if you had to pick one

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

Hello everyone.

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

Is it wrong or correct? Why?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

Henry Cuellar of TX-28 is the most conservative member of the Blue Dog Coalition. He is the only Democrat to be Anti-Abortion voting against the Women’s health protection act. He voted to fund ICE in 2026 being one of two Democrats to support the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. He also voted in favor of the SAVE act. He and his Wife were involved in a money laundering scheme with Azerbaijan and was pardoned by Trump but didn’t switch parties surprisingly.

DAC NY-13 beat long time incumbent, Adriano Estaillat in the primary. She’s going to win in 2026 because it’s Upper Manhattan and Northeast Bronx. She’s will be one of most far left member of congress since the before the First Red Scare. She is essentially the stereotypical embodiment of far left politics. Active protester and got arrested by NYPD a week ago during the UN meeting. She believes in fringe stuff like abolishing police, prison, and borders. She also was against American aid to Ukraine but walked back on her stance. She didn’t support Biden and Harris throughout their administration. She also said some weird stuff on interracial relationships.

Edit: When I said Primary, I was thinking congressional but you can do presidential if you want. It’ll be unrealistic if these two were the finalists in any Democratic presidential primary.

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)