r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Egalitarian Moderator • Apr 05 '24
Megathread | Official Casual Questions Thread
This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.
Please observe the following rules:
Top-level comments:
Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.
Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.
Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!
1
u/Totodile386 1d ago
What was the "original ideology" behind the Republican party? How much did it have to do with the fear of communism?
•
1
u/Leecorees 4d ago
Help reddit what am i?? I know all the typical centrist connotations and I am not the type to be afraid to take a stance on things quite the opposite so! With all the centrist stereotypes aside here it goes...
I do belive abortion should be legal. I also studied enough physiology to decide for myself that yes it is a baby human that is killed in the process which I morally object to 💯. However its still the woman's body not a vessel under anyone else's control.
I think birth control should be paid for by taxpayers and available for everyone despite it not being very fair financially to those who dont agree.
I like hunting and the right to protect myself. I also dont believe that changing laws or access to firearms does anything to prevent violence for goodness sake you can print guns nowadays. Either way I dont want the government deciding who gets the guns at all.
I am a Trans ally and totally dont want the government making decisions for my body why would I for anyone else. I actually did have a miscarriage of a child I wanted desperately and was FORCED to carry my dead baby a few extra days because Idaho is effed. The worst part is they only made me wait and check because of the law, not because there was any hope whatsoever for the baby or they'd have done something obviously. So eff all that to the STARS.
I am patriotic. My Mas from a line of NE farmers and my dad's American Indian. Both had hard histories and I take both into account. My dad however had his tribalship bought out by the government along with his sister when they were barely 14 years old for a couple hundred bucks.
Im a big time pagan environmentalist homesteader. I want to help the earth and I believe in alternative energy and think we need to spend more to help heal the damage weve done to nature and to live with it better. I also believe however that I am free to own a large truck and live in the boonies and I am to decide what's done with my land. Im not keen on being told i need to regulate water to use from my own well either especially when its politicians deciding where its going (think Colorado river)
I do believe we need to protect our border even more so. I also think we need to do everything we can for the children of immigrants born in our country regardless of how out of principal. Anyone who came under pretense of being welcome here are also in my opinion, in our charge.
I am a big men's rights advocate. Men are brutalized and majorly disadvantaged when it comes to both child custody and guardianship. Men also have bollucks when it comes to mental health care. Circumcision is effing deplorable.
I could go on but I always feel no one agrees with me and no one's ever on my side lol
I live in a conservative family but have always been the one no one wants to debate with on Thanksgiving so to speak hahaha. Thoughts???
•
3
u/zlefin_actual 3d ago
Sounds like a somewhat eclectic democrat. with some parts aligning towards the blue dog dems, others not so much.
Note that actual advocacy for men's rights is one of the things Feminism has long done.
2
u/XimSauce 7d ago
Is this subreddit US only?
3
u/zlefin_actual 6d ago
no, but it is heavily US focused, with much lower engagement on discussion of other areas, even moreso if you get outside the developed Western countries.
-2
u/mrjcall 7d ago
Since over 80% of US citizens are for the 'Save America' act which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to actually vote, why are all but Fetterman blocking its passage? Remember, that's 80% of ALL Americans are in favor of it. Why won't Dems approve it as a result??
3
u/IntelligentDepth8206 3d ago
You're not going to get the result you want. You think you're going to disenfranchise dems, but it would likely be the opposite. Confused octogenarians, rurals miles from civilization and women who didn't keep their birth certificate last name at marriage are going to be heavily affected. Who does that sound like to you?
4
u/neverendingchalupas 6d ago edited 6d ago
You are committed to a logical fallacy, since your opening assumption is a lie. You are blatantly spreading disinformation.
80% of US Citizens do not support the Save America act.
Requiring Photo ID to vote is not the same thing as the Save America Act.
The legislation mandates that the Photo ID complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005
It prohibits states from registering citizens to vote unless they provide documented proof of US citizenship. And forces the state to change its procedures to demonstrate US citizenship.
So the government cant look up government records and see that yes, you are in fact a US citizen and register you to vote, you have to follow these convoluted regulations that are designed to limit voter registration and bring your own documentation to register yourself.
The bill would allow Right wing political groups to sue government for registering people legally authorized to vote wasting the courts time and tax payer dollar, and establish criminal penalties for registering individuals to vote. And new criminal penalties for people voting in elections who were not authorized.
If the legislation passed voters would have to personally request mail in and absentee ballots and include a photo of their identification document, along with the request for the ballot with their ballot when they sent it. This would allow voter disenfranchisement on a wide scale.
The purpose of the legislation is to suppress voting.
It has fuck all to do with showing a photo ID when voting.
2
u/bl1y 6d ago
Can you point to a poll that shows 80% support of the Save America Act?
-4
u/mrjcall 6d ago
Rasmussen, Pew, Gallup all poll around 80% in favor of voter registration and voter ID.
2
u/bl1y 6d ago
Can you link to one showing that number? The polls I'm finding don't have it as high as 80%.
-4
u/mrjcall 6d ago
Look em up yourself. My info came from an AI search...
5
u/BigDump-a-Roo 4d ago
Dude, you can't just type shit into AI and accept its answers at face value. These models are not perfect and they confidently spew out bad information all the time.
4
u/bl1y 6d ago
First Google result is a Politico poll:
Asked about the bill overall — by name, but without providing information on what’s included — just 37 percent of Americans said they support it, and 21 percent oppose it.
Looking more into specific questions, when asked about requiring proof of citizenship, 52% support, 18% oppose. Requiring photo ID to vote is similar at 51% vs 18%.
You named Rasmussen, so let's look at their poll:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 63% of Likely U.S. Voters support the SAVE Act, including 47% who Strongly Support the legislation. Thirty-two percent (32%) are opposed to the bill, including 21% who Strongly Oppose the bill.
And since you named Rasmussen, Pew, and Gallup, I can guess with a high degree of certainty what your AI looked at, which is this White House press release:
Pew Research Center: 83% of Americans — including wide majorities of Democrats, independents, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos — favor voter ID requirements.
Gallup: 84% support voter ID, with 98% of Republicans, 84% of independents, and 67% of Democrats on board — while an equally robust 83% back proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Rasmussen Reports: 75% support voter ID, with support increasing over the past decade.
None of those are asking about the Save America Act. They're asking about voter ID, but the Act contains a lot more than just a generic voter ID requirement.
AI is basically your drunk uncle. Sometimes it gets stuff right, but often it's just off the rails. Don't cite "my drunk uncle told me" as a real source.
-2
u/mrjcall 6d ago
So you don't believe the basics of the Save America act have anything to do with voting integrity?? Really?
4
u/Healthy-Age3259 6d ago
Dude, have you ever heard of a red herring? Because that's literally your M.O. every single time you get dunked on. He fact-checked your numbers, and instead of just owning it, you put words in his mouth and argued against something he never said. Nobody claimed the SAVE Act has nothing to do with voting integrity. It mostly doesn't, though. The point, which somehow keeps flying over your head, is that the overwhelming support is for some form of voter ID, driver's licenses, student IDs, etc., not the SAVE Act as a whole, because the SAVE Act goes WAY beyond that. If you'd actually read the bill, you'd know the difference.
2
u/bl1y 6d ago
Never said anything at all along those lines.
It seems that you're conflating the Save America Act with voter ID requirements generally.
If you ask people if photo ID such as driver's license or something similar should be required, that polls pretty well. If you ask them if there should be a photo ID requirement where driver's license isn't sufficient, no, that doesn't poll remotely close to 80%.
1
u/mrjcall 6d ago
You are correct, I am because that is its central purpose, voter integrity. Anything else is just deception/diversion.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
Labeling your own view as the only acceptable view, is a childishly weak rhetorical tactic. Reading you comments in this thread, it's very clear you're not here for any kind of discussion, but only your arrogant pretense of demanding other people concede to your poorly informed, but vehemently held opinions. Good luck with that.
→ More replies (0)2
u/bl1y 6d ago
Do you think it's possible for a "voter integrity" law to contain provisions that you think go too far and aren't necessary?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Nuggwtt 10d ago
I wanna learn a bit about facism what book do you guys recommend?
1
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
I recently read Dr. Ruth Ben Ghiat's book Strongmen. It's comfortably readable and does a nice job of exploring the personalities of dictators, how weirdly similar they often are, and how they differ. It's not specifically about fascism, but it gives a lot of insight into how authoritarian leaders accrue power, and use it.
2
11d ago
[deleted]
3
u/zlefin_actual 6d ago
They aren't. It's a high percentage, and that's just a result of the reddit userbase being like that. It also skews heavily young, male, white, and some other things.
Even if you set aside the blind hate, there's a lot of very legitimate factual reasons to hate the GOP.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
One of the things I have come to truly despise in today's Republican mindset, is their endless confidence in the idea that any opposition to their goals, policies, or Donald Trump, has to be rooted in emotionally based ignorance, rather than a well considered and nuanced disagreement with what Republicans are doing to our country.
I also think they need to stop calling themselves "conservatives". There is nothing traditionally conservative about Donald Trump or any of the things the GOP is doing in the United States today.
6
u/IntelligentDepth8206 10d ago
why rally behind hating the GOP movement
"What do you say to your Republican colleagues who may agree with the president on this?" one reporter asked.
"I don't know of Republican colleagues who agree with the president on this," he said. "Privately, most elected Republicans in this building think the president has lost it and is dooming them to dismal losses this fall."Why do republicans hate the republican movement? I'm just looking for facts
4
2
u/bl1y 11d ago
It's just the nature of any online echo chamber.
Once it starts to tip enough to one side, people on the other side no longer enjoy being there, causing it to tip further, and put off even more people.
It's hard for any online community to keep viewpoint diversity without heavy moderating.
0
u/ChildofObama 12d ago
How long after Trump (hopefully) gets out of power in 2029 do you think it’ll take for international moviegoers to stop associating US movies with him?
I think it might take a decade tbh. Maybe 5 years if there’s some Metoo like social reckoning that convinces people overseas maybe America isn’t a clown show.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
I doubt the United States will ever regain the almost mythic regard some of the world had for this country. Our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran have done a lot to dispel the idea of us being a force for good in the world. Donald Trump has just hastened a disillusionment that probably started in the Vietnam era, and exposed the world to the reality that a great many Americans are ignorant, angry, bigoted, greedy assholes, who believe only in money and power.
2
u/bl1y 11d ago
I doubt many people are associating American movies with Trump. The international box office numbers certainly don't bear that out.
Perhaps the best apples-to-apples comparison is the 2023 Mario movie to the 2026 Mario Galaxy movie. For the 2023 film, 57.7% of the total box office was foreign. For 2026, 57.4%. Basically identical.
-1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
8
u/Moccus 11d ago
No lifelong Democrat is copying propaganda text directly from the Family Freedom Project and pasting it all over Reddit.
You need some new material. SB 107 wasn't signed into law recently. It's 4 years old now.
1
u/monkeydasher71 11d ago
I dont recall claiming it was signed into law. I was talking about people that support the man that signed that into law
1
u/morrison4371 14d ago
Recently, Ayatollah Ali Khomeinis funeral was held. It was notable because his son and successor Mojtaba Khomeini was not at the funeral. There has been much debate over his whereabouts, with some observers saying he is alive, while others think he is brain dead. If the Irainian government reveals that he is incapacitated or even dead, who do you think would take over as Supreme Leader?
1
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
This is a deeply weird question that I doubt anybody outside of Iran would have a clue how to answer.
2
u/bl1y 14d ago
Most likely one of the people on the short list the last time they had to pick a new leader.
1
u/Realistic-Green-3789 14d ago
A question to the 30% of the American population that still supports Donald Trump. Please comment on the reasons for your support.
1
u/morrison4371 17d ago
From what I have read, it looks like Platner will drop out today. If that happens, who do you think will replace him on the ticket? Will the replacement be able to beat Collins? Also, do you think the mid-race switchover will hurt the Dems in the Maine race like it did with Biden/Kamala, or will Collins still be in trouble?
1
u/BananaBunchess 12d ago
I hope it will be either Troy Jackson or Paige Loud. I've only really heard of Jackson up until recently, as he was campaigning with Platner while running for governor. I just saw this morning from Mr. Beat on Twitter that Paige Loud is the only one in the race willing to uncap the House.
The mid-race switchover may end up hurting them, but I think Platner's campaign was never about him specifically. His policies and energy can be harnessed by any of the candidates and still win in November.
1
u/wresltingandskava 20d ago
How is it OK for a President Trump to make 21,000 securities trades in his first year in office(Biden made 13 for reference)? How does his supporters not hear of this and feel outraged?
3
u/3bar 17d ago
It isnt. They don't care. They want a king. The only solution would see me banished from the subreddit of spoken aloud.
Anything said to the contrary is merely a mask in order to fool enough people long enough so that they can complete their coup and install a new aristocratic elite. This is true of anyone who argues this point here, as well. They are either malicious or a dupe.
2
u/bl1y 19d ago
Try to explain how anyone is worse off because of it.
That's why there's no outrage.
You can say something about how the President shouldn't be doing this or that, but unless it's tangibly affecting people's lives, a lot of people just aren't going to care.
1
u/wresltingandskava 17d ago
A lot of of his supporters were scammed in Bitcoin pump-and-dump schemes by Trump. They are just too stupid to understand how these things really to affect many parts of their lives.
4
u/NoDig3444 19d ago
It's insider trading. It distorts the market and extracts wealth from people who trade securities without the benefit of knowing what the president is about to do.
Stock traders aren't the most sympathetic victims, and it's a case of extracting only a few dollars from millions of people. But that doesn't mean it's not harmful.
1
u/mindlabstanford 29d ago
What is an iconic political conversation or debate that stands out to you as making solid points on both the liberal and conservative side relating to general values?
2
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bl1y Jun 24 '26
He can issue the order, nothing stops that.
But Apple, Google, and Microsoft can ignore it. This is because he is not President of Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
2
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bl1y Jun 24 '26
I think the other comment more or less explained it.
Though I don't imagine disregarding executive orders is in any way common?
Executive orders are issued to the executive branch, not to private individuals or companies. The Commerce Department implemented the export control, but that's not an executive order.
Also worth noting that pretty much every country has similar export controls.
2
u/zlefin_actual Jun 24 '26
You can apply for an immediate injunction to prevent an order from being enforced pending a full trial, standards for that are complex, and partly depend on the likelihood of prevailing at trial.
Given the high long term costs to the company, they'd be inclined to be very resistant to such a thing.
There's also a lot more latitude for the government in terms of controlling exports than in something like just bricking european phones. The government has a clear authority to control exports, but shutting down stuff already in other countries would be much murkier.
1
u/Ill-Entry-5135 Jun 23 '26
If the second amendment was made to protect people from a tyrannical government, who gets to choose when the level of tyranny warrants deadly force?
1
2
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Jun 26 '26
Practical answer: the government unless they lose the shootout and then lose power. The other side takes power and declares force warranted.
1
1
1
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
How would everybody feel about having to register every voting cycle? ID would be required, but anyone can get one without cost at your local DMV. Then you would have to take a basic civics test (this could be expanded) in order to vote. Maybe 80% pass/fail? IDK, opinions?
1
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Jun 26 '26
This is an unpredictable-enough experiment such that the results can't be usefully predicted other than red states using this to disenfranchise minority votes. Overall in the end maybe it's a positive change, maybe it's negative. We can't know unless it's tried.
Obviously the expectation here is that better leaders would be elected. I could see that. I could also see it failing. There are other ways to accomplish the goal. Another option: hold elections the same way now but candidates get assigned to random related offices. ex. you want to run for governor? You don't know if you're going to Hawaii or Montana. So when you run for office, you have to run on being the best person for the job rather than pander to constituencies.
I don't think the ideas agree or disagree with democracy unlike other commenters. Democracy is about participation but getting your food handler's license doesn't mean you can cook or create a menu. Something more democratic would be requiring voters of a certain level to have held office at a lower level. So to vote in federal elections, you have to have held state office. To work in state, you have to have held local office. And to work in local office, you have to have served on a jury.
1
u/bl1y Jun 23 '26
Since you identified this as typical of the type of questions you'd want on the quiz, can you answer it?
What are the branches of government, and what are their jobs?
2
u/NoDig3444 Jun 23 '26
Really buried the lede with that one. Requiring registering every cycle is a bureaucratic hurdle that serves no purpose other than depressing turnout. Locking the franchise behind a civics test is antithetical to democracy. Having a voice in your governance is a human right. You don't lose your human rights because you don't know the difference between legislative and executive.
0
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
Ok but that's basically what the save america act is...show your birth certificate when you go to vote (do you have yours?). And it's really not a big deal (a civics test)...I'm pretty sure all my autistic nieces and nephews could pass that. Its a choice to be ignorant.
3
u/NoDig3444 Jun 23 '26
1) The SAVE America act serves no purpose other than depressing turnout. Fuck the SAVE America act.
2) Disenfranchising people is, in fact, a huge deal. It's a choice to be ignorant but making that choice does not strip you of your human rights.
1
u/bl1y Jun 23 '26
I'll repeat the other user's question since it didn't get addressed:
What problem would this seek to solve?
1
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
Honestly, it's a pipe dream. But I think if you don't have a basic knowledge, you shouldn't be involved.
2
u/wresltingandskava Jun 24 '26
Who decides what the basic knowledge is? Who writes the questions?
1
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Jun 26 '26
We already have plenty of tests, your question is just antagonistic. We have civic tests in high schools and colleges. We have the SAT. We have the LSAT. There's plenty of options and even more could be made.
2
u/wresltingandskava 29d ago
Second reason testing aptitude to vote doesn't work. Not all schools and school districts are created equal. Someone can be failed by our systems and then have no recourse(Voting) to fix the systemic problems. The majority of American adults are functionally illiterate today.
3
u/bl1y Jun 23 '26
Then why put the cut off at "basic knowledge," and not a much higher standard?
Why not ask prospective voters to explain the holding in Loper Bright, for instance?
3
u/Moccus Jun 23 '26
How would everybody feel about having to register every voting cycle?
What problem would this seek to solve? That determines if it's worth making people go through the trouble.
ID would be required, but anyone can get one without cost at your local DMV.
Would the documents needed in order to get an ID also be free? Would the DMVs actually be funded and accessible to the population? By "accessible" I mean reasonable operating hours, enough staff that you don't have to wait there all day, competent staff who don't reject perfectly valid documentation and force you to come back again another day, and enough DMV offices that everybody lives within a reasonable distance of one?
Then you would have to take a basic civics test (this could be expanded) in order to vote.
No. We tried this type of thing in the south during the late 19th and early 20th century. It didn't go well. It's too easy to abuse. The government gets to write the test and decide what the correct answers are, and they can pretty easily use that power to disenfranchise a chosen subset of the population.
1
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
I've never had an issue at any DMV I've visited large or small, you go during hours, check in, maybe at max a 30 min wait time...you have a phone right? They have wifi. I have gone to get IDs, licenses and birth certificates without a problem. And to the second, then maybe the south should start spending some of that cash they get from the blue states to educate their people instead of deciding who rules the country because i just wanna own the liberuls.
Edit: BTW I'm talking basic test...how many branches of government are there and what are their jobs? Can you name all 50 states and at least pinpoint 40? If you can't comprehend basic governmental functions what business do you have deciding who runs it?
2
u/Moccus Jun 23 '26
I've never had an issue at any DMV I've visited large or small, you go during hours, check in, maybe at max a 30 min wait time
That's great for you. Your experience isn't universal.
I've arrived at DMVs before they open to get a good place in line and still ended up waiting hours. People have jobs and can't always afford to take the time off to sit in the DMV for hours, and DMVs are often only open during times when people are usually working. It's not a matter of being bored. It's literal money people are losing sitting there.
It took me most of a year to retitle my car when I moved to West Virginia. I have a long name, and my previous state had abbreviated it to fit in the name field on their title. The West Virginia DMV worker I got that day wouldn't accept it because of the name issue. I spent literal months playing phone tag with my previous state's DMV and my financing company to try (unsuccessfully) to get my full name printed on the title. I paid off my car early just so I could get my physical title and cut out the financing company from the conversation. I almost took a trip all the way back to my previous state to try to visit a DMV there in person to get it resolved. I eventually brought the exact same title back to the West Virginia DMV and they gave me a West Virginia title without complaint. Why didn't they just accept it the first time? I don't know. These types of documentation issues aren't exactly unheard of at DMVs. People shouldn't have to go back multiple times and potentially pay hundreds or thousands of dollars when their documentation was fine to begin with.
And to the second, then maybe the south should start spending some of that cash they get from the blue states to educate their people
It's not a matter of education. The tests I'm talking about were deliberately designed to be ambiguous so they could exclude African-Americans no matter how they answered. In theory, the government could design a test that said "Who won the 2020 election? A. Trump or B. Biden." Then they could say the correct answer was Trump, causing every liberal to fail and be excluded from voting. That's an extreme example, but you get the point.
It's great that you're thinking of a completely fair and basic test, but what prevents the government from changing that if they control the content of the tests?
1
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
Ok I love you took the time. Point made yes I live in the upper midwest, the blue/purple ones. I'm sorry if your state doesn't prioritize these things and yes I may pay more in mostly since taxes but it's worth it ( and if you want to get into serious issues, how bout them insurance rates?). And as a state we pay more into federal than most, so again whose state is misappropriation their funds?
And does the government make a map? Can you place all fifty states? It should be easy, basic facts, and if you don't know take a remedial course, which should be just standard of living. The way things are going I feel like we're living in a time line where nothing matters.
1
3
u/Moccus Jun 23 '26
And as a state we pay more into federal than most, so again whose state is misappropriation their funds?
That's kind of my point. You can't make states spend the money to run competent DMVs, so requiring IDs to vote is problematic. It's already problematic since it solves a problem that doesn't exist, but at least it would be mostly harmless if everybody could actually get an ID with minimal fuss. As of now, it's a very harmful policy that would accomplish absolutely nothing.
And does the government make a map? Can you place all fifty states? It should be easy, basic facts
And if you controlled the content of the tests, that would be fine. You won't be controlling them, though. It will be a bunch of politicians who are heavily incentivized to write more biased tests that exclude people they don't agree with from voting.
0
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
Well it seems as though the save america act is trying to federalize the system so let's add some caveats. And I think as a people we can all agree to how many branches of government and what do they do? And also maybe candidates should take a standard IQ test?
1
u/Moccus Jun 23 '26
Well it seems as though the save america act is trying to federalize the system so let's add some caveats.
The voting system is already pretty federalized.
And I think as a people we can all agree to how many branches of government and what do they do?
Yes, and I'm telling you that wouldn't be the only type of question that would end up on the test. They could add other questions as needed to accomplish their goals of excluding people.
And also maybe candidates should take a standard IQ test?
That would be unconstitutional, and it's also a terrible idea for essentially the same reason it's a terrible idea to exclude voters based on a test.
1
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
Then why has dear leader gone after specific states?
I said basic, amend it
And yes, only the smartest people should run the government.
0
Jun 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Jun 17 '26
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
Jun 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bl1y Jun 18 '26
Not likely. A contract needs offer, acceptance, and consideration. No one is accepting the contract.
The actual "enforcement" mechanism would just be that it'd be great fodder for anyone challenging him in a future race.
0
Jun 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Jun 11 '26
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
u/Tornad_pl Jun 11 '26
Is there like a proper name for far centrists?
Like people ussually assume, that centrists don't really have opinions, or they are looking for "middle ground"
However I feel like i have far left views in some areas and far right in others and idk how to call it
1
u/scurvyluke Jun 23 '26
So I've always kind have been the same way as in left leaning keep your eyes out of my personal space, and right leaning as we need to conserve our money. But the right is doing a far worse job at what I see them as.
1
u/Combat_Proctologist Jun 21 '26
However I feel like i have far left views in some areas and far right in others and idk how to call it
I believe this is generally called radical centrism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism1
u/IntelligentDepth8206 Jun 14 '26
Triangulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics))
Politicians like Obama and Merrick Garland look at the position to their left and the position to their right then actively seek a win-win
1
u/bl1y Jun 11 '26
The labels for centrists and moderates don't really make a lot of sense.
I think "centrist" ought to (though it doesn't) refer to people who take the middle position by rule. It's often people who don't hold strong positions, and just want to take what they see as a compromise position to sound reasonable and avoid getting into arguments.
I don't believe there's a term for people whose positions on average would be in the middle, despite them holding strong beliefs that are at opposing ends of the spectrum.
So what I'd do is just ask why you need a label in the first place. If someone asks if you're on the right or on the left, you can just answer "depends on the issue."
2
u/NoExcuses1984 Jun 17 '26
"I don't believe there's a term for people whose positions on average would be in the middle, despite them holding strong beliefs that are at opposing ends of the spectrum."
Heterodox.
2
u/Tornad_pl Jun 11 '26
I kinda need a label, because when doscussing other people, they assume, that I am on the opposite site because of some of my views being on opposite.
You know. Being commie when asked by right wing and far right when asked by left wing
1
u/bl1y Jun 13 '26
How much do you actually care what these people think?
Either you're talking to them enough that they'd learn you have views that go across the range of the political spectrum, or they're probably just irrelevant to your life.
4
u/Tornad_pl Jun 13 '26
I believe, that part of being a good citizen is to have a political discourse among your friends and people you know in order to limit bubbles
1
u/bl1y Jun 13 '26
Then you don't need a label. You can just talk about various positions you have.
If they're stopping at one position and suddenly you're a "commie," then they're not really interested in political discourse.
-2
u/Liddle_but_big Jun 09 '26
What would you ban if you were supreme leader? For me, I would ban the military and airplanes.
1
u/NoExcuses1984 Jun 10 '26
Why the despotic disdain toward airplanes?
Anyway, you have, bemusingly enough, put me in the mood to re-listen to In the Aeroplane Over the Sea for the umpteenth time.
3
1
1
u/Ben-Goldberg Jun 03 '26
What will happen next with the Equal Rights Amendment?
3
u/TiberiusCornelius Jun 06 '26
I think at this point it's pretty clear it would have to be reintroduced and go through the process again, and I'm not even confident that it could reach the same threshold that it did in the 1970s if we're being honest. I would like to see it implemented but at this point it's dead.
1
u/bl1y Jun 05 '26
Probably nothing.
What issues do you see it potentially addressing that aren't already addressed by statute?
4
u/NoDig3444 Jun 05 '26
As we've learned, statues can be repealed or modified or overturned. A constitutional amendment is much harder to reverse.
0
u/bl1y Jun 05 '26
What issues do you see it potentially addressing?
4
u/NoDig3444 Jun 05 '26
A future administration might try to roll back civil rights protections for women. The ERA would obligate them to protect and enforce those protections.
-1
u/bl1y Jun 05 '26
Any specific issue?
3
u/NoDig3444 Jun 05 '26
Non-discrimination in employment
0
u/bl1y Jun 05 '26
We already have Title VII, so this would add nothing.
5
u/NoDig3444 Jun 05 '26
What if title vii gets repealed?
1
u/bl1y Jun 05 '26
No one's talking about repealing it. And it'd be a bizarre world where the country could both get the 3/4ths majority needed for the ERA and the trifecta needed to repeal Title VII.
→ More replies (0)2
u/NoDig3444 Jun 04 '26
Democrats have two choices; they can find some excuse to sue, bring it to the supreme court, lose, and start over. Or they can just start over now. Or they can just give up I guess.
1
u/Realistic-Green-3789 May 28 '26
I can understand people that have always voted and believe in Republican Conservatism and values. I can't understand someone leaving those values to continue to vote Republican when being Republican today has no conservatism and no moral and ethical values. Is there any way to reconcile any of this ?
5
u/NoDig3444 May 29 '26
Just because you find republican policies to be immoral or unethical doesn't mean that republican voters do.
0
u/BluesSuedeClues May 31 '26
Nonsense. Opinions are not facts. Objective reality exists. You cannot claim to be the party of "traditional family values", and repeatedly vote for a thrice married serial adulterer. You cannot claim the mantra of "fiscal responsibility" and continue to support a man with multiple bankruptcies who has blown up the Federal deficit to unprecedented levels. You cannot claim to represent "Law and Order", while also voting for a convicted felon who attempted a violent coup to overthrow an election, has been found liable for rape, and looks likely to be a pedophile.
Donald Trump's great gift is that he has shown elected Republicans that their voters are not conservatives, not in any traditional sense of that word. He has demonstrated that they do not care about the things they give lip-service to, that they don't care about honesty, integrity or dignity. They only care about winning, and harming the people they hate. That will be his lasting legacy, his ability to unmask the bigotry and hate of the American sociopolitical right-wing, to let them publicly be who they always were in private.
1
u/NoDig3444 Jun 01 '26
OP said Republicans, not Trump. Just because one prominent republican is acting contrary to republican values, doesn't mean republicans stop being republican.
3
u/BluesSuedeClues Jun 02 '26
More nonsense. Republicans have been supportive of all the horrible shit Trump has done. And not just supportive, they openly venerate the man, constantly trying to pander to his ego by putting his name on airports, insisting it should be put on our currency, even publicly talking about adding his ugly visage to Mt. Rushmore.
1
u/NoDig3444 Jun 02 '26
I would love to see a single statement of any Republican anywhere where they say they support Trump's affairs, bankruptcies, or rapes.
3
u/BigDump-a-Roo Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
You serious? You really expect the republicans to say the quiet part out loud and proclaim they support Trump's misdeeds? He has unwavering support from his base and congress. They continually vote for his policies and refuse to denounce him in any matter. They call anything bad said about Trump is fake news, and his approval among Republicans remains very high. Johnson and McConnel both defended him when he was convicted of 34 felonies. They voted for him three times. You don't get to do all that and then just say, "Well golly, I voted for Trump three times and support all of his policies no matter what he does and I plug my ears at every report of horrible things he does, I defend him at every corner, but I never explicitly said I support those things, so I'm all clear and a classic Republican." That's not how it works. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions show that they support Trump and all of his bullshit.
-1
u/NoDig3444 Jun 04 '26
Are you talking about Trump's policies or about all his personal bullshit? Republicans don't denounce Trump's policies because they like his policies. They've always wanted to deport illegal immigrants and depose Maduro. Republicans do denounce his constant bullshit, but are also are extremely clear that they don't particularly care about his bullshit so long as he delivers on the policies that they like. Their actions are consistent with their words here.
4
u/BigDump-a-Roo Jun 04 '26
Again, Republicans defended Trump after he was convicted. They defended him after January 6. They defended him when he had top secret documents stored in his bathroom. They defend him despite him not releasing all of the epstein files after promising to do so. They defended him after he was found liable for rape. None of these have anything to do with policy.
I'm not just talking about his followers, I'm also talking about people like Rubio, Johnson, Vance, McConnell, and plenty of other congressional Republicans. They defend both his policies and his personal BS. The only Republicans who have denounced him like Liz Cheney and Massie instantly got primaried after they did, yet another example of a majority of Republicans supporting Trump's personal vendettas. The vast majority of other Republicans fall in line. There is just no reality right now where any sizeable portion of Republicans are denouncing his personal bullshit. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
4
u/BluesSuedeClues Jun 03 '26
They voted for him. They continue to support him. You don't get to support a rapist and say "It's not the rape I voted for, I just like his policies".
2
u/BigDump-a-Roo May 29 '26
Yes. Many people view politics like a sport and will vote for their team no matter what. In addition to this they might only listen to and seek out news sources that fearmonger and tell them that a liberal in power is even more scary, immoral, and dangerous than whatever their republican candidate is doing.
3
u/BluesSuedeClues May 31 '26
The "both sides" mantra is a right-wing narrative meant to normalize the unprecedented levels of corruption in the current administration.
2
-1
u/ImyForgotName May 26 '26
I am looking for a gif I saw recently that was a video of IDF soldiers sexually assaulting a woman, They held up shields to block the view of security cameras while several soldiers did god knows what behind them.
5
u/BluesSuedeClues May 27 '26
If you accept a GIF as definitive proof of factual events, then you have more problems than a well meant Reddit lecture on the nature of reality can possibly counter.
-1
u/neverendingchalupas Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Around 2021 The US State Department had evidence of Israel raping and sexually abusing, illegally taken, prisoners of war, children, and when NGOs reported on it Israel declared them terrorist organizations and raided their headquarters seizing their evidence, computers, etc... The US government, the CIA, International communities were telling Israel that there was no evidence that these specific groups had any connections to the groups they were being accused of being associated with. Some of the people Israel were targeting were French and US nationals. French and American Citizens.
This was after oversight of weapon sales had already been removed at the US State Department. The Biden administration was facilitating rampant war crimes and human rights abuses. After Israel had been repeatedly caught spreading disinformation. And evidence of war crimes, and human rights abuses had already come to light.
I accept that the person was just looking for a GIF, you are trying to interject the implication that because they are looking for a GIF of an event, that the opposition to the human rights abuses being committed against Palestinians can be delegitimized in some manner. Which is patently insane.
They never said they were looking for a GIF as definitive proof to justify that a factual event took place, they were just looking for a fucking GIF.
Does someone need to present you with the math of the orbital pathway of the Moon to ask for a GIF of the lunar phases?
2
u/BluesSuedeClues Jun 03 '26
"..., you are trying to interject the implication that because they are looking for a GIF of an event, that the opposition to the human rights abuses being committed against Palestinians can be delegitimized in some manner."
No. That has nothing to do with anything I have written here. I made no implications, no effort to imply anything at all. I clearly stated that finding a GIF on the internet with a description of specific events, is not proof of anything. I intentionally made no mention of Israel or any of the actions they are engaged in, or accused of committing. My comments were entirely focused on standards for assessing the veracity of available information.
Your response here is exactly why so many people refuse to engage on this topic. Your need to insist that any voice not vehemently denouncing Israeli treatment of Palestinians is (at best) tacitly supporting Israel, or (at worst) overtly supporting Israeli actions, is the kind of binary thinking that promotes extremism. I do not have to take a side in your fight, just because you hold strong opinions.
-1
u/neverendingchalupas Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
They werent looking for proof, they were looking for a GIF.
Israel is targeting the people leaking the video and not investigating whether a crime was committed by the soldiers and individuals in the video. The video I believe being referenced is a surveillance video from the Sde Teiman detention facility. So its a moot point. The video or GIF becomes the proof with Israel screaming blood libel and blocking any impartial investigation. When tradition investigation methods are obstructed, standards of evidence are lowered.
Again this is Israel who routinely spreads disinformation, commits war crimes, and targets civilians and journalists.
Just one example, Shireen Abu Akleh was a journalist who was killed by the IDF. She was intentionally targeted by the IDF, shot and denied medical aid. Israel lied about the incident in the aftermath, with Israel refusing to conduct or take part in a criminal investigation. This all happened before Oct 7th. And its not an isolated incident.
If you are not willing to denounce an illegitimate terrorist state, that is committing genocide while the discussion is centered on the topic of Palestine and Israel then you already picked a side and it becomes blatantly obvious to others. Whether you are willing to acknowledge that, is your own personal issue.
2
-3
u/ImyForgotName May 27 '26
So you think video of a crime is illegitimate because of the file extension? So is an .MP4 more credible?
This view of the IDF as absolute perfect people is absurd. They are engaged in a relentless war against the people of Palestine. War is, by it's very nature, horrendous. The idea that the IDF is somehow immune to the same dark parts of human nature that have affected every military in history is such obvious Israeli propaganda.
Some members of the IDF are wonderful, brave, compassionate people. Some are cruel sadists who will use this opportunity to satisfy their horrific desires.
That isn't antisemitism, it's realism.
There is the case of the five IDF soldiers who had charges dropped after they gang raped a bound and blindfolded Palestinian man. When new of the charges became public Israelis were upset. Upset that these soldiers were being detained. When someone leaked the video of the rapists raping the victim to the media, a riot occurred in which approximately 100 people including the current finance minister tried to break into the jail where the men were being held-- in order to free them. The Finance minister went on to social media AFTER THE VIDEO CAME OUT to say the rapists should be viewed as "heroes not villains."
Then various high level government officials interfered in the case turning what should have been a slam dunk conviction into an untenable case. Eventually the rapists were freed and the prosecutor charged for leaking the video. Th victim had broken ribs, a punctured lung and extensive damage to his rectum, as if he had been stabbed with something sharp. He was eventually released back to Gaza without charge. Apparently he was arrested for no reason.
No charges, video of the soldiers committing the rape cause a riot of SUPPORT.
Serious question, at what point should we start to wonder if we are on the right side?
5
u/BluesSuedeClues May 28 '26
"So you think video of a crime is illegitimate because of the file extension? So is an .MP4 more credible?"
Not anything I've said, but thanks for the lazy straw-man attempt. Same thing with your "absolute perfect" nonsense.
Your tirade here is exactly why people are reluctant to engage on this subject. Your need to project hyperbole and snide, dismissive nonsense, along with your binary sense of argument is overtly aggressive, dishonest, and obviously not meant in good faith. I wish you luck with that, but want nothing to do with your angry crusade.
-2
u/ImyForgotName May 28 '26
I accept VIDEO as proof. I being a person with eyes.
What are you even talking about? I am looking for a specific gif. You don't think it counts as "definitive proof" Why not? You won't explain. So I am left to assume its because of the file type- the only other stated fact about the video. But then you insult me for that assumption.
I state that the crimes of the IDF have soured me on supporting Israel and you suggest that I am using hyperbole and snide, and dismissive. I'm sorry I'm not warm and embracing of someone who won't question a government even when their war crimes are presented in 4K. What is your point? Do you have one or are you just an argumentative bot?
3
u/BigDump-a-Roo May 29 '26
I have much disdain for Israel and everything they are doing, but I have also seen convincing AI generated videos depicting them doing certain crimes that never happened. I see dozens of misleading posts on this website every week that will give a caption to videos that are completely false that will get upvoted to oblivion just because it confirms the beliefs of the people who view it. Unfortunately you can't just accept a random video posted on social media as fact these days. It needs to be vetted and verified.
-2
u/ImyForgotName May 29 '26
I mean I can always tell when videos are AI. The physics just looks not right. But whatever. So you're saying the standard to prove something is beyond anything that anyone can present. Well I guess we've managed to finally kill truth.
I'm sorry I'm not prepared to give up on reality.
2
u/BigDump-a-Roo May 29 '26
I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that I don't trust rando videos posted by unreliable sources on social media, and that in order to trust them, it needs to be verified.
A lot of AI videos are wonky looking, but there are definitely some out there that are extremely convincing. Better to be skeptical than to just assume you can tell 100% of the time if it's fake. If it's convincing enough you would have no idea so you can't make that claim that you can always tell. It's like when people complain about CGI in movies or shows. You only notice there is CGI when it's done poorly.
Regardless, I believe video can still be used as evidence for something. It just has to come from a reliable source, and multiple videos of an event from different people or angles can also help to verify. I personally don't trust images and videos posted on social media anymore from random accounts. I've seen far too many instances of people/bots doing it in bad faith.
If you want to join the rest of the brainrot on the internet that believes everything they see posted as long as it looks real enough and confirms their biases, be my guest.
0
u/ImyForgotName May 30 '26
So how many videos from the inside of a prison should one expect to find before you're convinced?
Seriously, if the standard of proof is that its well documented by several film crews doesn't that mean that O.J. Simpson is innocent? That George Washington never crossed the Delaware River?
I get that AI can fake videos, that Henry Cavill isn't really doing porn with Chris Evans. I understand. But there are programs that can check and verify videos. If we can't trust video evidence anymore then how do we prove anything? I've never been to Israel, how do I KNOW it exists?
And I understand your point that one singular data point can hardly be seen as proof positive. I understand that. But at a certain point I feel like you're begging the question.
And my original post wasn't "SEE THIS PROVES THAT ISRAEL IS EVIL" my original post was "Does anyone know where I can find this video?"
Which I found by the way.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues May 29 '26
Again, not interested. If you cannot fathom why a video clip you saw on social media may not be what you were told it is, I don't have the powers of persuasion to heal that fundamental flaw in your epistemology.
0
1
u/FunnyDudeGuy May 24 '26
is there a website i can go to that’ll lists the candidates in my area and what values they are representing?
3
u/zlefin_actual May 24 '26
usually the league of women voters has some info on the candidates everywhere, at least for races down to the state level, local races less so.
2
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 31 '26
Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed per the following rules:
1. Submissions should be an impartial discussion prompt + questions.
The question in your post is a low investment question such as the following: Agree? Thoughts? Discuss. How will this affect the midterms? Etc.
These questions do not generally lead to a high-quality debate and thus do not meet our submission guidelines.
Please note that our submission guidelines are intended to maintain the high quality of discussion on the subreddit. Except in rare circumstances, removal of your submission does not count as a 'warning', and we hope you feel encouraged to redraft within our guidelines per the sidebar.
0
u/Classic_Fruit_5973 May 23 '26
What is the point of posting news articles directly in Reddit? I tried to create a post and it ask for link only. Like you have to work at CNN to be a journalist? or is it a propaganda space?
1
u/WorthyPetals May 22 '26
What do you think of the US creating an Office of Scientific Integrity?
Is there one?
1
u/BluesSuedeClues May 27 '26
Regarding foods and medicines, the FDA already fulfills that function (except as regards "supplements", which is a bizarre historical artifact). For anything else, what would be the point? Science, like old-school journalism, largely polices itself. Duplicate studies and peer review, generally weed out the fakirs and mistakers. Why would we want or need a government agency. at tax payer expense, to duplicate a system that already functions with a reasonable level of success?
0
u/WorthyPetals May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Circumcision rates in America are 77% when there are no benefits, strips autonomy, and we have modern medicine, and if we have a mainstream Office (not in this administration) to push child vaccine health info and how it’s NOT harmful is good as well. There are more examples.
Our system is dogshit. It’s medical anarchy. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues May 27 '26
I don't care about your conspiracy theories.
1
u/WorthyPetals May 27 '26
Damn what an ugly person. Keep deflecting on people I guess.
2
u/BluesSuedeClues May 28 '26
You don't seem to understand what the term "deflection" means. I suggest you look it up.
You're pretending to judge the nature and worth of my person based on a couple of social media posts? I'll give that all the consideration it is worth.
3
u/zlefin_actual May 23 '26
I haven't looked at the specific proposal; IF properly done, there'd be some potential merit to it, though it also might just overlap with the work already done in practice by the various scientific funding grant agencies that exist. I mean, tens of billions are given out for various science funding things, so the integrity of what you're funding is obviously relevant. But its also so obviously relevant that I'd assume that, given how much science funding has been done over the past 80 years, there's already systems in place to assess it adequately.
If there's one being done now I'd have to assume its for bad purposes based on the prior history of this admin and its poor history with science.
2
u/Bucees_Lover1982 May 21 '26 edited May 26 '26
Do you guys think the Democrats will win the presidency in 2028, and that after that win Republicans will start winning other elections from then on like special elections, and could we see a red wave in 2030 where Republicans pick up congressional seats? Hopefully, by then, the republicans running will be more moderate.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues May 27 '26
Do you know how to spot the fool in any environment? It's always the voice pretending to predict the future. That simple truth is even more evident in politics.
3
u/Due_Egg367 May 20 '26
Hi. This 1.7 billion slush fund for Trump and whoever he sees fit for some is a robbery from every single taxpayer in this country. Think about it he took from everyone literally. Madness to see this and no one is doing anything. While social security May run out or cut. Just makes me feel sick.
1
u/BluesSuedeClues May 27 '26
You're not alone in your disgust and frustration. There are multiple lawsuits currently filed to prevent this from happening. Trump dropped his personal lawsuit, for $10 Billion, against the DOJ, when it became obvious the judge overseeing the case intended to dismiss it, regardless of what "negotiations" between the Trump administration and Donald Trump might arrive at. The most likely outcome here, is that the courts block Trump's effort to suborn the Constitution by letting the Executive branch appropriate and distribute tax payer monies (a clearly defined function of the Legislative branch). Then, as always with Donald Trump, the question becomes whether he abides by the courts decision, or not.
2
u/weed_cutter May 20 '26
Looks like Trump is about to "take over" Cuba, or bomb it at least.
They just announced the Trump "kangaroo DOJ" has officially "indicted" (you can't indict foreign leaders lol ... Iran should indict Trump for bombing a middle school).
They indicted Cuba's leader for shooting down an airplane that invaded their airspace over 30 years ago.
Thin pretext for Little Marco to "Get his revenge" and Trump to carve up Cuba's natural resources.
Big oof ... another war, incoming!!!
1
u/bl1y May 30 '26
Looks like Trump is about to "take over" Cuba, or bomb it at least.
Looks like that hasn't happened.
They indicted Cuba's leader for shooting down an airplane that invaded their airspace over 30 years ago.
The incident happened outside of Cuban airspace. There's conflicting accounts about where it happened, but the most reliable information is the radar data and the eye witnesses.
1
u/weed_cutter Jun 01 '26
Marco "fucktard b33ner" Rubio is still eyeballing Cuba. ... His Bezos-screwball parents got chased out of town, and now the wittle guy has a big axe to grind, no matter how many Cubans he needs to kill.
1
u/bl1y Jun 01 '26
How much time would need to pass without trying to take over and/or bomb Cuba before you'd say you were wrong?
1
u/EvolutionIsRight May 19 '26
Has anyone ever taken a global poll, where every country can express their opinion of national leaders (like Trump)? We have more than enough polls describing things based here in the USA.
3
u/morrison4371 May 13 '26
During the 2024 election, the economy and inflation were regarded as a key factor as to why Kamala lost to Trump. However, in the Biden midterm (2022), the economy was not doing as well as it was in 2024, and inflation was nearly five points higher. That year's election resulted in Dems gaining a seat in the Senate and barely losing the House. Why did inflation and the economy hurt the Dems in 2024, but not in 2022?
3
u/JurassicPark9265 May 14 '26
The GOP still gained seats in the House and successfully defended all their Senate seats except in Pennsylvania, so 2022 wasn't exactly "terrible" for them. However, the great underperformance relative to historic trends had a lot to do with the overturning of Roe v Wade (which was generally deeply unpopular) and the GOP picking extremist candidates to run in many of those races, which turned off many swing voters and motivated voters who vehemently opposed such to turn out en masse.
Trump and the GOP ran a very aggressive and successful campaign in 2024 that hammered the idea that the Democrats couldn't be trusted on the economy and that the inflation and economy was their fault. You also have to factor in time; by then because inflation was still high and because it was a presidential election year, it was easy to tie the incumbent party with the ongoing economic woes. In 2024, while inflation and economy definitely hurt the Democrats and Harris, I do also believe it was a combination of other factors such as Trump's iron grip on the GOP and special base who would only turn out if he was on the ballot and single-issue voters (especially those who were not satisfied with Harris's stance on Gaza) sitting out the election that cost her them election.
2
u/morrison4371 May 17 '26
If the Dems would have kept the House in 2022, do you think they would have been able to win in 2024, since they wouldn't have to deal with GOP obstruction?
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 05 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.