living:

The health impacts of suburban living go far beyond social isolation. Research has revealed numerous concerning correlations:

 Physical Health:

1. Suburban residents walk an average of 39% less than their urban counterparts
2.  Higher rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease in cardependent neighborhoods
3. Increased risk of high blood pressure due to longer commute times
4.  Higher rates of respiratory issues due to increased car dependency

 Mental Health:

1. 47% higher rates of depression in suburban areas compared to walkable urban neighborhoods
2. Increased stress levels from commuting and car dependency
3. Higher rates of anxiety disorders, particularly among teenagers who lack independence in cardependent areas
4.  Greater feelings of disconnection and alienation from community

 The Science Behind Social Infrastructure:

When we look at the healthiest, happiest communities worldwide, they share common features:

1. Dense, walkable neighborhoods
2.  Abundant "third places" (locations that aren't home or work where people can gather)
3.  Reliable public transportation
4.  Mixeduse development that puts amenities within walking distance

Research from the Journal of Transport & Health shows that people who rely on public transportation have 3x more spontaneous social interactions than those who primarily drive. These aren't just statistics, they represent real opportunities for human connection that we're missing in suburban America.

 The Urban Alternative:

Cities like Portland, Minneapolis, and Boulder are showing us what's possible when we prioritize human centered design: Minneapolis eliminated singlefamily zoning, allowing for more density and affordable housing options. The result? A 27% increase in new neighborhood businesses and a measurable increase in community engagement. Portland's investment in bike infrastructure and public transit has led to residents reporting higher levels of social satisfaction and community belonging compared to suburban counterparts, according to city surveys.

The Myth of Suburban Family Life:

One of the biggest obstacles we face in creating healthier communities is the deeply ingrained belief that suburbs are the "best place to raise a family." This idea, heavily promoted since the 1950s through everything from advertising to government policies, has become almost sacred in American culture. But the data tells a different story:

1. Children in walkable urban areas have greater independence and develop stronger social skills. A study of 12-16 year olds showed that those in walkable neighborhoods had more diverse friend groups and higher measures of social confidence.
2. Urban children get more physical activity. Without having to rely on parents for transportation, they're more likely to walk or bike to activities, friends' houses, and school.
3. Contrary to popular belief, dense urban areas often have lower crime rates per capita than suburbs. The perception of suburban safety vs urban danger is largely a myth perpetuated by media coverage and historical biases.
4. Children in urban environments develop better problem-solving skills and spatial awareness from navigating their environment independently.
5. Families in walkable urban areas report spending more quality time together, often because they spend less time commuting and shuttling kids to activities.

The irony is that many of the things parents move to the suburbs for – safety, community, healthy environment for kids – are actually more readily available in well-designed urban areas. When we choose suburbs because "that's what's best for the kids," we might actually be depriving them of valuable developmental experiences and social connections.

Looking Forward

The good news is that perspectives are starting to shift. More young families are choosing to stay in cities, and many suburbs are being redesigned to incorporate urban elements like walkable town centers and mixed-use development. These changes don't happen overnight, but every step toward more human-centered design is a step toward healthier, more connected communities.

What we need now is a cultural shift in how we think about "good places to raise a family." Instead of automatically equating suburban life with family values, we need to consider what truly makes a community healthy for children and adults alike: social connection, independence, active lifestyles, and genuine community engagement.

The good news is that change is possible. Many suburbs are already experimenting with retrofitting more walkable town centers and improving public transit connections. These changes don't happen overnight, but every step toward more humancentered design is a step toward healthier, more connected communities.

What We Can Do

We need to:

1. Support zoning reform that allows for mixeduse development and higher density

2. Invest in public transportation infrastructure

3. Require new developments to include walkable features and public gathering spaces

4. Convert existing suburban areas to include more pedestrianfriendly infrastructure

5. Design neighborhoods that facilitate natural, spontaneous interactions

This isn't just about transportation or urban planning, it's about mental health, community resilience, and human connection. The research is clear: when we build places for cars instead of people, we pay for it with our social lives and our health.

We're facing a loneliness epidemic in America, and I believe our suburban landscape is partly to blame. The way we've designed our communities over the past 70+ years has literally built isolation into our daily lives, and it's time we talked about it.

In Britain, they actually don't permit television (and I believe radio) ads for political parties and candidates, and I would presume referendums, though referenda are much less common in Britain than they are in other places like Italy. A few places prohibit billboards as well like Hawaii and Vermont. It does make it much cheaper to run a campaign.

Not all of what I am talking about is political advertising. Commercial adverts are also relevant. Britain does have laws related to advertising too but most of the ones that make them relatively strict are not actually imposed by the government but by a type of producers association, and people tend to abide by them in practice knowing that if violations start becoming pernicious in general or widespread, then someone in Parliament is going to put a bill through making them able to be sanctioned in law for those issues. Tom Scott has some examples of how this works in Britain. Making sure children know what they are getting into with ads or products or services (also their parents), all sorts of stuff.

We also certainly don't have tobacco ads on television in many developed and democratic countries anymore, you can't even do it in Russia anymore. Basically nobody except New Zealand and the United States have adverts for prescription drugs, which reduces the need to spend as much money on adverts and makes the products cheaper (alongside ideas like bulk purchasing and negotiations being done so as to favour the public). The idea of advertising a hospital would be ridiculous in Britain. Lawyer adverts are prescribed by bar association regulations to make it hard to fib, and is why they have the kind of stereotypical format of a large billboard with the faces of the partners of the firm on it when driving past them on the motorway.

If advertising is seen as misleading, downright false, or intrusive, you can imagine that people would be much more likely to evade them through adblock and similar programs, and not trust them. A business though has a hard time not advertising itself, and advertising itself in ways that are prone to be misleading or useless. Nobody claims to be the second best, slightly cheaper alternative to something. I was taught too as a child to be suspicious of advertising and misleading statistics claims by them (thank you PBS cyberchase, and my father who taught me this too). At the same time though, people who make things need to be seen and known about if they make good things, like creators on Youtube, and need things to sell that don't end up biting them and their viewers in the arse such as Honey and Scottish Laird Noble Titles scams. And if advertising incentives are done in even worse ways, they can incentivize the creation of poor quality or misleading information or products just because advertisers want certain things, like how youtube history channels face difficulties with telling difficult but necessary truths as advertising wants to avoid controversial subjects that could expose them to a blowback.

I am working with a podcast to try and get discussions for educational purposes going.

Are there any examples you think would be worthwhile?

This interview was interesting and brought up things that I feel like should be discussed more. I posted the link for whoever wants to watch it.

https://youtu.be/u321m25rKXc?feature=shared

A few things he brought up caught my attention:

1.) Zelenskyy made the claim Ukraine never saw half of the promised aid to Ukraine, though they did get most of the weapons.

2.) when discussing Trump, he said he won politically because he "proved he was stronger than Biden and Kamala, that he's young at heart and his brain works". He also said the Ukraine war can only end from a position of strength for Ukraine, NATO and the US. Additionally, he said Putin won't stop if he senses weakness. Since Putin is scared of Trump this will very likely settle the war this year and Trump will be the first world leader to fly to Kyiv by plane.

3.) he's very critical of western powers. Saying we ignored the issue and violated obligations made for Ukraine after they give up nuclear weapons. Also that most people really only wanted "to help with their voices"

I watched this interview a few days ago, so if I'm off feel free to correct a point. Also, I don't personally agree with how Lex Fridmen is talking, so don't take that as a reflection of my views. In his defense, I've heard him be very critical of Putin in the past so I suspect he doesn't want to jeopardize his coming interview with Putin, which he claims is happening (I would honestly be surprised if it works out).

I like rail, rail is great.

But you have people, who are mostly on the left, who argue for one without any understanding of how giant of an undertaking even the politics of getting a bill going for one. Theres pro rail people who just have 0 understanding of engineering projects that argue for it all the time.

Nobody accounts for where exactly it would be built and what exactly the routes would be, how much it would cost and where to budget it from, how many people it would need to build it, where the material sources would come from, how many employees it would need, how to deal with zoning and if towns/cities would want it, how many years it would take, and if it is built how many people would even use it.

This is something that might take a century to even get done if it can even be done.

Its never going to happen in our lifetimes, as nice as it would be to have today, the chances of it even becoming an actual plan and actual bill that can be voted on would still take about 20 years. And then another 20 or so years after that before ground is even broken on the project.

I didn’t study much administrative law in law school, but it was my impression that Chevron deference was important, generally accepted, and unlikely to be revisited. I’m genuinely fascinated by seeing his pretty well-established rule being overturned and am curious, was this case controversial when decided on? Was there a lot of discourse in the legal community about how this case might have been decided incorrectly and was ripe for challenge, prior to Loper?

If anyone has any insight or advice on where to look to dive more into this topic, I’d really appreciate it!

Communism was one of the strongest political forces in the 20th century. At one point, one third of the world's population lived under it. Despite all of that, the experiences of communism were total failures. Every experiment at attempting to achieve communism has ended with a single-party dictatorship in power that refused to let people choose their own leaders and monopolised political and economic power. People criticised communism because they believed that once in power, the communist leaders will refuse to redistribute the resources and they were totally correct. All experiments were total failures. Today, few countries call themselves communist like Cuba, Laos, North Korea, China, and Vietnam. The first three (Cuba, Laos, North Korea) have failed as countries and their economies are some of the most pathetic. The last two (China and Vitenam) call themselves communist but their economies are some of the most capitalist economies in the world. China has the most number of billionaires in the whole world (814) and Vietnam has copied China's economic model. They are really nothing but single-party dictatorships that use the facade of communism but don't have a communist economy anymore since their reforms.

At this point, it seems that communism is taking its last breaths. One may ask, why even bother with it? It seems that communism has failed so what is its future then?

As the title says, debating what to do with trans people is just dehumanizing in so many ways as it opens the door to treating not just trans people but to non-trans people as objects and create a series of checklists to determine who is who and what is what in order to be someone of a certain description. It creates a system that intentionally denies someone the right to exist as who they are and to potentially force them to suffer for existing. Not to mention, trans people are also left out of the discussion, ignored, or barred from even participating. How can you truly have a debate in the first place if you refuse to even allow any form of expert whether it be a trans/gender nonconforming person or trained doctor to even speak? The most people normally see are news commentators or a hand select few people who are used for a grift to prevent trans people from getting care when we literally have 100+ years of modern research and documentation on the existence of trans and gender non-conforming people. There are just so many ways that just debating trans people are dehumanizing:

1. The debates are inherently discriminatory as they usually result in creating checklists for gender roles. People try to define what certain definitions are without nuance on the regular. People create checklists of what a person is under a certain gender or sexual orientation. If one person doesn't check a box right, the person usually isn't seen as the gender they identify with by that checklist. Even a person who identifies as cisgender who fails the checklist could be not seen as their gender. Even then, the list is selectively enforced and at times causes false flags and results in cisgender people being discriminated against.

2. Bathrooms. Going off on point one, this is usually the first result for people getting discriminated against. This results in people feeling policed and being policed over a bodily function and people potentially being assaulted both verbally and physically if they don't fit the gender norm checklist. What happens with this? People are forced to stay out of public, have to hold it in and get a UTI or other health problem, or risk dehydration by having to not drink fluids to avoid using the bathroom.

3. Being reduced to a thought/idea rather than a person. Being trans/gender non-conforming is something you can't control as a person. It's hardwired into the body and a part of the XX and XY chromosomes. Those chromosomes determine more than just sex at birth but also the bodily functions and systems of the human as well. Debating a trans person is reducing them to just an idea rather than the real human they are. It rips the human element out of what is potentially creating lethal consequences.

4. When the debates occur, they intentionally or unintentionally leave out 100+ years of research and documentation. Research into trans and gender-nonconforming people has it's start in the 1910's with Magnus Hirschfeld. Even now, people are forgetting some of the first people to fight for LGBTQ+ rights in the US after the Stonewall Riots were trans and gender non-conforming people. Even now, the debates usually don't include current research or looking at the current medical paths put in place for trans and gender non-conforming people by WPATH that have been constantly changed and updated since their founding in 1979 to provide the best care possible with regret rate's lower than 2%. Instead people just go on limited information and take in misinformation from media sources against trans people.

5. The debates allow for a reintroduction of segregation as it is happening right now in the US with bathroom bills and determining who can play in sports and the potential act of revoking healthcare from trans and gender non-conforming people based on a lack of understanding and misinformation. This by all means is intentionally setting the stage for legal discrimination and enforcement of suffering on human beings for something out of their control.

6. The debates often leave out trans and gender non-conforming people and medical experts versed in trans care. The ones that do usually either result in said person being ignored or used as a prop to get care removed. It's confirmation bias through and through. Even if a debate is going well for a trans person, it usually delves into several what ifs to derail the conversation.

7. The debates usually end with nothing getting done to benefit or ease suffering for trans and gender non-conforming people. If you ignore the solutions both potential and already existing problems, more problems are created. More what ifs, discrimination, misunderstanding, bigotry, etc. will happen.

At least these seven factors put together a full process of dehumanization of trans and gender non-conforming people. An environment where people can't exist freely and put into state and society enforced poverty and suffering.

It is possible there is no "good" answer to the question of how to structure society in regards to the production and distribution of goods. It is possible that every possible method is fraught with pain, abuse, and hardship, but that Capitalism is the least bad among the options. Just because an ideal form can be conceptualized, that does not mean it can be actualized. Capitalism may well be the best "actualizable" option, and certainly is the best option to have been actualized thus far in human history at any appreciable scale.

Let me use the analogy of a flight I once had from Chicago to Tampa. As we got close to Tampa the pilot came on and said there is bad weather around Tampa, that flights have been trying different approaches and altitudes all morning, but there is no smooth path. They had picked the least bumpy approach, but warned us that the descent would be a bit rough. And it was. My balls were in my throat more than once.

Now a person departing that plane may well bitch about the pilot, bitch about the airplane, bitch about the airline, go on and on about how rough it all was, and they would be right, it did suck, but there was no better options (of course the analogy isn't perfect cause you can always delay or cancel a flight if it's bad enough and real history is going to move forward no matter what). So in a case like that the question is not "was that flight rough" but the question is "was there any option that would have been any better?". And sometimes the actual genuine answer is no, rough as it was, it was the smoothest option. Flights that tried the other paths actually fared much worse, maybe one even crashed.

So that is my proposal, that capitalism, for as bumpy as it is, is actually the best path we've found so far, and for all of it's faults, is actually far less painful and bumpy than the main competing alternatives would be if scaled to the same level. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep a look out for something better. And it doesn't mean the pilot and cabin crew aren't obligated to do everything they can to help things go as well as they can, but as of right now, nobody has found any better path through the storm, and it well might be the case that there isn't one.

Competition is good, but too much can be harmful. Traditional capitalism and market socialism prioritize "free" markets instead of fair markets. My goal with Cooperative Capitalism is to evolve it into a cooperative market system, focusing on ownership > regulations:

Existing Cooperative Capitalism Structure:

• ESOPs: Founders hold 51% of Class A shares, giving them full control and more profits; employees hold 49% of shares, giving them rest of profits and voting rights on their wages and benefits.
• Co-Ops: Employees own 100% of Class A shares.

Multi-Stakeholder Evolution: Over time, both models create Class B shares, which are granted to consumers. Class B shares provide:

• 10% of the company's profits
• Voting on sustainability practices and ensuring businesses stay within the eco-ceiling
• Financial tokens for participation in the circular recycling model that all businesses have

Adding consumer ownership to all businesses creates a market system that is focused more on cooperation than just competitiveness, since the people now have an actual stake in how businesses are being run, and they derive profits from them.

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.

i’m genuinely curious how people, especially in the US, still defend capitalism as a system and/or fail to see how much of a scam it is. if you believe it is a good, functioning system, please tell me why or how you defend that ideal mentally. it feels blatantly obvious the people are being ripped off and lied to. (psa i barely understand flairs and there was no option for “sick and tired of it all” so i went with independent)

(Universal Basic Income) This would mean that everyone under a system would receive around $1,000 a month to supply their basic needs. Would you support this, and if you would, how would you implement it?

Hi guys!

Just wanted to ask this question, there’s no wrong or right answer. Need different perspectives on this topic! Please tell me what you think!

If prohibition doesn't work at reducing the amount of consumers for some good or service, then we should not expect a reduction in consumption of TikTok from Americans. Logically speaking.

This TikTok ban will provide a clear real-world test to see if your belief is correct.

If there is a reduction, say because the extra effort of circumventing the ban discourages some people, then that is proof prohibition works at reducing consumption.

As we enter 2025, the escalating crisis in the Taiwan Strait has emerged as one of the most pressing national security challenges for the United States. With the increasing likelihood of China resorting to military force to achieve unification with Taiwan, both U.S. government officials and segments of the American public appear more inclined to support direct intervention to prevent a Chinese takeover. Proponents of intervention argue that defending Taiwan would thwart President Xi Jinping’s regime from successfully annexing the island. However, this perspective overlooks the profound risks associated with direct military engagement and assumes that the United States military is guaranteed to overcome any challenges posed by such a conflict.

While a successful Chinese takeover of Taiwan would undoubtedly pose significant economic and political challenges to the United States, these consequences pale in comparison to the catastrophic costs of a potential war with China. Despite the United States’ long-standing policy of "strategic ambiguity" regarding Taiwan's defense, President Biden has repeatedly stated that the U.S. would intervene militarily in the event of a Chinese invasion. Although his administration has attempted to walk back these statements, such remarks have further inflamed tensions with Beijing, edging Washington closer to an unnecessary conflict. Escalations were compounded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s controversial visit to Taipei in 2022, which enraged China and provoked large-scale military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, further destabilizing the region. These actions by Washington, though often framed as support for Taiwan, have only intensified the already fraught situation. While Beijing’s aggressive posturing cannot be ignored, many U.S. think tanks continue to adopt a hawkish stance, failing to fully account for the devastating consequences of a direct military confrontation with China.

The consequences of U.S. military intervention in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be catastrophic, potentially plunging the world into unprecedented devastation. Even in the best-case scenario, where the United States emerges victorious, the human and economic costs would be staggering. Within the first week alone, thousands of American lives would likely be lost on land, at sea, and in the air. This scenario also dangerously assumes that the conflict would remain conventional, an assumption fraught with peril given China’s substantial nuclear arsenal. With hundreds of nuclear warheads capable of obliterating major U.S. cities, a nuclear exchange would result in unimaginable destruction, claiming millions—if not billions—of lives across both nations and beyond.

This chilling prospect cannot be overstated. A U.S. president considering intervention must weigh the potential loss of cities like Los Angeles or Seattle before committing to the defense of Taipei—a moral and strategic dilemma no leader should ever face. The specter of such a decision underscores the most compelling reason Washington must avoid direct involvement in Taiwan: the incalculable human cost of escalation. Preserving global stability and avoiding the horrors of nuclear war must take precedence over military intervention in the Taiwan Strait.

While a successful Chinese takeover of Taiwan would undoubtedly harm the United States in significant ways, the consequences of military intervention would be far more devastating. The risk of a catastrophic nuclear conflict between the world’s two major superpowers should serve as a sobering reminder that defending Taiwan comes with an unthinkably deadly price. In a nuclear war, there are no winners—only incalculable losses. Although I sincerely hope China never resorts to invading Taiwan and that peace can prevail, the reality is that the costs of direct intervention far outweigh the consequences of a Chinese takeover. Preserving global stability and preventing the unimaginable horrors of nuclear war must remain paramount. It is my hope that future U.S. leaders recognize this reality and ensure that our planet is spared from the brink of destruction.

Sources:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/american-public-opinion-on-ukraine/

https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-bidens-big-shift-taiwan-means

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62398029

https://www.cato.org/commentary/secret-war-making-americans-should-not-die-defend-taiwan

https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-americans-willing-die-taiwan

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4204113-we-should-not-choose-to-fight-a-war-with-china-if-they-invade-taiwan/

When looking at the political divide today, I find myself thinking more and more that it is less of an information issue and more of a value issue. That being said, what do you value the most when you vote for candidates, and what do you believe OTHERS value the most when choosing. I personally believe that most people vote based off of lack of understanding of the other side, and when I’m voting I hope to vote for the candidate that has the highest chance to solve for inequality and provide opportunity.

There is a lot going on in this great conflagration in California. First, let’s take a look at Gov Newsom. He has said that the issue of the fire hydrants being dry is for the locals to investigate. I can see his reasoning there, hydrants are property of the local municipality. The overarching issue here is the fact that he refuses to put the storm water, snow melt, etc. into reservoirs. If that water was readily available, preemptive response at the state level could have been possible. Secondly, he is absolutely wonderful when it comes to dodging questions and giving non-answers. He refuses to take accountability for letting his radical left policies and ideals that gave way for the Santa Ana winds to create a “perfect storm”. He is more focused on DEI policies and smelt than protecting his constituents.

Shifting now to Mayor Bass. The NWS issued a red flag warning before these fires broke out. Mayor Bass decided that her pre planned trip to Ghana was still acceptable. Leaving her Deputy Mayor in charge, oh wait he’s on admin leave and currently under investigation for calling in a bomb threat. She left her city at a time when it needed leadership most. Only after the fires broke out, she got back on a plane and started the 17 hour trek back to LA. The damage was already done. She can be “lockstep” with everyone in city management, but that doesn’t change the fact that she has no clue to manage this emergency. $17.6M in budget cuts to the fire department (this is not to be confused with the allotment of the General Fund which only pays salaries, benefits, and paid parental leave). That money could have been reallocated to fire prevention programs or the purchase of aerial firefighting equipment. But no, she slashed their funding and crippled their ability to preemptively and effectively fight these conflagrations.

Lastly, some of you are going to say “all i see are the rich people losing one of their 17 mansions.” Look; LA might be more affluent than most of the country, but they are not the sole demographic. There are middle class families that have lost EVERYTHING. There are families that are impoverished that have lost EVERYTHING. From their houses, schools, grocery stores, faith centers, priceless objects that hold extreme sentimental value. If it was your city on fire would you still be mocking the people that lost everything? And we’re not even covering all of the small businesses that lost everything here.

Ultimately, IMO, Gov Newsom and Mayor Bass have failed their constituents and by their own hands have constructed their own downfall.

My take is that looting an area that's going to be destroyed reduces pollution, aids in recovery and reduces waste from salvaged resources.

The next layer of this however is that if it gave people who are riskrisking their lives to salvage resresources in a hostile environment, you're missing the problem that people are desperate enough to risk their wellbeing for whatever they can salvage.

We're watching people call to punish looters during disasters. If people were paid well enough, they wouldn't risk their wellness to looting. If we valued resources, we'd organize to salvage whatever we could before destruction.

Instead, we're watching insurance companies lock up resources and police being used to guard resources set for destruction and then people defending this behavior, punishing the poor for being poor and attempting to salvage resources.

What am I missing?

View Poll

Trumps own handpicked Justice Amy Conley Barrett and Chief Justice John Robert’s who is conservatives rejected trumps appeal. Trump also never raised “political persecution” to an appeals court showing he never thought it would hold up.

Here is an article with multiple sources linked to throughly show my argument, but the question is simple. After reading, why do conservatives still think trump was unfairly targeted?

Article: https://www.socialsocietys.com/p/donald-trump-was-never-unfairly-targeted

Trumps landslide win against the Democratic party is perfect for China to do whatever it wants in the world stage. There are a few reasons for this however the two most important are the distraction, and the lack of a leader for the west. Allow me to explain.

 Before even being sworn into office, Trump has threatened the sovereignty of Denmark, Canada, Panama, and Mexico (With Elon musk also essentially threatening to overthrow the democratically elected centrist British government.) This is absolutely perfect for China, as the US has already proven itself a untrusty worthy and perhaps even back stabbing ally. It is great for propaganda as they can frame (and to be honest be correct about) the US doing a Anschluss on Canada, while also robbing Denmark of Greenland and Panama of its Canal.  Not only does this create a great distraction for China to do what it wants and increase its influence around it, but also allows it to cozy up to the Europeans and Oceanic nations as a more moderate and calm ally, compared to the clearly unstable and almost comically villainous US. China already has a lot of Influence in Europe and Oceania, and it could easily exploit these to make a alliance. Something that would be easy to do and not that unlikely because China has a generally positive view of the EU. 

What the US being aggressive does essentially allows China to steal Americas allies. The more Trump gets what he wants, the more China benefits. 

Arguments that might be brought up and I want to counter them ahead of time

China-Russo Alliance

While this is a good point, China would most likely through Russia under the bus in exchange for a much more powerful ally in the form of the EU. The only reason China allies to Russia is because they have little other option, but with no hostile EU, China has no need for Russia beyond a nuclear arsenal that it would get with France anyway. 

EU is staunchly democratic, China is not

Again China and Russia are not similar ideologies, but they are allies because they have common enemies. China can just present themselves as Social Democrats or economists to sneak past the “Non Democratic nation alarm” 

What if Canada and Greenland vote to join. 

If Russian oligarchs go to Alaska and bribe a bunch of people into joining Russia because “they were oppressed and badly treated by the US overlords”, I don’t think people would really consider that democratic. 

Also, I would just like to point out that Denmark is happier and is more successful in almost all regards than the US, so almost any vote to join the US is certainly just bribery. 

Trump and Elon are just joking

Yeah, no. We will see, I hope they are but a official announcement from the government seems unlikely to be “just a joke bro”.

We have seen Chinas geopolitics at work for decades already with the Silk roads, China bribes its way into alliances and is very clever with them. All that has changed for China now is that it will be able to get stronger allies.

Sources

https://www.clingendael.org/publication/how-china-pursuing-new-world-order-among-geopolitical-ruins

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-belt-and-road-the-new-geopolitics-of-global-infrastructure-development/

https://worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2377740023500161?srsltid=AfmBOoqOMEL0PvoH88pmG5bgK1hDCLfgY6Zdji6BroEzHWiflLOqEFIp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMAt3BluAU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5P1ailny8M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c4uO9ZGfbc&t=1526s

I’m going to link a very thorough write up as a more flushed out description of my position. But I think it’s pretty clear climate change is the MAIN driver behind the effects of these wildfires. Not democrats or their choices.

I would love for someone to read a couple of the reasons I list here(sources included) and to dispute my claim as I think it’s rather obvious.

https://www.socialsocietys.com/p/la-wildfires-prove-climate-change

I posited to an AI bot what could have happened had Al Gore won the election in 2000, served 2 terms and then he was succeeded by a moderate Republican like Mitt Romney or John McCain. I honestly found the resultant commentary striking and a timeline that I think would have been balanced and better for all Americans - Democrat, Republican and Independent. The results are below. I wanted to find out - would this be a timeline that left and right could look at and be happy about? Do you think that it would have turned out differently if Al Gore won in 2000? If so, how? What do you think would have happened?

In the year 2000, Al Gore won the U.S. presidential election, narrowly defeating George W. Bush. His presidency marked a significant shift in American policies, particularly in environmental and foreign affairs.

2001-2004: The Gore Administration

Al Gore's first term focused heavily on environmental policies. He introduced sweeping legislation to combat climate change, investing in renewable energy sources and promoting green technologies. The Kyoto Protocol was ratified, and the U.S. took a leading role in global environmental efforts.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Gore's administration pursued a more diplomatic approach, working closely with international allies to combat terrorism. The Iraq War was avoided, and efforts were concentrated on stabilizing Afghanistan through international cooperation and reconstruction.

2005-2008: A Second Term

Gore's re-election in 2004 saw continued emphasis on environmental sustainability. The U.S. economy benefited from the growth of green industries, creating jobs and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Healthcare reform was also a priority, with the introduction of a public option to expand access to healthcare.

2008: The Rise of a Moderate Republican

By 2008, voters were ready for a change. Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican, won the presidency, promising to build on the economic successes of the Gore administration while offering a more business-friendly approach. His administration focused on economic growth, tax reforms, and maintaining the environmental progress made under Gore.

2009-2012: Romney's First Term

Romney's presidency saw a balanced approach to governance. He continued to support renewable energy initiatives while also promoting traditional energy sources. His healthcare policies aimed to improve the efficiency of the system without dismantling the public option introduced by Gore.

2012: A Second Term for Romney

Romney's re-election in 2012 was a testament to his moderate policies and ability to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. His second term focused on strengthening the economy, improving education, and maintaining a strong international presence.

2016: A New Era

By 2016, the political landscape had shifted. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive Democrat, won the presidency, promising to address income inequality, healthcare, and climate change. Her administration built on the environmental and healthcare policies of her predecessors, pushing for more comprehensive reforms.

2020: Continued Progress

Warren's re-election in 2020 saw continued efforts to address social and economic issues. The U.S. remained a global leader in environmental sustainability, and healthcare access was further expanded.

2024: A Look Ahead

As 2024 approaches, the political climate is one of optimism and progress. The U.S. has made significant strides in addressing climate change, healthcare, and economic inequality. The Supreme Court, shaped by appointments from Gore, Romney, and Warren, reflects a balanced and progressive approach to key issues.

South Africa and Botswana are two of the few countries that combined the roles of head of state and head of government in a parliamentary (Westminster-like) framework. This allows the president to be kept in check by parliament while streamlining the executive, making the roles of President and PM less confusing. However he cannot do anything on his own since his power comes from Parliament just like a classic PM, President of council or Chancellor. One could argue that removing the neutral role of president can lead to constitutionnal crisis but let's be honest if the president isn't a purely ceremonial head of state he will never be neutral. We saw how Macron abused his powers recently to ignore the opposition majority.

TL:DR : why aren't more countries fusing PM and president in a parliamentary system

I can only speak for myself, and you may very well think I'm a right winger after reading this, but I'd like to explain why being a conservative is not the same as being a right winger by looking at some issues:

Nationalism vs Patriotism: I may love my country, but being born into it doesn't make me 'better' than anyone, nor do I want to imperialize other nations as many on the right wing have throughout history.

Religion: I don't think it should be mandatory for everyone to practice my religion, but I do think we should have a Christian Democracy.

Economics + Environment: This is more variable, but unlike most right wingers, I want worker ownership, basic needs being met, and an eco-ceiling for all organizations and people to protect the environment.

Compassion: It's important to have compassion for everyone, including groups one may disagree with. All in all, I think conservatives are more compassionate than those on the farther end of the 'right wing.'

Firstly, let’s set up a definition of imperialism. I think Oxford Language has a good enough definition.

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

Anarchism technically doesn't have imperialism because it doesn't have nations but if we widen our definition of imperialism to non-nation entities(eg. tribes, communes, fraternities) then it has imperialism. It's also not what I’m looking for.

Imperialism has happened in ideologies across the political compass. Marxist-Leninism, Neoliberalism, Fascism, etc all have some sort of imperialism.

So what causes imperialism? More specifically, are there traits that make imperialism more prevalent in a state? Is it military power? Is it state control? Is it nationalism? Or is imperialism something above politics? Is imperialism tied to philosophy or even human nature?

I’d like to see your answers and discuss.

Here is how I think housing/residential property should work:

• Private Market System: Properties can be developed, purchased, and sold on the market with traditional ownership models. Owners of residential properties can not use them as businesses or for-profit (e.g. land lording), except in the case of selling the property itself.
• State Housing: The state develops and owns apartments for citizens that meet the income requirements. They are guaranteed a single apartment. After citizens live in a unit for 5 years, the apartment will be transferred from the state to the citizen at no cost for traditional ownership (meaning they can now sell the place if they wish)
• Private-Public-Cooperatives: For citizens who move around a lot and/or don’t meet the income requirements for state housing, the state contracts private non-profits to develop housing co-ops. Instead of renting, individuals or families purchase a share in these low cost cooperatives, giving them a right to live in a specific unit and participate in co-op governance.

Taxation: There are no property taxes on residential properties. To pay for the state housing programs and development, other taxes (like income tax) are levied.

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.

Yall insist on making this a debate on trade. Just tell me what do you have to trade that isn't your workforce? Once your workforce isn't worth anything in a trade economy what are you going to do? Maybe start working with other ideas than trade because AI and automation is coming fast.

FINAL EDIT:::

I believe the goal is very attainable. It just seems impossible because we made it into a religion : every single aspect of our lives is quantified by money. We think of everything in term of cost or benefit. Just like the ancient Greeks who linked everything to the powers of a god, we link everything to money. We went from "sacrificing doves to the altar of Hera for the fecundity of my wife so she may bring forth a child of mine" to "sacrificing our Saturday afternoon at the fertility clinic where we bought an in vitro intervention for the sum of 2000$ may it bring us a child".

Like the Greeks would've been baffled if you told them they could do without their gods, we are baffled when we are told we could do without money.

*How did the Greeks manage to get rid of their gods, and how did money become our god? *

In the era of the Greeks, gods were responsible for everything. You fell in love? It's Aphrodite's effort. She made you fall in love. You planned a perfect strategy at war? It was Athena's doing it for you. So you served the gods to acquire favors for this or for that. (That is clear when you read Homer that the gods are omnipresent for the Greek and this is how they understood the world). Then, everything changed when the fire nation attacked.

Well, they were conquered by the Romans which applied the religion of paganism. Instead of destroying the Greek gods like conquerors used to do, they included them in the Roman pantheon. So now, rather than have new gods, they were stuck with the gods that lost them the war. They were stuck with loser gods, which diminished their value in their eyes.

Moreover, Christianity was about to come. Christianity emerged as the religion that reconciled the Jews to the Romans : since the Jews worshipped only one God, the Roman model of intergration was not working. How do you integrate a religion that says "there's no god but YHWH" to a model that says "worship all the gods"? You can't, unless you bring forth a New Covenant.

Moreover, there was also the whole debate on whether the Jews should pay taxes to the Roman empire because gold and treasure for the Jews was God's, they gave it to the Temple so God had a big pile of money. On this debate Jesus said, seeing the face of Cesar on the coinage, "Give onto Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and to God what belongs to God", and thus implanted secularism into the core of Christianity (the separation of the State and the Church is a very Christian idea;; everywhere else before Jesus politics and religion were one and the same: you attacked the others because they were serving other gods, and it was really a fight of the gods to see which one is best; by creating the division of what belongs to the empire and what belonged to YHWH, Jesus sort of invented politics as distinct from religious affairs).

When the Roman empire started facing issues of disunity, as people were lacking a sense of being a team with those who worshipped other gods than theirs, the emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. Then began the process of getting rid of the old gods to replace them with one god everyone worshipped. That's how the Greek pantheon fell.

When Rome was sacked by the barbarians, many were saying that it's because of the Christians (Christians were often their scapegoats) but the opinion that lasted is that it was the worshipping of the demons that led to the sack of Rome. The demons, for Christianity, are the old gods like Ares, Jupiter, Osiris, Odin, etc. that Jesus got rid of. He chased the demons away for a new world where we didn't have to suck up to demons, call them gods, for favors that is not even theirs to give away.

Now you prayed only one God, who made the biggest sacrifice ever, so any other sacrifice would just pale in comparison, so sacrifices were no longer necessary. All you had to do now was "ask and you shall recieve". And people still believe it, because Jesus was the symbolic prophet and Messiah (he fulfilled the prophecies in a humble symbolic way when the Jews were expecting epic literal way), so when you asked for something, you would very probably recieve it in a humble and symbolic way as well. So it's always possible to reinterpret the events as your prayers being answered.

Then the Renaissance happened when the philosophes finally got access to the Ancient Texts of the Greeks, as preserved and transmitted by the Islamic world who kept old knowledge, since Islam does invite the believer into thinking. The Quran tells you many times to either observe nature to calculate abstract concepts like time or that God loves those who think and does all these things for them, etc. The first word God told Mohammad is "Read!" (Just to tell you how much its important in Islam).

So when the Christian world came into contact with the texts of the ancients, as preserved by the Muslims, they shed away a layer of Christianity and led up to Nietzsche who completely destroys it. This led into a mechanisation of the world. Once the superstitions were gone, everything could be quantified and seen as machines, and we even started building more and more complex machines, leading up to an industrial world.

Parallel to the Renaissance philosophes, Martin Luther started a schism with the Catholic Church and created a new work ethic. Whereas the Catholics worked until they had enough for the day ("Give us today our daily bread" from the Pater Noster) and then stopped until the next day, Protestants protested that work ethic with maximizing the work effort and not waste time, fructifying what we have (from the parabola of the coins and the servants in Luke) as a service to God. This will find echo in the Anglican Church were the interests of the bourgeoisie were highly considered by the Queen, surrounding herself with a government comprised of the trading class.

The old religions started to make way for ideologies that emerged from Christianity : liberalism and communism, plus conservatism as a reaction to the first two. They still operate in the Christian framework : the Church is the body of Christ, liberalism concerns itself with the members firstly and devotes the whole of the body to each and every member (the term member comes from the body of Christ, you are a member of the body of Christ) and communism concerns itself with the whole of the body in a holistic way and devotes the members to the whole of it, having a central comittee that acts as the central brain;; conservatism wants only to keep the old traditions, its a "no, no, guys you are going too far into Christianity, let's keep it simple, the old ways, the old ways".

And all that was allowed by the technological advancements, so much so that Marx isn't even thinkable without the industrial revolution that the steam engine brought. Industry was and is still owned mostly by the same families who were wealthy at that epoch, thats what we call "old money". Their way of seeing things spread from top to bottom. The bourgeoisie, who started as merchants in the mercantile economy, and which occupation was centered around money, slowly but surely rearranged the political structure to fit their mores, their norms and their values. That's the start of hegemony.

Now, the Protestant ethics, combined with the Anglican Church where the Queen or the King decided the proper belief led to what we call the spirit of capitalism, which was mostly concerned with fructifying money, not just as a service to God so we can give him his money when he returns, but as a raison d'état and more generally as a moral imperative. Not wasting time, always being productive, etc. etc.

But by making money fructification the imperative, it reified itself and it got fetishized into its own object when the philosophes work had created a class of scientists who no longer explain things with God. We became a Godless Christian world, where we accumulate and sit on piles of money that keep getting bigger and bigger, but we no longer accumulate it for a God, and most stopped hoping for his return... We accumulate it for its own sake.

Corporations sit on billions and billions of dollars, theyd have to make an interminable series of bad investments to even make dent in their fortune, but they spend it as if we were still living in famine and there was not enough. It became vampiric if I could say so. Just sucking money and preserving for infinity. So much so, we even thought we reached the end of history after the Soviet Union failed and liberalism seemed to have won over all of the Christian world.

Then we got the "barbarian invasion" with 9/11 and it started a new religious era where the Christian world was at war with other religions like China's confucianism with relents of Moaism coked up by western capitalism as a pure means, and of course at war with Islam, and still at war with itself by fighting Russia who had historically been seperated from the Catholics and the Protestants, being Orthodox by following the church of the Eastern Roman empire that didn't fall when the Western Roman empire did.

Meanwhile, instead of sucking up to gods, or a God, we suck up to authority, we follow the money, we use money for everything we want or need... sex workers replaced Aphrodite, fertility clinics replaced Hera, gay cruises replaced Poseidon, the weather channel replaced Zeus, and money allows it all as it took the place at the top of the pantheon taking the spot of God himself since we were accumulating treasure for someone we don't expect anymore, we kept accumulating for who's not coming and thus the devotion is now just for the accumulation itself.

That's the jist of how we got from civilizations of men with pantheons of gods to a Church of God with kings, monks and peasants into a godless money-piling society of individual monkeys

What's the next step?

Unfortunately, I didn't find answers on this thread. I mostly got the religious reaction of "we can't get rid of money, wtf?!". Of course we can. Its not a necessity, just like the Greek gods were not a necessity. You need a roof and food on the table. You don't need the job and the money. If society was to collapse, you'd be happier to have a roof and food on your table than a large sum of money that isn't worth shit anymore.

Anyway, economists predict a hyperinflation in the mid to near future; who says that once that happens, most people would still use money? I mean, if the market sells you apples at a million dollars, you'd probably look for a seed you can grow into your own apple tree, and because its too expensive to start a business, you just eat the apples and give some to your friends instead of getting into the money game that is so much so at the end game that most players are simply out of the game and just the final players are left to play.

Once we get a winner in capitalism, once one family has made it, and owns everything, all the money, then all the money will be worth nothing and the winner will just be left with a lot of stuff no one can buy. Their only logical choice is to start getting into giving things away because what makes their power is the people working under them, but if you don't do shit for them, they won't be working much for you, and they don't use money anymore since the hyperinflation... so... yeah. I think this is a prophecy.

I'm working on creating a new religion that is a fusion of all the current religions as to have a world religion every religion can evolve into. And I firmly believe that getting rid of money, just like we god rid of the old gods, is the step forward.

=====everything below this line is of lesser quality and is kept for archive purposes=======

EDIT 1 : now that we've got almost every argument in favor of keeping money, I would like to actually hear from people pro-abolishment. It was never supposed to be a debate, but a discussion on abolishing money. I will therefore no longer reply to those who answer the question "why can't we abolish money?" Because that is not the subject of this thread. If you think its impossible then I don't care much for what you have to say. I studied political science and philosophy, I think I have the jist of it and I don't need repeating of old tired arguments. All in all I believe many people are in favor of abolishing money, but fear the worst and will advocate for keeping it because we "are not ready yet" they say. To those, I agree to disagree, but I don't want to debate, i want to discuss!

EDIT 2 : I got the general vibe that most people think it might go away in the future, but that it is a necessity for now, though I remain unconvinced it is even necessary to get the work done today. I'd like to hear more about the religious aspect of money : is it our god? Like we follow money wherever it goes, we let it control our lives, it makes things possible or impossible for us like a decree from God. Have we fallen collectively for the Gospel of Wealth? What sort of god should replace money?

Original post::::

Let's discuss the abolition of money seriously. There is no point restating the benefits of the usage of money. We all know it's a practical solution to the problem of ressources management. Unfortunately, it is also a system of power and control. A system that decides who has more money, also determines who has more power and who has less.

To be clear, this is not a discussion about trade. Without money, if you make guitars and want to get rid of them, you simply give them to who asks for a guitar, and when you are hungry, you go to a restaurant and ask for food. Let's say we abolish money AND trading, quid pro quo "this for that", even to the point of making it illegal if people go on using money as some sort of way of keeping track of who owes how much, or who is owed wtv. It's a do what you want, ask for what you need type of society, not one keeping tabs on everything.

Without money, people wouldn't be forced to work, but they will work because they'd rather do that than stay at home and do nothing, and because it is not well seen by the community to be doing nothing all day. So its not like communism where everyone had to become a worker. People choose what they want to do, or even choose to not work, without livelihood or standard of living being compromised.

By the removal of the money barrier, we would know for real what is the demand for every commodity. As long as things have prices, the demand is bound to the pricing of the commodity and we don't really know things like "how many people want to fly to another country", instead we know solely "how many people would fly because they can afford the ticket and want to".

We would start making expensive and quality objects rather than make cheap alternatives to fit the average budgets. Cars wouldn't break down as easily as we wouldn't build with programmed obsolescence. There would be no cheap alternatives, everything would be top notch quality.

Its like everyone's goal in life right now is to make money and I believe we should all aspire to have societies where everyone would have different goals.

Money all started with someone convincing the rest of us that something worthless was actually worth something. Rich families know that money isn't worth anything, and the real wealth is having other people do things for you. Money is the way by which the wealthy get the others to do things for them.

Instead of always owing each other money, being controlled (by being in debt, by being refused commodities without money, etc.) we would teammates rather than enemies.

The ally of my enemy is my enemy : money pretends to be the ally of everyone when in fact, it's our common enemy. In paints us as enemies of one another and we seek money as an ally for us. But since it's everyone's ally and we are all enemies, shouldn't money itself become everyone's enemy? Even formulated as "other people's money is my enemy", the best way to get rid of other people's money would be to get rid of yours.

Lets all be like Jesus and give the money back to who is on the bill. Give it all to dead presidents or the king or queen depicted on your money. Once the king has ALL the money, it will become worthless. Give onto Cesar what belongs to Cesar and then you'll discover that Cesar is in fact, nothing but a guy with lots of bills and coins with his face on it...

If you're unaware what a money sink is, I refer to gold sinks in video games.

The economy of such games typically involves players gathering gold from playing the game, which they then use to purchase items or services, or trade with other players. Gold sinks serve to decrease the total amount of gold players have, since without sinks, there will be inflation.

I believe a wealth tax is probably the most effective way to implement this. I'm well aware of the pitfalls of wealth taxes but I don't really see any other way of doing it.

The implementation is simple, but politically impossible:

If you own more than, or around $50 million in assets; you must file a wealth form.

Depending on your net worth, you will end up with a percentage. This percentage is how much of your assets must be fed to the gold sink.

$50M–$100M: 1%

$100M–$1B: 2%

$1B–$5B: 10%

$5B–$10B: 15%

$10B–$50B: 25%

$50B–$100B: 30%

$100B+: 50%

These numbers will track the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

This is not a bracketed system. The percentage applies directly to your net worth. If you’ve done extremely well for yourself and are worth $100 million, every year you’ll need to sell $1 million of what you own and hand it over to the federal government.

If your net worth is $2 billion, you’ll need to sell around $200 million of your assets each year and contribute it.

Elon Musk is selling half of what he owns every year until he slips to the lower brackets.

No one should be worth over $100 billion. These people literally should not exist. If you were a founding father who achieved immortality, and on average, increased your wealth by $10k per day, you still wouldn't even be a billionaire. You'd have $910 million dollars and there would be about 800 people worth more than you despite all of them being 1/6th of your age.

Democracies are not incompatible with oligarchies. The wealth tax will certainly generate significant revenue - perhaps enough to start chipping away at the $35 trillion debt. But its real purpose of it is to protect our democracy from concentrated power. These years it will be Musk, Thiel and Bezos telling our elected reps what to do. In four years, it'll be Soros and the Establishment. Again.

When is enough, enough?