Why do you think young men are increasingly lonely and what can we do to fix it?

Maybe I was the only one who didn’t realize that reporting crime statistics to the FBI database was voluntary and that many agencies choose not to report.

In 2023 Texas Legislature passed House Bill 4879 making monthly reporting mandatory.

Should it be mandatory for each law enforcement agency to report all crimes for statistical purposes?

What do you think are the reasons some agencies refuse to report?

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/07/13/fbi-crime-rates-data-gap-nibrs

If 3rd party wasn't an option, how would you have voted otherwise.

I ask this because I think that some 3rd party voters would not have voted for the main party candidates anyway, and there is a constant argument going around that 3rd party is "stealing" votes from the main parties. But there is also a significant (~40%) population of people who simply don't vote at all. How do we know 3rd party voters aren't being drawn from this inactive voting base?

I want to get a sense of how true the "spoiler" argument is, if anybody has a link to an actual study done testing this idea I'd love to see it.

View Poll

I don't believe in the complete abolishing of the Electoral College and the chaos that would cause, but I do feel increasingly disillusioned by it (as I feel a good amount of Americans feel). It is strange to live in a state where both Democrat and Republican peers alike will choose not to engage in the democratic process of choosing the next leader of our country for the next 4 years because we live in a state that is deeply blue and their votes, so they say, don't matter. It is strange how we are supposed to be okay with that when we are in the state with the highest population in the country, yet you hear of more people choosing not to vote than actually voting. I think if there was a reform in the electoral process whereby it is still the normal Electoral College process, but if a candidate accomplished a threshold percentage of votes higher than their opponent it would be an automatic win, and if neither achieves it, revert to the standard Electoral College process. I believe this would encourage voter turn out in both parties and even make the Electoral College more accurate since people would actually go out and vote because they would feel like their vote directly could have an input, instead of merely telling themselves "my state is always blue/red and I'm not going to vote"

Due to recent pushing on political ads in my feed and actual some concern, I actually focused in on reading the abortion segment in Project 2025. Mostly to see if the advertisements about its abortion policies were as insane as they were saying and make sure I’m full aware and informed.

While some concerns are valid due to language used and other statements, I didn’t really get where people were getting the tracking aspect of the conversation outside of page 455. The page expresses the current CDC’s abortion surveillance and maternity mortality reporting systems are inadequate due to states having to volunteer the statistics. It didn’t talk about actually tracking pregnant woman but more about how many abortions, gestational age of the child, why it occurred, and how. They also talked about refining the categories into spontaneous miscarriage, treatment incidents (like Chemo), stillbirths, and induced abortions. It also said actually tracking for complications.

From a statistical mind, I kinda get why the CDC tracks this and honestly more information is better but considering the other wording in the document; it also feels weird.

So for anyone else who’s actually read the document, what are your thoughts? Which section caused you the most concern?

Give me page number cause I would love to see exactly what people are concerned about so I can be on the same page with the discussion!

Essentially the title. I’m socially right and fiscally left. I found both parties abhorrent and plan to vote for Peter Sonski. Is there any reason why I should buy into the lesser of the two evils narrative? Does Harris or Trump offer anything?

Usually it is not wise in an increasingly authoritarian system to let anyone besides the intended leader (Putin) to have that kind of position for as long as he did. Shoigu was at least a Tuvan who wasn't so much One of Them which might be sided with by most Russians. Saddam had a Christian for a major figure, Tariq Aziz, someone who basically had no chance of being the leader in his own right and a relatively safe person to trust with something as important as being Foreign Minister for that much time.

Typically autocratic leaders cycle through chief ministers with relative frequency, Henry VIII is well known for this, Charles X of France did this too with a disposable prime minister. Japanese prime ministers back during the Meiji Oligarchy and the rise of militarism in the 1930s were cycled through very often, a bunch getting assassinated too. Ottoman Viziers also have a reputation for being killed or banished on a rather regular basis once the House of Osman was able to free itself from the control by those prime ministers of the Çandarlı family in 1453.

What was Medvedev's secret?

The filibuster is a tactic used in the Senate to delay a vote by allowing for unlimited debate on a bill. A filibuster can be ended with a three-fifths majority vote, a process known as cloture. With today’s closely divided Senate, filibusters on bills can cause such prolonged debate that lawmakers may avoid bringing certain bills to a vote if they anticipate lengthy opposition. Because of this, should the filibuster be reformed, removed, or left as it is? There are positives and negatives to the filibuster, but do the negatives outweigh the positives, in your opinion? If you think the filibuster should be reformed, how should it be reformed? With today’s significant partisanship, does the filibuster still serve as an effective tool for minority voices, or does it primarily lead to legislative gridlock? Do you think the filibusters purpose today aligns with the original intent?

Hitler Rose to power in the early 1930s after a failed socialist government attempted to seize power. Hitler, not wanting to settle for a lower position in government, was voted in as Chancellor. Hitler used the recent failures of Germany to gain power. He blamed the Jews for the Germans humiliating loss during world war I and created death camps to confine Jewish people. These death camps had horrible conditions. Millions were killed in gas chambers. Most were starved, newborn babies were drowned in front of their mothers or died soon after birth from cold or hunger. After 6 million were killed, eventually the death camps were liberated by America and it's allies.

Khamer rouge is less known than the Holocaust. After a deadly civil war and despite America's ruthless bombing campaign, the CPK, lead by Pol Pot, took control of cambodia. The Khamer Rouge regime was incredibly totalitarian and it implemented "social engineering policies". They attempted a collectivization of various industries which lead to a widespread famine and a shortage of medicine. Many died from treatable diseases such as malaria. Part of pol pots social engineering was a genocide that killed 1.5 to 2 million people of minority dissent (mainly ethnically Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai people were targeted). People were sent to labor camps, prisons and killing fields. One such prison S21 had 20,000 people pass through and has only 12 known survivors. Most prisoners were tortured into naming family members. The leader of S21 testified that under his command, children and babies were bashed against a tree until death for fear that they would one day seek revenge. Three years after Pol Pot took power, cambodia was liberated by the Vietnamese.

Both are demonstrably horrible circumstances and frankly, the horrors of both instances are too vast to summarize in one Reddit post. If you had to live in Khamer Rouge or Nazi Germany but in America which would you choose and Why?

As a liberal Democrat who has made significant donations and canvassed hostile ground.

I just watched footage of MSG racist rally, and it has finally been confirmed in my mind. As MAGA continues to revel in bad behavior, there is only one conclusion. It is a cry for help and Democrats continue to be deaf and abusive parents. The troubled teenagers are shoplifting and we continue to tell them they are dirty and stupid. What is the natural response to this? They turn to the charismatic criminal who tells them they are right and we are clueless and weak.

No amount of berating a truant teenager is going to help. They need love and we have zero idea how to provide it.

Tariffs are a cost that companies simply pass on to consumers; and the US imports a lot of goods. So it’s hard for me to see how a 20% tariff on all imports doesn’t cause inflation to skyrocket, after we just got it down to 2.4%. Even domestically grown veggies are sold in imported cans. I think most voters aren’t aware of the tariff plan and if they are, they don’t understand the implications of it when it comes to inflation.

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 know some people might not be 100% on board with either one of the candidates, but I don’t get how someone can be completely undecided eight days from Election Day. If you know anyone or are someone who is still undecided on who to vote for, can you please give me some insight on why you are still undecided?

The US style of government has shown to only create division, however I think a even larger problem is it allows Politian’s get a great opportunity to slander the two sides because the two extremes will group together. For example, a communist or syndicalist will most likely vote for Kamala, as will Democrats and the Center Left. The same thing is true for the right, as fascists and libertarians will vote for the same people as republicans and the center right. This is really bad for everyone, it allows for extremism to brew as people who would normally be centrists or moderates can quickly by influenced by outliers and lead to rapid extremism. This is also bad because the actual extremes never get to make a proper case and will be villainized. In addition, it miss represents statistics, the United States is not 48% republican and 48% democrat, it just looks that way because of the two party system. 

The European Union parliament (and other European governments) are a much better way to show opinions and allow for much less miss characterization, at least for moderates. The center left will never be mixed in with a socialist because those are separate parties and people can see that. So, a similar system for the US would be much better as people could be characterized correctly.

https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/

https://www.sightline.org/2016/04/28/the-united-states-needs-more-than-two-political-parties/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/05/more-political-parties-democracy/

I see that many people have only a little basic understanding of human rights here, so I decided to dive a little in (actually ancient) philosophy to explain their point.

The title is latin for something I would translate as "The human does not treat a strange human as a human, until he got to know him" (I know this is not literal, but this is the meaning of the translation). It is a claim that I often read between the lines when people argue that human rights are a lie. Somehow it describes the human nature as violent, and this is the reason why the philosopher Thomas Hobbes recycled this claim (as homo homini lupus est; He skipped the last and in my opinion important part) to give a reason why the King should stay in power. Not because a god wanted him to have power, but because power is necessary to prohibit a civil war, or in modern times, to install law and order.

Sadly power makes a leader believe that every mean is justifyed to install what he calls law and order, or to give a link to the US, to install freedom and democracy against "uncivilized bastards" in the middle east.

It is totally valid to say that because of the well known examples that the US is based on hypocricy when it always speaks of freedom and democracy while ignoring the fundament of these things, the universal human rights.

Still these examples rather underline why the concept of human rights is genious, but they dont show that they are unreal. In my opinion these examples only show that the claim I stated in the title is most of the times true, but furthermore it is the reason for me to write this post. I am politically active and I know that people are afraid of me when they hear that I am anarcho-communist. Sometimes it is not only fear that I experience, but also hate. People might not treat me as a human, because they dont know my kind and because they fear that I could do the same to them. Actually they are not bad people, they are just uninformed or they have resentments.

But I always act universally, just as the human rights dictate me. This means that the kind of the other person is irrelevant for my actions towards them. I could know them well, they could be my friends, or I might have never met them; I still treat them equally good. The concept of human rights makes it impossible for me to treat someone violently. This way human rights might seem unreal, like the antithesis to the human nature (that is often descibed by realists the way Thomas Hobbes did), but I think that this realism is the antithesis to the human nature. For me the human moral is the thing that makes the human unique. He can still chooses his character the way he chooses to act. So human nature might be violent if the human chose to be a violent individual, but it does not have to be this way.

This is how human rights work. And I as a universalist believe that everybody is a peaceful individual at heart and likes human rights, which ultimately is the equivalent to the claim that everyone dislikes being mistreated (violently). This is the logical reason why I believe that human rights are the way everybody should look on the world.

So in the end you might say that human rights are a nice concept, but I could not convince you that this is the human nature. But just imagine how the world would look like if everybody lived this way (we would see anarcho-communism). I and my friends treat each other this way and I can say that it works (I believe that everybody treats his/her friends well, because otherwise they would certainly not be your friend), so why shouldnt it work on a larger scale?

Universal human rights are a big lie that nobody actually live by including Western Countries

This is a throwaway to avoid the massive downvotes that I know I will get. Anyway to the original topic. It's really the most believed lie that anyone came with in our modern time. Many people claim to live by it yet none of them actually do. They preach those values to the world and then violate them through actions. It's all just public relations.

To give some examples, I am an Arab and I have seen indeed how much the Western Countries respect our human rights. How the USA invaded Iraq and destroyed it with hundreds of thousands killed and left it to fanatic militias to rule it. I have seen what happened to Libya and the countless innocents killed after they destroyed it and again they left it in ruins for militias to rule it. I have seen how the Israeli Apartheid brutalized the Palestinians for decades, stole their land and homes, and yet those countries were silent and only woke up when the Palestinians responded to their atrocities. I have seen how the USA backs the dictatorships that govern the Arab World with financial and military aid.

Not just the Arabs. The Latin Americans lived under US backed military dictatorships. The USA sided with Pakistan a dictatorship at the time againt India a democracy at the time in the war between them.

The list goes on and anyone who reads and understands a little bit of history will know that not all human lives are the same. The idea of universal human rights is a big lie that nobody actually live by it. Not a single country. It's every country for itself. That's just how it's how it always have been.

Aging liberal here. I am strongly anti trump for two reasons. First of all is the old story of he is the Republican with the role of leading the conservatives. But more importantly is the fact he is a criminal with no respect for the USA's political tradition.

I know many Trump voters who see who see exactly who he is, are scared by it, and are still voting for him! The the thing they are voting against is wokeism. Things like the pronoun movement, burying of data unsupportive of gender reassignment are typical of the complaints I hear. These things don't trouble me much, but I think it is pure denial that a significant majority of voters are strongly opposed to the methods used by liberal activists.

I am interested in any opinions that are intelligent and liberal that are also skeptical of wokeism. Not rights of people to live their life however they want, but the woke wave of approaching their goals.

The Constitution sets clear qualifiers for who can be president:

Age: Must be at least 35.

Citizenship: Must be a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Terms Served: Cannot have already served two terms.

Rebellion: Must not have supported insurrection against the Constitution while in office.

Importantly, these criteria don't require any criminal or civil conviction - they’re just qualifications written plainly in the Constitution.

Before the Trump v. Anderson case, if someone like Elon Musk ran for president, you could legally challenge this and force your Secretary of State to bar them from the ballot, citing Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

But after Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot remove unqualified candidates from the ballot. They left this responsibility to Congress, possibly hoping it would develop a fair process. But Roberts' idealistic view overlooks reality: Congress might be gridlocked or ignore the issue entirely, making itself the final "process."

So, Trump wins the election, becoming the President-elect. But there’s a catch - the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone who “engaged in insurrection” while holding office.

There are only two ways I see a Trump win playing out:

1. Congress could ignore this and let Trump take office, leading to a quiet constitutional crisis where we have a Constitutionally ineligible candidate hold office for the entire term, and end up with Elon Musk taking POTUS oath in 2029.

2. Democrats take control both chambers, and they refuse to certify the election, as their oaths compel them to uphold the Constitution and its disqualifications.

Furthermore, do taxpayers have a moral duty to contribute? Why or why not?

P.S. Why isn't "aristocrat" a user flair? 🧐

Here's the link to the National Bureau of Economic Research study: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32719/w32719.pdf

Abstract: "We study the causal impacts of income on a rich array of employment outcomes, leveraging an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years, with a control group of 2,000 participants receiving $50/ month. We gather detailed survey data, administrative records, and data from a custom mobile phone app. The transfer caused total individual income to fall by about $1,500/year relative to the control group, excluding the transfers. The program resulted in a 2.0 percentage point decrease in labor market participation for participants and a 1.3-1.4 hour per week reduction in labor hours, with participants’ partners reducing their hours worked by a comparable amount. The transfer generated the largest increases in time spent on leisure, as well as smaller increases in time spent in other activities such as transportation and finances. Despite asking detailed questions about amenities, we find no impact on quality of employment, and our confidence intervals can rule out even small improvements. We observe no significant effects on investments in human capital, though younger participants may pursue more formal education. Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities."

This post isn’t about if you think being transgender is good/ bad, i’m trying to keep it political and focused on the government’s response to this social movement, and subsequently the people’s response to the government’s response. The way i see it, the whole idea of the government promoting gender diversity is to create a more inclusive space for all citizens and normalise the idea, not to “make people trans”. It’s just hard for me to grasp, especially considering the entire premise is about promoting the idea that people should have the freedom to identify with what they want.

https://preview.redd.it/ki1uwtwfftwd1.jpg?width=6574&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f3c1c4d59393be082613db9a18bb8ba49f48edf

Greetings. I’ve been closely following the war in Gaza since April, and the subsequent Israeli aggressions. Israel seems to be going for broke on re-inventing the Middle East on the heals of October 7th, 2023. Meaning all gloves are off and either their enemies die, or they will die trying. 

Meanwhile they’ve broken numerous international humanitarian laws, and ostracized themselves from the vast majority of the non-western world and increasing countries in Europe. And if it were not for US military and diplomatic support, they would have no chance of finishing their various fights with Hamas, Hezbollah, or the one they are about to launch fully with Iran. 

Given their absolute disregard for the value of Palestinian life (whether you want to admit they are targeting civilians or not, it is egregious by any metric, therefore they clearly are not concerned), they are only stirring up the fury of resistance fighters everywhere in Arab countries. Even Saudi Arabia, one of our allies, was poised to normalize relations with Israel has taken steps back from them and towards Iran.  

Iran poses no significant threat to the US, and they have played ball with our nuclear deal, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) until the US backed out of it and assassinated Qasem Soleimani, who was on a diplomatic mission in Iraq to broker better relations with Saudi Arabia. 

This April Israel bombed an Iranian consulate complex in Damascus Syria, killing multiple senior Iranian officials. Iran retaliated in a broadcasted token response in which they launched many old rockets and low cost drones, gaining intelligence on Israeli defenses. Then in July Israel assassinated the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh in Iran’s capital, Tehran. Iran vowed retaliation, but said they would forego it if Israel reached a ceasefire in Gaza. 

Fast forward two months and western media seemed to entirely forget this threat when Iran launched 180 missiles on Israel October 1st, killing no Israelis and doing minimal damage. The score is technically even, yet Israel has vowed a retaliation for the retaliation. Furthermore, recent documents were leaked indicating US involvement through intelligence. Iran has vowed a MUCH greater retaliation if Israel launches a new attack. Here it is characterized by an Iranian Professor Mohammad Mirandi, who says the West needs to "Get real for once." Given the US’s current Israel policy of unconditional support, it bears to reason that should Israel suffer great military damage from Iran's counter-attack, The US would be pressured to go on the offensive with Iran and we could find ourselves in another full blown Middle East war. 

Looking at the recent history of a similar war in Iraq, the main thrust of the desire for war came from Israel, specifically Netanyahu. The US state department made false claims of WMD in order to gain US consent after 9/11, but the war ended up taking the lives of 4,431 Americans and wounding 31,994 others, leaving many more with PTSD. And in the long run the cost is estimated at $3+ trillion, or about $10K out of the pockets of every surviving US citizen. What did Israel contribute? Nothing. No loss of life, no discernible cost of financial support. 

Now in an environment of international outrage from egregious killing and aggression by Israel, we face not only a nation four times larger than Iraq with far greater missile technology, but any number of their growing sympathizers. Iran has close economic and strategic relations with Russia, and if things took a turn for the worse, Russia would likely not let Iran go under. Not to mention another country in BRICS, China who could give aid to Iran the way the US has done to Ukraine. We would be looking at an uphill battle, costing trillions of dollars and untold loss of life on all sides with not much hope of ultimate victory in sight. Meanwhile Iran could destroy the oil fields in the region, causing gas prices to soar, and potentially a global economic crisis. Not to mention the recent documents prove behind doubt Israel has nukes, and based on their recent suicidal behavior, give cause to believe they would use them if pressed. All this for a war Israel wants the US to fight for them.

My question is this: What is in it for the US? Why should we sit shotgun with a country and leader suspected of war crimes, when our own laws forbid such support, and it simply incites more international ire and rage at our image abroad? Especially at a time when we have our own natural disasters and economic crises to solve? What business do we have digging our own graves in the sand next to the Arabs we kill while we could be solving energy and climate issues, or improving the quality of life at home?

Netanyahu and his extremist government are on the run from international law in a bloody rampage to make or break the entire Middle East by the barrel of a gun. Should we tag along and run our country into the ground, or get out and show them some tough love?

According to economic metrics, this is apparantly the best economy ever. Real GDP has been surging, unemployment is at record lows, median incomes are at their highest, etc. That last point is crucial, since a common take is that a booming economy just means the stock market is doing well but that the normal person feels minimal impact.

However, there is a widespread sour mood regarding the state of the economy. A majority of Americans feel better off 4 years ago than they do now, even though the economic stats say they're better off now. Some people will say "how were you better off 4 years ago when there was an active pandemic", but I think this is moreso referring to their financial situation than life in general. We also do have some statistical quality of life indicators as well that this economy isn't actually so great. Homelessness, food insecurity, people struggling to pay bills, credit card debt/delinquency, etc are greater now than they were prior to the pandemic.

So essentially we have this weird situation where according to the official data, people's median real wages are higher than ever before yet more are struggling financially than they were 4 years ago.

So what exactly explains this discrepancy? Are we really doing better than ever, and much of the sentiment is just peoples' feelings? If you think so, what do you think explains the sour mood? Or is there something going on which is not being reflected in the numbers? If you think so, what do you think the numbers are failing to grasp?

Sources:

General state of the economy

Real median household income

How Americans feel 4 years ago vs now

Homelessness trend

Rise in food insecurity

Increasing share of Americans can't pay the bills

Financial distress/credit card debt

With the election drawing closer, it's becoming harder to ignore the weight it carries—not just for the immediate future but for the long-term health of democracy and the country's stability. The stakes (seem) monumental, and the potential outcomes are already being hotly debated. But let’s push beyond campaign rhetoric and really consider: What happens after this election?

1. Will a Trump Victory Signal the End of Democracy?

There’s a palpable fear that another Trump term could erode democratic norms beyond repair. His attacks on institutions, the judiciary, and even the legitimacy of elections themselves suggest that a second term may see further consolidation of power, undermining checks and balances. Are we facing an authoritarian pivot if Trump wins? Will this be the final blow to democratic norms in the U.S., turning the country into something unrecognizable?

2. Will Kamala Harris’s Victory Lead to Civil Unrest?

On the other hand, if Kamala wins, will it ignite widespread civil unrest? A portion of the country views her policies as extreme, and conspiracy theories about government control abound. Could her presidency be the catalyst for organized resistance, potentially violent, from militia groups or those already angered by what they see as government overreach? Are we looking at a brewing insurgency if she takes office?

3. The Possibility of a Third Option: Secession Movements?

Could a second Trump victory or a Harris presidency reignite talks of secession? It sounds extreme, but California, Texas, and other states have seen growing movements advocating for independence in recent years. Could this election push one or more states to actually attempt to break away from the union, leading to an unprecedented national crisis?

4. Global Implications: Will the U.S. Lose Its Standing?

Regardless of the outcome, will this election mark the point where the U.S. loses its global influence? With an increasingly polarized domestic front and shaky international alliances, will this election catalyze a decline in global leadership, ceding power to countries like China or Russia? Could this be the election that fundamentally shifts global power dynamics?

So I’m asking: What do you think will really happen after this election? Will we see the end of democracy, civil unrest, a secession crisis, something else entirely? Or....nothing at all?

What are your predictions for the months and years that follow, let’s hear it.

Been seeing allot of rhetoric online comparing Trump to Hitler and calling him a fascist. As someone who is deeply disturbed by the horrific actions of Hitler during WWII, I find this to be a deeply inaccurate. I worry this kind of talk will lead to violence against Trump and his supporters. For all his flaws, I don't think Trump is an evil fascist. I also feel this inflames political devision and frames Trump supporters as being equivalent to Nazi supporters.

Where is this rhetoric coming from and does it have a place in our political discourse?

I have heard a lot from right wingers about how "democrats are against freedom of speech" so much that Elon musk has a possibly illegal sweepstakes to sign his petition protecting it along with the 2nd amendment. But I dont see it as under threat from anybody and thats because of how I view the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and what is actually going on.

First, what is actually going on: Democrats have criticized social media companies for various anti-science, hate filled and conspiracy driven content that has been on their platforms, and requested they do something about it. Thats what we are talking about. If you delve deeper what we are actually talking about is the social media algorithms that actively promote hate, conspiracy, lies and conflict in order to increase usage and make social media addicting. Thats what social media companies have been doing and we all know it and if you dont you should: Social Media Algorithms Distort Social Instincts and Fuel Misinformation - Neuroscience News

This is driving massive destabilization of institutions that make actually support democracies, and it is increasing hate crimes and was even the cause of a genocide in Myanmar: Report: Facebook Algorithms Promoted Anti-Rohingya Violence | TIME

This is what "democrats" are actually against, now do you think protecting these algorithms is actually protecting free speech? ...because again that is what we are actually talking about.

Next is just the reality of the 1st amendment and freedom of speech. It is not and never has been in my opinion, an entitlement to say whatever you want, put whatever you want out on to any platform free from any consequences or responsibilities. Which is how I see a lot of people viewing it.

Words have consequences, my 4 year old daughter understands this.

I was thinking about this from a previous post. There are lots of reasons people like or dislike a candidate that have nothing to do with policy. And I find the arguments for disliking Harris, and actually a lot of the reasons to like Trump to be just plain silly, a lot of the reasons to like Harris are also silly tbh.

But let me try and list them out for both Trump and Harris:

Reasons to like Trump:

• Successful Businessman who will run the country like a business.
• Funny and entertaining personality.
• Tells it like it is.
• Not a traditional politician.
• ***Edit Addition***Will break down the establishment
• ***Edit Addition***The establishment/leftists hate him

Reasons to not like Trump (VERY Abbreviated):

• Long history of racist/sexist rhetoric
• Long history of fraud and failed businesses
• Sexual assault accusations and inappropriate comments about his daughter/other women. ***EDIT***Found legally liable of sexual assault by a jurry***
• Took actions outside of the law and the legal/court system to attempt to stay in power after he lost the last election (By textbook definition an attempted coup)
• Fascist statements and accusations (enemy within/using military against his political enemies + accusations from his former secretaries/chiefs of staff)
• will be older than Joe Biden was when he took office.
• Gives almost completely incoherent rambling stream of conscious speeches and answers to questions.
• ***Edit Addition***Is literally running for president to stay out of prison

Reasons to like Harris:

• Successful bi-racial woman.
• Former prosecutor will go after criminals/bad actors.
• Solid experience (DA, AG for the largest state in the country, US senator, Vice President).
• Genuinely seems like someone that you could hang out with.
• ***Edit Addition**Grew up middle class.

Reasons to not like Harris:

• Put people in jail for weed when weed was illegal and she was a prosecutor.
• Has changed her mind on things over time.
• Biden waited until July to drop out so she didnt win any primaries.
• Didnt do a lot of interviews before a few weeks ago.
• Says things from time to time that dont seem that deep or thought provoking but are just words (I dont really understand this but I have heard it).
• ***Edit Addition***Covered up Biden's obvious decline in mental acuity.

Add to these lists, but from what I can gather...the non-policy reasons to like both candidates and the non-policy reasons to not like Harris are silly, but the non-policy reasons to not like Trump are quite substantiative and legitimate.

Many Socialists, Marxists, Trotskyists, etc all despise/dislike liberals and infact tend to be closer to conservatives on some cases, one great example in my opinion is the Ukraine conflict where many of these folks are anti Ukraine and pro Russia, infact they parade dictstors like Xi Jin ping and Kim Jong Un.

TLDR: "extreme left" hates center left or left far more than conservatives

Or I could be wrong and I've been seeing a minority of far left associated people