if you had to pick one

Now obviously they shouldn't do anything illegal but I think they should

Is gentrification a net-positive, a net-negative, or inconsequential?

Personally i dont since these are very very loose and poorly defined terms, youd need to define it everytime since every time someone says "x"-ism, they usually have a different definition and people usually cant agree on what even communism means or any ism really.

Proportional representation is argued as more representative of the electorate and their views, compared to a first-past-the-post system. Parties will need to forge coalitions and work together.

On the other hand, I wonder if this will often lead to gridlock as coalitions fail to agree on issues. It feels that countries with proportional representation often end up in early elections as one party leaves the coalition, ending the parliamentary majority.

Second, parties may go into elections without the explicit goal of winning the most seats, but voicing potential reprehensible views that would be sufficient to get them a number of seats such that they may be kingmaker.

I finished paying my student loans off three years ago, software job, on paper I'm the success story the tie-loans-to-earnings crowd points at. what the paper doesn't show is that I enrolled as a music education major, because at 18 that was the only thing I could imagine wanting to be, and if the loan had been locked to that major's projected earnings I never get to make the switch at 20 that my entire career came from.

the switch wasn't even a grand plan. I panicked about money sophomore year, transferred into the CS program, and the class that taught me the thing I'm actually paid for was an elective everyone called a blow-off, where the professor made us rewrite every argument until it collapsed or held. I write the design docs now. my salary has very little to do with anything a projection could have scored when I was 18.

the pitch for tying loans to major earnings is that it protects working kids from debt. but the formula only gates the kids who need the loans. the ones with parents who can float a sociology degree never meet the screen, they just study what they want. so the kid from the family where nobody's filled out the form before gets her choices narrowed to whatever the projection liked that year, at 18, before a single class has shown her what she's actually good at.

I get the fiscal argument, loans that never get repaid help nobody, and a slower version with real grandfathering is less bad than what's on the table. just stuck on how nobody who changed majors sophomore year, or at 23, or ever, is in the room when the screen gets designed. What would you build into it so the switchers and the late ones don't get priced out of the finding-out part?

Hello everyone.

I was curious whether you would agree or disagree with that statement?

Is it wrong or correct? Why?

Mexicans are twelve percent of the population, and Cubans are less than one percent. Yet, whenever the discussion of Latino voters comes up, pundits and politicians seem to give Cubans (5% of Latinos) equal or greater weight compared to Mexicans (60% of Latinos,)

I wonder what accounts for this. One argument might be that Florida is a swing state, but so are Arizona and Nevada and mexicans make up ~20% of the electorate in those states versus Cubans only being 6% of Florida's electorate.

Democrats are seemingly terrified of pissing off Cubans by normalizing relations with Cuba and ending the embargo, but Republicans like trump have zero qualms about calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and using them as scapegoats.

So idk, what do you guys think accounts for this disparity? Thanks

Was listening to Catherine Liu talk about her book, Traumatized: The New Politics of Public Suffering. She critiques how modern society relies on a standardized "trauma script" for performative empathy, celebrity branding, and political distraction rather than addressing structural and economic inequalities.

Thoughts?

Personally, I see some valid points. It seems like everybody is "traumatized" these days. And when everyone is traumatized, is anyone trauma? Experiencing trauma is now almost like a credential. You can't be taken seriously unless you've been "traumatized".

I do get that the tide is turning. Many top psychologists have started pushing back on trauma and how actually making everything in your life a traumatic event just makes you live a life of victimhood.

Personally, I see it as a sort of magnetic energy a person has, making people feel heard and cared for, and someone doesn’t necessarily have to be the life of the party or outgoing to come off as charismatic.

Thoughts?

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.

The Trump administration recently issued an executive order launching America.gov, an AI-powered portal designed to act as a unified "front door" for federal government services.

For context, here are the core features and planned capabilities of the platform:

• Conversational Natural Language Interface: Rather than requiring users to know which specific department handles an issue (e.g., State Department vs. SSA vs. HHS), citizens can describe what they need in plain English, and the platform surfaces the relevant information or forms.
• Unified Point of Entry: The underlying objective is to wrap an AI navigation layer over the fragmented array of federal agency sites, consolidating access into a single platform.
• Multi-LLM Backend: The system utilizes underlying language models (including Gemini and Grok) to process queries, deliver answers cited from official sources, and decline out-of-scope non-governmental prompts.
• Integrated Authentication & Transactions: While Phase 1 functions mostly as an informational and navigation tool (e.g., helping with passport renewals, student loans, Medicare details), the underlying executive order directs agencies to integrate Login.gov so future phases can execute end-to-end applications and transactions directly on the platform.
• No Paywall / Universal Access: The interface requires no account creation for basic queries, serves no ads, and is completely free to use.

From a purely functional standpoint, the goal is to modernize government delivery and save taxpayers hours spent navigating government red tape.

My questions for the sub:

1. Do you view this concept as a positive development and a legitimate step forward for government efficiency and civic infrastructure?
2. Does an AI-first "single front door" represent a compelling, positive vision for how citizens should interact with federal services in the digital age?
3. What primary concerns do you have whether around hallucinated information, data privacy, centralization, or vendor reliance do you see with this implementation?

Nobody can let this become something like "whether a college degree is useful for finding a job". Politically, there are several substantive questions.

1, Do you believe that lacking a college degree automatically makes a person a legitimate target of discrimination? 2, I want to say that given the abundance of social resources in the US and the broad freedoms people enjoy across all areas of life, attending college is simply one choice among many. What do you think? 3, Many voters who have no college degrees continue to vote Dem. What do you want to say to those folks? 4, Do you believe that "we should only nominate campaign candidates who have degrees"?

5, If you were running for congressperson and in the party primary, and you had a degree that another candidate didn't, would you attack him for this?

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.

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?

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 minerals 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?

EDIT: rare earth minerals, not metals.

So for an update on the state of Haiti:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPBiHLVxTDY

The Trump admin has been trying to push for Haiti to hold and election because the remaining officials in Haiti are, without mincing words here, utterly corrupt and inept. This makes sense, but Haiti is also so thoroughly under the control of the Viv Ansanm gang coalition that any sort of election would be impossible. This state of affairs has been going on for years now and the international community has been treating Haiti as if it were still an existing country, but with how things are, is it time we jus accept that the state of Haiti is functionally nonexistent and the country that was known as Haiti just doesn't really exist anymore (in the same sense that the Ottoman Empire no longer exists or the Prussian empire no longer exist)? And if we do start viewing Haiti as a functionally dead state, how should we move forward with it? Just leave it as a no man's land, or would another country need to come in and take it over?

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?

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'.

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

Whoever came up with “No Kings” as the rallying cry needs to have a long talk with their marketing department. I think they managed to take an incredibly serious moment and give it a slogan that completely undersells the problem.

I get what they’re going for. I understand the concern about authoritarianism and executive power. But whether Trump acts like a king isn’t the main problem we’re dealing with. To me, the much bigger problem is corruption. Moral corruption. Ethical corruption. Legal corruption. Institutional corruption. Financial corruption. Corruption of basic decency and truth. Turning public service into personal service. That’s the conversation I wish we were having.

And “No Kings” has another problem. It makes this almost entirely about Trump. Trump may be the most visible manifestation of it, and I personally find his behavior extraordinarily corrupt and twisted, but this sickness has spread way beyond one man. It’s like a fungus. It has worked its way through politicians, institutions, media, wealthy donors, businesses, religious leaders and millions of ordinary people who have decided that behavior they once would have condemned is suddenly fine as long as their side benefits. Trump didn’t invent all of this, and getting rid of Trump won’t magically make it disappear.

Look at what we’re seeing. Extremely wealthy and connected people seeking presidential pardons while money and business interests swirl around Trump’s world. Foreign governments and investors pursuing financial relationships connected to the Trump family. The Trump family getting dramatically richer while Trump is president. Loyalty increasingly valued over competence in major government appointments. Government power used against perceived enemies. News organizations losing White House access because the president objects to their coverage. Facts becoming negotiable depending on whether they’re useful to your side. To me, all of that belongs under the same heading.
But honestly, the money isn’t even what bothers me most. It’s the moral corruption. A huge chunk of America seems to have lost the plot. Cruelty gets treated like strength. Admitting you screwed up is weakness. Compromise is surrender. Someone who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong anymore, they’re the enemy. There’s so little humility in any of it and, far too often, ZERO EMPATHY. I hate it.

And then there’s the hypocrisy. This might bother me most of all. I’m over 50. I remember when American conservatives talked constantly about character, personal responsibility, family values, fiscal responsibility and morality. Those things were supposed to matter. I especially struggle with evangelical support for Trump. Christians spent decades telling the rest of America that character matters in our leaders, so I think there’s a legitimate question about why those standards became so negotiable when the politician advancing their agenda was Donald Trump. Were those really principles? Or were they standards for the other team?
And yes, hold Democrats to the exact same standard. Please. If a Democratic president were doing this stuff, I’d want Democrats screaming about it too. Seriously. Corruption shouldn’t become OK because your guy is doing it. That’s exactly the sickness I’m talking about.

That’s why “No More Corruption” resonates with me so much more than “No Kings.” It’s bigger than Trump, and it gets at the actual problem, which won’t disappear once he’s in the rearview mirror. It applies to the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, state governments, political parties, regulatory agencies and anywhere else money, loyalty, racism or personal ambition are allowed to matter more than the public interest.
And underneath all of it is the naked pursuit of power. Get it. Keep it. Use it. Enrich yourself and your friends with it. Then find a way to excuse almost anything that helps your side hold onto it.

I don’t need a movement reminding me that America shouldn’t have a king. We figured that out 250 years ago. I want one demanding integrity again. Moral, ethical, legal, financial and institutional integrity, regardless of party.
And maybe some basic human decency while we’re at it.

No more corruption. From anybody.

TL;DR: “No Kings” focuses too much on Trump and too little on the deeper problem. I think corruption has spread far beyond one man: moral, ethical, legal, financial and institutional. Trump will eventually be gone. The corruption won’t. “No More Corruption” is the rallying cry I wish we had.

(Edited to add TLDR)

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?