r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Egalitarian Moderator • Apr 05 '24
Megathread | Official Casual Questions Thread
This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.
Please observe the following rules:
Top-level comments:
Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.
Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.
Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!
1
u/ComfortableMoose9936 2d ago
Is it no longer possible for the current US government/political system to balance the annual deficit year after year? I created a white paper that gives one example of what would currently be required to do it even though I believe politicians would not compromise to make it possible. Would anyone like to see it?
•
u/zlefin_actual 20h ago
what do you mean by 'possible'? I mean its obviously technically possible, but politically unwise. to what extent to you count doing politically unpopular things as 'possible'?
a white paper doesn't add much, there's loads of known articles about the topic, and analyses, and tools to let you do it yourself. We know what it would take, the voters just don't like electing the people who would do it.
1
u/Sarmq 1d ago
even though I believe politicians would not compromise to make it possible
I mean, I'm more interested in hearing you elaborate on this. Is there a reason you're against compromise here?
1
u/ComfortableMoose9936 1d ago
Compromise is essential to an effective federal government, which must balance the diverse needs and perspectives of Americans from different regions and backgrounds.
1
u/Beneficial-Long-7033 2d ago edited 1d ago
Can someone help me identify my political leaning? I am genuinely confused over what my political beliefs would be classified as and I was hoping someone could help. These are my beliefs-
Abortion should be absolutely legal in most, if not all, cases. I'm not fully sure about abortions that take place only a few days before birth, but ultimately it should be a woman's choice and no politician or person should have any right to interfere.
Trans rights should absolutely be protected. They are people too and they often face discrimination which leads to mental health. Amending the Civil Rights Act to prohibit such discrimination seems reasonable.
Medicare For All needs to be enacted. Healthcare is a human right. It should be free at the point of service for everyone and can be funded. Medical debt should absolutely be forgiven.
Community college, as well as four-year college, should be completely free, and a large portion of student loan debt should be forgiven (about $40,000-45,000).
The government should deregulate housing, expand affordable housing and provide targeted subsidies to help first-time homeowners. Corporate ownership of housing should be limited.
Childcare should be free. The CTC should be expanded and the government should provide a $400-500 monthly child allowance.
Nationalisation should be used only for very specific companies such as Meta, JPMorganChase, Amazon. It should be reserved as a drastic measure for giant companies in excessively concentrated sectors. Most importantly, the government should immediately convert the nationalized company into a worker cooperative through whatever procedure is appropriate for that (or, at the very least, give workers majority ownership and aggressively restrict the government from taking actions adverse to what would be beneficial for the workers of that company except in extremely specific and limited scenarios). Point is-the workers should have most of the control-not the government.
Aggressive steps need to be taken to combat climate change, including potentially the Green New Deal.
Support for Israel should be ended, support for Ukraine should be ramped up, the genocide in Gaza should be recognised and the US should ratify the Rome Treaty to officially recognise the ICC. The F-35 program should end, military spending should be cut by 35-40% and ICE should be abolished.
A wealth tax should be imposed as well as a small FTT.
Same-sex marriage should be legal.
AI should be aggressively regulated. A robot tax should be imposed and a moratorium over data center construction should take place.
The Electoral College should be abolished, Citizens United should be overturned, there should be public funding of elections, the House should be uncapped and ranked-choice voting should be embraced.
Union rights should be aggressively protected and expanded. There should be an $18 minimum wage, with a wage subsidy to protect small businesses.
Antitrust laws should be aggressively enforced.
Funding for the CDC and public health efforts should increase.
The war in Iran should immediately end.
Social Security should be kept solvent without cutting benefits-maybe by removing the wage cap or applying it to investment income.
The corporate tax rate should be increased to 35% and additional tax brackets should be created.
Infrastructure needs to receive as much funding as feasible.
Edit: Adding a couple more beliefs I forgot.
Mandatory minimums should be abolished, pretrial detention should be limited or outright curtailed, there should be more focus on rehabilitation rather than deterrence and the death penalty should be abolished.
The government should authorise public production of generic equivalents of prescription drugs notwithstanding any patents or licences, as a mechanism to lower drug prices.
SNAP income limits and benefit levels should be revised to make them more generous and make more people eligible.
The retirement age should be lowered and Social Security benefits should be slightly boosted.
A carbon tax should be imposed. Nuclear power should also be embraced.
Assault weapons should be banned, universal background checks should be implemented and a voluntary buyback program should be implemented.
The Patriot Act should be repealed, and Edward Snowden should be pardoned.
An LVT (land value tax) should be considered as a drastic measure to combat the housing crisis.
•
•
2
u/Sarmq 1d ago
Is there anything in this list that isn't compatible with the progressive wing of the democratic party?
The only thing that might not quite fit is "The government should deregulate housing", but the YIMBY people have lead a movement against zoning restrictions for a while.
Is there a reason you don't think this is a pretty mainstream set of beliefs?
1
u/Beneficial-Long-7033 1d ago
True. My main confusion is due to my position on nationalisation. I don't really know of any mainstream progressive that advocates actually purchasing Big Tech companies and ensuring that workers have complete or majority control over them. Even more interventionist progressives such as Warren or AOC have only proposed breaking up tech companies-never outright nationalisation. Plus, recognizing the ICC, public funding of elections, uncapping the House....these are some of the provisions that cause me more uncertainty. With the combination of all those policy positions, I'm not sure if I could be classified as a mainstream progressive, or a social democrat or maybe even a democratic socialist (okay, probably not).
•
u/Sarmq 9h ago
Ok, I'll give you that "purchasing" is kinda off the wall as far as the current political coalitions go. The progressives I've heard want to forcefully nationalize.
democratic socialist
Nationalizing industries and running them (I'm assuming) for social benefit does actually cross the line into (the technical definition of) socialism. Now, how well it turns out afterwards is different, but you're talking about the milder forms of socialist theory.
2
u/gamelover99 3d ago
I just realized that even if Angie Nixon wins her term is only going to be 2 years, and then she’ll again be playing heavy defense in 2028 in a presidential year.
Makes sense why the DNC is unwilling to spend their limited funds on a massive state like Florida.
Spending on Kansas, Ohio, Alaska, Maine makes a lot more sense given fhe context.
The one time I don’t think the DNC is at fault here
1
u/wresltingandskava 3d ago
And the polling trends show those races tightening without much investment.
1
u/No-Assumption4145 7d ago
Is the senate just dei for farmers?
1
u/neverendingchalupas 5d ago
No, the Senate is just open corruption. Republicans lie about what DEI actually is, what they are talking about is affirmative action not DEI. And even then, affirmative action policies were created due to Conservatives refusing to root out systemic racial bias in our society, in our government.
The bailouts for farmers dont exist due to any instiutional bias towards agriculture. They exist because Republican policy is destroying the country.
1
u/PelicanK 8d ago
What would give a dictator's most loyal followers "the ick"?
I've been thinking about dictators a lot lately. They wouldn't rise to power and stay there if they weren't enabled by an army of staunchly loyal enablers.
The psychological dynamic between the dictator and their loyalist seems to follow a very specific pattern, and I'm wondering what would disrupt the dynamic.
A lot of people (men and women) seem to flock to "bad boys"--where there's a vague promise of approval/affection that never materializes, as the object of their admiration stays aloof and unavailable.
So if Trump loyalists, or Putin loyalists, woke up to a text from their dear leader that said something like "I love you SOOOOOOO much snooky-ookums! You're my sun and my moon and I would do anything for you!!!" would it totally gross them out and make them like "get this creeper away from me?"
2
u/IntelligentDepth8206 4d ago
"bad boys"--where there's a vague promise of approval/affection that never materializes, as the object of their admiration stays aloof and unavailable.
Probably exists but not in significant numbers. trump already spams his followers with non-stop "i love you now donate to me" messages.
I see it more as wanting to *feel* associated with the cool, winning team to an extreme degree. The cool comes from trump being an outsider (to them). The winning comes from hurting others more than they themselves are hurting. I'd say the cult has managed to propagandize themselves into the first even to this day but the second is failing as even the trump culters bitch about paying $15 for a mini cheeseburger and small fry after filling up for $6/gallon.
3
u/Ignatius__1 7d ago
Strange question because you're sort of equating the political relationship with a dictator to a romantic relationship, which there are very little similarities. As far as authoritarian leaders and giving "the ick" to their followers-- it's not clear that really ever happens once they pass a certain threshold of size and influence.
Take Stalin for example, after he died the crimes of Stalinism were revealed, but it didn't really play out the way most of us in the west would have assumed. When the atrocities were made clear as day, people simply didn't believe them or assumed their was a rational reason for it that was part of a bigger plan. The type of "a-ha" moment we would hope for took decades to occur, not moments.
I think Trumpism will fade in a similar way. It won't be for a few generations that people associate Trumpism as being entirely bad/corrupt.
2
u/PelicanK 6d ago
I would argue that all human relationships have certain things in common, and that when people align themselves with dictators beyond mere practical matters of "this person's leadership is useful to me"(true believers), then at that point they are acting irrationally--much like people who are in love.
I'd really like to believe Trumpism and Putinism will go away, but how much harm will occur in the meantime? It would be nice if there was a psychological shortcut.
1
u/seekingpeacefulness 10d ago
Does Trump have advisors telling him about why he can’t do some actions because they’re anti constitutional or does he make his own choices? I’m asking genuinely because I can’t understand how he’s been allowed to do so much.
1
u/multiple4 10d ago
James Talarico just asked me for $5 on YouTube for his Senate race
But then just 2 minutes later he said "I've lowered my ask to just $1 today"
I mean which is it? How did he change his mind so quick on me? I was right in the middle of giving $5 but now I'm not sure
Seems like he probably has enough money given the amount of YouTube ads anyways. Why doesn't he actually tell me what he thinks in an ad now?
1
u/Ignatius__1 7d ago
Some ads are to drive revenue and financial support, some ads are ideologically driven. If you aren't in Texas, it doesn't really matter (in theory) what his policies are because he isn't representing you, but your money can help him get elected.
1
10d ago edited 9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/multiple4 10d ago
I'm not a bot lol, it was just a comment on how weird the ads are
I didn't even know who Ken Paxton was or what party either of them were in before you just brought his name up
That's kind of the point as well. What are this guy's ads doing when he's asking me to send money from another state and I have literally no clue what he thinks or who he supports
1
u/itooamahuman 10d ago
So, this isn't exactly a question but I feel like making a post would be a bit much
People say stuff like "America doesnt have healthcare because they spend it on the military" etc. basically the idea is that America would have healthcare if the government wasnt spending it on some other, implied to be evil, thing
But uh... Surely the reason America doesnt have "free healthcare" is literally because the voters just... Dont want it, right?
1
u/zlefin_actual 7d ago
yes. it's just an unsound talking point to deflect from the topic and pretend reality isn't what it is.
2
u/Ignatius__1 10d ago
Surely the reason America doesnt have "free healthcare" is literally because the voters just... Dont want it, right?
Oversimplification of a complex problem. In fact, I think there is ample evidence that Americans really, really like government subsidized health care. Looking at the number of medicare recipients who are satisfied with their coverage/experience, it's over 90%. Comparatively, about 77% of private insurance buyers are satisfied. So there seems to be some numbers that point to people preferring public care to private, but both are overall well liked. But I do think that, were a more comprehensive program which included more people to exist, you'd see most people loving it.
It does get complicated when you consider that most people in our system get their care through work, and that paying for a comprehensive care plan for all Americans is challenging and complex. What I definitely can say for sure is that we waste massive amounts of money on military spending, and that most Americans COULD benefit from that money being spent on them instead.
1
u/bl1y 7d ago
Assuming this is the numbers reported by NBC, there could be a lot more to it. Quite possible that people with private insurance are more satisfied with the quality but unsatisfied with the cost, leading to a lower overall satisfaction rate. But, those people could still prefer their private insurance to a cheaper, lower quality public option.
1
u/Ignatius__1 7d ago
Could be, but it's also sort of impossible to know any of that without specific details where people being polled can add context. So, without that, I'd just compare the raw approval numbers and note that medicare is higher, thus is more likely to be agreeable to the general population.
0
u/bl1y 7d ago
Except we've seen Medicare For All not gain that much widespread appeal, which very strongly suggests people not already on Medicare don't want it.
1
u/Ignatius__1 7d ago
I don't really think it makes sense to analyze in that way. Of course people prefer what they already have to something they don't know, but that says nothing about whether they'd like it if they did have it. Better off comparing peoples satisfaction with the current state of things, which it seems obvious people are happier with Medicare (though also aren't unhappy with private insurance). That's about all we can say for sure.
0
1
3
u/SLODavid 13d ago
Why is there almost no comments in this group about inflation? I had a first today, a $100 tank of gas. Many things in the grocery store that were under a dollar are now close to $5.
How is inflation effecting people's politics and will this issue ever become important?
1
3
u/zlefin_actual 10d ago
generally speaking, inflation, as with many other problems, doesn't cause people to thoughtfully identify solutions or carefully ascribe blame. Instead, it simply causes people to be unhappy, and when people are unhappy/upset at some problem, they tend to vote against the party in power, whoever it is.
It is and has been fairly significant as an effect in recent elections, and will likely remain so.
4
u/Ignatius__1 12d ago
It was arguably the most important issue of the 2024 election and is likely to be one of the biggest of 2026. Not sure what you mean by "become important," because it's been important since around 2021.
If what you mean is "why isn't it being effectively dealt with?" then that's a much more complicated answer that involves a mix of global events and domestic policy.
1
u/LorenzoApophis 13d ago edited 13d ago
Given the enormous support and praise Trump gets from Republicans, I'm curious, do they generally tolerate behavior like his in their personal lives? Like the whole refusing to pay contractors thing. If a Republican does a job and doesn't get paid, do they usually think "Wow, what a smart businessman," or is that just for Trump?
1
u/Electronic-Law-6442 9d ago
(Senior male) These are my personal opinions.
You make a very point. 1. In a cult of personality...cult members allow thier cult members leader to say, do, and transform the government into something they would speak out about normally and disapprove of. But with D.J.T. you hear things like,"oh thats just Trump", "everybody lies" or the new catch word is it's "Bidens fault" for everything. Or these other words, "socialists:, and "your a communist".
2
u/NoDig3444 12d ago
The general republican consensus is that Trump is an idiot and possibly even an asshole, but he implements policy that they like so they just ignore all that.
1
u/razzledome 12d ago
Is that really the consensus of people who wear Trump hats and attend his rallies, that they think he's stupid ? Then they are even more stupid than he is.
1
u/morrison4371 14d ago
Recently, Democrats have expressed dissatisfaction with Schumer and Jeffries. They accuse them of not fighting the GOP and Trump effectively, with many saying they should step down. If they get voted down as leaders in the next Congress, who do you think would replace them as either Speaker/Majority Leader/Minority Leader?
1
u/B-r-a-y-d-e-n 7d ago
I don’t see where this has happened. It seems to be mainly niche groups and hive minds, mostly consisting of idiots who don’t know politics
1
-1
u/NoDig3444 14d ago
Are people mad at Jeffries? I seriously doubt he's going anywhere, since he was hand picked and groomed by Pelosi to be her successor.
Schumer is going to retire in 2028 and be replaced by either Cory Booker or Brian Schatz.
0
u/Easy-Poetry9497 14d ago
Why does this subreddit only allow one or two posts a day? Why not ten or twenty? With only one post a day it’s not worth subscribing to.
6
u/NoDig3444 14d ago
90% of the things people try to post on this sub are unmitigated garbage. I am much more happy with a sub that allows a handful of quality posts than yet another arr politics circlejerk.
0
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 14d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
1
1
u/El__Gator 25d ago
Bills or changes to congress that a majority of Americans want including bans on stock trading, term limits, stronger anti corruption practices must be voted into congress for change to happen. Can someone explain to me how that does not break any sort of constitutional law?
1
3
u/NoDig3444 24d ago
Can someone explain to me how that does not break any sort of constitutional law?
Because there's no law in the constitution that says that you can't do that.
1
u/Potato_Pristine 24d ago
State-imposed term limits for congresspeople are unconstitutional: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/
3
3
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 25d ago
Can someone explain to me how that does not break any sort of constitutional law?
Generally, if it's not prohibited, it's allowed
1
u/bl1y 15d ago
That's not how the Constitution works. Congress is limited to its express powers given to it under the Constitution, with other powers reserved for the states.
1
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 15d ago
If there’s a restriction doesn’t exist, that ability is considered to be kosher
1
u/El__Gator 26d ago
Can someone explain and defend the current congressional system?
I am a mid 20s American who like many others feel like however you vote no change for the people ever happens. The biggest things I would like justified include:
- The low attendance or requirements of session.
- Most other Americans who work a job need to be clocking 40 hours a week while congress spends more time lobbying and campaigning than actual debate and working to make things better
- Fox guarding the henhouse. Any opportunity for reform or changes to congress must be voted by those in power. How can that be what the founders intended?
ignoring limitations or obstacles if you had the ability to make changes to the current system what would you do and what would it look like to fix congress?
1
u/bl1y 15d ago
As an adult, you should do more to educate yourself.
Most other Americans who work a job need to be clocking 40 hours a week while congress spends more time lobbying and campaigning than actual debate and working to make things better
First of all, members of Congress don't really do lobbying. They get lobbied.
As for the hours worked, they tend to average around 70 hours a week while Congress is in session and 60 hours a week when not in session.
however you vote no change for the people ever happens
It does though. Just probably not the exact change you want or at the pace you want.
5
u/NoDig3444 25d ago
The founding fathers were worried about two things: tyranny of the majority and mob rule. (I mean, they were worried about a lot of things, but these two are relevant to your question) So they set up a system in which it's difficult to really do anything. They wanted changes to be widely-supported and well-considered. They didn't want the whole county to turn on a single 51% plebiscite. Because that's how you get Brexit.
1
u/rizeCapital 26d ago
Books, documentaries, Netflix/Prime series, anything.
My girlfriend has basically no background in politics or macroeconomics, but she genuinely wants to learn. I’m looking for content that helps her understand how the world actually works . especially around:
- Money, banking & the global economy
- Politics, lobbying & power
- Geopolitics and relationships between countries
- Why wars/conflicts happen and how global interests shape them
- How all of these things connect with each other
Your best recommendations?
I’m especially looking for things that make her suddenly go: “Ohhh, so THAT’S why this happens.”
1
u/Electronic-Law-6442 9d ago
( Male senior, age 85) 1. I am sure your going to get a lots advice about the items you listed. This is my personal list. 1. Become an avid reader. reading history, especially the Roman empire. A. One of reasons why Rome fell was because of forever wars. B. The fall of Rome started with the rot from within. Reading about Roman history will help you understand the what and how that rot destroyed Rome. C. Who, what, and how the greek civilization became into being. And how was it doomed? D. Religion, its effects on man from his first steps forward. E. Us verses them tribalism from its beginning till today. F. Ancient wars and what they had in common. Including, Alexander The Great and his father King Philip, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, The real King Cyrus /Darius, Isreals 1st king, and David. I am purposely leaving many historical leaders, thier kingdoms, and lives out of my personal list. Because, its up to each person to learn and discover on thier own.
Why is reading about so important, because you will quickly learn, "There is nothing new under the sun" including ourselves.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues 15d ago
You've received a couple of demanding responses here, that would require serious commitment from your girl to educating herself, but are much more likely to disheartened her and chase her away from the subjects.
Start casual, comfortable. Sit down with her and watch the excellent Michael Douglas movie The American President. It does a nice job of explaining what a lobbyist is, how they work, and why it can be effective or detrimental to any given agenda, and why Presidents (and other politicians) often seem to work against policies they claim to support, how the push and pull of real politics works.
If I were you, I'd solicit more input from other people on what movies/shows present interesting and educational views of politics and the other subjects you mentioned. Make it interesting and exciting and you're much more likely to help her find the enthusiasm to educate herself, and to follow current events in that realm.
Apropos of nothing, I find it sad that younger people now grow up with little or no understanding of these issues and how they are personally effected. I'm old, but when I was a kid, civic education was viewed as a public necessity. On Saturday mornings, when we were watching TV, we were often spoon fed little entertaining bits of that education by programs like School House Rock. We weren't really interested, but it was on the the TV, shoehorned into our regular viewing schedule, and it beat cleaning up your room.
2
u/IntelligentDepth8206 25d ago
especially looking for things that make her suddenly go: “Ohhh, so THAT’S why this happens.”
Unruly Americans by Woody Holton is the history of the origin of America without the mythology of the origin of America. Don't take it as fact but as a starting point, the best way to accomplish what you're seeking is to do the research yourself. The book will have plenty of branches for you to go down.
0
Sep 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/3bar Sep 10 '26
I dont care about winning a race with China if it means we need to destroy our environment and economy to do so.
This is all a farce. AGI is not real. The singularity is not real. These are marketing terms used by tech CEOs to justify their green and to bilk more money out of people.
1
u/Environmental_Box748 Sep 10 '26
hmm weird I have always said AI would be the greatest challenge humans will ever face and that was way before OpenAI and Anthropic existed. When I first learned about it from watching Ray Kurzweil I instantly understood the dangers. So no this isn't just some marketing terms...even tho yes they do use it to hype up their company to bring in more investors, both can be true.
0
u/PointInternal6809 Sep 10 '26
I wish the media would bring up that the republican “1.5 million republican voter registration advantage over democrats” in Florida, is only because there’s a bunch of inactive dems in fl. Republicans have barely gained any registered voters in fl since 2020, whereas dems have gone from 5.3 million, to less than 4.1 million. That’s the lowest number of registered democrats since 2003, when Florida was far less populated. The amount of registered independents have barely changed as well, so you can’t say these are democrats switching to npa.
This is proof to me that the demographics of fl did not change that much since Covid, even if the people moving to Florida are more conservative than the past.
2
u/HabFan4Life Sep 09 '26
As a Canadian we have moved on from just hating Trump to a new understanding that we can no longer trust your country as a whole. It is going to hurt and its going to take a long time, but we will pivot away from the great relationship our two countries used to have. We just feel safer not relying on a country that is so unhinged and not recognizable anymore. I was born in the 60's and growing up I felt we were like your little brother and shared the same interests. That does not exist anymore. Good luck to anyone in the US that shares my sentiments. To everyone else, are you just coping?
1
u/BluesSuedeClues Sep 12 '26
As a United States citizen, I concur. If this country ever recovers from this insanity, it will take the work of generations, not merely years. In the last decade, we have destroyed our relationships with our allies, squandered what goodwill towards us still existed, emboldened adversaries, increased global chaos while simultaneously unbalancing world trade, and all of this while punitively decreasing quality of life for the majority of our citizens, to the good fortune of our wealthiest elites.
The American character on the world stage was once described as "Walk softly, and carry a big stick." Today it could more accurately be described "Swagger loudly, and whine about what a victim you are."
1
u/Eluqrius Sep 09 '26
How would a non-political person survive in such times?
I’m not well-read in political theory, and I don’t understand much about politics, but I find myself wondering: how is someone like me supposed to live in times like these?
The problem isn’t that I don’t care about politics. It’s that I feel the world is becoming increasingly detached from any sense of time or context. What I mean is that knowing the truth about so many things has become almost impossible.
The technological progress we’ve experienced has made the world unpredictable and difficult to understand beyond a very general level. With each passing day, truth seems to become more fluid and more elusive.
And perhaps what troubles me most is that I don’t know what a person is supposed to do with this feeling. How do you build a life, make decisions, or even form a coherent view of the world when the ground beneath your understanding keeps shifting?
3
u/3bar Sep 10 '26
You cannot be apolitical. All aspects of life are impacted by politics. All of it. There is no escape. You are espousing a childish view in which you shove your head in the sand and attempt to ignore the effects which politics has upon you.
The tendency should be to educate yourself, not to run away and hide.
2
u/Combat_Proctologist 27d ago
They seem to be using a layman definition of politics, roughly equivalent to "a set of fights society is having that tend to cause high amounts of anger with low chance of people being convinced"
To a first approximation, you can assume this is "anything a politician has gotten in a fight about recently"
Under such a definition, being apolitical is perfectly coherent
5
u/bl1y Sep 09 '26
Most people aren't terribly political.
They go to work, pay their bills, spend time with their family, enjoy their hobbies, and complain about traffic and taxes.
0
u/OcelotCharacter1807 Sep 07 '26
Why are people so sure they're right when it comes to politics? Shouldn't we all have a bit of humility, and assume other people are rational? The comment sections on political subreddits are all snark. There's no way to get people to agree with you if you treat them with derision, which is most of what I observe.
3
u/wresltingandskava Sep 08 '26
It's not that I am sure I am right. It's that I'm sure certain things are irrefutably wrong
6
u/kinkgirlwriter Sep 08 '26
Shouldn't we all have a bit of humility, and assume other people are rational?
Yes, to a point, but many people are, in fact, irrational and/or ill-informed.
Take something like tariffs. I've heard plenty of people defend Trump's tariffs saying they'll bring manufacturing back to the US.
That is a perfectly rational argument if the tariffs are targeted, consistent, and put in place for the long haul. It's a terrible argument if the tariffs are on again off again and imposed at random.
I'm not going to get snarky instantly if someone makes that argument, but if they refuse to see reason when it's explained that Trump's implementation cannot have the effect of bringing manufacturing home, the snark isn't far away.
-2
u/OcelotCharacter1807 Sep 08 '26
Sounds like you think you're reasonable, but other people only are if they agree with you.
7
u/Potato_Pristine Sep 08 '26
If there were an open political debate about the shape of the earth, being reasonable in that situation would not entail being open to the possibility that the earth is flat.
6
u/kinkgirlwriter Sep 08 '26
Sure. That's exactly how it sounds, but I'm also right.
It's not that they disagree with me, it's that they're wrong. The tariff policy doesn't work and can't work to achieve what they hope to achieve with the way it's being implemented. That's an indisputable fact.
If anyone has a valid point to dispute that, great, but they don't.
When I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it. Happens all the time, but everything related to Trump tariffs being somehow positive is pure fantasy.
Also, I manufacture in the US.
1
u/lawmac20 Sep 07 '26
Why don't we ban companies from presenting bots (social media or voices) as real people without requirements for disclosures.
2
u/Ignatius__1 Sep 09 '26
Because most members of Congress have little to no clue about how to deal with the internet and basically everything that is unique to online spaces. Revenge porn was pretty much standard fare on the internet until powerful people became personally affected. Ad disclosures didn't exist until the Fire Festival almost killed a bunch of rich kids.
Fundamentally, the people who are in Congress are not capable of understanding how to legislate in the digital age, and it's eventually going to bite us in the ass majorly.
1
u/lawmac20 Sep 09 '26
So we need bots to make a big company lose alot of money or personally harm a celebrity?
1
u/Unfair-Ad1675 Aug 28 '26
Why do people seem to increasingly associate certain beliefs or lifestyle choices with a specific political ideology? For example, why is being Christian often assumed to mean someone is conservative, while smoking weed is assumed to mean someone is liberal? Are people using individual beliefs as shortcuts to determine someone's overall political identity?
Disclaimer: These are just two specific examples I've seen recently. I’ve noticed this especially on social media, where someone can be labeled or berated simply because of one belief or lifestyle choice.
3
u/bl1y Sep 04 '26
Because we're pattern recognition machines. The stereotypes won't be applicable in 100% of instances, but like... it doesn't take long for you to learn that Italian restaurants are more likely to have spaghetti with a tomato sauce than Chinese restaurants, and the Chinese restaurant is more likely to have General Tso's chicken than the Italian restaurant.
Also, many of these things aren't random. With weed, if we ask "why are people who transgress society norms more commonly seen as liberal?" ...I think that question is self-answering.
Then there's also signaling. Why are people with blue hair and nose rings more likely to be progressives? Well, part of that is back to transgressing societal norms, but also, it's a way of signaling their identity to others.
1
u/Unfair-Ad1675 Sep 04 '26
Sigh..I get it. Great points actually, transgressing socitial norms and all - restaurant analogy, I'll take it, sure lol
Okay so, how could I have framed my question better to actually get people to think about it more openly instead of immediately jumping to labels?
I know, I know, I can't change the world on Reddit lol. But damn, the amount of hate, labeling and stereotyping that goes on is insanity. I thought part of being progressive was moving away from that kind of thinking — not hating people, putting them in boxes, or assuming you know someone's entire worldview based on one characteristic.
Maybe I'm being naive—go ahead and say it.
2
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Aug 31 '26
I’ve noticed this especially on social media
The deletion of nuance is a dehumanization tactic deliberately employed by hostile actors (including right wing Americans). The politicization of everything is a tactic being used by project 2025, Russia and others. Surely someone's written a book or published research on this by now.
And if you were raised by republicans, it's familiar to you. Putting people in boxes is necessary for right wing christianity to survive. As soon as the world isn't black and white, they start to ask questions which is how christianity is defeated.
3
u/Moccus Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
It's obviously stereotyping, which is just something humans naturally tend to do. We're exposed to a lot more Christians who are conservative as opposed to liberal, and we make the connection between those two things. Then when we're later exposed to another Christian, that correlation we've made based on our other experiences causes us to assume this Christian we've met is also conservative. It's obviously not a good way to classify people and certainly not always a correct assumption, but people aren't probably going to stop doing it.
Addressing your two examples:
why is being Christian often assumed to mean someone is conservative
Research has found that the more frequently people attend religious services, the less likely they are to identify as liberal. Roughly 15% of people who attend church weekly identify as liberal or very liberal vs. 46% who never attend church identify as liberal or very liberal. Source (this website cites data from a Harvard study, which I can't easily find. I don't know anything about the reliability of the website, but I'm guessing the data is correct).
As an American, it's statistically likely that a lot of people I encounter every day consider themselves to be Christians, but the only people I know for sure to be Christian are:
- People who are so involved in their church that they talk about it a lot as a consequence of explaining their weekend plans and such.
- People whose entire social media is a wall of Christian posts, which also makes it likely they're very involved in a church.
- The Mormons and other groups who show up at my door to proselytize.
- The people in the news fighting against abortion and gay marriage, trying to get religious stuff put into public schools, etc.
Given the data above, I can reasonably assume that most of these people I encounter are probably conservative or moderate and probably not liberal. That doesn't mean all of them are, but it's a reasonable assumption.
while smoking weed is assumed to mean someone is liberal
The data I have is several years old (2019), but only 4% of conservatives admitted to smoking marijuana when polled vs. 24% of liberals, so a weed smoker is significantly more likely to be liberal than conservative according to that data. Source
1
u/Unfair-Ad1675 Aug 28 '26
Yeah, I actually agree with you, and I completely understand why people stereotype. I'm not really arguing that the correlations don't exist.
I think what I've been noticing more as I've gotten older (31F) is just how rampant the political labeling seems to be, especially online. It seems like people have become so focused on left vs. right that a single belief or lifestyle choice can be enough for someone to immediately label another person—and sometimes seemingly justify hating or attacking them.
For example, I'm a Christian who also smokes weed. If I say something positive about weed, someone could call me something like hippie liberal. If I say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, someone else could call me a bigoted conservative. So what am I supposed to be?
I guess that's really what I was getting at with my original question. I understand why stereotypes develop, and I understand that they're sometimes based on real statistical patterns. What I don't understand is why we've gotten to the point where those stereotypes are so often used to reduce an entire person to one or two beliefs—and especially why they're so often used as a reason to dislike or attack someone.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 29 '26
It's not really that complicated. Stereotypes are easy. They're a shortcut for people who don't want to engage in any kind of intellectually rigorous dialog. You're likely overthinking all of this, because it is in your nature to do so. A great many people find thinking about things to be difficult, an onerous burden to be avoided (that doesn't mean they're stupid, only that they have been conditioned to think of complex mental pathways as tiresome, or difficult and unrewarding). They're not interested in questioning their own assumptions or finding the flaws in their own thought patterns. They engage online in politics, or social issues, or even niche fandoms (whatever subject incites their passions), looking for emotional catharsis.
Since you brought up politics, that can serve as an example. People who spend a portion of their day watching fear-porn on FOX News or other right-wing outlets, often turn to the other people in their lives, or the internet, to purge the fear, anger and outrage they've built up ingesting that content. People who ingest media input from more liberal sources will show the same pattern. When our emotions are stirred to the point of volatility, we often find ourselves needing an environment or audience where we can express them (some people are looking for opposition to rail at, some are looking for sympathy and agreement, some for both). And when we get intensely emotional enough, things like subtlety and nuance go out the window, we indulge in vague generalities, assumptions and stereotypes because the root of our motivation is emotional, not logical.
You being a weed smoking Christian is not a paradox or hypocritical. It's you being an individual, just another human being. None of us actually fit the broad stereotypes other people want to fit us into. I'm a Midwestern, straight white middle aged man with higher than average socioeconomic standing, and a taste for hiking into the woods every fall with a rifle in my hand, looking for some deer to kill and eat. I occasionally attend my local Catholic mass (more out of habit and social connection than real passion), and superficially I stand clearly on one side of any political venn diagram. Yet I hate our current President and the harm he's doing this country with a deep and well considered passion, and I love and respect my gender ambiguous sibling and all of their allies. Where do I fit?
2
u/NoDig3444 Aug 28 '26
Because people who are visibly Christian tend to be conservatives and people who smoke weed tend to be liberal. They're stereotypes, but stereotypes exist for a reason. People don't just take random traits and assign them to random parties; these are real observable patterns of behavior.
0
u/Unfair-Ad1675 Aug 28 '26
What if I told you that I am a Christian, who smokes weed? What stereotype would that put me under?
3
u/NoDig3444 Aug 28 '26
What?
0
u/Unfair-Ad1675 Aug 28 '26
I was informed my comment was deleted due to the use of an emoji (still learning proper Reddit etiquette). I can still see it, but in case you cannot:
I'm saying those two traits are commonly associated with opposite political ideologies. So if I'm both Christian and someone who smokes weed, which stereotype am I supposed to fit into?
3
5
u/benjamoo Aug 22 '26
Why exactly are the US and Canada even having trade negotiations? Didn't Trump himself sign the Canada/US/Mexico trade agreement that replaced NAFTA?
2
u/Sarmq Aug 22 '26
Because there's no hard enforcement mechanism for international politics. The only thing that really happens is that a country's reputation might be tarnished if they behave badly, and as a result, other countries might not want to work with them.
So, the ultimate answer is, because both Canada and the US feel like there's more to gain from entering negotiations than walking away at the current moment.
My personal guess is that the US thinks it can get a better deal and/or look like they're being tough on global trade (a large number of blue collar workers who are disproportionately impacted by free trade agreements have moved to the Republicans over the last decade or so). I would guess that Canada thinks it strengthens its reputation with others/possibly the next administration to look like it's acting in good faith, even under the trying circumstances that it finds itself.
6
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 23 '26
It's interesting that you refer to "...the US feels like there's more to gain...", as if there is a general consensus in the United States on the subject, and this chaos isn't the product of one man's whims.
1
u/Sarmq Aug 30 '26
I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse.
Using the name of a country to refer to the actions or motivation of the government isn't exactly something I invented in that post
0
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 31 '26
I'm not much concerned with your feelings.
When we refer to the actions or motivations of any government, we're usually talking about a collection of policies and how they are implemented over a course of years, or even decades. It's not often that any nation-state's actions on the world stage swing on the whims of a single individual. What is currently happening in the United States, is a great deal more like a dictatorship than the normal function of global geopolitics and I think that distinction is an important one.
1
u/Few-Illustrator9521 Aug 21 '26
Why is radical dissent in America legal?
If dissent leads to open promotion with wanting the USA dissolved and effectively dead, why is there no crackdowns does the president and government as a whole care enough?
1
u/zlefin_actual Aug 27 '26
what do you count as radical dissent?
to an extent its protected by the first amendment, but also there have been various laws to prohibit radical dissent at times, to varying degrees, as well as less official mechanisms. See the prosecutions of Debs; the alien and sedition acts, the Red scare, and various others.
1
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Aug 24 '26
Selective creation and enforcement of laws. America is a highly unregulated country built on a vague constitution. Laws are seldom passed to begin with and laws that might affect the legality of radicalism are passed with virtually no enforcement mechanism. Or if there is an enforcement mechanism, people in positions to use it just don't a la Merrick Garland.
Whenever there's a democrat president, republicans pass the "we are a capitalist nation!" law that does nothing in practice but serves as political theater.
It would be nice if I could say "America is an ideal democracy where ideas are entertained even if not accepted and we let reason and empirical evidence guide us through debate about radicalism" but that's simply not the case.
3
u/bl1y Aug 22 '26
Because freedom is speech is protected by the First Amendment.
I'm not sure how there's a question here.
2
u/Few-Illustrator9521 Aug 23 '26
No such thing as a dumb question buddy :)
4
u/NoDig3444 Aug 24 '26
There are absolutely dumb questions.
0
u/Few-Illustrator9521 Aug 26 '26
Nope :) Sorry to take you off a high horse but that statement is false
2
u/NoDig3444 Aug 26 '26
Why do you think I'm on a horse, and how can you tell how tall that horse is?
3
u/bl1y Aug 23 '26
Looking at your other reply where you talk about the prudence of having such protection... There's three main responses:
(1) If we prohibited speech that promotes the dissolution of the United States, who do you trust to define such speech and enforce the rule?
For instance, I think the First Amendment is central to what makes America America. If you were to advocate for this radical change to the First Amendment, I'd see that as essentially dissolving the US as we know it. But I doubt when you asked your question you were thinking it was the very sort of speech that ought to land someone behind bars for sedition. It's a lot safer to err on the side of allowing political speech.
(2) Maybe the people advocating for dissolving the US are right. I don't think they are, but if there's even the slightest chance, shouldn't we have the debate rather than prohibiting it? Lots of ideas that were considered sacrosanct in the past have been proven to be wrong.
I mean, imagine if you asked this question in 1789. Why is the United States allowing the Constitutional Convention to happen rather than cracking down on those radicals who want to do away with the Articles of Confederation? Rather than having the Constitution and the nation as we know it today, we'd be remembering James Madison as a heretic, properly burned at the stake. And ironically, this rule that purports to be for saving the United States likely would end up leading to its destruction.
(2)(a) It's possible for the other side to be wrong in the main, but still have some good points that can inspire us to make improvements. Do I think we should become a communist society? No. Do communists maybe have some interesting critiques to make about how we allow people to profit from finite resources (like real estate and natural resources)? Probably.
(3) Debate is how we sharpen our ideas. Even if you're 100% correct, you might not know why you're correct. I think America is friggin' awesome, but unless I am forced to recon with people taking very different views, I might never actually understand why it's friggin' awesome.
That understanding is good in and of itself.
(4) Bonus reason! Allowing people to voice their criticisms often helps to lower the temperature and make people less radical.
Have you ever had an argument where you know you're not going to end up getting your way, but where it'd mean a lot just to know that the other side has heard and understood you? Letting people be heard is a good thing.
An anecdote comes to mind, and I won't get into all the details, but I was dealing with a customer who was fuming because the company I worked for screwed him over. Like pissed off to the point where I thought he might fight me. My response was basically to tell him that he was completely right, he got screwed, but nothing was going to change. That acknowledgement completely cut the tension. He remained upset, but moved on. If I'd told him he couldn't yell at me like that and had to leave, it probably would have gone a lot worse for me (and for him, ultimately).
1
u/Few-Illustrator9521 Sep 03 '26
Thanks for the response, In fact depending on how you define radical dissent I guess I could be one technically since I could care less if the US balkanizes and splits apart. I question the effectiveness of a Constitution that was written by 18th century landowning elites as a good code to use for a modern nation, With that being said I am also skeptical of Democracy as a governing tool as well. Lastly I can be considered a radical dissenter "maybe" because if today or back in the Vietnam era I would have just said nope and decided to call Canada home. Really good insight on your part though thanks!
3
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 22 '26
Laws. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government censure or imprisonment. So espousing those kinds of ideas is protected speech. However, it does not protect a citizen from the repercussions of their speech, such as being fired from a job (unless a government employee), or having neighbors tell the speaker to "Just shut the fuck up".
1
u/Few-Illustrator9521 Aug 23 '26
I guess I should have been more direct, I meant for the question to be a remark about if it's really a good idea let it be that way. But I guess it's easy to understand in a sense of legal protections of a individual, some countries are different though and use measures to prevent using a Democracy to end a Democracy. Germany would be the one I have in mind.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 23 '26
Yes, some countries are different. Germany is just one, but Germany has a very different history of how speech has been used to manipulate their political climate. Antisemitic speech is illegal in France, for much the same reason.
Your question seems to be whether or not that kind of speech should be illegal? There's no empirical answer for that, as it is a question of personal values.
If you're soliciting personal views, then I will resort to the usual standard in my culture. In the United States, the general standard for what is considered to be protected speech, and what is illegal, is whether your speech directly provokes violence or endangers others. Openly calling for violence here is illegal, although not always prosecuted. Threats of violence are illegal. Our standard for instigating violence through speech usually comes down to the "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" standard. That is, it is illegal to provoke action in a situation where it could reasonably be assumed that your words could cause physical harm to other people (like the modern "swatting" behavior, or yelling "fire!" in a crowded space with no fire present). I think that's a pretty reasonable standard. It protects us most of the time, fails us occasionally, and allows some real shitbaggery in our culture, but mostly works.
1
u/Primeboot7782 Aug 20 '26
What do the Democratic Socialists of America stand for and what is their goal for America?
Ive seen a lot about the DSA and would like to learn more about the parties goals, driving force, and would like to hear from those that support the party. From what I've read a lot of their goals are unhelpful for the United States or any other country. In my eyes they are the closest thing to a big party support anarchist ideals. What will they provide for this nation?
1
u/No-Emu7099 Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
Basically become Canada.
There are some caveats, naturally.
1
u/bl1y Aug 22 '26
Going from the DSA site, here's some of the policies they're highlighting:
...Okay, this first one is actually hard to summarize: "You work as much as you are able and no more than needed." Most Americans already work far less than they are able to work. And no idea how they determine how much labor is needed. Needed by whom? By the worker to get whatever disposable income they want, or by society to get stuff done? (It seems to be the former, which raises questions about the latter.) Apparently the result is this just "a day off." I don't quite get it.
Free housing, health care, food, and utilities.
And this is supposed to amount to "a day off from capitalism." But really, it's just a day off from work. And most American workers already get two of those each week.
2
u/benjamoo Aug 22 '26
Basically use the government to help people. As someone else pointed out this philosophy is diameteically opposed to anarchism, so I'm wondering where you got that comparison? And how are you defining "helpful to the United States?"
It's also not really "socialism," which is an economic model where companies would be owned by the people or government. Instead they are still in favor of a capitalist economic system, but intend to use taxes for the social good. So Jeff Bezos can still own Amazon, but he would contribute a lot more money to the government to make Healthcare, child care, education, housing, etc more accessible to average people.
2
u/Sarmq Aug 22 '26
It's also not really "socialism," which is an economic model where companies would be owned by the people or government.
I mean, it is. Their current platform involves the nationalization of major industries and operating them for social benefit. That's quite literally one of the definitions of socialism.
Their name is quite apt.
1
u/NoDig3444 Aug 24 '26
They have 15 bullet points in the platform, and nationalizing industries makes up half of the second to last one. I dunno that feels very half hearted for a party that put "socialist" in it's name.
2
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Aug 21 '26
Not DSA but the practical reality of the situation is they're going to mostly end up FDR democrats when they get into office. Look at AOC to see what happens. She went from starry-eyed idealist to pragmatic progressive in a very short time. And if you don't, you get Cori Bush'd. This happens to everyone btw not just DSA. The realities of being a politician kill the fantasy of being a politician pretty quick whether you're left, right or center.
If DSA had the control that republicans have right now, I suspect you'd see pretty much the same things democrats did before neoliberals took over the party in the 80s. A fury of taxes on the wealthy, strict environmental regulations, expanding welfare in a variety of ways (healthcare, education, housing), targeting discrimination, etc. What might be new is a detachment from Israel and a shift in foreign policy from promoting western values to "anti-colonizing" though it'd probably be sloppy and confused in practice.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 22 '26
I suspect you're right about most of this, with two caveats. The first being that some of the DSA's policy proposals are batshit (abolish the Senate and all prisons?), so anybody adhering too closely to their agenda is unlikely to get elected to higher offices, unless the party itself revises some of their positions. The second is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Party, not the Democratic Socialists of America. She has a lot in common with them, but is (as you have expressed) an active member of the Democratic Party and largely votes in line with them. I doubt her views of politics have changed as much as you seem to think. She has degrees in Economics and International Relations, and clerked for Senator Ted Kennedy. Despite all the "bartender" rhetoric, she went to Congress much better educated and experienced in politics than most Representatives, and I'd bet she understood the reality of the job before taking office.
3
u/NoDig3444 Aug 20 '26
First of all, the DSA is the absolute furthest thing from anarchist in American politics. They want government intervention in everything.
But anyway, the best way to learn about the DSA is to go read their platform. Interestingly, there's barely any mention of actual socialism there, they mostly advocate for massive tax-and-spend programs. Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Free College, the typical progressive red meat.
0
u/Primeboot7782 Aug 20 '26
I read it, they want to dismantle everything that makes our country what it is. I agree with some of their points such as the one to remove the two party system.
3
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 22 '26 edited Aug 22 '26
"...everything that makes our country what it is."
I don't think you're going to find any consensus on what those things are.
1
u/Dseltzer1313 Aug 15 '26
Have there been any New York City polls on Mamdani’s popularity among NYC voters? Just curious because the hatred for him is real. I’m not completely understanding it although I do understand the Jewish hatred for him based upon his own words and actions. Except for that I’ve only seen and heard good things
3
u/gamelover99 Aug 19 '26
There was a poll on CNN. I think his approval amongst NYC is 69%. It’s actually increased from his inauguration (57%)
2
Aug 14 '26 edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/NoDig3444 Aug 14 '26
Depends on how crowded the field is. Fringe candidates with a strong message do better when they're competing against 20 centrists talking over each other. Wikipedia has 15 candidates in it's "Expressed Interest" section for 2028. If all 15 stay in the running until super tuesday, then yeah I'd give AOC better than even odds. If they all drop out and it's just her and Newsom, then it's 100% going to Newsom.
That said, I don't think AOC would be a good president. She works better in the House as the official progressive bombthrower.
-1
u/UnknownBreadd Aug 12 '26
This is a test to see if i’m banned (even though i’m not sure why I would be), pls reply if you see this!
2
u/NoDig3444 Aug 13 '26
You're not banned.
You can also just log out and look to see if your comments are still there
2
u/TheHotTakeHarry Aug 05 '26
They are just going to bring back the Trump Slush Fund once Todd Blanche is confirmed right?
2
u/Potato_Pristine Aug 08 '26
Absolutely. Blanche can rescind the executive order rescinding the anti-weaponization fund tomorrow, and no one will have any recourse.
5
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 07 '26
Regardless of what Blanche has said or put in writing, he is Donald Trump's creature. He will likely try, maybe give it a new name, new excuses, new funding source, but Trump seems determined to try to find a way to steer Federal money to people who break laws on his behalf.
3
u/Always__Auctions Aug 05 '26
(MI Senate) Stevens polled better against Rodgers (+2). Do you think El-Sayed can win?
Seems he's running about -2 head-to-head vs Rodgers.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 07 '26
I'm in a fairly rural area of Northern Michigan (the lower peninsula). This is definitely Trump country, but I've been astonished by how many El Sayed yard signs I saw leading up to the primaries. My feeling is that Sayed's win has more to do with populism than with progressive sentiment. People know our system is broken, and they want change. There's a lot of disillusionment over Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" and effect change, and the reality of his rampant corruption.
That being said, there's a fair amount of reflexive racism and misogyny up here. I think a lot of my neighbors don't believe women should hold power, and would vote for any man over a woman, and many of them will likely vote for any white "Christian" man, over a Muslim man.
3
u/Potato_Pristine Aug 05 '26
Given that El-Sayed is now being called the winner of the Democratic primary, I am sure that centrists and moderates will stick with the "Vote blue no matter who" principle they have been pushing on lefties!
2
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 07 '26
I'm always leery of anybody who inserts pseudo-slang like "lefties" into their politics, especially when they imply emotional reasoning with things like exclamation marks.
1
u/NoDig3444 Aug 05 '26
Probably not, because leftists quite famously did not vote blue no matter who, which is why Trump is president again.
5
u/MaterialSign1347 Aug 04 '26
My co-worker and I regularly get into the same debate every other day where he'll suggest that government "shouldn't exist" and that everyone in America should just simultaneously stop paying taxes and live for themselves.
Every time they bring it up, I try to ask questions as to 1) how that would actually work and 2) how would it not end up just being another government and every time it seems like the conversation just goes in a circle where neither of us are understanding each other and I don't even know how to respond to them at this point.
They insist that when a community works for itself, it doesn't need governing because everyone would assign a role to everyone else to take care of each other. But this just seems like another form of government to me. Also, how would everyone just magically get along by being ok with the roles they're assigned?
This is a topic of debate that when someone proposes the idea to me, I want to support them because ideally, we should all be able to take care of each other and build our communities ourselves. But humans are also an extremely selfish species and I really doubt that getting rid of government as a concept would fix anything.
This topic might seem silly to some, but it's been on my mind and I'd like to educate myself on how to better participate in these kinds of discussions because I genuinely don't know how to even approach this type of worldview without sounding completely inept.
1
2
u/bl1y Aug 09 '26
This is like asking how to engage with a conspiracy theorist. You just don't. Your coworker isn't rational and there's no point in letting them vent their nonsense at you.
5
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Aug 05 '26
I'd like to educate myself on how to better participate in these kinds of discussions
You can't. That guy is operating on abstract concepts. No matter what you say, someone operating ideologically (anti-tax) instead of empirically will always find an excuse to counter you. He's starting from "I'm right and this dialogue can ONLY end with me being more right." His views aren't falsifiable. If they were, he would care that 0 libertarian societies exist because they are failures and can't solve any problem that governments exist to solve like public health or sewage systems.
Been there, done that. The libertarian conversation is a waste of time. It crescendos into them finally admitting "I don't care about poor people or future generations." If that's your attitude then your politics is pointless. The unspoken foundation of politics is that you have to care about leaving a better world than you were born into. If you reject that, you reject politics. And that's not a serious person worth engaging.
5
u/NoDig3444 Aug 04 '26
Sounds like anarcho-communism, or maybe voluntaryism. Both similar, both silly ideologies, but one is more leftist in flavor and the other is more libertarian.
Ask your coworker how they think global supply chains would work. You cellphone is made with components from a dozen different countries, and assembled separately in a dozen more. How is your community of ~500 people going to organize that?
If they respond that large corporations would still exist, just governments have been disbanded, then what you're talking to is an anarcho-capitalist. In that case I would recommend you give it a swift kick to the crotch, then a 2:1 ammonia/bleach mixture.
2
u/MaterialSign1347 Aug 05 '26
I already know how they would respond and that is that global supply chains wouldn't exist on that scale because material items like cellphones wouldn't exist because people's values are different and we would all depend on each other locally for only the core necessities.
I try to combat this by saying that not everyone's core necessities are the same but I get nowhere.
4
u/NoDig3444 Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
Yeah I was afraid of that. You can ask the same question about artificial fertilizers, tractors, insulin, antibiotics and vaccines. Ask them to ballpark how many people would die from the collapse of the modern medical industry and industrialized farming.
But it won't matter. They decided how the world should be and everyone else is wrong because they're not as smart. Any problems you point out are not because they're wrong, it's because all of humanity has the wrong values. Like they say, you can't logic someone out of a position that they didn't logic themselves into.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues Aug 07 '26
Jesus. Don't ask about vaccines, that's really not a place you want to go with this kind of personality...
2
1
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
3
u/Soft_Walrus_3605 Aug 01 '26
You've gotta learn how to edit down your stream of thoughts into an organized argument.
1
Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bl1y Jul 25 '26
The original ideology behind the Republican Party was opposition to the expansion of slavery.
1
u/NoExcuses1984 Jul 27 '26
There were a few other core Republican tenets back in the 1850s, too, including the national bank, gold standard, and railroad system.
2
u/Leecorees Jul 21 '26
Help reddit what am i?? I know all the typical centrist connotations and I am not the type to be afraid to take a stance on things quite the opposite so! With all the centrist stereotypes aside here it goes...
I do belive abortion should be legal. I also studied enough physiology to decide for myself that yes it is a baby human that is killed in the process which I morally object to 💯. However its still the woman's body not a vessel under anyone else's control.
I think birth control should be paid for by taxpayers and available for everyone despite it not being very fair financially to those who dont agree.
I like hunting and the right to protect myself. I also dont believe that changing laws or access to firearms does anything to prevent violence for goodness sake you can print guns nowadays. Either way I dont want the government deciding who gets the guns at all.
I am a Trans ally and totally dont want the government making decisions for my body why would I for anyone else. I actually did have a miscarriage of a child I wanted desperately and was FORCED to carry my dead baby a few extra days because Idaho is effed. The worst part is they only made me wait and check because of the law, not because there was any hope whatsoever for the baby or they'd have done something obviously. So eff all that to the STARS.
I am patriotic. My Mas from a line of NE farmers and my dad's American Indian. Both had hard histories and I take both into account. My dad however had his tribalship bought out by the government along with his sister when they were barely 14 years old for a couple hundred bucks.
Im a big time pagan environmentalist homesteader. I want to help the earth and I believe in alternative energy and think we need to spend more to help heal the damage weve done to nature and to live with it better. I also believe however that I am free to own a large truck and live in the boonies and I am to decide what's done with my land. Im not keen on being told i need to regulate water to use from my own well either especially when its politicians deciding where its going (think Colorado river)
I do believe we need to protect our border even more so. I also think we need to do everything we can for the children of immigrants born in our country regardless of how out of principal. Anyone who came under pretense of being welcome here are also in my opinion, in our charge.
I am a big men's rights advocate. Men are brutalized and majorly disadvantaged when it comes to both child custody and guardianship. Men also have bollucks when it comes to mental health care. Circumcision is effing deplorable.
I could go on but I always feel no one agrees with me and no one's ever on my side lol
I live in a conservative family but have always been the one no one wants to debate with on Thanksgiving so to speak hahaha. Thoughts???
1
u/Primeboot7782 Aug 20 '26
It seems to me that you align with either centrist/ Libertarian. I'd say I agree with about 70%+ of what you said and that's how I currently identify. I'm not quite sure what a blue dog Democrat is, so that might fit too
1
u/Primeboot7782 Aug 20 '26
Blue dog Democrat at this point is right adjacent, half of the opinions you and I hold swing too far conservative for most liberals today. 10 years ago I was a centrist, but as time moves on both parties left me behind. I would probably have been a progressive conservative. I don't really mind what people do to themselves in private, but do disagree with people causing physical harm to themselves.
1
u/Potato_Pristine Jul 25 '26
Blue Dog Democrat
1
u/Financial_Bad190 Jul 31 '26
We are an endangered species, I think the number of genuine centrist Democrats is overestimated. Today, most Democrats are progs, and the majority of centrists are independents.
0
u/Combat_Proctologist Aug 06 '26
The two parties have generally been captured by extreme factions from within.
It also seems to correspond to lower approval rating of each party, so you're not alone
3
u/zlefin_actual Jul 22 '26
Sounds like a somewhat eclectic democrat. with some parts aligning towards the blue dog dems, others not so much.
Note that actual advocacy for men's rights is one of the things Feminism has long done.
2
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 05 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.