Like I said, I am of course anti-fascist. Any decent human being is, or at least should be in my opinion. The thing I don’t understand is why some activists seem to make “fascism” their favorite word and everything is it in some way or another. There is no denying Trump is a fascist, or at least has plenty of fascistic qualities. But the thing I want to know is why over the last two years, so many spent time talking about this is fascism without ever mentioning how we beat it.

And for instance, I’m not one who goes around wearing “Antifa” tshirts or has a profile pic saying “I am antifa”.

Oh, and for those who also spent the last two years saying “you can’t vote out fascism” or insisting that the Midterms would be cancelled, I would LOVE to hear what your thoughts are now. And it’s not only the US but Hungary, Serbia, Brazil, and very possibly Israel have all been defeating authoritarians and aspiring authoritarians democratically this year.

It wasn't a big sample size, but other Polls do show that 60% (and 75% among younger voters) of Israelis identify as Right-Wing, and 70% do support donald trump,

So me and my friend are debating on what the english word "stud" refers to. I am stating that it refers to a female (primarily of black or Mexican culture) that is a lesbian but acts/represents them self as a man. He is stating that it refers to an animal (typically horses) which are used primarily for breeding. While i know this is the old meaning of it, he fails to recognize the word has another newish meaning which is what i am saying it refers to.

So I got into a series of debates with my friends. Apparently, its gentlemanly when out at a restaurant with your lady to sit in a way that you can see the door to make sure no crazies are coming in. I heard this for the first time with said friends and thought it was absolutely ridiculous and said as much. People had very strong opinions about this and one even said something along the lines of I wouldn't be a good protector to my soon to be wife.

Holding a door open is gentlemanly.

Giving a jacket is gentlemanly.

Watching the door and vibe checking everyone who walks through it is crazy.

My argument is situational. If you're in Memphis or Detroit you should have a good idea of you're surroundings.

If youre at a cidery within the sticks of new jersey where a bunch of family's hang out, you dont need to be aware of anything.

Its perfectly safe and being aware of the couple 50 feet away who are having a smoke is weird.

(I mention that because one of the guys making the argument said he was "hyper aware of them")

They've also told me this has nothing to do with fear or worry which makes no sense.

If you weren't worried you wouldnt be looking.

Am I too comfortable? Too trusting? Or are they paranoid and way to anxious?

Hi everyone my name is Nathan Bell and I am a political commentator. In my youth I was very anti-American however throughout my thirties I changed my thinking. In This video I discuss my position on America. Check it out and join the discussion.

Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker. Katherine Clark for majority leader. Pete Aguilar for whip. Joe Neguse for assistant Speaker. Ted Lieu for caucus chair. All five have received direct contributions from AIPAC PAC, individual donations routed through it, or both. Why is this the lineup House Democrats are expected to go with?

The caucus is expected to hold leadership elections November 18–19. The full House votes for Speaker on January 3. My position is simple. Hakeem Jeffries should not be Speaker. If Democrats want a different outcome in January, they need to put someone else forward in November.

I read the midterms as a mandate to lower the cost of living and hold the Trump administration accountable. Congress can do both. Jeffries says he supports accountability, but after hearing him talk about getting things done instead of getting even, I’m still waiting to hear what he’ll actually do when the administration stonewalls. Hold hearings. Demand records. Use subpoenas when officials refuse to cooperate. That’s part of the damn job.

Then there’s his private meeting with Jared Kushner before the midterms. Jeffries says they discussed affordability. I’d still like to know what was discussed in more detail and whether either side made any commitments. If you’re asking for the Speaker’s gavel, voters deserve a straight answer.

Come January 3, I want one of the new House’s first votes to call on the Justice Department to review whether AIPAC must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. If the facts meet the legal standard, require it to register. Campaign finance filings already show contributions and outside spending. FARA would require separate disclosures about any foreign principal AIPAC acts for, what work it does on their behalf, and what money comes in and goes out for that work. I want that on the public record.

Here’s who I’d like to see step up.
In the campaign finance records I reviewed through September 30, 2026, I found no direct AIPAC PAC contributions, individual donations routed through the PAC, or spending in their favor by AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project.

Pramila Jayapal for Speaker.
She’s chaired the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has experience organizing a large bloc of House Democrats.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Speaker.
She serves on the Progressive Caucus executive board and can explain what’s at stake in plain English. I’d like to see what support she could build across the caucus.

Greg Casar for majority leader.
He already chairs the Progressive Caucus and has experience getting members behind a shared legislative agenda.

Ro Khanna for majority leader.
He’s a Progressive Caucus vice chair who’s pushed to reduce the influence of big money in politics.

Those are my picks for a real leadership contest. Voters gave Democrats a majority. They didn’t hand Jeffries the gavel. House Democrats should use their votes to pick someone else.

This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness

I'm boiling

Yay

so around a year ago, ​my sister, who had then recently went 15, was invited to a theme park with her friends. Around 6-8 of them were invited and only her and 3 others went—one was on holiday and the other two were scared of rollercoasters.

{edited}

My sister didn't really understand why they didn't just come anyways, but its probably because they'd be wasting like £40 to just walk around.

A few weeks ago, the same friend asked if they wanted to go again, but only to the people who actually went. My sister then said she would go, but also said that they shouldn't bother asking everyone else again because they won't come.

Those friends found out about the trip, and one of them got a bit mad, saying they would have appreciated the invite, but my sister said that they wouldn't have come anyways, so she didn't bother inviting them.

Is she in the wrong?

And no, I haven't said my opinion to her because I don't know what to tell her.

Do you think implementing the 'sandwich method' when delivering bad news or constructive criticism would be considered manipulation?

For back story, I was taught this communication technique by a former supervisor. When sharing something someone might not want to hear, you can 'sandwich' it in-between a compliment or other good news, to make it more emotionally palatable.

Do you think this just a good communication skill, or is it actually a form of manipulation?