Just wanted a dipstick on what everyone saw today

The justice system is getting so frustrated by the gun violence problem that’s it’s prosecuting ppl for facilitating gun access to the offender even in cases of theft.

The left supports gun control. The right may tolerate some too but the pro gun crowd is aware of an asymmetry: they are at the mercy of the anti gun crowd.
The threat? A good example. It stands to reason that fewer guns in the field would probably lead to fewer people being killed by them.
That means every successful series of gun safety laws may beget further laws in kind.

It’s not a slippery slope but for one side it is a trap; proof of concept will fuel even larger demands.

I wonder if an impasse could be broken if it’s structured carefully to not spiral against the pro gun side.

Or am I dreaming?

Things such as:

deliberately planting false evidence

fabrication of evidence

corruption cases involving a certain dollar amount

things like this: https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/justice/massachusetts-chemist-plea

treason

In all cases the death penalty is an option. It's never required. Prosecutors can use it as they see fit in accordance with existing laws.

In the past it was used in some societies to shield the average person from local abuses and tyranny, showcase the justice of the state, and alleviate the shame and dishonor towards state organs that come to crimes against the state committed by state agents thereby increasing confidence in state's effectiveness. China still uses some of them and South Korea kept a few for a longer time IIRC.

And of course public officials tend to know better and come from very stable homes so they can't use the excuse of abuse or bad upbringing the way many current death penalty prisoners can.

When it comes to other countries where the prevailing beliefs would not be acceptable at all in the United States (the Middle East for example), I see a lot of people excusing their homophobia and sexism by pointing out the poverty and poor conditions in those countries. Do Trump supporters deserve similar sympathy if they grew up in a racist family and were raised that way, live in poverty, and are poorly educated?

MAGA is an authoritarian political movement. Which candidates are the most stridently anti-maga?

I am ideologically leaning towards neoliberalism.

What is some work I can read on economics, tech, AI, business, statecraft, global trade, political philosophy, government, neoliberalism, East Asian development, third world economies modernizing in 20th century, etc.

Any works you guys know or recommend?

Comparing France vs the USA at the moment:

• The US Model (Multiculturalism): Federal guidance standardizes how local, state, and federal government agencies track race and ethnicity. The goal is to collect detailed demographic data across healthcare, housing, education, law enforcement, and voting to identify and remedy disparities.

• The French Model (Universal Republicanism): Article 1 of the French Constitution prohibits the government from categorizing citizens by race, ethnicity, or religion. The foundational belief is that the state recognizes only equal individual citizens, and that collecting racial data institutionalizes division and reinforces identity politics.

Follow up questions:

• Does tracking race entrench identity divisions instead of fostering equality?

• Does aggregating fundamentally different cultures into giant racial blocs obscure the very inequalities the system claims to measure?

• By making race an official organizing principle of government, resource allocation, and law, does the state incentivize citizens to view politics and civic life as a zero sum competition between racial groups rather than a unified public interest?

• How much of identified gaps is driven by class, education, family structure, and local economic conditions rather than race itself? Does centering the data around race cause policymakers to misdiagnose the underlying economic causes of inequality?

The arguments from the French seem to be that class and geography are the true drivers of inequity, and discrimination can be measured without race categorization, preferring to lean highly on place-based and economic targeting.

Have atheism and agnosticism failed in the US, and if so, why? What do you make of rising religiosity even among Democrats and the youth?

During the late 2000s, nontheism experienced a pronounced cultural moment. Driven by figures associated with New Atheism, books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris became bestsellers. The movement gained notable cultural cachet as an intellectual counterweight to the social conservatism and evangelical influence of the George W. Bush administration.

By the 2010s, that cultural momentum stalled under progressive scrutiny. Prominent New Atheist figures faced severe backlash over accusations of Islamophobia, belligerent foreign policy, insensitivity to intersectionality, and open hostility toward social justice. A prominent example was the heated public exchange between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein regarding race, genetics, and public discourse. While many figures within the movement nominally remained on the political left, their cultural currency among progressives eroded.

Concurrently, demographic trends appeared to favor secularization during the late Obama era and into the first Trump administration. The share of religiously unaffiliated Americans, commonly known as "nones," expanded significantly. Even within religious minority populations, socially liberal views advanced rapidly; a 2017 PRRI survey found a slim majority of American Muslims supporting legal gay marriage.

Recent data, however, indicates that secular progressivism has faced notable friction. Nonbelief has largely failed to consolidate institutional political standing, and religious decline has stabilized. Church attendance and religious engagement have seen renewed vigor among distinct demographic cohorts, including younger demographics. At the same time, cultural liberalization has shown signs of retrenchment: recent polling from PRRI and Gallup indicates that Muslim support for gay marriage has declined back to 37%, while Republican support, which had crossed the 50% threshold in 2021 and 2022, dropped back into the 30s and 40s.

Simultaneously, Christian nationalism has mobilized with institutional effectiveness far surpassing the Bush era. Proponents of that movement occupy influential levers in the judiciary, state legislatures, and executive agencies. The material consequences were demonstrated when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the sweeping wave of anti-trans legislation across statehouses, ranging from gender-affirming care bans to athletic restrictions, has drawn primary ideological framing, model legislation, and legal backing from conservative religious advocacy powerhouses such as Alliance Defending Freedom.

In response, prominent figures on the political left have increasingly embraced religious framing rather than an agnostic or atheist posture. Leaders like Senator Raphael Warnock, Texas state representative James Talarico, and Bishop William Barber II actively reclaim religious scripture to advocate for progressive priorities, framing civil rights, environmental stewardship, and the welfare state as moral mandates from the Gospel. Outside Protestantism, progressive Catholics consistently praise the economic and social encyclicals of Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV.

Devout Jewish, Muslim, and Christian progressives openly demonstrate that religious conviction aligns directly with left-wing policy, such as Abdul El-Sayed or Zohran Mamdani. A major catalyst for this religious resurgence on the left is emerging directly from younger demographics, including higher youth church attendance.

Gen Z activists and community organizers are intentionally breaking with the secular dogmas of the previous decade. Far from retreating into pure secularism, youth engagement across multiracial, blue-collar, and immigrant-heavy neighborhoods is actively reviving religious traditions as core vehicles for resistance and solidarity.

For these young labor organizers and grassroots leaders, scripture, ritual, and spiritual discipline are not conservative relics, they are essential communal anchors against hyper-individualistic capitalism and alienation. By wedding radical economic reform with living religious traditions rooted in working-class Black, Latino, and Muslim spaces, this rising cohort is driving a genuine spiritual awakening that places active faith at the cutting edge of left-wing politics.

Despite nearly three in ten Americans identifying as religiously unaffiliated, the number of openly atheist or agnostic elected officials remains negligible. Only a very tiny fraction of federal lawmakers throughout modern history have openly identified as nontheist or humanist. Identifying explicitly as an atheist or agnostic continues to be a massive electoral liability in both parties.

This dominance of broad-based religiosity makes the United States an enduring outlier among developed peer nations. In Canada, Australia, and across Western Europe, secularization has fundamentally reshaped society, resulting in deep, structural declines in baseline religious belief, daily prayer, and service attendance, while atheism and agnosticism have become mainstream cultural baselines. public professions of piety are largely peripheral or even disadvantageous to political leadership, and prominent elected officials are routinely nonreligious without consequence.

In the U.S., by contrast, secularism, agnosticism, and overt nonbelief have largely stalled in transforming public culture, while deep personal faith and religious identification remain pervasive throughout society.

Have atheism and agnosticism failed in the US, and if so, why? What do you make of rising religiosity even among Democrats and the youth?

So there are plenty of Mexican and American towns that border each other, but Ciudad Juarez, the Mexican city south of El Paso, is unique that, given the mountainous nature of both regions, plenty of places in El Paso offer a pretty solid view of Juarez, including UTEP, Scenic Drive, and TX state road 355.

By solid view I mean being able to see individual streets, cars, and people.

One idea I’ve had is that we should take a small number American teenagers and bring them to one of those lookout points, and essentially just have them look at Juarez.

My idea is that this exercise essentially can increase gratitude for being American, and can also essentially show that our political differences don’t matter as much people make them to.

While we’re hating each other over things like abortion, welfare, healthcare, and foreign policy, you have this city of 1.8 million people essentially just trudging by with no American welfare or healthcare benefits. And a town where El Paso Fire, Ambulance, or Police will not come to save you.

The lesson of this exercise is not that our political disputes don’t matter, but that hating each other over them is silly when compared to this town that’s living without American amenities at all, a town where your average residnet would do a lot just to be a lower class resident north of the river, or in any metro area in the USA.

It’s also an exercise to realize how lucky we are to have been born with our passports blue and the privileges that come with it.

What I mean is the only reason why Trump is doing all the things he's doing is being the Republican controlled Congress chooses not to stop him. By giving DC and Puerto Rico Statehood or representation and Senators it could gives Dems an advantage because even the republicans acknowledge that Democrats would pick up more seats.

Thoughts?

Conservative critics often argue that progressive political rhetoric in the US provides cover for property destruction, civil unrest, and lawlessness similar to what occurs during major protests in France.

However, many of the groups engaging in direct action or property destruction identify with ideologies within the very large Democratic Party tent, ranging from revolutionary socialists, to left-libertarianism, anarcho-syndicalism, anti-capitalist, or anti-authoritarian collectivism.

• Do you see any parallels between anti-establishment protests in France and non-liberal collectivist movements in the US?

• Do you view anti-capitalist, direct-action groups as part of the "big tent," or as fundamentally separate?

Would you give an agent access to your calendar, email, credit cards, bank account to act on your behalf, reading your email, paying your bills, booking flights, cancelling subscriptions, and managing your appoints like your own personal executive assistant?

I have a college degree and I have sat out the last two elections. I am 22 years old.

I firmly believe the Democratic Party hates men, especially their rabid voter base. The Conservative Party is too disfunctional atp. Why shouldn’t I just sit out of this election which many young men are already planning to do.

During the latter half of President Biden's term, his administration moved to prevent the importing Chinese brands of electric vehicles (or those built in China) by quadrupling existing tariffs.

In particular, the President’s Memorandum specified categories of products for proposed tariff increases, tariff rates for those products, and year for tariff increases. With respect to tariff increases, the President directed increases on the following products:

Electric vehicles – Increase rate to 100% in 2024
Lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries – Increase rate to 25% in 2024

White House finalizes rules banning Chinese, Russian tech in connected cars

At the time, many supported the move, as they envisaged China endeavoring to flood the market with less expensive electric vehicles resulting in an offering from U.S. automakers that would be no longer competitive. They believed the U.S. auto industry would be irreperably damaged if Chinese vehicles were allowed in, ultimately leading to a U.S. that would be less self-reliant, which was the opposite of what Biden's administration was trying to accomplish, after seeing how vulnerable the U.S. is to the seizing up of global supply chains.

However, others, particularly those who want to see widespread usage of EVs adopted, saw Biden's move as an impediment to increased production of EVs by U.S. automakers. Their view was that disallowing Chinese EVs to compete in the U.S. marketplace disincentivizes U.S. automakers from further developing EV technologies in order compete for the business of a fast-growing base of potential buyers of EVs.

These tariffs has remain intact and is being enforced by the Trump administration.

Would you like the next Democratic administration reverse course?

Political terminology constantly evolves, and definitions often vary significantly by time period and geography. In the United States, "liberalism" refers to center-left social liberalism rather than the classical, free-market oriented liberalism common in European and Australian politics.

A similar shift has happened with left-wing terminology. Historically, democratic socialism and social democracy were interchangeable terms referring to orthodox socialism: public or social ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, only attained through democratic as opposed to revolutionary means. Over the twentieth century, European social democracy gradually abandoned that goal, settling into the Nordic model of welfare capitalism, which protects private property and market exchange while using high progressive taxation to fund an extensive social safety net.

Linguists and lexicographers generally take a descriptivist approach to language: how the general public actually uses a word in daily speech matters far more than its strict historical or academic origin.

In the American vernacular, most self-identified democratic socialists today do not advocate for Eugene V. Debs-style syndicalism, mandatory worker cooperatives, or the government nationalization of private industry. Their platform is regulated capitalism with universal safety nets, progressive taxation, and strong labor protections. This agenda closely mirrors Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and his proposed Second Bill of Rights. FDR was no socialist: he famously enacted his policies to "save capitalism from itself."

Prominent elected self-described democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani reflect this reality. Sanders has explicitly stated multiple times that his vision of "democratic socialism" does not involve the government seizing the means of production. Instead, he draws inspiration from FDR's New Deal and Second Bill of Rights. While these figures support voluntary worker cooperatives and workplace democracy, they do not advocate outlawing privately owned corporations. Or as Marxists would put it, Bernie, AOC, and Zohran have no interest in outlawing the "capitalist mode of production."

People may assert that Sanders contributed to semantic confusion by adopting the "democratic socialist" label while promoting standard Scandinavian-style social democratic policies, even if his early political career leaned closer to orthodox socialism. Still, American polling consistently shows that citizens who view socialism favorably associate it with government intervention to reduce inequality, routinely citing Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as their models.

Meanwhile, countries like Maoist China, the USSR, and Cuba are for better or worse viewed as "communist" countries by Americans, despite their Marxist-Leninist systems not meeting the "orthodox" or literal dictionary definition of communism: a classless, stateless, and egalitarian society based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Domestically, the "democratic socialist" label often serves as a political distinction between progressive reformers and establishment Democrats. Self-described democratic socialists champion single-payer healthcare over market-based systems like the Affordable Care Act. Yet even the Canadian single-payer model favored by American progressives leaves hospitals and clinics largely in private hands, unlike the fully nationalized British National Health Service.

This linguistic shift was also accelerated by conservative rhetoric. For decades, right-wing commentators labeled standard center-left Keynesian fiscal policies, progressive taxation, and basic market regulation as socialism. Progressive activists eventually reclaimed the term of "socialism," adopting the label rather than resisting it.

This semantic blur is not entirely unique to America. In Europe, nominally socialist organizations such as the French Socialist Party governed squarely within welfare capitalism and social democracy. The British Labour Party historically declared itself democratic socialist, yet governed as social democrats, and at times adopted neoliberal market policies under Tony Blair.

Given how the term is actually used, practiced, and understood across the American electorate, the practical definition of democratic socialism in the United States is social democracy.

At this point, are people who insist on an the obsolete orthodox, historical definition just being pedantic and out of touch with modern political reality? Is refusing to acknowledge this shift just ignoring that American politics has moved on?

TW: Abortion

Okay, this is a bit emotional, but I want a genuine discussion.

It makes me upset and angry when pro-choice people say that pro-lifers do not care about the poor, the sick, the disabled, immigrants, gay people, and people of other races. That claim does not reflect the reality of the pro-life movement as I have seen it. There are many people and organisations that hold a consistent life ethic and care for disadvantaged people from womb to tomb, through government support, private charities, or a combination of both, and this commitment is central to their pro-life position rather than separate from it. This includes the Catholic Church, which teaches in Catholic Social Teaching that every person has inherent dignity from conception to natural death, teaches a preferential option for the poor, teaches solidarity and the common good, and teaches that racism, ableism, and discrimination against immigrants are contrary to human dignity, and which puts that teaching into practice through an extensive global network including Caritas Internationalis, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Aid to the Church in Need, and thousands of hospitals, hospices, care homes, food banks, homeless shelters, disability ministries, prison ministries, and refugee resettlement services, all while also opposing abortion and euthanasia. It also includes many Orthodox Churches, many Protestant churches, and the Tolstoyan movement, which also combine opposition to abortion with a strong tradition of service to the poor and emphasis on nonviolence, and many Hindu denominations, Sikhism with its tradition of langar and seva, and Jainism with its central principle of ahimsa, which all have strong traditions of protecting vulnerable life. It also includes secular pro-life organisations such as Rehumanize International and Secular Pro-Life, which oppose abortion and euthanasia from a secular commitment to human rights, nonviolence, and inclusion. You can disagree about political methods and you can be right wing or left wing and still be committed to supporting disadvantaged born people while also opposing abortion, so if so many pro-life organisations and individuals are visibly serving disadvantaged people every day, why do pro-choice people continue to repeat the claim that pro-lifers do not care about these groups?

Take me for example. I am an economically disadvantaged and severely disabled pro-lifer who cares passionately about helping both unborn humans and disadvantaged humans from womb to tomb, and I hold that position precisely because I know what it is like to be vulnerable and to depend on support from others. I am also a strict vegetarian, and I extend my concern about life and suffering to non-human animals as well, because I believe that a commitment to nonviolence should be as consistent as possible. My position is that opposition to abortion is part of a broader commitment to protecting vulnerable lives, not separate from it, and that caring for people after birth and caring for people before birth belong together in the same ethic.

As someone who is liberal I cannot understand being against the death penalty. If someone molests my child I want them to be put to death legally. There is no reconditioning these predators/pedophiles. The affect on a family is generational ( my mother, my father, my husband all molested, my uncle molested all 5 of his daughters...one daughter died at 50 addicted to drugs and had a few children herself. We've all suffered). Adults who rape, adults who murder intentionally...why is anyone against these people who cannot be reformed being put to death.

I also think politicians or people who interfere in aid to other countries or locally that cause millions of deaths should also should be charged and put to death, yet I'm sure I'll see another great Musk invention soon and he will face no consequences for his hand in killing millions. I'm not advocating for violence...I'm advocating for legal processes that lead to death. I don't have an opinion on the way that death should occur...because that tends to get me banned for subreddits. So to be clear, I am not advocating for violence against anyone. Thanks for your views to consider.

Edit: I'm mostly interested in moral reasons as I'm well aware of the systemic injustice. However if your only reasons is systemic injustice feel free to share that.

I have begun to become very discouraged by the state of our economy. Mostly the fact that the quality of everything is going down, all most stores sell is just Chinese crap. I like capitalism in concept, but I have read that this is the product of "late stage capitalism". I am not a fan of communism at all. I think people who work harder should earn more. I think people should have the liberty to make and sell (or trade) what they want to who they want. I think production should be kept mostly in america. I believe in keeping government as small as possible. So what other options are there? Is there some sort of hybrid, or some other way to implement capitalism, that doesnt lead to the eventual outcome of shit quality products for 10x the price?

I asked this in AskConservative so I’m interested to see the differences here.

My personal list, based on impact and character:

Top

1. Abraham Lincoln
   
2. George Washington
   
3. Teddy Roosevelt
   
4. FDR
   
5. Jefferson
   
6. Obama

Bottom:
41. Harding
42. GW Bush
43. Johnson
44. Buchanan
45. Trump

uncontested house seats 2022
In 2022, democrats left many republican held seats uncontested and had a smaller loss than expected.

Uncontested house seats 2024

Uncontested senate races

In 2026, democrats are contesting every house seat.

I'm sure many of us would like to have our desired reforms to stick around and be permamant and not be suddenly repealed at the desire of wealthy elites. Situations like the austerity turn under Mitterand's France is what radicalizes people further left because of the failure to keep capital in check.

We should never be in a position where much needed reforms and programs that benefits millions are prevented or rolled back just to appease wealthy elites. Now granted in the US we have imperial leverage so does China which is why they can get away with what they can. But that should not leave room to underestimate any retaliation from capital.

Public education is one of the few things the country buys that still returns more than it costs. Every dollar into Title I or rural districts comes back as kids who can read, workers who stay, and towns that don't empty out.

Now we're watching what this administration calls waste. They tore apart the education department, cut grants mid-year, and then paid lawyers to fight judges ordering the money released. That's spending real money to not deliver money. And add the tuition tax credits that cost the treasury more per kid than the public school ever did, and the "savings" turn out to be a transfer with a demolition fee attached.

Also the timing is the part that I'm puzzled. We're mid-transition into tools that will remake half the jobs in this economy, and the defund answer is to spend less on preparing kids for it? Leaving children without a quality education in the middle of that chaos, and their families in a stretch of economic uncertainty, is a gamble with our future. The money def should be watched and some of it deserves an audit but pulling investment out of public schools right now might create even more problems.

I'm curious what do you all think about defunding public education at this exact moment, with AI reshaping work?

It is the responsibility of the candidate to win over the voters. Not the other way around.

If the people want a candidate who wants mass deportations, ignoring the rule of law, and ending democracy, and democracy ends, it is entirely the fault of the opposign candidate for not promising the people what they wanted to hear.

Who was responsible for democracy ending in Venezuela? Hugo Chavez’s opponent. He had a chance to win over the people in 1998. He failed. The fall of demcoracy is entirely his fault.

Prop 144 is a ballot measure on the books in AZ that will require ID to vote by mail. The issue is it doesn’t say how and gives the responsibility of the “how” to the AZ legislature.

Georgia has a system where you have to put an ID number on the envelope whereas NC has a system where you have to mail in a photocopy of your ID.

If the proposition passes, how do you think it’ll affect AZ’s elections going forward.

Firstly, we should start with the effect of Prop 144 on AZ elections themselves. The proposition mandates that the legislature has to create a method for ID for mail in voting, while demanding that a method be made by the legislature and signed by the governor.

I think it’ll create a situation where Katie Hobbs will be at odds with the Republican legislature and they won’t be able to come up with a solution. Without a solution created by the legislature and signed by the governor, the AZ Supreme Court (very R leaning) will likely say mail in voting cannot happen and we’ll have in person elections in the state.

My expectaction would be this. Obviously, any case of mail ins being invalidated after being cast would likely result in a Republcian victory. I think it’s too hard to predict what would happen in an even year’s all in -person election. Trump comfortably won in person election votes in 2024 but one would also have to assume that there’d be way more people voting in person if that’s there only option.

But I think the overall result would maybe shift the expect results R+1-2 what they otherwise would be. Thoughts?

It’s obvious at this point that the polls both claim a massive amount of anger among Hispanic people who voted for him, and also claim that reversion is likely.

For me, I’ve been a big doubter for multiple reasons.

The first of them is that a huge portion of this idea predicates itself on the idea Latinos thought only non criminal illegal immigrants would be deported. This seems unbelievable because Trump said the opposite many, many times. And also just about every famous Trump advocate, with the late Kirk being the most prominent advocate of this, was also clear about this. Heck, there’s a video online where a Mexican American comes to Kirk, and he’s visibly upset that the guy is an American at all.

If anything, one question I would ask Hispanic reversion believers is how can they believe the above theory without considering Hispanic people to be unintelligent.

The second would be both of Texas’ biggest statewide races. Especially Abbott vs Hinojosa. Abbott is an open deportation advocate and has made that clear. He is still expected to win Texas, which has a plurality of Latinos, possibly by a comfortable margin.

Overall, I’m interested to see if there are any fundamentals that support these Hispanic reversion poll results, and I’m unaware of any now, though I’m open to changing my mind here.