Whether it's an Internet discussion, social media video, or any type of political news, or elected politicians.

No argument or point being made here, just wondering what your thoughts are.

The idea of "democracy without politics" sounds Orwellian, yet if you say something like "let us democratise foreign policy", everyone will agree that this sounds like a good idea. If you instead say "let us politicise foreign policy", the response will be scepticism and grimaces.

Along similar lines, what exactly is the difference between self-determination and ethno-nationalism? To me it seems like the difference is basically that liberals will call it self-determination when they are sympathetic to it (as in Ukraine) and ethnonationalism when they are not.

(I should add that even though my flair says "far right", I am opposed to ethnonationalism. I am opposed to it because populism in general is much too democratic. I am more of a believer in aristocracy and tradition)

The question above is obvious, I think.

I'll make a list of my own to open the debate:

• De Tocqueville (Classical liberal, but interesting to say the least!)
• Edmund Burke (Forefather of conservatism. How couldn't I mention him?)
• Charles De Gaulle (a harder one, but I think more than acceptable.)
• Adam Smith (I know economical liberal, but you guys call it "fiscal conservatism" and it's the view held by most conservatives.)
• Joseph De Maistre (Forefather of conservatism. Impossible to not mention.)
• Ronald Reagan (Very favorable, but I'll be the first to admit Clinton and Bush Jr. should've taken action when the signs of 2008 were showing. Clinton continued the neoliberal policies and Bush was, well, he was Bush.)
• .....

Like for example, r/Conservative too posts are often not about an event or anything, but maybe some Internet leftist will post something like “white people suck/are colonizers” or “I enjoy 3rd term abortions,” and then all the conservatives will rejoice in anger at the single anonymous internet user.

For me, I don’t understand why be bothered about leftist internet users at all, but it seems to be popular for them. I kind of see it as the political equivalent of men getting worked up over the “man vs bear” debate.

No matter who wins this November, the Democratic Party will need to pick a new standard bearer in 2028. If it were up to you, who would that person be and why? Or at the very least, who do you hope to see run in the presidential primary?

And yes, I realize this is WAY too early to make any real predictions and opinions are subject to change as new national figures emerge or existing ones fall out of favor. Nevertheless, I think it's still interesting to think about even this far out.

I always feel conflicted about this because I know they work really hard for bad wages, but they always mess up my delivery. I usually decide to keep their tip but give them a lower rating, but I'm always conflicted about this.

This Friday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.

The bill, that was just passed by the Louisiana Senate, and will soon be voted on again by the House, seems to massively violate the constitution and separation of church and state. Do you think the bill will actually make it into law or is there a good chance it will get struck down on appeal if it gets passed by the House?

And is this part of a wider attempt to turn the US into a Christian theocracy or are people in Louisiana a tiny minority of ultra-religious Christian nationalists, and hardcore even by bible belt standards?

And several people agreed with that crap.

My question: Do legitimate race/gender/economic issues suffer when they're used otherwise out of context to shame people?

The New York Times no doubt draws the interminable ire from conservatives and earns unabating vitriol from the left, but lately there has been increased vexation from disdainful capital-/big-/uppercase-D Democrats, many of whom have long been part of the NYT's voracious consumer base, toward the publication.

Why's that?

Pretty much the title, but I generally think that self-diagnosis of strategic failings is often more interesting than external evaluation.

Edit: I'm especially but not exclusively interested in mistakes that are unique to the center-left.

I've been searching for jobs lately and I've noticed virtually all entry level jobs require some degree of work experience, around 2-4 years regardless of what degree you have. To me, this is absurd, as shouldn't entry level be the starting point? It seems hiring managers want to hire someone who has done the exact job in another company instead of training, when most of these jobs can be taught fairly easy.

It creates a catch 22 situation, particularly for recent grads: you need work experience to advance your career, but you can't get any without a job.

Do you think this is something the government should regulate?

This is for those who believe in the social democracy ideology, so not centrist liberals or socialists.

Examples would be BreadTubers, socialist steamers like Hasan Piker, video essayists who do the “Reading of insert piece of media through a Marxist lens”, or “blank is actually a subversive socialist masterpiece” videos, etc.

if so, how would you like it done

Do you think the left is too caught up in identity politics? It feels like movements like feminism, LGBTQ rights, and Black Lives Matter, which started with great intentions, sometimes end up creating more division than equality. For example, feminist discussions can sometimes turn into an 'us vs. them' situation between genders, and the focus on race in BLM can overshadow important issues like class, making some people feel left out. Similarly, LGBTQ advocacy can get so specific that it leaves those unfamiliar with the issues feeling confused or excluded. I think we can tackle systemic problems without always focusing on race or gender. For instance, economic policies that help everyone or making sure all communities have access to affordable healthcare could promote unity and solve these problems without causing more division.

That is my main critique of the left. I wish people can advocate for equality without making it a me vs them competition, especially the toxic side of feminism, which again, I understand is not the majority of feminists, but when you go on twitter, and you see women saying they rather be with a bear than a man, I struggle to see how that rhetoric is helpful.

I was watching The Big Lebowski and I feel like we need a Walter/Smokey litmus test.

I personally identify with Walter, although I think the gun is a bit excessive. Like listen, just because you broke the rules a little bit doesn’t immunise you from losing a point. The rules are the rules. I feel like society loses itself every time we let a Smokey claim his points even though he was over the line.

Also don’t interpret this as a political-specific question, it’s more about day to day life absent how you vote. When you notice these minor infractions of unspoken rules does it bother you? These would be victimless infractions. Things like mowing a neighbor’s lawn without permission or trying to undo a chess move even though we saw you take your hand off the piece.

Do you let minor infractions slide or would you rather we all be more rule-abiding. NOT law abiding. This isn’t about crime. It’s about the little things.

I feel like following these little rules is how we keep old Satan Claus away.

To start, just so we're clear: I am pro-choice,

However, I think this is a pretty unusual take to hear, even from liberals. I think Bill was being a bit facetious here maybe, but I also think he was trying to introduce a point. That point being that the world is overpopulated and less babies is okay. I'll be generous and say Bill meant to say "killing" babies and not "murdering" babies (there's a difference). But still, the idea of killing babies just to curb overpopulation is kind of wild.

As an additional point, RFK said in an interview that he would be okay with even "full-term" abortions. That is, a fully-formed child in the womb. He backtracked of course, but he did say it.

Most Americans don't agree with this. Most voters say that there's a line where abortion is wrong, and it's somewhere around the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

So it seems like maybe the winds of change are blowing a bit for the pro-choice crowd, introducing these rather radical takes on seeing "murdering" babies as okay and aborting full-term babies in the womb.

How do you guys feel about this?

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of taking performance enhancing drugs before debates and big speeches. And many would argue we've seen cognitive decline in both. Voters expect the candidates to be clean but who knows. There's an argument that correctly dosed with Adderall, a candidate could have an unfair advantage. Don't the voters need to know how Trump and Biden think on their feet unenhanced?

As a sequel to my last thread, I feel like flipping the question on its back and delve into an inverted version of our previous discussion:

1. Who are your top five most hated or LEAST Favorite Democratic President in history?
2. Who are your top five most hated or LEAST Favorite Democratic Candidates in the history of all US Presidential Elections?

To make this discussion more interesting and less obvious and predictable, we'll be excluding the most infamous and bigoted Democrats from the 19th Century like Jefferson Davis, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan or whoever the defeated Democratic candidates were of that time period. Or to make this even more challenging for just the most left-leaning users on this sub (Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats), we'll exclude Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden (but other users to the right of them may feel free to choose them as their answer[s]).

Discuss.

I'm looking to see what people think about the 10k tax credit to first time home buyers. I'll be honest, from what I've heard so far, I'm not the biggest fan. From what I understand it hasn't passed and the details haven't been finalized, so I'm reserving my final judgment. I'm just interested in what people have to say about it.

I know that a big issue is that third parties are often disenfranchised from the debates, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for Biden or Trump.

Is there another issue that I don't understand about the Commission on Presidential Debates? Why are Biden and Trump bypassing it?

​

It can be from any time period

Can be their politics, society, etc

Edit: For those saying "culture", it would be helpful to expand upon what specifically you like about their culture.

Isn't that exactly what Reps would want? They constantly make voting harder for people, so seeing how some left-leaning people shoot themselves in the foot by not voting must be a dream for them, no?

I understand not liking Biden, but unfortunately the two-party system makes it so only one of two people will win. So what I'm thinking is that the least you could do is make sure the other person doesn't win, by voting for the other candidate. Especially since in this election there is obviously one person who is way worse than the other person, and there isn't a single policy that should attract a left-leaning person compared to the other candidate.

I am canadian but with what Trump did last time and knowing project 2025 is a thing i am greatly disturbed by the thought of our closest ally country potentially becoming a dictatorship. Especially considering if we are honest that Canada heavily relies on the US military for protection (yes we have our own military but it’s not nearly as powerful or large) . Meaning the US president could have a lot of power over us if they become a dictatorship.

I wish i could be more optimistic that Biden will win and i think he has some chance. But i hate to say i think trump is going to win again. His supporters are practically cult members and anytime he does something bad it’s like they somehow find a reason to support him more.

Meanwhile i keep seeing left wing people who say they won’t vote for Biden over imo some of the pettiest reasons or gripes. I’ve seen liberals say things like “oh those people were never going to vote for him anyway” but while that’s probably true for many of them I still think it’s ultimately cope. It’s not just socialists Ive seen say this but progressive liberals as well who I think previously did vote for him.

Not to mention the fact that in 2016 according to most liberals Trump was “almost definitely going to lose”.

There is a small amount of Republicans who are also heavily against trump I’ve seen who would vote for Biden but i think there numbers are small in comparison to the support Biden is losing.

Do you think I’m wrong? Because i very much want to be wrong. Please let me know what you think or if there is something I’m not taking into account.

Edit: regardless of what you think i hope anyone with the ability to vote doesn’t get complacent. Yes I’m a Canadian in another country but please for your own sake and the sake of people in other countries that could be affected. Vote.

I make money but I'm always looking for ways to save.. here are some questionable ethical quams that may be a net negative to society but are allowed to happen by the government.

1: professional tennant. Basically moving from apartment to apartment every 6 months without paying.

2: blowing off medical bills. I have a high deductible plan and If I have a few grand in medical expenses I'll refuse to pay until it goes to collections and then I offer them a small one time payment, and then blow them off for another year. Basically string them along until it hits your credit and treat it like a 0% loan or free if it goes to a non reporting agency

I can't think of other examples but maybe it's time to be a little scummy towards the rich

It’s a very common prolife trope. The world will collapse if not enough babies are born because the economy will collapse and there won’t be enough people to get work done.

For me, the truth of this statement is location dependent. In a place like Japan, yes, I could see some consequences of population decline. Such as not enough people to take care of the elderly.

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly positive effects such as the fact unemployment would likely plummet for at least a few decades, given that there isn’t a shortage of work today but rather not enough jobs for everyone.

I'm wondering how making everyone's commute home last for 3 hours will help a cause?

A few days ago the AfD in Germany had three Bundestag members give speeches about how the liberals and greens and social democrats seek a totalitarian way of rule due to the repression of opposition parties likes the AfD and the new Wagenknecht party (Which is a weird fusion of right wing and left wing populism combined with a soft pro russian stance).

Out of the gate I think these are crocodile tears, but maybe you see this differently.