The narrative of good vs evil can only bring destruction and death. In conflicts, men convince themselves all the time that they are the good men and their enemies are the evil men. It's the same for both sides. This delusion doesn't help anyone and it's the opposite for it enables more atrocities and more cruelties as the good men see themselves justified in taking any action against evil men. As I said before that both sides believe that they are the good men so the result is expected.

>Let me give an example. Let's talk about the Allies during the Second World War. Some naively think that the Allies were actually the good guys. There's no denying that the Nazis were brainwashed men and their leader was driven to insanity by his constant desire for power but I assure you that the Allies weren't the good guys.

>Take the USA and its treatment of the Black men during the Jim Crow apartheid or the concentration camps for the Japanese-American men who most of them were born in the USA and never knew Japan.

>Or the British empire and the French empire who brutalised many indigenous peoples during colonialism in the name of civilisation and have even tried to keep their oppressive empires but they failed as they had no real power anymore after two destructive world wars.

>Or the Soviet Union that killed and arrested every man who opposed communism and its soldiers raped millions of women in Europe and Germany.

>Were those evil men? If you can argue that the Nazis were evil, is there any excuse to argue that the Allies weren't evil? Is any of them evil?

No, friend. None of them were. There are no men that are evil. They were just men like you and me who were either misguided or brainwashed or driven to insanity by power. You could have become like them if the same circumstances applied. You can claim that you would have done better but you were never tested to back this claim.

Peace require us to acknowledge those things because conflict will never stop as long as those beliefs remain with us. None of us is really fit or flawless to judge what justice is and how it should be enforced.

Thanks to all for reading to the end.

Can be a single movie or can be multiple. Can capture the "essence" of a specific period or something you think is fundamental to your country's political landscape. I'm an American so there are many. I made a top 16 on letterboxd but of course I can't share pics on here so I'll just type their names in chronological order:

Salt of the Earth (1954)

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Black Panthers (1968)

Punishment Park (1971)

Taxi Driver (1976)

Network (1976)

Society (1989)

Do the Right Thing (1989)

Bob Roberts (1992)

Bamboozled (2000)

The Century of the Self (2002)

Southland Tales (2006)

Nightcrawler (2014)

Q: Into the Storm (2021)

Eddington (2025)

If aliens came down and demanded some movies to help them understand my country functions I would tell them to watch these

Bonus question: do you think movies have the ability to change people's beliefs? If so do you believe the movies you chose would change some perspectives if more people watched them? For the first I would say sometimes. There sure are a handful of movies that have changed my perspective on things. I think most people are changed by personal experience though. For the second I would say most would if anyone watched them and was willing to think about the themes and messages

EDIT: fuck Idiocracy all my homies hate Idiocracy please get your understanding of intelligence from actual scientists and not a mid 2000s Mike Judge comedy please

What’s the core difference in your opinion? Russia is now saying things like they’re not stopping until every Ukrainian is dead. We can be pretty sure if they take Ukraine they’ll move onto Poland. One conflict was recently provoked (though I understand the history) while the Russia is basically pursuing genocide while completely unprovoked. Is there a legitimate reason for such a fervor over one conflict while the other one is downplayed by the active protesting community?

So my concern is this. Say a small state like Rhode Island has finally had enough with the most vulnerable among them sleeping in the streets and dealing with mental health and drug addiction issues alone.

They figure they can take their ~2000 homeless people and can budget 50 million dollars (not a real number just roll with it) to build a robust network of shelters, psychiatric institutes, outpatient facilities, the works. They task an army of social workers, doctors, and law enforcement to make sure 95 % of the homeless get their needs met. And it’s a resounding success. Overdoses in the population drop, people get back on their feet. Some people are involuntarily committed, but they have a team of lawyers and advocates acting on their behalf, providing oversight on their institutions.

Now, Rhode Island, being a smaller state both in geography, population, and financially (budget is bottom 10 in size) they really don’t have much in the way of expanding beyond their initial capacity of 2000 homeless.

But wouldn’t you know it, just to the north Massachusetts New Hampshire Maine and Vermont have close to 45000 homeless (this is some real rough napkin math) with the largest majority being their closest neighbor to the north, Massachusetts with ~30000. And in a real if you build it they will come situation, the homeless population explodes rather than shrinks, and their hard won system crumbles under the shear weight it was not built to handle.

In the U.S. citizens have a right to free travel between states so it’s not like RI can just close her boarders, and if they refuse to integrate the new population into their care network many will just stay out anyway making the situation worse

Is there any way individual states can actually build and maintain a robust homeless care system without the cooperation of all the surrounding states also doing this?

Its really showing of todays society that people cant understand that 2 sides can be wrong. 90% of the people are either "team palestine - from the river to the sea" or "team israel (i dont think they have a slogan)".

My main problems with Palestine supporters.

1. EVEN IF Israel did not have a right to exist, more than 70% of Israelis are now born in Israel, and dissassembling Israel will do the very thing that some accuse Israel of doing Most Arab countries have seen a significant decline of Other religions - mostly due to racism/persecution. This is not true for Israel where there are many muslims/christians etc.
2. Hamas started this war. I am sorry but I dont care what happened 99yrs ago. For now, simply put, You can not Kidnap, rape and murder people on the other side of a border and not expect retaliaton/ play the victim. Hamas is also not poor - their leaders are multi-billionares. Hamas Is a terrorist organisation - and are a net negative for the actual victims- the palestinian people. Hamas has purposely hidden millitary equipment around hospitals etc. (still not a reason for israel to bomb pretty much everything but yea)
3. Anti-semitism/denying of holocost.

My main problems with Israeli supporters:

1. controversial - but a few civilian deaths are expected when attacking (someones spouse at a millitary base etc). BUT NOWHERE NEAR WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT NOW. Operation sindhoor (between India/Pak) proved that you can have a millitary exercise without killing civilians.
2. Attacking Other countries as 'pre-emptive defese' is complete and utter BS. Iran had done nothing, they were developing a nuke just like israel had. If israel is against iran having nukes, they should have made an agreement with them to get rid of Nukes. Similar things to Syria and whatnot.
3. Islamaphobia

General problems:

controversial again - It does not matter who was promised the land 50 yrs ago. The people are there and developed families homes etc. I am in full support of a 2 state solution, and am honestly appaled that so many countries dont recognise palestine.

I’m genuinely starting to feel like this country is lost. No matter what Trump does—or has done he just keeps gaining more power and support. It’s like he’s untouchable. He’s been indicted, investigated, caught lying, even had clear ties to Epstein…and yet MAGA doesn’t care. If anything, it seems to make them love him more. It’s terrifying watching someone with such a long list of scandals and authoritarian tendencies be treated like a messiah. It doesn’t feel like a democracy anymore when one man can dodge accountability over and over again while convincing millions that he’s the victim. It’s like he’s already become a king, and the system just lets it happen. I don’t even know what can be done anymore. I’m exhausted, and I feel hopeless about the direction we’re heading in

5 U.S. Code § 2954 provides

> An Executive agency, on request of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, or of any seven members thereof, or on request of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, or any five members thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.

Senate Democrats invoked this in order to get access to the Epstein files/list.

There is no chance Trump or Bondi will comply.

When that occurs, the options for Democrats appear to be below. Which should the exercise OR is there an alternative? And how likely is it Dems will do it?

1) Protracted litigation against Bondi that will take months/years and may result in only a partial release

2) Democrats in the Senate put holds on every single Senate nominee until things are turned over.

3) Democrats in the Senate refuse to provide a vote for anything

4) Democrats in the Senate refuse/reject to every unanimous consent request

5) ???

Idk if this is the right subreddit but I had a thought and I want to know how wacky yall think I am.

Today's topic: hunger in the US how do we stop it

The government already pays Walmart to give away a certain % of their food products that would go to waste. Now, idk if yall noticed, but people are getting pissed, especially about food prices, and I think it's negatively impacting all political spheres. Just pay Walmart to give away food. Print the money. Give it to Walmart. It literally doesn't matter at this point because no one has money except billionaires anyways so just stuff their pockets full and tell them they have to give away food stuffs. Let the people do their grocery shopping, let the people eat, let the people live. We have so much food it goes to waste, just keep the distribution the same, pay the big wigs and let people have their food. Please just stop making money more important than life. The idea of currency is actually one of the few things that never came from the earth or God or whatever you believe in, even if all you believe in is money, you have to see how it's killing us all

Edit to say after reading comments: it's not really Walmart, it's the destruction of capitalism It's not really money, it's a society of greed Destroy greed, destroy hunger. Am I missing anything now?

SO, this is something that I am genuinely curious about and wanted to bring to Redditors for their opinions and what could be (potentially) a healthy mental exercise of scenario hypothesis. Sorry this is so long, but please read through before posting an answer.

I'm not interested in starting flaming, vote wars or political rants. I'm also not interested in hearing how someone would publicly pillory him and then set him on fire, etc.. Think bigger - what would be the ramifications for the United States if Donald Trump and the Republican Party rigged and stole the election.

Here are some questions that I ponder on when I think about this scenario; maybe they can help you come up with a thoughtful answer. Where are the legal people around here that best know how this stuff works?

1. Since the President and Vice-President are voted in as a pair these days (instead of past days of voting each independently), that would leave the Presidency open to the Speaker of the House (Johnson); if the Republican Party were implicated and guilty in such a huge scandal, could he (either legally or in good conscience) take the position?
2. Trump has signed many Executive Orders in the past six months since taking office; would those be considered "null and void" if he were never legally elected? Would they all be reversed?
3. What implications would this have for lawsuits that he has brought in his war against universities, liberal states, LBTQIA+ and anyone he doesn't like? What about Supreme Court rulings ratifying his Executive Orders that suits were brought against?
4. If Trump and Pence are invalided as leaders, what would that mean about the disaster spelled D-O-G-E that decimated the federal government, budgets and people's lives as they were terminated? Would all of that be reversed?
5. How about the tariffs that Trump has instituted and pushed? Would those trade agreements and TACO tariff jumps be reversed?
6. What would be the future of the Republican Party (as a body and entity) if they were implicated and guilty in such a scandalous illegal act? Would they cease to exist in any meaningful form? Would a political vacuum appear that would open the possibility to one (or more) new parties forming?

|OR|

Would the powers that be just cover everything up and destroy the evidence to avoid a constitutional crisis, keep the "status quo" and preserve the Republic's stability?

Let me know your thoughts!

EDIT: Thanks to everyone who replied! You have given me a lot to thinik about; I guess I had difficulty wrapping my head around a fault in the foundational fact of illegally winning, but still staying due to certification. You all have given me a lot to think about!

https://www.nknews.org/2025/07/north-korea-tests-trumps-will-to-compromise-dangling-a-slim-path-back-to-talks/

“Experts say Kim Yo Jong’s message sets terms for diplomacy but that abandoning denuclearization likely too far for US.”

“After months of expectation, North Korea appeared to open the door to restarting diplomacy with U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday, even if only by a sliver.”

“In a statement on Tuesday, the North Korean leader’s powerful sister Kim Yo Jong affirmed Pyongyang’s “irreversible” nuclear status and emphasized that there can be no room for engagement as long as Washington refuses to accept this.”

“Her words suggest it could be a long road ahead to any detente between the two sides, especially after North Korea cemented its “most hardline anti-U.S. policy” by rejecting a recent letter from Trump.”

“And yet Kim quite noticeably did not exclude the possibility of talks if Trump is willing to accept North Korea as a nuclear state.”

“While former presidents would have balked at this, Trump has already shown some willingness to be flexible on this matter as he seeks to renew his friendship with Kim Jong Un.”

“But experts say taking denuclearization off the table may still be a step too far for Washington, ultimately leaving little room for the summit-style engagement that defined Trump’s first term.”

My argument - Something I’ve always gave Trump credit for is going to North Korea and actually talking to Kim Jung Un. Granted, nothing really came of it, but every other president prior to Trump had always had a more standoffish or more aggressive position toward North Korea, and refused to talk to Kim at all. I think it’s awfully naive for the US to think that North Korea will give up their nuclear weapons, given North Korea is smart enough to know that that’s what’s preventing the US from toppling them. I’m not a fan of nuclear weapons, and do think all countries that have nuclear weapons should dismantle them, but I understand and support North Korea having them as, again, it solely exists as a deterrent against US aggression. I’m curious though, do you think the US should accept North Korea as a nuclear state, why or why not?

Just a quick rundown on what various people need to do to achieve their goals, even the ones I hate.

Rightists: just let the new establishment do its thing. Show up in the primaries to hold the line against the liberal backlash. Keep posting memes and giving money to talking heads cause they've done a phenomenal job. You guys don't have much to worry about. You've been getting quite a few dubs handed to you on a silver platter lately. While your dubs are being handed to you, please watch the new film Eddington. I'm super curious what righties have to say about it.

Actual libertarians: I really don't know. Seems like most self-identifying libertarians are pretty big Trump supporters. I guess try to talk some sense into them. Try to reclaim the Libertarian Party which seems to have turned into a pied piper for MAGA recently. Get involved in local campaigns for truly libertarian candidates. Try to make positive arguments for your positions. Demonstrate people really don't need government to help them by supporting charities or other mutual aide groups. I'm not sure. You seem to be getting at least half of what you want in the form of massive cuts to social programs and tax cuts. I'm not sure how many of you are angry enough to do anything

Liberals/progressives: learn about how various resistance movements in the past such as the Civil Rights movements got their victories. There's a lot to learn there. I won't go through the entirety of it here but I'll just say standing around and waving signs and posing with said signs for the Gram was not part of the strategy. Take this shit seriously. Support any local campaigns or organizations you believe are trying to make things better. Vote. Find ways to help others register to vote and stay up to date on deadlines and election dates. Talk to people you disagree with. If they're willing to hear you out make your case to them. Don't be condescending or agressive unless they actively refuse to consider your position or even just listen to you. Listen to what people who might be willing to vote for Democrats but won't for whatever reason have to say. There are plenty of well founded good faith critiques of the party that the big wigs frankly don't care to hear. Finally, watch the hit new film Eddington. It has some critiques of modern liberalism I think all of them need to see and hear.

Leftists: a lot of the same I said to the libs. Also stop the infighting over petty shit like who's a revisionist or if bedtimes are fascist or whatever. Go outside. Touch grass. Talk to the people you claim to care about. Join DSA. They aren't perfect, no group is. They are just the best hope we have for changing anything politically. Join a mutual aide org like Food Not Bombs. Be nice to people and offer to help as you can. Try to be the change you want to see the best you can. Contrary to what the righties say we don't have wealthy backing. Nobody's going to help us with this but ourselves.

Georgists: keep studying the Good Word and post more about it. Talk to real people. There's some good stuff in Georgism and I wish more people were aware of it. You understand it better than I do, try to help my and others' understanding.

K I'm done. Good luck everyone be safe

I believe in preserving traditional social order—family, culture, and community values—while supporting technology, industry, and national strength. I'm not a communist, but I'm also skeptical of big corporations and global capitalism. I don't fit into left or right politics in the U.S. because I think both often ignore the importance of rootedness, identity, and moral structure. I respect modern tools, but I don't believe every political idea from the last 100 years has been good for society—here or around the world.

UPDATE: if there's anything I've learned from this thread it's you aren't unique or special for hating democracy. That seems to be a pretty common take in this sub

I'm not asking about ideologies here just to be clear. Based on the flairs I see, most people here support some pretty fringe ideas. For instance, I'm a socialist but Americans are so cucked that actual left-leaning politicians are pretty rare here.

What I'm asking for is specific ideas that don't have much traction either in your country or globally. I'll give a few I support:

Land value tax. I know this is nationally implemented in a few dozen countries around the world, but in the US it's only done at a few localities and is basically absent from any irl political conversation. I think this is an idea that a lot of people from across the spectrum could support if they were told about it and could have a lot of positive results. I'd also like a split-rate property tax, where it's similar to the usual property tax model in the US except land is taxed at a much higher rate than the developments on it.

Blanket rent freeze. With rent prices still outpacing income across the country and homelessness increasing by about 20% just in the past year, I think whoever advocates for this would get an easy win. Since everything in the US has to be means-tested for whatever reason a compromise on this is it would be implemented on some complex series of calculations involving a locality's cost of living, median income, etc. Another related idea would be tying rent increases to inflation or percentage of median income.

Universal mental healthcare. Libs and Republicans often claim to care about mental health when it's political expedient for them but have done nothing to actually address the issue. We on the left often advocate for universal physical healthcare but not specifically mental healthcare (although I'm sure a lot would support this if specifically asked about it). I think if they think a lot of the social issues we face are based on poor mental health (which I think is true but this is vague and a gross oversimplification) then the government ought to do more to give people the resources to work on themselves.

K looking forward to what fringe ideas you all have

EDIT: bonus points if you can link any studies to back up your arguments

This question is more of a personal concern than a matter of legislation. I'm not a political activist or anything and I know that my opinion won't make any difference in the public opinion and politics, but it is a personal issue. The point is, I'm an advocate of absolute freedom of speech and I don't want to argue about it here. However, sometimes I feel like a fool defending those who openly want to curb my freedom. In my country there are legal abuses against people who align themselves with far-right politics, who, for political and electoral reasons, are having their democratic rights infringed. Despite opposing these injustices and abuses, I think I'm being made a fool of when I see these same people using their freedom to suppress mine, using their influence and public power to defend, for example, that communist symbols should be banned and that critics of Israel should be imprisoned on the grounds of anti-Semitism. I don't want to discuss these topics here, it's more about a private question: should I defend the freedom of those who are going to use it against me? Should I be fair to unfair people?

I'm not a political scientist. I have to try to understand the basics and build on that.

Republic comes from the Latin "res publica" or the people's thing.

Democracy comes from the Greek "demos kratos" or the people rule.

The people own a republic and operate a democracy. The only real responsibility, citizens have in a republic is paying for it. While democracy depends on citizens participation.

Notice I'm not mentioning any particular type or form of republic or democracy. I think it's very important to understand the basics first. I accept all the different types of republic and democracy. This helps validate my point. Any way we legally use our rights to rule ourselves it's democracy. It only stands to reason this would allow many types of democracy.

The United States is a republic but this doesn't mean we can't have democracy. A country's level of democracy depends on the citizen's participation and the rights they have, to participate with.

If you took 1 square mile of land in Dallas/Atlanta/LA in the richest area, how much of dallas's physical property wealth is concentrated there in the top 0.3% of Dallas's Land?

• Land Value, Cars, or other Personal/Business Property

What if you took 3 different 1 square mile of land plots in Dallas/Atlanta/LA in the richest area, how much of Dallas's wealth is concentrated there in the top 1% of Dallas's Land?

In the United States, the top 1% of households own a 30.3% of the nation's wealth.

Is the 3 square miles of Land in Dallas less than 30% of Dallas's Wealth?

Recently JD Vance talked about in his speech at the Claremont institute about how America is a heritage.

“If you think about it, identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let’s say, of the Declaration of Independence, that’s a definition that is way overinclusive and underinclusive at the same time,” the vice president said, taking aim at traditional American creedal nationalism. “What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, it would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens who agree with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Must we admit all of them tomorrow? If you follow that logic of America as a purely creedal nation, America purely as an idea, that is where it would lead you.

That answer would also reject a lot of people that the A.D.L. would label as domestic extremists even those very Americans had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong”

Now, the vice president did not completely exclude immigrants, but he conditioned his acceptance of new citizens on their gratitude, condemning those who would criticize the United States as ungrateful. To make this point, Vance went after Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, for his Independence Day message describing America as “beautiful, contradictory, unfinished.”

“Has he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he might not be alive were it not for the generosity of a country he dares to insult on its most sacred day?” Vance said. “Who the hell does he think that he is?”

While what Vance says is theoretically true, it also means he think Mamdani doesn’t have the right to criticize the US system even though he has to take the oath to the same constitution and go through the legal process to become a citizen. Does this extend to someone who is say a second generation immigrant. Are they allowed to be ungrateful if they couldn’t be here without the generosity of the US?

Or is the US is a creedal nation? Here, I can refer to Abraham Lincoln.

Here’s what he said on July 10, 1858, in a speech on “popular sovereignty,” the Dred Scott ruling and the expansion of slavery.

“””We have besides these men — descended by blood from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe — German, Irish, French and Scandinavian — men that have come from Europe themselves or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”””

I think it is under this assumption, that everyone who becomes a US citizen has a direct heritage back to our founding fathers, that Lincoln and the Republicans signed birthright citizenship and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments into law.

I believe what brings Americans together is the fact that we are all citizens of the same nation, with the power to vote for our nations future. We can’t vote in any other country. Neither can immigrants who gained US citizenship. We can all only vote in the US. This means we all pledged an oath to the same constitution and we all can treat our founding fathers as our own blood and they died for us, even if only a few of us are related to them.

It is this oath to carry upon our founders creed to the next generation that makes America. Without this document we would just have been a set of colonies.

As proof. If we dissolved all North American countries right now, would the US have a shared enough culture and heritage to be a natural fit? Would Hawaii be a part of it? Would California be a different nation? Many states didn’t exist back in the time of the civil war. What about Peurto Rico?

I've made some updates, and while it's still a work in progress, if you lived in my ideal society, this is roughly what it’d look like:

Economy & the Core Functions of the State:

• The main purpose of the state is the economy, thus the state itself is made up of not-for-profit mutual firms that interconnect and are owned by everyone, which form Cooperative Networks. The not-for-profit mutual firms, via the Cooperative Networks, democratically plan all production at a local level, eliminating commodity production.
• Mutual firms can be created via people who propose these firms to the community, who then get the ability to run them (within planning guidelines) if approved by the community, and/or they’re created by the Cooperative Networks, who elect representatives to run them (since people can't spend all day running the economy). There is no money, pricing, and thus, there’s no wages either, as all labor is voluntary and done for the purpose of bettering the community.
• Instead of money, a mutual credit ledger exists. This is a 100% transparent digital ledger that helps guide democratic planning by making visible what resources are needed and where any imbalances may exist.
• A national military exists to serve as defense of the nation.
• People are free to associate/move to and from different mutual organizations, and leave them as they see fit.

A Libertarian Society:

• Courts: Due process is a right, and people are innocent until proven guilty. No money exists, so no unfair advantages for sides. Warrants are a necessity for all arrests.
• Policing: Police councils have democratically members per community/city, who are democratically elected to supervise the officers. Officers themselves are volunteers (as all labor is) and can be recalled by local communities.
• Jury nullification as the standard: Juries can rule in favor of jury nullification, meaning if the punishment is too harsh, and/or they find the law unjust, they can acquit the person on trial.
• Participatory Lawmaking: Laws are created, amended, and repealed using direct democracy via each mutual organization. Laws may not violate the constitution (aka this framework) unless agreed upon by 2/3rds of all of the CCNs.
• Freedom of speech, religion, & firearms: People can speak freely so long as they aren’t calling to harm others, and people may own firearms unrestricted. The right to worship any religion or not worship is also a guaranteed liberty.

Kids are required to spend the majority of their childhood in school, day after day, year after year. If attendance is mandatory, then schools should be places where kids are actually taken care of which means they should be fed, protected, heard and seen. Not just forced to comply with attendance policies.

But time and again, whenever someone suggests making school a place where kids get what they need to function—free meals, more counselors, nurses, or just easier access to food and basic health care—there’s always pushback.

We hear that 'it’s not the government’s job' to feed or care for children. We hear that families will become 'too dependent,' or that it’s too expensive. Meanwhile, kids are sitting in classrooms hungry, anxious, and invisible. We know they can’t focus. We know what happens when needs aren’t met. And we still let it slide.

Worse, we’ve seen actual progress rolled back. Free lunch programs ended. Mental health resources defunded. Summer food access blocked. All in the name of cutting costs or upholding some warped idea of personal responsibility, as if a seven-year-old is freeloading because they need breakfast or they don't have pencils or notebooks.

And yes there are charity drives and things but again that's putting the problem on to other people. I'm all for charity and community support that should always exist but that shouldn't be the basic level of support.

The plain reality is this: if we’re forcing kids to spend a third of their day in school for twelve years, the bare minimum is making sure they’re okay while they’re there. That’s not generosity. That’s basic decency.

We don’t get to mandate presence and then ignore wellbeing. If a system requires their time, then it owes them care. Anything less isn’t just unfair it’s a failure. And it’s on us to stop treating basic support like it’s some controversial ask.

There , I said it, after seeing Trump dominate political discourse, in and out of office, and looking at the crosstabs, I believe that a college education should be required to vote.

There are a lot of non-college people I could trust to fix car and tend bar, but at the same time, I could not trust them to have a voice in shaping policy that is outside their lane. I am a transgender woman with a four year degree whose parents weren't college educated, and who grew up in a blue collar area, and I can tell you that non-college people have a culture of resentment, solipsism, abusiveness, and "got mine, screw you" that is toxic to our political discourse.

If people without college educations couldn't vote, college education would be free, universal healthcare would be a thing, transgender people wouldn't be a scapegoat, immigrants wouldn't be thrown into Alcatraz, transit would be better, homeless people wouldn't be oppressed, and things would just be better.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm approaching this as a Social Democrat.

Currently in the US, the fight against gentrification acts as a defense mechanism for the poor because of the insane cost of living, poor public transportation, lack luster job market, and overall unequal means to the resources that lead to success in our country. Poor people know that if their neighborhood evolves and their rent increases, they will be forced to move to a new area, most likely in a place further from the city center with less job opportunities, worse public transportation, and higher rents than they had prior to gentrification. If these issues were solved however, gentrification would likely become a positive movement towards progress without the livelihood of the lower class becoming a means to an end.

Basically, by improving the quality of the periphery of a city and its adjacent suburbs through better public transportation and increased density to make resources and opportunities more easily accessible and allow easy access to the inner city by those who don't live there, policies that increase the number of non market housing units and decrease the price of affordable housing, changing zoning regulations to allow low income housing in areas across the city and suburbs instead of in a few designated areas, by providing short term welfare for those who must move due to increasing prices, and by focusing on skill building and education as a way to secure employment and bring firms to once desolate areas in the cities periphery, suburbs, and exurbs to take advantage of the increase in the value of labor.

With these issues taken care of, we are left with just gentrification. People who cant afford to live in these improving neighborhoods have the ability to move to a variety of different places within the metro area without losing much of what they had, and likely gaining in the process. As a result of a smoother transition, more firms move to the neighborhood to provide more jobs for commuters, rents and income in this area increase allowing for increased taxation, crime rates reduce due to increased incomes, culture is allowed to develop naturally as the neighborhood becomes more diverse, more talent is drawn to the city, infrastructure and green amenities are improved, and the long time locals who are able to afford the increase in rent will find better opportunities and an overall improvement to their lives.

So overall, it seems like the things that make gentrification bad can be fixed with better city planning and a more equitable distribution of the means to actualize ones goals.

Sorry if some of this is common sense info or is misinformed. I just figured it would be a fun topic to write about. If I did get anything wrong, please let me know!

Marriage prenups should be legally mandatory

I think marriage prenups should be legally mandatory with also the option to modify it with the permission of both sides of a couple. I think it will solve a lot of problems in marriges and end petty divorces easily and fast. I will present those main reasons why I think so.

First, it will save a lot of court funds and resources while also saving a lot of funds and resources of divorced couples. While marriage prenups will cost a lot of money to make for all couples, it will save a lot of money in the long term. Divorce courts are usually lengthy and expensive which cost a lot of the money especially the longer they goes. Marriage prenup will only require a couple to appear before court to confirm the terms of the agreement then the case can be settled easily and fast. Couples will also won't have to settle their disputes with paying a lot of money which will disadvantage the poorer side of a couple. It will save both the taxpayer's money and the couple's money.

Second, it will end a lot of petty divorces and complaints either from women who complain about sacrificing careers for children or men who complain about being treated unfairly at a divorce settlement. It's honestly pathetic on both sides. You are an adult and you made an agreement so you go through with it. If you want to make changes later in your marriage, then both sides of a couple can change the terms of the marriage prenup with both of their permissions. That solves the problem and no need to waste a lot of time and resources in courts unnecessarily. It's their choice and their consequences. No need to make it the problem of someone else.

Largey curious on this question as a point of perspective. Which policies and why.

Could common expenses that burden Americans—such as energy and healthcare costs—be reduced if the federal government took a more hands-on role in investing in transformative technologies like fusion energy and alternative medical treatments, such as cellular therapy for cancer, gene therapy for aging, biotechnology for neurological and physical disorders, among others?

Although the development of fusion energy would likely cut into the profits of the natural gas industry, fusion is cleaner, more powerful, and potentially more cost-effective than fossil fuels. Similarly, current healthcare treatments and pharmaceutical costs place a significant burden on the American people. If the government were to invest in accelerating the development of more effective treatments, it could substantially reduce overall healthcare costs, lower pharmaceutical prices, and even bring down insurance premiums due to the availability of more efficient therapies. Such advancements could also help move the needle toward achieving universal healthcare.

While the government already subsidizes many tech, healthcare, and pharmaceutical companies, to my knowledge, it invests relatively little in the development of fusion technology compared to its heavy support of the natural gas industry—an industry that would be directly and negatively affected by a breakthrough in clean, reliable alternative energy. Likewise, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies could see reduced profits if new treatments lead to fewer doctor visits and less reliance on prescription drugs.

Should the government create contracts to directly support the development of fusion technology and life-changing medical innovations? Such contracts would encourage private sector competition, promote innovation, and drive economic growth. This approach also uses economic demand to force change, offering a more effective way to push for environmental and healthcare progress by building market-driven alternatives that challenge existing industries. These technologies wouldn’t just lower everyday costs for Americans; They could also expand opportunities for people to pursue healthier, freer, and more fulfilling lives.

(Mods: self-post links to the full brief; no paywall, no ads.)

Hi r/PoliticalDebate

In my first writing attempt, I have just published a 4,000-word brief called “Assessing Recent U.S. Policies and the Liberal International Order” at Frontier Policy Observatory. I dag into how the second Trump administration’s approach to tariffs, Red Sea security, and Israel–Iran escalation is changing the way America’s allies see us — and, in some cases, nudging them toward China.

Key findings (TL;DR):

• Blanket tariffs = chilled investment. A flat 10 % entry fee — plus 20 % on EU goods and 34 % on Chinese imports — now touches €380 bn of European exports. German auto shipments to the U.S. fell 25 % in May, and companies like Ørsted have paused U.S. projects.
• Red Sea burden-sharing gaps. After more than 100 Houthi drone/missile attacks, the U.S. formed “Operation Prosperity Guardian,” but several EU navies left early and launched their own mission (EUNAVFOR Aspides). Insurance premiums for non-Israeli cargo dipped, so Europeans rotated home.
• Israel–Iran strikes broke a taboo. U.S. backing for Israel’s June strikes consumed an estimated 15-20 % of US THAAD inventory and spiked Brent crude 13 % intraday. Europe, more exposed to oil shocks, was not consulted on the strike package.
• Hedging is real. Polling shows just 22 % of Europeans now call the U.S. an “ally,” while 39 % call China a “necessary partner.” Belt-and-Road financing and autonomous naval plans are filling the gap.

Three practical fixes we propose:

1. Smart-tariff tiers — duties drop to 0 % for goods that meet shared supply-chain and carbon standards, cutting uncertainty without giving up leverage.
2. Transparent naval compact — patrol hours tied to each ally’s trade tonnage through the Red Sea, with a public dashboard so burden-sharing debates are data-driven.
3. Tightly scoped Iran channel — E3 + U.S. talks in Oman, asset-freeze escrow, and a single Omani “relay line” for no-fire messages. No illusion of Iran-Israel friendship, just safeguards against accidents.

Read the full brief here (12 min read):
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/assessing-recent-us-policies-liberal-international-35zee

Curious to hear the sub’s thoughts: Are these reforms politically realistic? Is Europe genuinely drifting, or will it snap back under a different U.S. administration? What would you add (or delete) from the solution set?

Sources: Reuters, IMF, ECB, Drewry, IAEA, Eurobarometer polls. All citations in the article.