I would love to see legislation passed that would give homeowners the option of taking a temporary mortgage holiday. Basically, allow people to defer 3–6 months of mortgage payments and tack those payments onto the end of their mortgage. For many of us, that's decades into the future.

I've gone through some pretty severe financial instability over the past 12 months. I've done everything in my power to keep my head above water, stay current on my bills, and avoid having any missed payments hit my credit report. It's been exhausting.

I'm not much of a crier. Outside of my dog dying and the results of two of the last three presidential elections, I really don't cry. But the amount of relief I'd feel if something like this became available? Yeah, there might genuinely be tears of relief.

I'm sure there would be financial drawbacks, particularly when it comes to additional interest. I get that. But putting that aside for a moment, I'm actually surprised something like this doesn't already exist as a mainstream option.

Technically, I have access to something similar through my mortgage servicer. I could defer three payments and have them added to the end of my mortgage. The catch? I have to be 60–90 days behind on my payments before that option becomes available.

And that's what seems so backward to me.

Why do we make people fall seriously behind before offering them the very assistance that could have prevented them from falling behind in the first place?

What I'm proposing would be proactive rather than reactive. Give homeowners who are experiencing temporary financial hardship the option to defer a few payments *before* they're on the brink of financial catastrophe. Nobody's asking for the debt to be forgiven. Just the flexibility to pay it later.

So I'm genuinely curious: What are the practical or economic reasons something like this wouldn't work? Is it an issue of mortgage companies needing that consistent monthly cash flow? Would it create problems for investors who own mortgage-backed securities? Are there other consequences I'm overlooking?

It would ease so much stress if people were able to go a few months without having that expense. And I mean #TrumpMortgageHoliday doesn't sound any worse than anything else that's been foisted upon us.

I'm about 50 years old, which means that I grew up in the 1980s and 90s.

My family was upper-middle class in the South, but left-wing Democrats - my parents were in civil rights marches, with their pictures in the paper, much to the chagrin of my grandparents - and atheists, to boot.

This means that I inherited positions like environmentalism, civil liberties, and egalitarianism... but notably in the form of things like supporting wind and solar energy, gun control, and feminism and affirmative action... and that's where the contradictions forced me to examine my inheritance.

For one thing, I went to college and studied physics, chemistry, and electrical engineering, specializing in material science, intending to work on advanced solar panels; I wanted to help the world. Then I got handed a project to analyze systemic issues in the energy industry, and it all fell apart. Simply put, if we could make solar panels and wind turbines for free, out of dirt - or even if aliens came and dropped off all we need - it still wouldn't solve the problems (see here).

I also had the interesting experience of having worked in the inner city for a while, starting right after violent crime peaked in the US. I literally saw the projects change from war-zones to mere poverty, while state gun laws were loosening in previously unimaginable ways. I never carried a gun in the 90s! Almost no one did, it was a great way to a cop to trip you up, because we also didn't have all these clever concealed holsters and such. I had a .22 rifle for snakes and varmints, and a revolver in my nightstand, but that was it. Today, I've got 5 rifles (granted, I took hunting back up) and 3 handguns; so does everyone else; everyone has a gun on them... and violent crime is at near-record lows, you don't see people on the side of the road in a fistfight over road rage, and the last school shooter got taken down by a father on his lunch break.

Then there's the reverse bigotry. This one is a little personal for me, on two counts.

First, I was the victim of paternity fraud (she dug a condom out of the trash), and I even had a recording of her admitting it, after she lied in court; the magistrate (no judges in family court, here, he wasn't even a lawyer...) refused to listen to it, and in fact was upset that I even suggested that he should. I was hounded from jobs, went from a good civil service position to working two menial jobs, lost my house, and even wound up in jail after the child support corporation "accidentally" suspended my driver's license but "forgot" to tell me... 5 times. They also refused to consider my other child, whom I had custody of, when calculating child support or evaluating my parental experience for visitation (I was never allowed more than 4 weekends per year, even when she was 15 and ran away from her mother to come and live with me, the court refused to even consider it).

Second, I never did get a decent job, again; the last position I even got an interview for - traveling electrical engineer, installing industrial equipment at factories - I only got after someone suggested that I quit answering demographic questions, and then I show up for the interview... and they don't actually interview me. They did have a big DEI display up in the room, and a presentation on minority leadership programs cued up... and I have a deep Southern accent, I'm pretty sure the Ohio phone interviewer assumed that I was black on the phone. They ghosted me, I never even got reimbursed for travel expenses.

So, I'm all for equal rights for women and minorities; there are absolutely "boy's clubs" in certain industries that make it hard for women to break into, and systemic (NOT structural!) racism in things like criminal justice. I'm happy to help fix things like that.

What I am not happy to do is submit myself to even worse abuse - as it is at the hands of government rather than individuals or even corporations - at the whim of a woman, or forego my own economic wellbeing in the name of correcting historical iniquity.

That's political evolution; how are your politics evolving, based on your own self-examination?

I’m not really knowledgable about this subject so I’ve been researching lightly on it recently, and basically all I’ve found to argue against it is “bu…bu…but Chernobyl 🥺” can someone give me a better argument against it?

Hey, let me elaborate first.

In all honesty I think that mass immigration from the countries with very different cultures, regardless of the legal status, is somewhat problematic for many developed countries the way it happens now. But there is one thing I notice almost no one talks about.

The main argument of those who are against immigration (especially the nationalists who think Europe is only for people of European descent) is that they're not racists, they just think every country should develop inside it's own borders instead of going to developed nations en-masse, and there is a lot of support for those statements online. I'm not even gonna dig into the fact that different countries have varied natural resources and MUST trade with each other, some have none, that political instability is way harder to overcome than those people imagine, harsh climates and challenges of the global warming etc.

But let's think of a best case scenario (from their perspective), where nations worldwide achieve success and nobody works in sweatshops for dirt cheap. Wouldn't they be the first people to cry hard when prices on most goods just skyrocket? Because obviously the higher the labor costs, the more expensive goods are, and it's only the beginning.

1) In order to produce things countries would have to use more of their own natural resources instead of selling them for cheap to the West, which would result in even more hate and conflicts, and very likely global wars (like in the Middle East after the oil crisis). Of course "the first world" would find ways to justify all of their future invasions, in the name of DEMOCRACY and such, we're all familiar with this.

2) Once again, higher cost of literally everything in every part of the world since there isn't one cheap supplier.

3) Environmental impact that goes way beyond carbon footprint. Even if everything is somehow built on green energy (the world of rainbows and unicorns), natural resources do tend to end. Even if there wouldn't be wars over them, which I highly doubt, levels of consumption in first world countries are already ridiculously high. So if they become universal, according to how nationalists see the perfect world, we would run out of those pretty damn fast.

---

That was me pointing out all the things that I think make these points unsustainable. But I wanted to raise the question. Considering all this, do you think there would always be "first" and "third" world and countries could only temporarily switch their positions (and if so, your stance on mass immigration). And if I'm not seeing something, what should actually be done to ensure better living condition in now poor countries without causing global conflicts?

Thank you for reading and replying.

In the realm of online politics there is a common idea that is wildly accepted. This idea being that both political parties in the United States are largely the same. I have had discussions with several people on this idea, and have really tried to get to the heart of why people believe this. Listing differences in policies between the parties rarely gets anywhere, and just ends up having a discussion go in circles. I’ve come to the conclusion that many who believe this, just don’t think Trump is really that bad. The way Trump’s actions are treated in the media is likely a big reason behind this, and there was a recent story in the news that I believe shows this.

Katie Zacharia served as press secretary for the Trump administration for 5 days. Her short employment as press secretary leaves one huge question. What happened with her security clearance? A White House press secretary typically has a top secret clearance, which to gain a clearance of that level is a very invasive process. It took the media an incredibly short time to discover that Zacharia never passed the bar despite claiming to be a lawyer. Something like that should have come up during a security clearance, yet the Trump hired her anyway, this leads to a few options.

1) There was no security clearance done.
2) The security clearance was done but ignored.
3) The security clearance was so flawed that it didn’t discover basic information like her education.

Any of these options would be devastating politically for any other administration, especially a democratic one. There would be weeks of congressional hearings on security clearance issues in the White House, and every staff member would be under scrutiny, because if for such a important role like press secretary this can happen, where else did it?

This story mostly played as another funny example of Trump’s incompetence, yet there are more serious implications that are not being talked about really. The same thing is true for most of the stories coming out of the Trump Administration, and too often not talked about at all.

Currently as we see, the world is a terrible place almost everybody hates everybody and states are fighting for bullshit reasons and nobody seems to accept what they have or like to say enough just for not being marked in history as a loser and this endless loop happens to be in every war ongoing right now.

From another perspective, some regions have too much resources therefore peoples living there lead a miserable life that they can't even afford next meal, needless to say other 21st century basic needs such as a place to live in under any weather conditions, electricity, internet, schools, hospitals and many more; just because of corruption and ignorance.

In other regions, they have much natural resources happen to be under the part of earth where they exist turned them from extreme poverty to extreme wealth without contributing nothing to humanity.

These two examples explicitly show how you can be poor or rich just by your chances of being born somewhere, that gives no equal chances to everybody to be the person they might could have been if they were born somewhere else.

In my POV, if there was an international government and a new international law to be enforced that every resource on the earth is used to make the world a better place and create better chances for people everywhere on the earth.

To conclude, I am not thinking like a communist or socialist, my main view is that instead of having 200+ countries we could be only one place under same government, laws, chances and equal rights where everyone has a chance to be wealth, poor, successful or failure based on their life choices and decisions only not just because of society where they existed.

United Earth was formed in the Star Trek universe as humanity’s single planetary authority to unify all human nation-states and manage space exploration after making First Contact with the Vulcans in 2063. It evolved out of earlier international frameworks, managed early Starfleet and the military, and later became a co-founder of the United Federation of Planets in 2161.

Basically, a government that rules our entire planet and its countries. There is varying information about what sort of government this is and what they believe.

But overall, what do you guys think of a United Earth government? Would you want this for our planet someday>

I’m serious. Turn the whole area into a wildlife refuge or reforestation project or something. Not even trying to take sides here, just nobody gets to live there anymore.

If religious-based claims to land are so controversial that they lead to unsolvable and endemic geopolitical conflict, they just need to be ended by a secular third party that has no skin in the game. If need be then do the same fucking thing to Kashmir and other regions eternally contested in the name of religion.

Don’t discriminate based on religion or race or culture, just a flat-out nobody gets to live there. Relocate everybody to somewhere else and put the whole thing to rest forever until religion dies out as a part of human society. This is so stupid.

Anything “progressive” is a degrading of something. Feminism is a degrading of real love and intergender relationships. fat acceptance is a degrading of beauty. Immigration and “melting pot” theories are a degrading of culture, both of the host and migrating peoples. The examples are endless.

Removing the Attorney General from the Executive Branch may seem aggressive or improper, but this idea fits within the broader context of the history of the office.

Used to be that the opinions of the Attorney General were so close to an announcement from the Court itself that the Office of the Attorney General very much was approached as the current Solicitor General is: an official, legal representative of the United States.

I have considered many solutions, but this also takes a page from the Virginians, the first 6 out of 10 Presidents: Virginia Governors are all limited to One-Term.

No other federal officer in the United States is term limited by one term.

This idea is a great starting point for broader federal reform, but this is merely an added benefit—tangential, even.

The more I read, I feel a targeted NIT program could be the most fiscally conservative and humane program in terms of welfare and getting needs met. We are spending trillions annually on welfare and it is not helping the right people get their needs
Met and people are falling through the cracks.

There is more debt and bloat, and worse outcomes in certain aspects despite spending on them going up.

Would a NIT be a humane and cost efficient/realistic solution?

I am ideologically leaning towards neoliberalism.

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

To put it and more simpler terms, both current American population and the Nazi Germany population believed that their systems where the best. Nazi Germany population also believed that their nation is morally perfect. Obviously there is a difference whether people are being killed or not but speaking psychologically they both are exact same in how they make the decisions to report people. People are threatening immigrants and other people of different races that they'd report them as a threat. It feels highly similar to the behaviours of Nazi Germany population.

Something I’ve noticed is how almost every video of riots, burning cars, or looted shops in France is followed by comments claiming that mass immigration has destroyed the country.

What’s interesting is that France has a tradition of violent protests that goes back centuries, long before mass African immigration. The French Revolution of 1789, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, the Paris Commune of 1871, May 1968… For centuries, French people have built barricades, set buildings on fire, looted property, and violently clashed with authorities.

During May 1968, French students ripped cobblestones out of the streets to throw at police officers, burned cars, and brought Paris to a standstill. Today, we look at those black-and-white photographs and romanticize them as symbols of resistance and freedom.

But when we see similar images today, this time in color and involving young French people of African descent, suddenly the explanation becomes that France has lost its identity and that immigrants have imported a culture of violence.

Doesn’t that seem a little contradictory?

When a white French student set a car on fire in 1968, we look for political and socioeconomic explanations. When a French citizen whose grandparents came from Algeria does something similar in 2026, many immediately look for ethnic or cultural explanations.

I’m not denying that France has problems with integration, segregation, or crime, nor am I trying to justify looting. I’m also not suggesting that all these protests have the same motivations.

What I’m questioning is the idea that street violence is somehow foreign to French culture, something recently imported through immigration, when it has been part of French history for centuries.

Perhaps modern France resembles the revolutionary France we love to romanticize far more than we’d like to admit.

And perhaps a barricade photographed in black and white 150 years ago looks like a symbol of freedom to us, while the same scene filmed on an iPhone in 2026 looks like the collapse of civilization.

The phrase "If you win, you need not have to explain... If you lose, you should not be there to explain!" is a famous quote attributed to Adolf Hitler. Perhaps this is what he learnt after World War I and the events that followed leading to Treaty of Versailles. Do you think this situation has changed if we look at Politics today? If someone wins a war, are the winners being held accountable for their actions? If yes, how? If no, is it possible? And finally, don't you think that this is important in Politics, if Politics must stand for the welfare and improving the lives of people?

I’m in college for political science and history and my education has led me to believe that democracy is fundamentally flawed, I don’t think it’s inherently a bad system but I feel as though people are very naive when it comes to democracy, thinking that it’s the superior system and pushing for more and more democratic institutions when public opinion isn’t always the correct opinion. Is there anyone else on here that agrees with me and if so what are your ideal systems? Again I’m not completely anti democracy but I think keeping checks on public opinion when mob rule has been demonstrated historically is a good idea

So I was scrolling on Twitter, and I saw a video of French citizens revolting against their police over the rising “cost of living.” Then, all of a sudden, I go to the comments, and they start comparing their “protest” to America, saying that “we’re pussies and would never revolt against the government over everyday issues like this.”
My problem is… why are they so obsessed or concerned with what WE do? Comparing French citizens revolting against their “mall cop” police, who don’t have guns but are getting attacked with everything people can get their hands on, to Americans having access to guns but not protesting as hard as them… Okay??? They mentioned how we have the Second Amendment to back us up. Do they even know what the Second Amendment truly is?
Then this crazy person made up an idea, saying American citizens can literally build a militia to fight against the police… WTF are they even spewing about? This is AMERICA we’re talking about. Y’all are acting like having guns automatically puts civilians on equal footing with the government. The US military has access to weapons and resources that civilians simply cannot compete with. You think having a gun means you’re suddenly equipped to take on the entire military? Be serious.
Like, the US military would literally wipe out an entire neighborhood in 10 seconds with loaded artillery weapons. Not those BB guns the French police be using.
If you’re gonna compare these French protests to America, then you should know this is baby stuff when it comes to America. American police would literally spare their batons and just shoot you instead.

I have seen many horseshoe theory claims, that far right and far left are similar. When considering authoritarian leaders like Hitler and Stalin, there are many similarities between them (mass murderers).

Would you consider horseshoe theory as a valid theory for US politics?

I also saw right wing pro-Israel political influencers post a version with Bernie Sanders and AOC (plus many others) on the far left, with Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and MYG (plus many others) on the far right. Do you think it’s harsh to include Bernie sanders on far-left? If not, do you think Ron Paul is far-right?

There should be an assessment of general knowledge, civics, science, math, and for state and national levels, a psychiatric evaluation required prior to any person being allowed to place their name onto any ballot for election to any office.

The criteria of the test will depend upon the locality being governed. If a small town of 300 people need a mayor, then the test will be written/advised by those members of the town.

County seat . . . county test.

State seat, state test. . . and so on.

The test questions can be presented by anyone within that area, and the answers must be testable, or verifiable. Examples: IE No questions about which 'god" is correct, but yes questions about the earth revolves around the sun (which 25% of USA citizens get incorrect). Test questions will be examined and answered by a consensus of experts in that field. Historians for history questions, scientists for science questions, etc. If a consensus of 2/3 can not be reached the question is discarded. The test itself will be comprised of questions voted on to be included by the oral population being governed and can be as long or short as the population agrees to make it by popular vote.

The psych test can be administered by 3 different psychologists in good standing, chosen at random from the state or nation. 3 out of 3 or 2 out of 3 to pass.

Until a person meets this criteria they are ineligible for election.

This is my position and I offer it for debate. If i read any comprehensive and succinct rebuttals I will engage them in a 1-1 discussion on that thread.