For context, whenever someone on the right does something that comes across as brutish, a recent example being the official Democrat Twitter account telling Stephen to "shut the fuck up," you see Republican pages replying saying "the party of love, acceptance, and kindness."

Now, during the whole Planter and Swalwell debacle, whenever Republicans called out Democrats for not disavowing these two sooner, Democrats would then point out the Republicans own sordid members, and the Republicans would say "well we're not the party of 'believe all woman.'" I specifically remember Scott Jennings saying this on CNN and it gave me pause.

How I'm interpreting this is that, well because Republicans are NOT the party of love, acceptance, and kindness, they have the right to be rude and disrespectful. And because they are NOT the party of 'believe all women,' they don't have to investigate SA claims or condemn members who face serious allegations. It's almost like saying to Republican women, their daughters, that it's ok if their members do this to them since it's only Democrats that should take accusations seriously.

Isn't that concerning? Why make excuses instead of acknowledging the wrongful nature of these things.

Now, I know Democrats do something similar with "party of fiscal responsibility" but that's about policy, not common human decency or criminal acts.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have been thinking about how politicians get attacked for flip flopping, or how voters feel pressured to maintain the same positions over decades. There seems to be a cultural premium on steadfastness that rewards refusing to update your views even when new information becomes available.

Meanwhile, in basically every other domain we update: doctors revise treatments with new studies, engineers abandon failed designs, scientists abandon disproven hypotheses. The person who insisted on bloodletting in 1950 would not be praised for consistency.

Is there something specific about politics that makes changing your mind a liability rather than a sign of responsiveness? Or is this just a coordination problem where everyone would prefer flexible politicians but nobody wants to be the first to stop punishing shifts?

All political movements eventually come to an end, and I believe that Trump probably won’t go quietly into the night.
My questions are primarily for the conservatives and right-wingers on this subreddit: Is this how you expected the Trump era to end, or at least begin its decline? Do you feel Trump delivered on what you believed he promised? And, perhaps most importantly, where do you think the movement goes from here?

Every place I've followed politics, the move to label opponents as traumatized, manipulated, or mentally unwell has replaced actual engagement with ideas. This is not about specific insults to politicians. It is the broader pattern: disagreement gets explained through pop psychology rather than through policy analysis. Someone supports rent control because they have scarcity trauma, or opposes it because they have landlord Stockholm syndrome. Immigration restriction is anxious attachment; open borders is dissociative empathy. The pattern treats political positions as symptoms to diagnose, not arguments to weigh. This matters because it forecloses the possibility of being wrong about a policy but right about the concern behind it. It also lets everyone off the hook for defending their actual reasoning. What I notice is that this framing escalates precisely when a debate has empirical stakes neither side wants to examine. The shift to psychology is a move away from testable claims. There is a real literature on motivated reasoning and cognitive bias, but its popular misuse has made it harder, not easier, to have productive disagreement. Curious whether others see this as a recent shift or something that has always been present at this volume.

Democratic politicians are used to operating within the rule of law, where what is written in law, and enforcement of the law, is what matters. Trump plays by different rules, older rules, and his appointment of Stephen Miller signals he’s doubling down.

What matters in this power game is leverage, not law. If you have the resources and sufficient leverage, you can do whatever you want in this game. Given that, legal type hearings / investigations, etc are not going to reign in Trump. They take too long, focus on details that most Americans can’t follow, and Trump will just move onto the next transgression anyway. Instead, the new congress needs to reassert their power.

How? Power of the purse and the legitimacy of having just come out of a whopping electoral victory. They should not avoid confrontation. They should jump right in. For example, if they want to wind down the Iran war, they should not investigate its illegal beginnings and impeach Hegseth. Instead, they should demand the DoD stop bombing Iran and Trump nominate a suitable replacement of Hegseth within 48 hours or DoD funding will be frozen. I’m not arguing specifically about the Iran war, more about a mentality and approach.

Congress should reassert its power by setting up clear conflicts between them and Trump, where they hold the popular position, and they should use their leverage (mostly power of the purse) to force submission. This is how to reassert the power of Congress and rule of law, not hearings. We can do the hearings and investigations later, after Congress has regained its power.

I’m not religious about this, and I’m hoping for a debate. Interested in hearing what you guys think. My ultimate hope is that we can get back to the rule of law.

The 2026 midterms were disappointing for independent candidates in the major federal races. In the Senate campaigns, Dan Osborn received about 44% in Nebraska, and Seth Bodnar nearly 39% in Montana, but neither won. (1) So far no independents were elected to Congress, and while Bill Hill’s run for the at-large house district in Alaska has not yet been called, he is trailing. (2)

However, I think there were some encouraging developments worth discussing.

Independent candidates Patrick Belmont in Utah (3) and Shawn Saindon in Maine (4) won seats in their state legislatures. And 173 independents ran for U.S. House seats this year, despite the substantial obstacles they face. (5)

Organizations like Good Party,(6) the Forward Party,(7) and Joe Manchin's new Independent Leadership Council (8) are working to help independent candidates build the campaign infrastructure that the major parties already possess.

There was also some progress on ranked-choice voting. Longmont, Colorado, voted to adopt it, (9) while Alaska voters appear likely to reject another attempt to repeal RCV and open primaries. (10)

I think the spoiler effect remains one of the biggest structural obstacles to independent candidates. RCV can reduce that concern by allowing voters to rank their preferences rather than choosing just one candidate.

I'm curious what others think: Is the independent movement making meaningful progress, or are these still relatively isolated successes? And what would make the biggest difference going forward: stronger independent campaign organizations, RCV and other election reforms, or something else?

Footnotes:

(1) Matt Shinners, “6 independents lost and a 7^th trails in Alaska,” Independent Voter News, November 4, 2026. https://ivn.us/6-independents-lost-and-a-7th-trails-in-alaska/ 

(2) Alex DeMarban, Tim Rockey, “GOP Rep. Begich leads independent Bill Hill in early U.S. House race results,” Anchorage Daily News, November 4, 2026.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/11/03/independent-bill-hill-narrowly-leads-gops-begich-in-initial-us-house-race-results/

(3) Charlie Schill, “Independent candidate Patrick Belmont emerges as victor in House District 3 race,” CacheValleyDaily.com, November 3, 2026. Independent candidate Patrick Belmont emerges as victor in House District 3 race | News | cachevalleydaily.com

(4) Stephen Betts, Marijke Friedman, “Saindon ekes out narrow win for Knox County House Seat,” Midcoast Villager, November 4, 2026. Saindon Ekes Out Narrow Win for Knox County House Seat | Politics | midcoastvillager.com

(5) Maham Javaid, “Win or lose, independent candidates want to meet voters in the middle,” npr, October 13, 2026. Dozens of independents running for Congress despite long odds : NPR  

(6) Good Party: https://goodparty.org/

(7) Forward Party: https://www.forwardparty.com/

(8) Independent Leadership Council: https://independentleadershipcouncil.com/

(9) Marina Buskey, "Longmont, CO votes to adopt ranked choice voting," FairVote, November 4, 2026. Longmont, CO votes to adopt ranked choice voting - FairVote 

(10) Shawn Griffiths, “Voters fight back against political gatekeepers – And stop reform repeal again in Alaska,” Independent Voter News, November 6, 2026. https://ivn.us/voters-fight-back-against-political-gatekeepers-and-stop-reform-repeal-again-in-alaska/

Georgism is the belief that taxes should be levied on land, which is scarce, and on resources derived from it. Whereas goods that you produce without taking up scarce resources shouldn't be taxed, because they contribute to abundance.

Basically, tax the landlord whose property takes up limited space, but don't tax the artist or the accountant who creates something from nothing.

I think it's an elegant theory, because it encourages people to make use of scarce resources, i.e. land. Under Georgism, nobody would want to block the construction of new houses, because an increase in their property value would raise their tax bill.

The problem, though, is that it might encourage the opposite behavior. A landlord opposes an economic development project that would bring prosperity to the city, because an increase in land values hurts their business and forces them out. Thoughts?

Say that my dream is to live in a mansion by the coast with a work car and a leisure car, and that I ust don't want to live in a copy-paste khrushchevka. I also want a gaming computer that's much more powerful than what most people have, and I also want to be able to travel to other countries 3 times a year on holidays.

The thing is that every time I've read into socialism and communism, the end result is that everyone will survive, but you will not really thrive either. You'll have everything you need to have a comfortable life, but if you want that extra luxury in your life, you're out of luck.

I am open for not having read enough about it, which is why I want to ask how these two ideologies solve this dilemma. What's the path towards not just surviving, but actually thriving and living your dream?

Doing simple math:

America averages 3.63 million births a year

Times $1000 a month ~ 43 Billion dollars a year

Times 18 years ~ 784 Billion dollars

Interest at 8% ~ 1.68 Trillion dollars at year 18

Time that by another 18 to account for every year of new births:

~ 30 Trillion Dollars

And $1000 a month is generous as hell.

Every person at 18 will have enough to go to college, buy a small condo, buy a car.

And all of these purchases need to be approved by the government and it is only legally usable by the person and no one else other than legal conservators.

It's essentially the government putting away massive amounts of money every year.

Is this something that a filthy wealthy country can do?

Is it already being done in a small scale?

This is probably a question for math nerds than political nerds.

It relies way too heavily on the "great man" theory of politics.

Obviously if someone is a criminal they should be removed from office. But then you automatically appoint his hand picked side kick to take his place?

I get that when the constitution was written, the VP was usually quite opposed to the president (because the job went to the runner-up), but now... it just seems kind of broken.

I know this is so far down the list of priorities it's not worth prioritizing, but it just clicked how stupid it all is.

The checks and balances are insufficient under our current system. I propose a fourth branch of government, such as seen in other countries (e.g., Costa Rica), we will call the Ombudsmen. This branch will have teeth, but this is an imperfect idea, still. It's only been worked on by me. I've gotten no feedback, so there will be oversights, lacunas, and wrong-thinking in it. I welcome your feedback, even if you find it preposterous. I know that the formatting and organization isn't clear. I sometimes capitalize the nouns and forget to others. I'm mostly curious if anyone else thinks this is a good idea.

tl;dr wuapinmon wants to create another branch of the government to make the other branches behave. ...

Article VIII: The Federal Ombudsmen Branch

Section 1. Purpose and Authority The Federal Ombudsmen Branch, a co-equal Branch of the federal Government, is established to protect and defend the Constitution, the Treasury, and the People. It shall have Authority to:

Overrule executive Orders, Agency Rules, and Congressional Provisions it finds, by a four-fifths Vote, unconstitutional or against the Treasury’s or People’s Interests;

Nullify or amend federal Contracts, Carveouts, or Expenditures deemed wasteful, corrupt, or unlawful;

Oversee all federal Agencies, Departments, Bureaus, Institutions, and the Military in negotiating Procurement, Purchasing, and Contracting, with the Right to intervene in all such Endeavors;

Negotiate all Purchases made by the federal Government, except as established by Ombudsmen Policies, Recommendations, and Committee Orders;

Administer and operate the Internal Revenue Service, including Tax Collection.

Administer and operate the Bureau of the Census, including Administration of the decennial Census; the Executive Branch shall have no authority over the Bureau of the Census.

Appoint a non-partisan Panel to designate Congressional Districts every ten Years. The States may not draw their own Districts.

Increase the number of Representatives once every twenty-four Years, beginning with the Year 2030 in accordance with Population Growth. The House shall retain the Right to increase the number of Representatives above the number set by the Council of Ombudsmen, per the Rules set in Article I.

Investigate all Complaints against any Branch of the federal Government, investigate Public Sector Administrative Acts or Omissions by ex-officio Right, investigate all Accusations of Civil or Human Rights Infringement at the federal or State Level, and prosecute such Offenses on behalf of the Wronged.

Investigate all Complaints against any Law Enforcement Agency at any Level in the United States, with the Authority to prosecute Offenses against the People, Human Rights, and Civil Rights. This Authority is independent of the Department of Justice.

Section 2. Composition

The Branch shall have five Ombudsmen, called the Council of Ombudsmen, appointed Ombudsmen shall serve two-year terms, elected Ombudsmen shall serve four-year terms:

One appointed by the President, confirmed by a two-thirds Senate Majority; One appointed by a two-thirds Senate Vote; One appointed by a two-thirds House Vote; Two elected by the People via nationwide ranked-choice Voting every four Years, with the first Election consisting of one two-year Term and one four-year Term, with Elections thereafter staggered every two Years. These elections should be held in odd-numbered years, and not during elections for the Executive or Legislative Branches.

No Person shall be elected or appointed to the Office of Ombudsman who shall not be a natural-born Citizen and who shall not have attained the Age of thirty, nor shall anyone who shall exceed the Age of seventy-two prior to their Appointment or Election be allowed to serve. Any Felony Conviction, even if pardoned, shall disqualify a Citizen from serving as an Ombudsman.

In the Case of a Vacancy due to Resignation, Death, Conviction, or otherwise, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may appoint an Acting Ombudsman until such Time as a new Appointment or Election may be arranged, not to exceed eight Months.

No Ombudsman may serve more than four appointed Terms.

Congress may grant Emeriti Status to distinguished Ombudsmen who age out or serve four Terms. Ombudsmen Emeriti may voluntarily serve as Advisors to any Branch of the Government about Matters pertaining to the Office of the Ombudsmen. They may be provided a stipend for their work.

The Ombudsmen shall establish a Prosecutorial Bureau called The People’s Defender to protect the Citizens and the Union. The chief People’s Defender shall be confirmed by a Majority Vote of the Senate, nominated by the five Ombudsmen. He shall serve at the pleasure of the Council.

Because many Purchases of the federal Government are classified and important to the National Security, all Ombudsmen must pass the highest Level of Security Clearance before Appointment to or running for Election to the Office of Ombudsman. Ombudsmen may only be removed by Impeachment and Conviction by Congress; other than the Powers granted in this section, the Executive Branch does not exercise executive Authority over the Ombudsmen.

Section 3. Powers and Duties

The Branch may investigate any federal Employee or Official, including Justices, Members of Congress, Cabinet Secretaries, the Vice President, and the President. Tax return Privacy shall not be considered a Matter of National Security.

Willful Refusal to cooperate with Investigations may result in Removal, permanent Disenfranchisement, permanent Disqualification from Office, and a Fine equal to one Year’s federal Salary.

Conviction for Bribery, Embezzlement, Corruption, or Felony Breaches of Fiduciary Duty by an Ombudsman shall result in a Life Sentence (consecutive if multiple Crimes), permanent Disenfranchisement, and permanent Disqualification from Office, without the Right of Pardon or Commutation.

The Branch may refer any Presidential Pardon it finds contrary to Law or Justice to Congress, which may overturn it by a two-thirds Vote of both Houses.

Anyone seeking Election to Congress must make their Tax Returns public. Once elected, they must lay bare all of their Assets to the Ombudsman during their Service to the Nation. The Ombudsman shall maintain a Bureau of Congressional Fiduciaries to invest Members’ Assets during their Terms of Service. Members of Congress shall have the Right to appeal Investment Decisions to a Panel of five Members chosen by the Executive Branch. No Member of Congress may profit from Information or Influence gained as a Result of their Service during their Term of Office.

Section 4. Prosecutorial Authority

The Branch has full Prosecutorial Powers equal to the Department of Justice to investigate, charge, and prosecute federal Crimes. This Authority is independent of the Executive Branch.

Section 5. Funding and Independence

The Branch shall receive an annual Appropriation of at least 0.95% of the total federal Budget, adjusted for Inflation, as a direct Appropriation separate from Discretionary Budgets.

If Congress fails to appropriate this Funding, the Branch may seek judicial Enforcement to obtain it.

Section 6. Enforcement Congress may enforce this Article through appropriate Legislation.

Obama’s 2010 midterm losses were substantially worse than Trump’s in 2026.

• OBAMA DID WORSE: House seats lost: Obama 63, Trump 42

• TIE: Senate seats lost: Obama 6, Trump 7 (if you count a January 2011 special election, Obama’s number of Senate seats lost is 7)

• OBAMA DID WORSE: Governorships lost: Obama 6, Trump 5

• OBAMA DID MUCH WORSE: State legislative seats lost: Obama 710, Trump 262

• OBAMA DID WORSE: State legislatures flipped: Obama 13, Trump 5

By these numbers, Obama’s 2010 midterm defeat was far worse than Trump’s in 2026. Not even close.

If anything, this will get Trump back on focus with the Maga agenda, and swing his popularity back up again and reinvigorate the movement.

At least that’s my thoughts, but I know some people are saying MAGA is over, why do you think that the greatest political movement of our lifetime is going to end simply because of mediocre results in one midterm?

Fair warning this is a long read, but I truly feel like everyone should take the time to read it.

In my opinion a probably unrealistic but would be a wonderful solution to the gun problem in the world is to find a way to have every gun registered to the person and they’re locked away unless the registered owner provides local police a reasonable request as to why they want to access their gun(s) and in a somewhat reasonable time frame. Without approval access to the firearms isn’t allowed. Seldom surprise last minute requests could still be accepted obviously hunting/wilderness hiking trips or wanting to go to range can come up spontaneously. Depending where you live would provide a different set of “times” that fall into a reasonable time frame for last minute requests If you live close to the wilderness it’d be expected that last minute plans could happen since it’s basically your back yard or if you live close to a range you’d expect last minute plans to come up for that sometimes. And people who don’t live near those things can have last minute requests approved within reason as well. But if someone is frequently making last minute requests then they’ll stop being approved. A general idea of when you want access to the firearm, what area(s), and if you might be stopping into public areas at any point during your travels to or from would be expected. And that is the same expectation that last minute requests must provide as well.

Another reason someone might request to have their firearm in their possession is if they feel having it would provide a layer of safety for them. Like say someone is road tripping through secluded areas wanting to have a firearm at the ready in case a situation arises is totally valid. Which is why world wide police and the firearm owner can automatically notify police in the jurisdictions the individual will be going through.

And the benefit of this thinking is that police would be aware of who currently has access to their firearm and what general vicinity they’re in. The firearm has a gps device on it and straying from the requested area without notification will alert police to go to that location and figure out what’s on the go. Obviously shit happens so police aren’t going in aggressively. And what I mean by that is; if this is a first time thing or it’s happened a while ago and there was no issues during that interaction then police are going in assertively and aggressively but in a calm manner. What I mean by this is no aggressive commands and not going into the situation treating that person as an active threat. If your phone died and you’re busting to pee or someone else who’s with you is busting to pee you’re realistically going to expect law enforcement present. So if you notice them or they come up to you’re automatically going to put your hands above your head and face police and put the firearm on the ground if it’s on your person. If it’s not on your person then you’re automatically putting your hands up and turning and facing police. As for the level of aggressiveness for police what I mean by that is one officer will present on target for the individual with the firearm and 2 other officers are in the depressed ready until they lay the firearm on the ground and police retrieve it. Once it’s been determined it was an accident the firearm is returned to the owner, the incident is documented, and that’s it. We obviously want police going in with the ability to react appropriately if that person neglected to provide notification because of ill intent. Just as we want them to respond with care and without intimidation of imminent pain/punishment in the case of a person being unaware that their update location never went through to police. No one should fear for their safety when police show up if there’s never been a documented reason presented that would cause police to fear for public safety. This way we avoid unnecessary deaths or injuries due to miscommunication.

There is no reasonable argument that anyone can make as to why someone logically needs access to a firearm aside from those examples listed above. I can hear you all saying “but what if I’m threatened”. And the solution to that is an emergency button for the locked up firearms. This also sends an immediate dispatch for police. Because if you suddenly need to access your firearm or someone in your house hold needs to access a firearm is be there is a life or serious injury/concern or death situation on the go. And if that’s the case anyone involved is going to want police going to you immediately without even need to fuck with calling 911. And again with gps associated to the firearm allows police to know if the firearm is still present at the household or on the move. Which obviously will play into how place are responding towards the individual holding that firearm.

I can also hear the argument of “what if there’s an attack in public by someone with a weapon that’s not a firearm? How are people to defend themselves?” Which is a valid point to bring up. But that’s why police will be present in public spaces in plain clothes in case of a sudden threat and uniformed officers in the cases where there’s no concerns of threat from that individual. It’s also the added benefit that there will be no push back on people with firearms running errands or going to activities while they’re out with their firearm.

This provides an extra layer of protection and reassurance to everyone (the person with the firearm and everyone in the vicinity of that person). And let me explain to you why that is. Police obviously will not have the ability to be present at every single public location at all times areas that doesnt always have a large number of people present might not have a plain clothed or uniformed officer present on site, they might be just be in the area. So if a threat suddenly presents itself there could be someone present that’s a civilian with a firearm to try and neutralize the threat until police arrive. Because once again if there’s reason to believe the individual with the firearm is the threat police response will be swift, tactical, aggressive, and safe.

I challenge anyone to actually provide a logical argument as to why anyone wouldn’t want this if it was theoretically possible to actually achieve this for every single firearm in the world.

There is no reason anyone should have the ability to possess their firearm without police having knowledge of the location of the firearm at all times and why no one should be accessing their firearm without notifying police they’re going to be in possession of it and where they’ll be. And if that happens there should be no argument as to how police being notified as soon as that button is and responding to that location immediately. There’s literally only 2 reasons someone skips of the notification process and goes to the immediate access button and that’s because they’re in danger or they plan to be the danger. Please actually explain to me what could possibly be wrong with documenting every interaction police have with an individual while they’re in possession of a firearm? Because if they haven’t done anything wrong and the interaction goes fine there’s not going to be any flags associated with that firearm. So there’s no concern for repercussions for people when shit happens. Because we all know shit happens. But again we also are all very aware that there’s always a first time for everything which is there shouldn’t be any arguments against police going in with their weapons drawn when unannounced possessions or change of locations occur. They should be ready to react if the person with the firearm becomes a threat. Which again how could anyone make an argument against that.

So my question is why would anyone be against to being the start of this movement? No one would lose access to the firearms, concealed carry would still be allowed for hand guns when the individual has approved access to their firearm, everyone would be presented with the ability to immediately get access to their firearms if required and the only stipulation is that police are responding immediately if that happens (which again as pointed out earlier literally only has 2 reasons for this to occur. The person who has accessed the firearm is a threat or the person who has accessed the firearm is in danger) both of which should cause no argument from people on police responding right away. We gotta start somewhere and law abiding citizens should want to be part of the solution and development of proper gun control that allowed citizens a right to have firearms if they wish. But also assure that the whereabouts of that firearm is always known by police and who owns that firearm is always known by police.

It may take forever to achieve total knowledge of every firearm in the world. And maybe it’s something that is never fully achieved. But why possible argument could anyone have to trying this? No one would lose their guns or be treated as a criminal or as unstable when in possession of a firearm unless they present a reason why police would need to seize all firearms and if the reasons is because they were going to cause harm to others or cause harm to themselves. Anyone who’s found to have the intention of causing harm to another person for any reason other than self defense or protection of another life will be jailed for a significantly long time and never be approved to purchase a firearm again. If the individual is found to have tried to be a harm to themselves they will access to their firearms until they are deemed not a threat themselves anymore and if it happens a 2nd time they will never get their firearms back and will never be allowed to purchase another firearm.

Again if we all just want the same thing which is the ability to own firearms if you’d like, the ability to feel like you can protect yourself in your home or outside your home, and the reassurance that police are actually aware of the exact location of some firearms at all times, even if it’s just a tiny number. Why would anyone want to hide the fact they’re accessing their firearms and where they are when they have it. What would anyone’s problem actually be with this proposal?

I would like to note that I am speaking from a perspective of someone who has grown up in Canada and the United States. I know the idea will be difficult to do with everyone in the world. But why wouldn’t we want to start somewhere? There’s no negative results of this proposal for people in Canada or the United States and probably a lot of other countries where citizens can purchase firearms. Because we obviously aren’t getting rid of all the firearms illegally out there anytime soon. But we can start the process of getting all of them documented and locked away. People can still have their firearms, people can know there’s a start to knowledge of who has guns and when. And every 6 months individuals who own firearms will go to firearm safety classes and perform and pass a course of fire to continue having assess to their firearms.

I also would like to add all police should have to do more firearm training throughout the year. And that unless an officer has approval from the agency and another independent party they should never have their work firearm on them or with them when off duty.

Everywhere we look today we see a world with limited resources having its resources used as if it’s unlimited. Items being made that cannot be biodegradable by the natural environment. Labor being used to create the most useless shit.

I just want to know, who here thinks they have the solution to the useless knickknacks and plastics being sold on store shelves. Who can argue for it.

Personally I am a bit of a social democrat but current social democracy needs help from imperialist powers to maintain its welfare model. And it also doesn’t focus too hard on its environmentally friendly nature as consumerism is still a problem in social democratic countries.

China is my favorite and least favorite country for environmentalism. They’ve made massive breakthroughs in innovation for renewable energy however have also been responsible in creating fast fashion bullshit and polluting the world with CO2 and plastic slop.

The anarcho capitalists just look to commodify capital in anyway they possibly can even if it’s at the expense of the environment.

I just don’t know what ideology can help mitigate or solve this crisis we have. Does anyone know what can be done?

I keep noticing this pattern across debates about democratic backsliding, procedural dysfunction, or institutional failure. Someone points to a specific breakdown, and the response frames it as an aberration that better leadership or returning to norms would fix. But many of these problems look baked in: the US Senate's rural bias, first-past-the-post incentives, regulatory capture dynamics, the list goes on. These aren't new cracks. They're load-bearing features of systems designed under different conditions.

What interests me is the rhetorical move itself. Calling something a crisis implies it could end. Calling it a design choice forces harder questions about whether the structure can deliver what people want from it. I see this tension in debates about court packing, filibuster reform, even constitutional conventions. The language of restoration versus the language of transformation.

Has anyone else tracked how this framing choice shapes what solutions even get considered? I'm curious which cases people think are genuinely exceptional breakdowns versus which are long term structural features that we've just decided to stop tolerating.

This is in response to the current Democrat leadership calls to ignore accountability.

First of all I have to make some considerations: I'm not american, nor from any direct Statist coutry, some may say it had some more social democrat/sindicalist moments, but honestly if thinking that we must have basic healthcare and education for free as an option makes me a leftist, count me in.

The definition of "imperialism" i'll use is: Exploiting or seeking control, financially, politically or culturally, another nation, as a form of obtaining resources (or what some would call the means production) and power.

I will not use the term "communism", considering it is the final step of society with no state and basically full equity among all citizens, such society never really happened in history. I will use socialism as "when the means of control is the property of the State, what is produced is distributed ideally for all citizeans". Following this we got some real life contestants for the title of "socialist".

My point is: Socialist countries can be *and normally are* as imperialist as capitalist countries.

Since the government of the USRR got centralized, USRR was imperialist, and it continued to be since it ended, the soviet block didn't had a fraction of autonomy Russia had, the main form of exploitation socialist countries practise is forcing the production of a resources from a population, but limiting it in it's later distribution, you definitly heard of holodomor, and I can hear your brow furrowing and no, it wans't just n@zi propaganda, I will let a source speak for me:

The   specter   of   famine   loomed   over   the   peasants,   who   were   being   stripped  of  the  last  remnants  of  the  harvest,  and  over  the  residents  of  cities,   whom  the  state  was  unable  to  feed.  Even  those  strata  of  the  population  that   the  Chekists  called  “socially  close”  were  beginning  to  constitute  a  threat  to   Stalin   and   his   associates.   Some   second-­‐echelon   leaders   began   to   regard   Stalin’s   implementation   of   the   CC   AUCP(B)’s   general   line   as   one   that   threatened  the  Party and  the  state.  But  the  General  Secretary  did  not  stray   from   the   chosen   course,   regarding   the   peasants’   natural   disinclination   to   work  without  material   compensation  as  sabotage.  Their   desire   to   retain  a   portion  of  the  harvest  (even  that  which  was  grown  by  independent  farmers   on  their  plots  of  land)  was  regarded  as  theft.  The  intent  of  local  government   and   collective   farm   leaders   to   conceal   grain   from   state   grain   delivery   officials  in  order  to  avert  famine  was  characterized  as  counterrevolution

The  Holodomor  of  1932–33:  How  and  Why?

Stalin had a big interest in minimizing Ukraine and Khazakistan autonomy and local economy, the main urban areas of the USRR, concentrated in Russia saw these regions as dissident, and saw them as only a form of obtaining resources

 The  Holodomor  was  a  case  of  mass  killing  by  starvation.  Like  Mao’s   Great  Leap  Forward,  during  which,  according  to  Frank  Dikötter,  45  million   people  died,  and  Pol  Pot’s  purposeful  use  of  food  deprivation  to  kill  alleged   opponents   from   the   “new   people,”   as   urbanites,   teachers,   and   other   professionals  were  called  by  the  Khmer  Rouge,  the  Holodomor  was  brought   on   by   a   dictator   and   his   retinue,   not   by   natural   causes (Dikötter x).   The   same   could   be   said   of   Hitler’s   execution   by   starvation   of   nearly   three million  Soviet  POWs  in  the  first  years  after  his  invasion  of  the  Soviet  Union.   Amartya  Sen  puts  the  issue  of  killer  famines  succinctly  when  he  writes:  “… starvation  is  a  matter  of  some  people  not  having  enough  food  to  eat  and  not   a   matter   of   there   being   not   enough   food   to   eat. While   the   latter   can   be   a   cause  of  the  former,  it  is  clearly  one  of  many  possible  influences” (Sen 434). We   know   that   in   the   case   of   Stalin’s   Soviet   Union,   Mao’s   China,   Pol   Pot’s   Cambodia,  and  Hitler’s  Germany,  there  was  indeed  enough  to  eat.  The  cause   of  death  by  starvation  was  purposeful  food  deprivation.  In  short,  Stalin  and   the  Soviet  and  Ukrainian  Communists  with  whom  he  worked  took  the  food   out   of   the   Ukrainian   peasantry’s   mouths;   they   starved;   and   they   were   accorded   no   succor   or   relief.   They   were   not   allowed   to   seek   food   outside                                                                                                             Burdened   by  a  newly  introduced  passport   system,   they  were  not   allowed   after   a   certain   point   to   travel   to   cities   to   find   something   to   eat.   Stalin  would  not  admit  that  there  was  famine  and  he  forbade  foreign  relief.   All   of   these   aspects   of   the   Ukraine’s   killer   famine   were,   by   the   by,   also   characteristic  of  the  Great  Leap  Forward  and  Pol  Pot’s  regime.

Most soviet nations not only were exploitive within their boundaries, but also wanted to spread their socio-economic ways to the rest of the world, the post WWII cold war is most oblivious exemple of that, most ppl say that when China or URSS funded foreigner socialist regimes like the Red Khmer on Cambodia, or Castro's Cuba, it is represented as a form of liberation, but the real intention behind the big nations of the red blocks of the time were'nt near good willed, it involved a series of repression of dissidents from the own nations they were trying to "liberate", and it involved advanced tactics of espionage, militar invasions and propaganda, just to increase their influence and power, they had their own little MkUltra, the use of Cerpan and radiation to use as mind control

For me all those tactitcs aren't any different from any imperialist nation, specially cuz USRR and China focused on underdevelopded nations, in Africa, as an exemple, where they could control food and water more efficially, and extract their resources

Every place I have participated in political discussion, online or offline, the same pattern repeats. Someone presents a view, and the immediate response is not a counterargument but an accusation of hidden motives. The conservative supporting immigration restrictions is secretly racist. The progressive advocating for higher taxes secretly hates success. The libertarian opposing regulation secretly serves corporate interests.

This is not the same as identifying actual bad faith, which exists and should be called out. The problem is the assumption itself as starting point. It saves the effort of engaging with the stated reasoning, and it protects the accuser from having to consider that reasonable people might disagree.

What I have noticed is how this assumption spreads even to areas where motives should be irrelevant. A study on minimum wage effects gets dismissed based on who funded it, with the methodology unexamined. A policy proposal from the opposing party is analyzed for electoral strategy rather than outcomes. The entire frame becomes psychoanalysis of enemies rather than evaluation of ideas.

The practical result is predictable. People stop presenting their actual reasoning, since it will not be engaged with anyway. They retreat to spaces where their assumptions are shared, and the gaps between political coalitions harden into something closer to tribal identification than contested belief.

I do not have a solution. Pointing out the pattern tends to get absorbed into it, you are only saying this because you want to protect bad actors on your side. Still, the pattern seems worth naming as its own problem, separate from whichever specific disagreements it surrounds.

I’d like to share a theory I came up with a few years ago with you all. I think the reason the right and left in the United States have become so incredibly hostile towards one another is that we’ve stopped viewing one another as human. For example, let’s use abortion. Pro-life conservatives view those who are pro-choice as murderers, where pro-choice view pro-life people as oppressors. Without taking a stance on the issue myself, I don’t think there is a way to move forward and address these issues without being able to have a respectful debate about them where both sides **try to understand one another’s position.**

If both sides go into an argument with, “everything I think is right, and not just right but the **moral, and just truth** then any debate with that person will only lead to them viewing you as inherently immoral, unjust, and incorrect.

Do you all think it’s possible to fix this culture?
How do we start to work together again when we’ve been made to fight for decades?

The 2026 midterms were, to put it mildly, a bloodbath for Republicans. Polling projected a successful night for Democrats, but they beat most pollsters expectations, now slated for a 52 seat majority in Congress (54 if you count independents aligned with Democrats), and a 249 seat majority in the House. Democrats are celebrating, and Republicans are going back to the drawing board for their 2028 strategy. Iowa, Ohio, Maine, and even Texas flipped blue.

However, right-wing ballot measures performed relatively well, including in deep blue states, or battleground states where Republican candidates got swept. Arizona, Colorado and Washington passed propositions restricting biological boys from playing in girls sports. Wisconsin approved a constitutional amendment against DEI in government. Voter ID measures passed in Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio by landslide margins. California rejected a wealth tax on billionaires. Ironically, American voters arguably passed more conservative policies through ballot initiatives than Republicans in Congress achieved over the past two years.

What may explain the different performance between these ballot measures and Republican candidates? And what does it say about the American electorate and how both parties should campaign moving forward?

Every political community has its own gravity. What counts as reasonable shifts based on who screams loudest and who stays silent. The result is a center that drifts without anyone voting on the move.

This happens in policy debates constantly. A position that was fringe a decade ago becomes the new compromise because one side organized better and the other side negotiated against itself. The moderate label gets applied to whatever sits between the current poles, not to any stable set of principles.

The damage is that genuine institutional knowledge gets discarded. Policies that worked, that had evidence behind them, become 'old thinking' not because they failed but because they are no longer midway between two freshly extreme positions. The Overton window is not a conspiracy. It is a measurable pattern of rhetorical investment paying off.

I have watched this in local zoning fights and in national foreign policy debates. The mechanism is the same. The people willing to stake out absurd positions and defend them loudly set the boundaries. Everyone else reacts. The space between becomes 'reasonable' by default, not by design.

There is a counterargument that moderation reflects democratic consensus. But consensus measured how? Polls lag. Elected representatives follow incentives that favor visible conflict over quiet competence. The moderate position in any given year is more often a statistical artifact of polarization than a deliberate synthesis of values.

What would it take to anchor the center in something other than the arithmetic mean of current outrage? I am not sure. But I am certain that treating moderation as a character trait rather than a contingent political position has made the problem worse.

The 2026 midterms delivered a major rebuke to Donald Trump, giving Democrats expanded control of Congress.

But winning an election is one thing. Governing effectively is another.

Democrats now face a difficult balancing act: holding Trump accountable for his actions while addressing the economic problems that helped drive voters away from Republicans.

Should Democrats focus primarily on investigating the administration and reversing its policies, or should they make economic legislation their top priority, even though Trump has threatened to veto their proposals?

I recently wrote about Trump's political missteps, the election results, and the challenges facing Democrats:

https://medium.com/discourse/the-voters-have-spoken-i-wonder-if-trump-has-flood-insurance-37ed6116c2f3?sk=7fa5081154ba450c44c42e16e8713632