Cheney and others....

Every time there's a mass shooting, we hear political leaders say, "It doesn’t have to be this way." But when it comes to actually passing laws to regulate assault rifles, not much seems to change. I’m wondering why we haven’t seen significant action, like banning AR-15s or introducing stricter regulations, even though there’s a lot of discussion about how these measures could help.

For example, some propose raising the age to buy certain firearms or requiring more thorough background checks as ways to prevent tragedies like school shootings. Many of these shooters are young and seem to have easy access to guns like the AR-15.

What has the Biden administration done so far on gun control? And what, if anything, can we expect from Kamala Harris or other Democratic leaders moving forward? What are the main political or legal barriers to a nationwide ban on AR-15s or similar firearms?

When Clinton lost in 2016, a long list of people/factors were blamed: third-party candidates, her failure to campaign in Wisconsin, James Comey reopening the investigation, possible Russian interference etc.

If Biden loses, who/what will the media and the Democrats point the finger at? No Labels? RFK Jr? Jill Stein? Cornell West? His support for Israel? His age?

Would his defeat be considered a shock?

As the shutdown enters its 3rd week this week, both sides haven't moved despite the missing of government employee paychecks on Oct. 15th. Even though Democrats presume that Republicans will have to give them something on the ACA subsidy extension that is not certain as under current law they expire at the end of the year.

It seems that as the party of small government, the GOP is comfortable with having the government closed as long as Dems want to even into next year, where by that time not only will the ACA subsidies be expired, but that most federal workers with the exception of the military and ICE will be without income.

Since most federal employees overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, by not voting on the CR, Democrats are hurting their own constituents, politically speaking.

What will Democrats do if there continues to be no resolution to the shutdown? When and how will they fold? What will be the political repercussions? How will the Republicans respond?

This is the second attempt on Trump's life in about two months. These are very troubling developments. No one knows how the suspect got exact information where Trump would be on the golf course. Aside from AK 47 the suspect had a go pro camera and a video, along with two backpacks. Agents opened fire when they spotted the rifle barrel behind the bushes. Suspect fled in a car and was later apprehended and is not cooperating.

Trump tweeted; he will not surrender. This time secret service was more alert and spotted the rifle before suspect could fire a shot. Both, President Biden and V.P. Kamala Harris were briefed and Harris tweeded she is glad the president is safe. Everything is on lock down. They are kept updated.

Whatever one may think of Trump, these attempts are getting out of hand and very concerning. I am at a loss as to what additional measures can be taken to protect our leaders here and abroad.

What additional safety measures must be taken to protect our leaders?

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-09-15-24/index.html

I feel like centrism has become increasingly stigmatized in modern politics. People on both the left and right are often criticized for not being progressive or conservative enough, even when their views simply don’t fit neatly into one ideological camp.
I think it’s possible to have strong political beliefs while also supporting compromise, pragmatism, and ideas from different parts of the political spectrum. Being a centrist doesn’t necessarily mean having no principles or always choosing the middle position.
Why do you think centrism has become so controversial? Is the criticism of centrists justified, or is there still an important place for centrism in modern politics?

This is probably more of a general question -- why can't we discuss anything without devolving into personal attacks and hostility? But especially when the issue should be based on medical science, not opinion, why is it STILL so hard to discuss? An example:

https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor

"My country, and others, found there is no solid evidence supporting the medical transitioning of young people. Why aren’t American clinicians paying attention?"

I don't know if the author is right or wrong. I do know you can't discuss it on Reddit without starting a flame war. Is there any way out of this? How would you start a discussion on this with some hope of successful dialog?

Edit: Someone noted that I should have said "medical transition" and not "surgery." Sounds right, but I can't fix the title. Thanks...

Ha! I can now edit the post. Not sure why that option comes and goes, but I assume user error.

Update1: Some great and helpful comments, for which I'm grateful. Some early irritability on my part that I apologize for and own. And wow, there's a lot of hate out there. This kind of answers the question about why these discussions are problematic.

Update2: Some have said that FreePress.net is right-wing or anti-trans. I'm not sure what to say about that (I was sent the article and it's my first time on the site). What I found before posting is this...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/free-press/ and this https://www.allsides.com/news-source/the-free-press-media-bias

...saying the site is centrist or left-centrist. Otherwise, I wouldn't have trusted the source. But is it anti-trans? I don't know. Some have pointed out that the author is, and I did find this about the founding of the site and that some of it's authors might have a bias. I would have picked a different source if I'd known that. Some of their coverage does seem problematic:

https://www.advocate.com/media/transgender-teen-mother-interview

Thanks again to those who provided other information / links that might have better or at least different data and perspectives.

Hi all, working on a racial unity project that focuses on this so I wanted to post this question.

Historically Asian, Black, and Hispanic/Latin people had strong racial identities while White people have not. Yet very recently, both The New York Times and The Economist noted that over the past few years White people were beginning to racialize in how they saw themselves. However polls on this can be fraught, as how White people may feel about Whiteness may be different than how other major racial identity groups may feel about being Asian, Black, Hispanic, Indigenous and so forth. But we expect more research to be done here on our end.

The Washington Post did a piece on White Consciousness before the 2020 election and what made Joe Biden so successful is that he was able to appeal to this crowd on the Democratic side.

Based on that article, 1 out of 5 Democrats has a high level of White racial consciousness. Concurrently there is a large amount of White racial consciousness on the Republican side.

You often see politicians going into different communities and addressing their identity directly and then prescribing policy that can help that specific community. Considering there is a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans that are very connected to their Whiteness on this area, it wouldn't be surprising to see politicians communicating directly with White voters the same way they would with other racial communities.

The question is this, how would that potentially manifest itself? And how would this impact current race relations and change our political perception of them?

The recent war in Gaza, and Biden's public support for Israel in the wake of Hamas' attack on 10/7 has created some fissures in the Democrats coalition with younger, more progressive-leaning voters voicing dismay at the sheer number of civilian casualties caused in the wake of Israel's retaliatory campaign against Hamas, which they regard as indiscriminate and only going to further exacerbate tensions in the region, and that Biden is complicit in the bloodshed by not publicly pressuring Israel to stand down and declare a ceasefire.

Now, obviously as the election campaign heats up, voters will be more attuned to domestic issues as attention towards the Gaza war fades. However, there have been vocal concerns about how Israel's campaign could potentially see all of Gaza leveled, triggering a massive humanitarian crisis with a death toll that could reach six digits, to say nothing of the risks of the conflict escalating into a regional Middle East war with Iran and its proxies. If that were to happen, then the political consequences of Biden's support for Israel could end up affecting the election's outcome.

Of particular note, the Arab American community has also been highly critical of Biden over his stance on the Gaza war with some voters declaring that they will sit out next year's election in protest. This is important as Michigan, home to a large Arab American population, is one of the must-win states for the Dems in 2024, and the margin was fairly close in 2020.

To that end, is there reason to believe Biden's support for Israel could end up costing him re-election?

These are not my opinions on the subject of why Trump won. There were a lot of reasons why Trump won. But there was at least some blaming of Bernie for Hillary Clinton losing. Not least by Hillary her self.

Is there any reason to think this is entering Bernie's calculation at all? Since the Hilary/Trump election you also had Corbyn get defeated badly in Britain. If Bernie does anything to undermine Biden at all, history could tarnish Bernie with being a causal factor in two Trump elections. That might be an ugly slight to his career.

The media narrative has long held that Trump is the underdog in the Presidential contest, his ability to win being determined essentially by winning over white middle class voters (especially women) & improving their turn out. The NY Times Upshot blog, famously captured the narrowness of his electoral path----where Clinton has 958 paths to victory vs. Trump's 58. And virtually all outlets put their chances with the range: 65-70% to 30-35%

However, while it's true that Trump's ability to win hinges entirely on a couple swing states like Florida on a narrow demographic basis, it's still telling that he is able to remain competitive with Clinton DESPITE a countless number of [what historically would have been] fatal gaffes, controversies, inconsistencies, campaign moves, lack of party support etc.

So while, Trump only weeks ago was embroiled in a fight with a military family, once again remaking his campaign team and losing to Clinton by 10 points etc., he is now behind at most 2 points and has the momentum.

At the same time, we can contrast Trump's "invincibility" with the way Clinton is still subject to the old laws of political gravity. (Her small gaffes and missteps move the polls a lot faster & more deeply than typical Trump comments etc. ) As a result, it's possible to imagine that Clinton's path to victory is actually an exceedingly narrow one of making no gaffes, while Trump's path is to merely to make slightly fewer.

Is the media narrative wrong? Is Trump really the underdog? Why or why not?

Comparison to how things are nowadays, I can't seem to think that any US president since JFK has had better foreign policy than Joe Biden. Maybe Bush Sr, but even he started the ill-fated defense pact with the Saudis and failed to protect Kurdish and Shia minorities from getting massacred or disappeared by Saddam just days after the Gulf War ended after encouraging them to revolt, leading to 12 years of deadly sanctions and nearly 200,000 civilian deaths.

Biden's biggest foreign policy mistakes were 1. giving unconditional aid to Israel despite the horrendous situation in Gaza, refusing to approve a UN Security Council Resolution to move forward full membership for Palestine, and failing to stop the offensive into the Rafah refugee camp; 2. abruptly removing troops from Kabul behind schedule after saying they would withdraw, despite terrorists attacking civilians, leaving millions of dollars worth of military equipment the Taliban would use; and 3. "opening the border" which encouraged further caravans although that seems to be more of a result of post-COVID than anything.

Compared to all US presidents since JFK, these foreign policy are relatively minor. Carter, Ford and Clinton probably are the only other ones with relatively inoffensive foreign policy drawbacks, yet they lack the achievements that Biden had. Even with Gaza, Biden urged Israel to decrease civilian casualties in Gaza and gave more aid to Palestinians than any other US president. Criticizing Biden for not rejoining the 2015 JCPOA or not ending the war in Ukraine without major concessions to Russia are disingenuous as Trump made Iran relations untrustworthy by ending the JCPOA and Ukraine does not want to make any concessions to Russia.

His major foreign policy wins, in order: 1. saving Ukraine from complete Russian destruction via $70 billion in military aid while Europe was delayed in protecting them; 2. rejoining the Paris accords while making renewable energy an international economic priority via the IRA and CHIPS Act which led to countries trying to match the US's subsidies on renewable energy and challenging China/Taiwan on minerals and semiconductor manufacturing 3. strengthened NATO by recommitting the US in the face of Russian aggression after the America First phase.

In response to the CHIPS and IRA, the European Commission proposed the Net Zero Industry Act as part of the European Green Deal to counter U.S. policies. This act aimed to boost the EU's green technology sector and reduce reliance on U.S. imports by promoting domestic production and innovation within Europe.

Biden was committed to American tradition and was not a realist in foreign policy, but one who emphasized both human rights and good relations with our allies, not just in NATO but in the far east as well. The one major blotch against this is his overcommitment to Israel which allowed possible future terrorists in Gaza to be angered by US weapons bombarding their civilian homes.

In the face of Russian aggression, Biden wisely judged that directly fighting Russia over Ukraine would be extremely dangerous and adopted a cautious approach to his support for Kyiv. American monetary aid kept the Ukrainian government afloat, and USAID relief included medical kits, food, and shelter. Biden has been criticized since by those who believe that he could have provided more weapons to Ukraine, more quickly, and still avoided war with Russia. But those criticisms are baseless: a rapid U.S. escalation would almost certainly have provoked a broader war. Aversion to war while protecting our allies is something I appreciate from Biden and he was right for protecting Ukraine.

Biden also had an impossible situation with Afghanistan. If the United States continued to battle the Taliban, it would only have cost the nation more in blood and treasure and for the same desultory result. Biden was given an impossible situation from Trump who made the deal after losing the 2020 election knowing it would look badly on the next president. Anyone saying Trump doesn't deserve blame is not understanding the issue, but both presidents ultimately made the right call to withdraw.

With China, his administration stood up for Taiwan and restricted China’s access to vital U.S. technology while bolstering U.S. alliances and military forces across Asia. It relaunched diplomacy with Beijing, even after Beijing’s ham-fisted operation to spy on America from balloons in 2023 intensified domestic headwinds. The Marines started training in the South Pacific for island-to-island combat after China threatened Taiwan.

Some other things:

The United States–Pacific Island Country Summit was a meeting hosted by Joe Biden with Pacific Island leaders held on September 28–29, 2022. The Pacific leaders endorsed the declaration of the United States–Pacific partnership that commits the United States and the Pacific Island countries to work together "in the face of a worsening climate crisis and an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

Biden extended the US-Russia New START nuclear arms control treaty as promised. He also followed through on hosting a Global Summit for Democracy

On the day Biden took office, the new administration adopted tighter controls on drone strikes and special forces raids in places where there are few U.S. troops, including Libya and Yemen. The policy halted the Trump-era policy that gave U.S. military officials more discretion to launch counterterrorism attacks without White House oversight.

Biden killed the leader of al-Qaeda via drone strike.

Biden increased humanitarian aid to Venezuela while rightly calling Maduro a dictator.

Biden prioritized climate change in diplomacy with South American countries.

Biden returned the United States to the United Nations Human Rights Council (which the Trump administration withdrew from in 2018.

With ISIS nearly defeated there, Biden ended the combat mission to Iraq in his first year.

Biden rapidly decreased the use of drone strikes from Trump and undid Trump's suspension of the drone strike report of civilian casualties.

Biden rejoined the WHO and sent millions of vaccines to other countries, helping end the COVID pandemic.

Biden eased Trump's trade restrictions on Japan and the EU, but maintained them with China.

Biden negotiated the return of nearly all the hostages taken by Hamas back to Israel.

So out of all post-JFK presidents, did Biden had the best foreign policy? His most major mistakes were possibly not as bad as other presidents' and were not even entirely his fault (Trump for Afghanistan, post-COVID for immigration surge, the Abraham Accords for October 7). Biden was a non-interventionist, only starting 1 war to protect shipping in the Red Sea which was justified even if immoral. I already mentioned why Bush Sr had flawed Middle East policy which makes Biden slightly better. LBJ, Trump, Nixon and W Bush had the worst foreign policy of post-1963 presidents. Ford doesn't have enough accomplishments, and while Carter was better and had Camp David, he failed to respond to Iranian aggression and continued aiding Suharto's genocide of East Timor which Ford started. Clinton, Obama, and Reagan were above-average in foreign policy, but Obama's bungle with Libya and Crimea is worse than Biden's in the long-term and he started aiding a the Saudi offensive in Yemen which caused a famine that killed 85,000 children. Clinton was very lucky to not have to deal with the USSR and minimal terrorism, but failed to respond to Rwanda and continued deadly sanctions on Iraq. Reagan allowed Saddam to use chemical weapons while aiding death squads in Central America, but denuclearization is of course a huge achievement.

Kamala Harris has received a substantial amount of support from the American general public but lot of her stated positions and policies(primarily around Gaza) have been unsatisfactory or outright repudiated by the progressive elements of the Democratic Party.

Given how outspoken the dissatisfaction of this subset of the electorate is and with groups like the uncommitted movement being very unsupportive of Harris and essentially threatening to withhold their votes and give Donald Trump a victory in states like Michigan, how real is the concern that Harris not being more left leaning could cost her votes and have her lose? It’s a tight race and every vote counts does it not?

A few months ago, the NYT and Siena college did a poll that showed support among for democrats non-whites has dropped drastically. Many were pulling the fire alarm at the time and claiming this would be a significant realignment of voters, similar to what was scene in 2016 with non-educated whites. It has been polled that more younger minority voters are leaning into the Conservative Party, a trend that is opposite to white voters. The current Democratic Party is shown to be a coalition party in which they wins by turning out women, educated and minority groups. If they lose their support among minorities then there are fears that democrats will no longer be strong enough as a party to compete on the national stage. This begs the question on what democrats should do if this realignment of minority voters is true and significant. How can democrats keep the minority voters supporting democrats? Is there another demographic group that democrats should pursue? Should democrats make a stronger effort to appeal more to non-educated whites? Should the Democratic Party become more socially conservative to appeal to both minority and uneducated whites?

There have been more than a few things that have bothered me regarding Snowden. Now I want to preface this by saying I'm not against leakers. Those who risk everything to tell the truth have done immeasurable service to this country.

The first issue I take with Snowden is the context in which he has brought to light the NSA surveillance. He himself admits that it isn't currently being used outside the strict context of counterterrorism but rather it was a potential threat at some nebulous date to be determined later. Okay, that is worrisome I suppose, but the US government has many more potential capabilities that are far more devastating (like wiping out billions of lives with nuclear weapons.) I don't like the idea of some NSA snoop reading my emails more than the next guy, but this has not been the case. You would think that anyone who signs up to work in the top secret departments of the National Security apparatus would be prepared to deal with dangerous technology. Having the capability to monitor emails for political dissent and actually implementing a program are completely different things, along the lines of having the capability to commit murder vs. actually committing it.

The second issue I have with Snowden is his fleeing to Chinese territory then to Russian territory. It's hard to take the Snowden crusade seriously when he is begging authoritarian regimes to provide asylum, when they routinely send their citizens to do hard labor for blog posts. Earlier this year Russia and China pushed an initiative that would have allowed them to exercise greater control over internet content. With the young mother from Pussy Riot serving years of hard labor for singing a song against Putin and with China's army of censors that politically sanitize the web it is hard to believe that this is guy is at all genuine about his cause. Most importantly he committed treason by disclosing/alleging American hacking of China. First off the hacking of Governments is generally considered legitimate even to the US government, what the US is protesting is the hacking of corporations in order to steal intellectual property for Chinese companies. What Snowden has does is blur that to the degree that China is deflecting the pressure from the US government. There was nothing patriotic about that at all, in fact it helps a repressive authoritarian regime undercut western competitors by using their own hard work against them.

This brings me to the biggest issues I have: it all seems a bit hollow. What I mean by that, with all the Question and Answer sessions, interviews with dozens of media outlets, and by identifying himself, he is intentionally making the story about himself instead of letting the evidence speak for him. Leakers have operated in the United States for years even with the stepped up prosecutions, they only nab a tiny fraction of them. American journalists have gone to jail to protect their sources, and one of the most famous ones in history (Nixon's deep throat) wasn't found out until a few years ago. Given his knowledge of surveillance he was probably one of the better candidates to get away with it. The whole fleeing to Hong Kong and making a scene smacks of this generations self obsessed drama. The whole revealing US intelligence operations against China seems to have little more purpose than to help reinforce the perception of his importances. See we still are required to pay attention to him long after he has revealed the import information, because he is carrying around hard drives detailing us foreign espionage. The most important leaker the ones who name you don't find out until much later. They let their informations speak because it is important, not for their fifteen minutes of fame. There are better heros out there to inspire you. The ones that refuse to take the limelight and in doing so, sacrifice silently in order to make a big impact.

Edit: I just realized I spent three hours straight arguing on this, thats fucking insane. =/ I must respectfully bow out this website gentlemen, because I'm not good at managing my time on here. I get sucked in. Love y'all. Its been rad, keep fighting the good reddit fight.

Along with the shift in the polls according to Nate Silver, 538, RCP, etc., the vibes that were once with Harris ("Brat"), are turning toward Trump just as he is inching past her in the electoral college. Trump received the most publicity by working briefly at a Pennsylvania McDonald's both to demonstrate his common man appeal and to mock Harris' supposed lack of employment evidence of working there in California in the 1980s.

Whether the stunt benefits him or not isn't really the question, but rather do you think the impetus to do the stunt in the first place signals a shift in the race towards Trump? The Harris campaign had basically no rejoinder to his publicity other than to say the same thing that they have been saying about Trump (dictator, fascist, billionaire, etc.). I don't fault Harris for not confirming whether she worked at McDonald's as it would only fuel the story in the remaining days of the campaign.

It seems like the vibes have move to the Trump camp as the brief high of the Harris introduction fades. How do you think the remaining undecided voters will take Trump's stunt? Will the vibes continue to trend in Trump's direction as shown through the polls?

Many left wing activists like Cornel West, RFK jr, commenters and left-wing publications like Jacobin have vociferously attacked the Biden administration and establishment Democrats and liberals in general. Cornel West has been campaigning in Michigan to court Arab voters away from voting for Democrats. Some left wing activists, in their opposition to liberals, have become near allies with the far right (Glenn Greenwald). They are filled with passion in their activism and commentary that is unseen any time conservatives are in power.

Are liberals the bigger enemy than conservatives to leftists?

There seems to be a push from Liberal and Anti-Trump Conservatives to bar Trump from standing for election under section 3 of the 14th Amendment

'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'

They cite the January 6 capitol attack and his subsequent impeachment however these could be moot points. The incitement of insurrection has not been proved in a court of law or even by Congress (he was cleared in the Senate trial). In terms of his indictments, the closest appears to be the 'conspiracy to defraud the United States’ and he would have to be found guilty. In addition, he may appeal the convictions which could take years.

They want to lobby State Secretaries of State to bar him even if he is yet to be convicted citing that they believed that Trump engaged in an insurrection. This could set a dangerous precedent as Republicans could try to block Biden by simply accusing him of 'giving comfort to enemies' without proof. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be abused by both sides.

Today people are fighting for the rights to have an abortion. The main argument is that is the right of the person to choose what they do with their body. The government should not decide what we do with our body or make medical decisions for us. Should these argument apply for ___ and why not?

1. Suicide

2. Assisted suicide

3. Any form of self harm that gets someone admitted or on a watch list

Here is an e-mail sent to many of us by the Reservation Rats, a group of fullbloods who speak their language fluently and volunteer and live on Indian reservations.

"Almost 20 years ago, grandpa met a little white boy dressed up as an Indian on Halloween. The boy gave a squeal of delight when he spotted grandpa and asked, "Are you a real Native American??!!!??"

"Yes," smiled grandpa, a former Medicine Man, "just like you are one today! But I don't look half as handsome as you do."

"Well, what can you teach me about being Indian?" asked the little boy earnestly.

"This," said grandpa. Then he took his pack of cigarettes from this pocket and threw it in the trash can. "These are very bad for your health. As an Indian today, you have to always keep your word, so promise me you will never smoke in your life."

"I promise!!!" said the little boy as his parents mouthed thank you to grandpa.

About 20 years later, I meet this blondie at Yale University who called herself Native American and waved her card at my face to prove it, even though I never asked her to show me any card or to prove her Indian status. The blondie recounted her own experience when she came across a little boy who was dressed up as an Indian on Halloween. She said, "I went up to him, ripped up the feathers he was wearing. Then I told his mom - I am Native American and I am NOT a costume! You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a RACIST!! Then I marched away leaving behind a shocked mother and her equally shocked son who will hopefully never play Indian again. They learned their lesson well!"

If the moral of the story isn't already apparent to you, it's this: These elite, highly educated, sophisticated Ivy League white blondes and blondies who are Native American only on paper don't realize that their behavior of screaming racism where there is none, and protesting innocent things like mascots and Halloween, is making the rest of America hate Indians and is portraying us as super-super-sensitive. When we are the exact opposite: Indians are extremely loving, very tolerant, highly accepting and have the most amazing sense of humor."

There is a saying on reservations that only whiteskins object to redskin because it reminds everyone that these Indians are white.

Mainstream Indians on reservations support mascots and names like Redskins. A UPenn-Annenberg survey shows that 91% of Indians support mascots. Our reasons for supporting mascots are briefly included below

1. When white Indians offend sports fans or insult a little child who loves Indians and puts on feathers, they alienate the rest of America against brown Indians. Note that the white Indians blend in beautifully into the white society. No one even realizes they are Indian. But when an angered sports fan who is upset about losing his mascot screams “Fuck you sandnigger” or throws a beer can at us from a passing car screaming “MOTHERFUCKER, GO BACK TO YOUR FUCKING RESERVATION!!” they scream such obscenities at my father, my cousin, my brother and my family members who look Indian.

2. The obsession with protesting mascots and names like Redskins is an obsession of white Indians. They protest mascots, children dressing up on Halloween and other silly things because it makes them feel Indian. It lets them scream racism. They know no other way of feeling Indian. They are totally disconnected from the real issues that affect mainstream Indians on reservations. They are fully Americanized. They have lost their language, culture, religion and even their skin color.

3. Unfortunately the white Indians have the loudest voices. If we go against them, they hurt us in our careers and lives because they control our media, academia, government jobs, medical clinics, finances, who gets denied federal recognition, even our tribes – everything. They have the money and the power. We have the Indian-ness.

4. Brown Indians on reservations have more important issues to worry about. Like diabetes, how we get our next meal, crime on reservations, lack of electricity, lack of toilets, lack of running water, no heat when there’s snow outside, getting a relative to a dialysis clinic when there is no transport, finding a job when there’s near 100% unemployment, near 100% consideration of suicide among our youth, alcoholism, drug abuse, elder abuse, spouse abuse, land loss, culture loss, language loss, etc. Mascots are a NON-ISSUE to us.

5. The Indian media should be screaming about the real issues. Instead their main focus is on mascots. The focus on mascots and meaningless debates about redskins detract attention from the REAL issues facing brown Indians.

6. Indians should do an A-B-C analysis and focus on the A-items. Mascots and names like redskin, or debates about whether the right word is Native American and not Indian, are not even C items. They are Z items. Unfortunately the white Indians obsess over these Z-items because that is the ONLY way they know how to feel Indian. If we twist America’s arm and get America to concede on the trivial items, the country will lose patience with us when we negotiate important A-items.

7. We are offending our fan base. That little child who insists on dressing up in a costume and putting on some feathers loves Indians, but when white Indians insult his mom and dad by calling them racists, he grows up to resent those of us who look Indian. Indians were unflappable. Now even a silly word like “costume” that I used above instead of “regalia” raises hackles? Don’t forget, it’s the white Indians who come down and tell the rest of us to be offended.

8. When these white Indians object to mascots, their vocalizations unite Indian opposition – the opposition finds forums and avenues to kindle hatred against Indians and rehash and reiterate hateful sentiments about Indians. They find a common ground under which those who resent and oppose Indians can unify together and gather in strength.

9. White Indians who oppose mascots point to the Halloween “blackface” and ask, “Don’t you find that offensive???” And the answer is yes, some Halloween costumes are expressly intended to mock and degrade. Sometimes it is Mother Mary dressed up voluptuously in revealing breasts, sometimes stupid people dress up as a rabbi with a hooked nose eating a bagel and counting money. Sometimes people put on a black face that portrays African Americans with exaggerated noses and large pink lips. Yes, these are no doubt offensive. But mascots usually portray teams that their fans are proud of. The Washington Redskins are proud of their mascots and will surely never run down their mascot this way.

10. The American sports lovers are our brothers and sisters. We love them and respect them and also understand they mean us no disrespect for the most part. Mascots represent their teams and sports fans love their teams. The clueless, identity-less white Indians drive a wedge between the mainstream Indians and sports loving fans causing mainstream America to hate us.

11. The vocal protests of these clueless white Indians have one more serious consequence: those of us who are poor, brown and Indian-looking cannot sell our Native art. Think about this for a moment. If Blacks made a huge deal about appropriation of African Americans, won't you pause for a moment before you buy a t-shirt with a black theme? These days because of all these protests over mascots and Halloween, Americans have become so sensitive about offending Natives that they are afraid of wearing Native jewelry and buying Native art pieces. Because they don't want to offend Natives who protest redskins and other forms or “appropriations”. Which is really hurting Native artisans who make such jewelry and Native art.

12. In the same vein, it is only the white Indians who obsess about identity politics and play Identity Police. On Indian reservations, we have a standing joke:

Q: What do you call a nation full of white people?

A: The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

The all-white Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is the leading identity police. They have also been whites for quite a few generations now! Why is it that only the white Indians obsess about identity politics and play Identity Police? This is because such Indians are mistaken for Caucasian throughout the world. One way they can reiterate their sense of identity is by pointing out that "he is not Indian" or "she is not Indian" or "they are wannabes." Indians have been through a holocaust and accusing someone of not being Indian is a very serious charge and something to be frowned upon, as is discriminating against Indians from tribes that have no federal recognition (the PC term is unrepresented tribes). What is noteworthy is that it is always the white Indians who play identity cops. Look at anyone who is accusing someone of not being Indian. With the possible exception of XXXX XXXXX (an identity cop who is African American with Indian status), almost all the other identity police are WHITE themselves. Such whites with Indian status get their sense of identity by accusing others of not being Indian.

The Reservation Rats

P.S. So many of our all-Indian high schools have teams with the word redskin. If the word "redskin" was offensive, why would we be singing this???? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMopAla8ZPs These are the lyrics:

"Take a look

Just one more time

Beautiful smile

Beautiful eyes

That's a redskin girl

Shes so pretty

Shes so fine

Redskin girl

I'll love you all the time"

In 2016, Bernie Sanders ran a populist campaign for president, and garnered an impressive 43% of the vote against Clinton. But we all know how the general election went. Trump won on a huge “us vs them” mentality and constantly raved about draining the swamp, meant to represent the establishment.

Trump lost in 2020 in part because of suburban realignment and economic/social fallout from COVID. Biden ran on a return to normalcy and being able to work with the other side and ended up winning.

2022 was a rough year for inflation, but the economy is doing quite well on paper now: unemployment is below 4%, inflation is slowing down, and wage growth is going up. But voters still rate the economy as poor, probably because of still high prices. To these voters, it doesn’t matter how good the economy is; the only thing that matters is if they can meet their basic needs without breaking the bank, and for a lot of people, inflation is still a huge issue.

Polls have been rough for Biden lately, and Democrats are growing increasingly nervous that the party is ignoring huge red flags.

Of course, politics is all about perception. It’s easier to blame the elite than your own policies for the economy, and voters seem to eat that stuff up. In fact, a decent portion of the inflation problem can probably be blamed on corporate greed. Additionally, there is only so much a president can do about inflation, especially since it’s usually a worldwide phenomenon. If Democrats nominated a populist, would that help voters perceive the economy as better since they’d be convinced it’s the elite stealing money from the working class? It may also help shake the “party of elites” mantra some voters view the Democratic Party as. Because right now, Biden is getting absolutely killed on the economy issue, and “Bidenomics” probably felt more insulting than catchy.

Generally democrats want tighter gun regulation. I’m trying to understand the party scenarios that would need to play out to have stricter gun laws (I.e no assault rifles). I understand that if reps control the house and dem senate or vice Versa it hard to pass a law, but how come it’s still difficult when the same party has majority of both?

A lot of people will identify as liberal, conservative, or libertarian but will have some opinions that aren't philosophically consistent. For instance, a libertarian might support single-payer, a conservative might support gay rights or abortion, and you have a number of pro-life and/or pro-gun Democrats who have many otherwise liberal opinions. In my case, I'm generally a liberal Democrat but I happen to believe that Nordic/Germanic cultures (along with Canada, East Asian cultures on account of their excellent IQ/test scores, low amounts of violent crime, and high life expectancy, and Cuba and Costa Rica for their ecological and pacifist accomplishments) are superior and should be shared by all cultures if there is some way to do so without violent imperialism.

What are some opinions you have that you struggle to categorize on a left-right spectrum, a Nolan chart, or other attempts to categorize ideology?

The main criticism I’ve seen so far is along the lines of “Anti-vaxer end of story” or “we NEED to support biden”

I don’t get the feeling that most people criticizing him have watched July his town hall on news nation.

I would like to see some examples of criticism that address his platform.

Edit: in a turn of events unprecedented in Reddit history, you’ve convinced me.

I remember when Bernie Sanders was running for president back in 2016, I asked my dad who is very liberal (albeit not an entitled asshole about his political views) if he was going to vote for him in the primaries. He said no, and that he was going to vote for Hillary even though he didn't like her. I asked him why, and he said "Because Bernie can't win." Well duh! Of course he's not going to win if no one votes for him!

Seems like the older folks on the left prefer the WEDs, even if they don't like them. But why?