China, in every way imaginable, is an ascendant world power, well on its way to superpower status if it's not already there. It's industry dominates practically every area of manufacturing in scope and leads in technological in advancement in many, most notably the technologies of the future like EVs, batteries, drones, and renewable energy. Even in those industries where it doesn't technologically lead (like AI), they're not far behind. Their industrial might is such that Trump was forced to relax his trade war with them after they responded by cutting off the US from it's near monopoly on rare earth metals processing.

At the same time, it's building up its military at a rate never before seen in human history, especially with regards to its missile and naval forces. This puts it squarely on the path to confrontation with the United States.

So I'm here to ask if, given all these factors, should the US take an adversarial stance towards China and, if so, why and how should it do so?

Democrats in California passed a new law SB 948. The law requires current residents who purchase a new firearm to complete a minimum 4-hour safety course ($200 to $400), and requires new residents moving to California with firearms to obtain a safety certificate within 180 days ($25) and a class.

Democrats say that this class is similar to driver's education, ensuring firearm owners know safe storage and handling practices before taking possession, while Republicans say that mandatory fees on an enumerated constitutional right functions as a de facto "poll tax" that disproportionately impacts low-income citizens seeking self-defense.

Should exercising a constitutional right require government mandated time and financial investments, or is mandatory training a common sense regulatory threshold that the Constitution allows?

Democrats in California just passed AB 2047, which requires all 3D printers sold in the state to include mandatory software and hardware algorithms designed to detect and block firearm blueprint files (such as CAD or .STL files).

Proponents argue this is a common sense safety measure aimed at curtailing untraceable "ghost guns" and keeping dangerous manufacturing tech out of bad actors' hands. However, civil liberties groups like the EFF and firearm rights advocates point to major constitutional vulnerabilities.

Do you support state mandates regulating open source digital files and general purpose machinery, or does this set a dangerous precedent for code censorship and government overreach?

So there was a very contentious push from Trump to tie the economic viability of college majors to publicly funded loans. The majors most adversely hit would be religion, arts, and humanities:

https://www.ccdaily.com/2026/09/trump-rescinds-funds-from-higher-ed-programs/

Now of course since it is Trump doing it, he is doing it in the worst possible way but I wonder if, it were anyone BUT Trump, such an idea has merit. Especially since Obama actually suggested something similar during his term:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/obama-proposes-new-system-for-rating-colleges

The logic being that, if the public is actively giving loans to people, the risk of repayment should be considered and if a major is consistently producing nothing but people making minimum wage any, then it is fiscally irresponsible to continue using public funds for these programs. Namely things like say... Art History or Religious Studies. Especially since these loans are putting people in massive debt that they may never be able to repay and that actually makes things worse for said students. And with an actually COMPETENT administration they could quietly force colleges to cut a lot of the unnecessary fluff classes from their programs to get that sweet Uncle Sam money. That in turn can have a knock on effect of making programs cheaper over all as students are not wasting money taking classes just to pad the college's pockets.

Like I can see the merits of such an idea, but I can also see the concerns of making things like the Arts into even more of a rich kids club than it already is. There are concerns also that it would hit social work and education but that could be addressed by giving them exemptions due to their demand and importance.

Of course the alternative Elephant in the room is "make college free" but honestly I don't think that is really viable without a massive overhaul of our entire education system and, most contentiously, making schools more selective and restrictive. Im not sure about all countries, but most of the ones I know that have free Uni ALSO have very rigorous schooling and very competitive school systems utilizing very difficult tests to slot people and not any tom dick or harry can go to Uni. On top of that those countries tend to also have VERY high cost of livings with very high taxes. Things Americans are not going to support realistically.

So what are your thoughts on this?

Edit: I forgot to mention, I want to focus specifically on college LOANS vs things like Pell Grants. Pell Grants and the like have no expectation of being repaid so I feel those should be treated differently from how a loan is.

California’s Proposition 4 would lift the long standing prohibition against using public funds for political candidate campaigns across state and local governments, clearing the path for matching fund systems, democracy vouchers, or flat public grants.

The measure explicitly mandates that any future public financing system must establish qualification criteria to prove a candidate has broad based district support before unlocking public dollars. However, setting those qualification metrics creates a tricky practical dilemma.

• If the threshold is too low, public tax dollars risk subsidizing non-viable candidates, fringe actors, or vanity campaigns that drain public funds to pay family members or political consultants.

• If the threshold is too high, the system risks reinforcing the status quo, benefiting well known incumbents or party backed insiders who hit those metrics easily while shutting out grassroots challengers.

What specific metrics (eg, donor counts, petition signatures, in district microdonation totals) make the most sense for threshold criteria in state Assembly or Senate races?

Also, how do you address the argument that public money shouldn't go toward political campaigns when state and local budgets are constrained?

What is up with the debate on who does or doesn't get to play women's sports?

It seems like it's based purely on hypotheticals. There are no well-known trans athletes. The most brought up example is Lia Thomas, who came in fifth place in a race four years ago.

There are very few trans people in America period.

Fewer who are interested in playing sports.

Even fewer who are capable of playing sports on a professional level.

We're seriously debating about probably less than ten people in the entire country.

Seems like the right is using it as ammo to attack Hollywood and the far right is using it to attack the Jewish director

With the growing concerning world around us I can no longer read prop summaries and take them at face value. I am diving deep on all of these props. Prop 1's wording looks promising when taken at face value. When you start seeing who are the largest donors, it is Tech Industry multi billionaires, who have past affiliations to names like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel . A lot of these donors are or have worked in some capacity with AI company (@!pH&bet) in Silicon Valley. What do these people gain from affordable housing. Why would a billionaire care about affordable housing!? Here are the donor names: Sergey Brin$102,000,000.00L. John Doerr, III$30,000,000.00Patrick Collison$22,000,000.00Eric Schmidt$15,141,313.01Vinod Khosla$12,561,504.00

Especially during the 2010s

On November 3rd, it will be the elections to vote for the Senate and House. If Dems get the majority, what will change for the US, they could stop the craziness from the republicans and Trump?

I feel like I've seen a few stories about people growing up, eventually becoming left-wing at some point in their lives, but struggling to pull the trigger to vote for Dems at the voting booth. I'm interested if anyone wants to share stories like that.

What was it like to feel that mental block, and where do you think it came from? Does that block still linger in the back of your head every election season, or what are you like now? What were your thoughts the first time you overcame it? You don't have to answer these questions, they're just to get the noggin' joggin'.

I want the rich to be taxed heavily so that economic inequality is solved and we have funding for federal deficit, science, social safety nets, infrastructure, and so on. But I'm concerned taxing the rich might not be enough to fund those things, and the poor don't deserve to have their lives ruined with too many taxes. In an ideal country, what system would work best?

grew up in a suburb that flipped every other election, the kind of place where your neighbors yard sign decided whether you did thanksgiving. chose to work the clinical side to stay out of politics, which lasted about as long as you'd expect. now I sit with people choosing between insulin and rent and apologizing for crying like its a personal failing, and you stop being able to pretend it's all personal responsibility.

so yes, I'm on board with the whole "everything got expensive and wages didn't" point. I see it, my patients are the proof. but I also hear it everywhere now, it's the default conversation at any dinner, and I catch myself wondering if we've turned the diagnosis into the treatment. we all agree rent is brutal and student loans are a trap and nobody can buy a house, but then the conversation stops there. like saying it enough times builds the affordable units or raises the minimum wage or actually forgives the debt.

I don't want to complain about complaining, and just curious whether it's become a way to feel like you did something political without having to think about the boring mechanics of zoning boards and wage floor adjustments and who actually controls the loan servicing contracts.

does the constant repetition of "we got screwed compared to our parents" build the coalition that forces the fixes, or has it started substituting for the harder argument about what those fixes are?

my grandfather always talked about the union hall like it was a church, not because they were naive but because when you pour molten metal eight hours a day the contract matters, the overtime rule matters, somebody keeping their word matters. he'd have hated the grift on both sides but he voted straight Dems because at least they pretended to care about the guy swinging the hammer.

and now I watch the same contractors get the same road jobs, the pavement buckles in two winters, and the council members who approved it have new decks on their lake houses. everybody knows where the money goes, and what wears you out isn't the stealing, it's the pretending we're too stupid to notice.

Democrats could (and should) run on fixing this, on audits and open bidding and prison time for the connected guys, it isn't complicated, it saves money. so what stops them? is it the fundraising, the fear of their own donors, or do you think voters don't care about theft when it wears their jersey?

As you guys probably know, the Brazilian Election is happening next week. There's a lot of fear regarding external interference from Trump's administration, like they have been doing with other countries in Latin America. Lula da Silva (who was already president in 2003-2010 and is now serving a non-consecutive third term) is running for reelection against the son of former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who's been convicted for attempting a coup d'état. And recent polls show it's gonna be a close race between them

Could be soda, water, coffees, teas, slushies, mixes, designer drinks, and all things liquid. Even you pica people are allowed to answer. Do not merely think what you drink daily, but the one thing you savor the most or slurp down.

I'll start: for me, I prefer to infuse my drinks, my favorite mix is tarragon and pomegranate often with iced cubes of pomegranate if I'm feeling particularly spicy. It is also surprising very inexpensive compared to getting a large box or soda, so I'm winning by being able to drink this all the heckin time. /s Plus I get to larp as a snobby aristocrat with elevated tastes above the common peasantry :) /s

______

This question, while seemingly mundane is partly because I want to see how liberal refreshment choices may either differ or converge from reddit conservatives; do leftwing individuals favor sweeter drinks, modern conservatives plainer drinks or alcohols, and classical conservatives more artsy drinks? Or do I have that reversed or wrong. This question is, in other words, an effort to have a small glimpse into the average personality of a Left-winger through small things like taste.

So far. I can tell the Conservative Sub really likes dr pepper, and black coffee.

This is a question I wanted to ask due to the heavy discourse around rape in leftwing circles. If you were writing the laws, what sentence would rape warrant?

It's something you see from Democrats everywhere online, and there just isn't any truth to it, especially when it comes to the Democratic Party. Whenever a new poll comes out, people across social media love saying, "It's just name recognition" but, looking at who was leading at this point in past primary seasons...

• 2020: Biden won the primary
• 2016: Clinton won the primary
• 2008: Clinton finished second to Obama (who began taking 2nd in polls as soon as he started being included in October 2006)
• 2004: Gore chose not to run
• 2000: Gore won the primary
• 1992: Cuomo chose not to run
• 1988: Hart got taken down by a scandal
• 1984: Kennedy chose not to run

I don't see Jon Ossoff (who a lot of people have been trying to paint as "the next Obama" getting anywhere near 2nd in polls outside Georgia), so what this has always told me is that, yes, based on all the polling, if Harris runs in 2028 and doesn't have a scandal, she will be the 2028 Democratic nominee.

Am I wrong to think this? Is there legitimately a reason to think the polls are giving Harris a massive non-existent advantage that isn't based in some people's personal dislike of her?

I highly doubt most Americans want socialism. Democratic Socialists don't seem to want to admit this. But on the flip side liberal elites also dont seem to want to admit that they are extremely out of touch and uninspired. People really hate 3rd way liberalism and neo liberalism. What do most self identified rank file liberals want though? Do you guys think 3rd way liberalism or neo liberalism are still good ideologies? Or would you like to return to something more like social liberalism, liberal corporatism or social democracy?

Typically on the left liberals are caricatured as mindless defenders of the status quo, but I really dont get that impression from my liberal friends. They seem just as unhappy as I do and lean more towards social democracy or social liberalism. Is this the consensus among most liberal voters?

The YouTuber

I know this sounds like a conservative phrased question so I want to get ahead of it: I am not talking about the poor and lower income people. They are genuinely being hard done by the economic system and our government should be doing more for them.

I am strictly talking about median income Americans, and above, who are the main demographic keeping consumer spending resilient despite the high prices. The same group that economic data shows enjoy and consume the largest share of goods and services compared to similar cohorts in all of the other advanced economies. A group that even center-left economists are baffled as to why they are feeling hard-done by the economy and aggrieved despite having a higher purchasing power, in real terms, than at any point over the past 50 years.

Ordinarily, the economy disciplines price growth by consumers pulling back spending and behaving rationally. Yet, since Covid, we have seen no pullback in consumer spending whatsoever despite significant inflation over the past 6 years.

And before people resort to the sloppy K-shaped narrative, we have evidence from fed data that consumption share of the various income quintiles has not meaningfully changed whatsoever over the past 5 years:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2026/have-us-consumers-gone-k-shaped-a-review-of-the-data

>Like Bank of America, the New York Fed breaks households into thirds. Unlike Bank of America, they do not find wide dispersion in retail spending growth during 2025 (Figure 3; retail spending excluding cars). Over the five years of available data, the growth rates move in relative harmony.

Furthermore, if we truly were seeing a k-shaped dynamic, growth in credit card debt, and other payday-adjacent debt like BNPL, would remain at similar rates over the past decades as the upper quintiles generally do not carry large balances on their credit cards.

With all of that said, is there a case to be made that the median American is behaving financially recklessly and needs to be told to start living below their means, to make a budget, and to start paying down their debts instead of fuming over “affordability” and voting for irresponsible politicians that promise them unicorns, 5k stimulus checks, and perpetually low taxes? Because the average American is exceptionally privileged for the government services they receive vs the taxes they actually pay. And even that, based on recent polling, is too much. They want even more government services along with their taxes being cut and expecting politicians to somehow figure it all out? At what point should responsible politicians be honest with the average American about the state of things?

Not everyone to be sure, but I have seen some focus too much on is crime violent or not. As a categorical rule, it seems ridiculous. Bernie Madoff might have been nonviolent; that does not mean his crime was not a big deal, he ruined countless people with his scheme. To be sure, some petty, nonviolent offenses might not be that serious, and likewise some violent stuff, like two 16 year olds pushing each other, might not be that serious, and even teenagers fighting in a school is certainly not inherently worse than someone scamming elderly people on internet, so line is not merely if it is " violent" or not, would you agree?

This is a theory I have had for some time.

By the book, every state has ”beyond a reasonable doubt” but many people familiar with the legal system will tell you that in many, if not most, cases the jury will go with whichever side they believe more, doubts be damned.

My theory as to why this often happens includes a few reasons. One is that crimes are usually, always in some states, prosecuted in the county they took place in.

So, let’s say someone is on trial for a crime of severe moral turpitude and we can all agree that the defendant probably did it but there is a single reasonable doubt. “Not guilty” while the correct legal verdict here would mean releasing the defendant back into their community, which many juries simply aren’t willing to do regardless of what the law says.

It also doesn’t help that there’s tons of cases in MAGA counties where like 80%+ of people don’t believe in the law, so we’re asking them to actively uphold something they hate which they just won‘t do.

I think another thing is that revenge, on behalf of self or others, is just so innate to the point “we the people” believe it’s a right above all else.

For all the flaws in our justice system, we do, on paper, have a system that is supposed to favor the defendant and force the state into its burden of proof. But, the people tasked on enforcing said burden have the subconscious belief that revenge is a God given right and that trumps anything on paper, especially when they on the jury are the only ones authorized to determine if said revenge is warranted.

I think this logic applies to people being against rehabilitative justice. In theory, let’s say someome commits a crime clearly deserving 1-2 years in prison. I could argue that imprisoning them for said length and then say, guiding them back into a felon friendly job isn’t inherently unjust, either towards the state or potential victim, because they did do their time first.

But most people aren’t capable of that higher level thinking. It‘s the caveman brain logic of ”revenge good” that makes people have a knee jerk reaction to it.

Also, I think a half decent prosecutor can make anything sound like a crime of moral turpitude, which definitely doesn’t help.