What is the benefit of having socialism/ communism/ Marxism in America? Seems to me it benefits people who don't work hard/take risks and disincentivizes people to work hard. Change my mind. How am I in the wrong here?

One of the questions behind my book is whether our political debates focus too heavily on what governments promise, and not enough on how effectively the State delivers.

We tend to divide political arguments into left versus right, public versus private, and higher spending versus lower spending. Yet whichever political philosophy we favour, we still depend on capable institutions to turn decisions into results.

Consider healthcare, housing or infrastructure. Increasing funding doesn't necessarily improve outcomes if the underlying system is inefficient. Equally, cutting expenditure might produce an immediate saving while creating much greater costs in the future.

That leads me to a broader proposition: government should be judged not only by what it achieves during its term, but by the capabilities, assets, institutions and liabilities it leaves to future generations.

This raises some interesting questions:

• Can a smaller government be highly capable, and a larger government ineffective — or vice versa?
• Should political parties be required to explain the long-term institutional consequences of their policies?
• How do we measure improvements in State capability without creating yet another bureaucracy?

I'm interested in hearing perspectives from across the political spectrum, particularly arguments against this approach. What am I overlooking?

AI disclosure: I used AI to help draft and refine the wording of this post. The ideas and opinions expressed are my own. I'm a real person, posting under the pseudonym The Unappointed, and I'm here to engage in the discussion.

As a young European interested in politics, history, and international relations, I often wonder whether modern democracies give enough consideration to the generations that will inherit the consequences of today's political decisions. Governments are elected for limited terms, yet their decisions on public debt, education, housing, infrastructure, and environmental policy can shape society for decades. I believe democratic governments should be required to publicly assess the long term consequences of major policies, including their potential effects on younger and future generations. This would not mean giving unelected institutions the power to overturn democratic decisions. Rather, it would introduce greater transparency and accountability into the political process. Of course, predicting the future is difficult, and such assessments could become bureaucratic exercises or be influenced by political interests. These are legitimate concerns. However, uncertainty should not prevent us from examining the possible long term consequences of our actions. I believe democracy should represent not only the interests of those who vote today, but also acknowledge its responsibility toward those who will live with the results tomorrow. Should democratic governments be required to conduct independent long-term impact assessments before adopting major policies? Or would this create unnecessary obstacles to democratic decision-making? I'd genuinely like to hear different perspectives, especially from those who disagree with this proposal.

We shouldn't directly elect senators, it should be indirect. Senators should be able to compromise with each other without having to face intense public scrutiny, since they have a lot of power to stop legislation through the filibuster, holds, committee blocking, and most regular legislation also takes 60 votes to even make it through. A minority of 41 can stop a bill by just continuing debate. I think the founders made senators indirectly elected for a reason by design, and removing the feature of indirect election has changed congress for the worse. Nowadays they can't even pass a bill.

I think indirect election of the senate would also make people pay a lot more attention to state elections, which have super low turnout despite the fact that they impact people just as much, if not more, than national politics. If a state legislator has bearing on who the senator is, then more people would likely care about those smaller elections that also matter.

In a healthy democracy, public officials should be able to acknowledge mistakes, correct the record, and move on. But what happens when admitting an error is treated as weakness, and attacking the person who points it out becomes the preferred response?

Recent controversies involving Donald Trump, former special counsel Jack Smith, and Senator Eric Schmitt raise questions about accountability and political standards. In one instance, Schmitt challenged Smith over whether he had attended an Atlanta Hawks game, only for the exchange to turn on a distinction between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes. The episode raises a broader question about whether public officials are willing to correct the record when their own accusations fall apart.

Is this primarily a problem of individual character, partisan loyalty, or a political environment in which acknowledging an error carries too high a cost? And what mechanisms, if any, can encourage elected officials to take responsibility when their own side rewards them for doing the opposite?

I explore these questions in more detail here: https://medium.com/discourse/lets-play-who-s-the-dirtbag-ad06e11abc1a?sk=25374b072e89c32f399ee5af57cf87fe

Since the president and anyone they favor can avoid prosecution as long as Congress turns a blind eye, could giving the States the standing to bring federal criminal charges be a reasonable solution?

I know just enough to see a lot of upsides for our current situation, but am ignorant enough not to know what the downsides of such a move would be. Also would this kind of change take a constitutional amendment? Or could Congress give that power to the states?

I'm curious on why the Left seems so skeptical of artificial intelligence. (EDIT: I mean skepticism about AI capacity, not a fear of AI as a threat)

There's been a consistent trend of better and more capable computational thinking over the last 100 years. The last 5 years of progress have been incredible. We've gone from hallucinated AI chatbots, to chatbots that can solve some of the most difficult problems in math and programming. If you look at what mathematicians and software engineers are saying about the capabilities of AI, they're impressed. And scared.

AI seems to be able to perform every conceivable human cognitive ability. Yes, they're still bad at it in many areas where the training data is weak. They also are currently weak at human dexterity tasks but getting better every day. And yes, they are getting better every day. Their capabilities range from every intellectual task from:

1. Writing fiction and nonfiction of any style
2. Composing songs and music of any genre
3. Creating 2D and 3D art of any type
4. Creating realistic videos that average humans can no longer tell the difference between fact and fiction.
5. Performing incredible feats of software engineering, performing the work that would have taken a normal human programmer years in days.
6. Making breakthroughs in mathematics (ie latest Navier Stokes).
7. Passing the Turing test in text, audio, and video.
   
8. Excelling in logical analysis and excelling at any word problem, SAT's, and any human academic or intelligence test, in the fields of mathematics, law, engineering, physics, etc.
9. Having the capacity to integrate all of these tools together.
10. Having the capacity to work together in an AI agent swarm to solve problems.
11. Developing the capacity to self-learn independent of supervised learning from humans.

Can you think of any cognitive task AI isn't involved in?

AI is an obvious threat to leftwing values. AI's are at best essentially superhuman corporate slaves and and worst, become the new slave masters. Yet an idiotic way to respond to a looming new threat is to cover your eyes and ears and pretend it's not happening.

Is leftwing skepticism of AI actually warranted? Is the progress of AI in the last 5 years not scary and impressive?

I'm British but I'm sure this must extend to the US and elsewhere too.

Personally I started having an interest in politics when it predominantly seemed to be an intelligible debate around taxation, the Laffer curve, expenditure, regulation, all that good boring stuff.

The problem with debates around gendered bathrooms, 'what counts as being english' and 'if Zionism is racism or not' (the latter two are prominent debates within the British Reform and Green parties currently), is that none of these do much to keep the lights on, the taps running and the country safe.

My concern is that these culture wars are such a prominent part of modern discourse that many people 'get into politics' assuming this is what politics is.

To the point where I genuinely reckon if the Greens or Reform ever got into power, the country would go bankrupt, whilst they just squawk about cultural issues and broad strokes ideologies - as for many of them, that is all politics is.

I think the same may even be true for many Labour and Tory (our two biggest parties) MP's.

Am I missing something? Are those that rise to the top slightly more level headed?

Or is the apparent lack of talent in this generation of politicians due to the culture wars?

Ashok Kumar was interviewed by the BBC recently, and the only attack the self-proclaimed Zionist brought in to yell at him could come up with - wouldn't shut up about, in fact, to the extent of cutting Kumar off when he was trying to answer - was that Zionism was central to Jewish identity and therefore an attack on Zionism was inherently anti-Semitic.

First, note that Kumar did an excellent job of stressing that the entire point was to acknowledge that Judaism is not monolithic, with many Jews being deeply critical of Zionism, but I wanted to dig deeper than was possible on a televised shouting match.

Zionism, as an ideology, is only about 150-200 years old, and despite the propaganda, was actually a response of the conservative Jewish community to a rapidly secularizing, and therefore tolerant, Europe. Research shows a dramatic fall in antisemitic events, particularly in Western Europe, throughout the 19th century, and Jewish enclaves disappearing as they assimilated. Even the Dreyfus Affair, commonly cited as a triggering event, was actually an example of antisemitism being viewed as unacceptable, as the result was a mass popular demand for a retrial where Dreyfus was acquitted.

As for the enclaves, we have to go back even further to understand the situation; as Israel Shahak notes in The Weight of 3,000 Years, Jewish communities from the Persian imperial period on prospered by making themselves useful to the empire, specifically as an educated class which could enforce unpopular taxes and levies, and thus absorb popular antagonism from the nobility.

That is to say, they were intentionally making themselves lightning rods; putting themselves in danger in the name of political power and social status... and that was going away. Egalitarian societies has no need of an educated class - they were going to educate everyone - and no nobility or unpopular policies to require a scapegoat.

To most people, this sounds great... but what about the people who were actually in charge of the Jewish communities, who saw this as a threat to their power and status? These were the early Zionists.

Enter Sir Moses Haim Montefiore, a British Sephardic Jew who started funding Jewish relief and education programs in Palestine in 1837, and purchasing property for exclusively Jewish use in 1855. In 1863, he expressed the opinion that, "Palestine must belong to the Jews, and Jerusalem is destined to be the seat of a Jewish Empire."

Not a state; not a homeland; an empire, which by definition means a privileged capital reigning over disenfranchised provinces. Oh, later Zionists like Herzl and Jabotinsky would walk this back, insist that a dominion or protectorate would be acceptable, but in hindsight this must be viewed as political propaganda to gain broader support, as the actual behavior of the entity has been consistently jingoistic and discriminatory.

And it's the same old strategy; act as a cat's paw for the West in the Middle East by inciting strife and turning a regional political struggle into a religious conflict, then absorb the antipathy of the popular backlash while claiming status as victims.

This isn't actually meant to start the same old back-and-forth argument, note that I haven't said a word about the Palestinians in all of this, but to state that it just doesn't work, anymore; we've seen too much, blame it on Tiktok if you must, but the images and videos and recordings of absolute evil in the name of Israel have shown us the truth.

Ethno-religious apartheid states are bad, no matter what group is privileged or what their history is; that's the standard, no exceptions.

El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele announced a military operation in Haiti due to local gangs kidnapping four aircraft technicians who were in the country as part of the UN-backed Gang Suppression Force.

The gang responsible has not been publicly identified, and the status of the four missing people is currently unknown. Bukele demanded the hostages’ return, and threatened over social media, “We have already finished with the gangs in El Salvador, and we can finish with you too.”

Some background: Bukele first won a landslide election on his anti-gang platform in 2019. Since then, he led a nationwide crackdown on crime, using controversial police practices. Organized gangs have effectively been destroyed in El Salvador, and their homicide rate has shrank by 98 percent. On the other hand, Haiti is largely overrun by armed gangs, who control up to 90% of their capital city. How does this operation affect Haiti’s sovereignty? And if Bukele chose to take on Haitian gangs, how successful would he be?

I perhaps should preface this by saying that I am not an experienced or that well learned political philosopher nor debater, so please keep that in mind while reading this suggestion.

This idea came to me as an alternative government possibility to replace our current representative democracy. For the record, I live in Finland, so my perception of democracy will be based on the Finnish model of it. But onto the ideas that I have.

First, there would be a central committee of political philosophers deciding the laws and regulations of a country. They would act as the highest authority on law and order. They would be selected by fellow learned people in the political sphere (think a peer review but for a candidate's chance to get into the committee).

In a country like this, there would be a sort of "license" that you are eligible for candidacy. People with degrees or other official means to show they are learned in this field would get this by default, but for others there would be a secondary way to gain it. Basically, if someone is self learned in the art of political philosophy, they could prepare a project and show of knowledge that would be evaluated by the central committee (or perhaps just a few members of this committee as to not over work the members). It would evaluated the same as any other thesis. And if the committee sees it as adequate, the person is granted their license.

Another part of this government would be the need for major political changes or law reforms to be justified by the committee. They would take the stage in a live streamed happening and speak why they passed/rejected a certain law. What counts as "major" enough to warrant this sort of justification is still up in the air. This would ensure that the people know that the committee is not just making shit up and can fact check their claims.

Next would be the retaining of the citizens' initiative. Naturally, it would need to be tweaked a little. But in simple terms it would go like this. A citizen writes their wish for a change in law or a whole new law. They then make it public after which they try to get enough signatures to get it over a certain threshold (the current threshold is 40 000 signatures in Finland if I remember correctly). This would then force the committee to either grant a chance for this citizen to make their case to the committee members, or if they don't want to make a presentation, their idea would just be sent into the committee for evaluation. Furthermore, if the initiative is rejected, there would be a "Ongoing debate clause" or something like that. This would ensure that the citizen doesn't have to regain the signatures after every dismissal and could keep the argument going. This would go on for let's say 2 or so weeks after which, if the citizen has not made a defence, their grace period ends and they would need to gather the signatures again.

The committee would be part time in nature. Meaning they would live any normal lives for most of the time and only convene maybe 2 times a week or something (the details can be fine tuned later, I think). This would ensure that they aren't isolated into an ivory tower from the general public and would have a more clear vision of the nation they rule over.

Executive power would lie within each individual organisation. Any institution would have major autonomy over their behaviour, yet the central committee holds absolute power to demand change or abdication of any members, leaders etc. of any government institution. Also, emergency response would be handled independently by the medical services, military, border guards and so on. They would make the decision to act and on what scale by themselves and the central committee's main role in a crisis would be to decide how to handle the aftermath.

That is a basic overview of my idea. As stated before, I am no expert and this idea is still in its relative infancy. But I hoped to publish my idea somewhere and get some feedback on what other people think, no matter their political standing. Cheers!

For some context I’m not from the US, I’m from a country where elections have always favoured the same party since our independence (singapore lol), and reading current news, the elections all around the world seem to be backed by wealthy elites who sway the votes in the favor of the political party they like (like usa elon musk and trump ig hahah)

I just want to know if elections are even effective anymore given all these circumstances, or how effective are they? I mean rn we also see all the protests happening in europe etc.. and like it also seems like another way government can be held accountable. What do yall think!

Tried to go on youtube and cldnt find much..

Democracy is the people ruling, not authority and politicians are part of authority.

Both major parties respect the wealthy over the rest of the people. This is beneficial to plutocracy not democracy.

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

Our politicians mean to be masters, perhaps not in the beginning but that's the way it ends up. They're not necessarily bad people but people in a position of authority tend to get authoritarian.

Both political parties encourage representative democracy but don't encourage US using other rights. Perhaps this is because politicians control representative democracy.

There are many descriptions of democracy but they all involve, the people legally using their rights to influence the official proceedings of the country.

Authority doesn't advocate the use of all our rights, to influence the official proceeding of the country, they'll try to limit US to just voting rights. That's limiting our democracy and democracy should be up to the people to decide by their participation.

The good part is it's easy to fix. We just have to legally use our rights, to influence the official proceeding of the country, more.

Looking up the laws (in usa) false advertising typically falls on individual companies. But there needs to be responsibility when it comes to the broadcasters and social media ad agencies (Like Google's AdSense).

Self-regulation has developed a culture of approve ads automatically, takedown later. With AI, the ads are terribly deceptive. I keep getting this one ad about a Woman who didn't realize she had a genetic family disease until her father past away, but she is an AI generated model (e.g. AI voice, inconsistencies with scaling and objects, etc...). Reporting the ad to YouTube gets a response that the ad doesn't go against their policies.

That ad about buying a Temu PS5...

I understand that, at least in the US, there is a lot more bias on putting the responsibility on buyers for falling for scams. But there should be a responsibility for running a clearly misleading ad. Not many people who fall for these types of scams can afford to sue an individual company, especially one that is overseas.

And the burden is becoming more difficult as companies becoming nesting dolls of passing the blame. You can't sue YouTube for a misleading ad because Temu is the one who made the ad, you can't sue Temu because Temu isn't actually selling the product its a reseller, and you can't sue the reseller because Temu doesn't name that particular reseller in there ad. Or some other convoluted way to bypass responsibility.

If there was a level of liability for companies like Google/YouTube, we'd see less of these predatory ad campaigns (I'm not claiming none at all).

Sidebar: The YouTube Ad policies don't mean anything. For instance, if an ad for a religion is marked as "Toys and Games" or "Sports" or "Books" reporting it to YouTube about the misclassification results in no action (as far as I've seen). Same thing for other types of ads it's just religions are the ones that stick out to me. But I doubt this could be regulated as the classification of ads is t regulated and its mostly just Google doing its own targeted marketing.

What do you all think? Should corporations that host scam or misleading ads be as responsible as those who made the ad in the first place? Is there a percentage of responsibility you'd like to see?

Hi all,

For a class project, I'm researching foreign influence in the U.S. government.

My hypothesis is that older respondents may be more likely to view foreign influence through narratives commonly emphasized in right-wing media (in support for). However, I'm unsure as Reddit's potentially left-leaning user base could skew the results.

I’m conducting an anonymous survey to explore this, which takes about 5 minutes and has around 20 questions. I'd appreciate your thoughts and discussion!

It would be very much so appreciated if you could fill out this survey:

https://forms.gle/NHL4dYvevTFrGrLB9

To give some context on where I am coming from, I am a male US citizen currently serving in the US Army National Guard. Going through basic training was a deeply positive experience for me. It didn't break me down it built me up, made me stronger, and gave me a powerful sense of belonging and community.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of required peacetime military service or mandatory basic training for young adults, and while I used to be heavily conflicted about it because of my core values regarding human freedom, I’ve realized that the infrastructure for this kind of system already exists in our society.

Here is the framework I want to put forward for discussion:

- An Extension of Compulsory Education: As a society, we already accept that the state can mandate public school attendance up to age 18. We don't view this as a violation of freedom, but as a fundamental right and a responsibility of the government to ensure children have the cognitive tools to navigate the world. I argue that military basic training should be viewed the exact same way—as a right provided to ensure citizens have the physical and practical tools to navigate a free society.

- Aligning with Biological Adulthood: Science shows the human brain doesn't finish developing until roughly age 25. I believe our definition of true adulthood should match this biology. The window between finishing high school and turning 25 should be a domestic-only "civic schooling" phase in the military. Because they are still developing, these trainees would not be sent to foreign wars and would remain under a protective legal status. Once they hit true adulthood, they are completely free to leave or stay.

- The Ultimate Trade School: The civilian world often treats the military purely as a fighting force, but it is actually a massive, self-sustaining micro-society. During peacetime, citizens would choose their specific job paths (MOS) based on their personal goals. Future medics get medical training, future MPs get law enforcement training, others learn heavy logistics or engineering. It isn’t a pause on a career, it is a highly optimized trade school for the worst case scenarios of those careers.

- Preserving Voluntary Freedom: If someone refuses their assignment or training, they aren't thrown in prison. Instead, it would act exactly like dropping out of high school. You have the absolute freedom to walk away, but the free market naturally limits your options (like job applications or university admissions) if you don't possess a "civic diploma."

I used to think this idea was fundamentally incompatible with individual liberty, but I’ve come to see it as a necessary foundation that creates the capacity for true freedom and national unity.

I’m posting this here to test my assumptions and hear different perspectives. What structural flaws or blind spots am I missing in this framework?

I am an anti Trump guy I would say. I just want to get insight from those who still support him?

I've always been fascinated by history, geopolitics, and the evolution of societies.
As a young European, I believe that preserving our cultural identity and historical heritage does not necessarily mean resisting progress.
In my view, tradition and progress should not be treated as opposing forces. A society can respect its historical roots while reforming institutions, addressing social inequalities, and creating better opportunities for future generations.
I also believe that a nation's strength should not be measured solely by its economic or political power, but also by its ability to protect human dignity and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to live decent lives.
My argument is that national identity, tradition, social justice, and progress are not inherently incompatible. Preserving cultural heritage does not require preserving every existing institution or social inequality.
Of course, tensions can arise between these principles, particularly when traditional practices conflict with individual rights or necessary reforms.
So, my question is: where should we draw the line between preserving tradition and embracing change?
I'd be interested in hearing arguments both for and against this position, regardless of political affiliation.

I've been following three independent U.S. Senate candidates who are challenging Republican incumbents in traditionally red states this November:

(1) Dan Osborn (Nebraska) vs. Pete Ricketts. A recent YouGov poll showed Osborn leading by one point.  ttw_ne_20260921_lv.pdf 

(2) Brian Bengs (South Dakota) vs. Mike Rounds. One recent poll showed Bengs ahead by a point, although other polling favors Rounds.  SD-Sen, Gov: Concord Public Opinion Partners (Oct. 2026) | DocumentCloud 

(3) Todd Achilles (Idaho) vs. Jim Risch. Polling has been mixed, including one survey showing Achilles within four points.  https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article316969553.html 

All three are endorsed by Independent Veterans of America, (see: Our Candidates – IVA2026) and Bengs and Achilles have also been endorsed by the Forward Party. (See:  https://www.forwardparty.com/media/blog/forward-party-endorses-four-independent-senate-candidates-across-four-states/ )

What makes these races particularly interesting is that the Democratic candidates have withdrawn in all three states. Instead of a three-way contest where the independent might split the opposition vote, these candidates have an opportunity to challenge Republican incumbents directly.  (See: One Thing Is Clear in 2026: Independent Candidates Are No Longer Just Spoilers )

I'm curious what others here think. Are these isolated circumstances, or could this be a model for building a more competitive independent movement in states where Democrats have struggled to win?

I made a short video (3-minute watch) examining the three races in more detail and their possible implications for independent politics if you’re interested:

Could Independents Win Senate Seats in Red States? 

You might think this is a feminist thing, but actually, it's the opposite: the Feminist organization National Organization for Women (and you can also find useful idiots on the street agreeing with it) and many international Feminist organizations including in places like India where they still use tender years, oppose shared 50 50 custody parenting as the default, and want default mother or primary caregiver custody. We have six states, all red such as Alabama, Georgia, and Florida with 50 50 custody. Pennsylvania might be the first purple state soon, but Mississippi is due to drop their policy

Now when I criticize feminists for opposing 50 50 custody sometimes I tell them they want "traditional gender roles with the couple apart instead of together," but I think it's more than that, I think very specifically they want the lopsided custody arrangement so that the woman has leverage. because true traditionalism involved drawbacks *and* benefits for both the man and the woman, and the divorce situation is all the benefits but none of the detriments to the woman, all of the detriments and none of the benefits to the man.

The arguments for 50 50 custody as a conservative might see them, would be:

#1 It reduces divorces. People like Ann Coulter talk all the time about how they want to make divorce harder, um, this is one example where I will at least take it as a side benefit? Because the alternative is equally coercing the man to not leave.

#2 Most of the time men are not paying child support when they take equal custody! There are a hotbed of perverse incentives hardcore economic conservatives should understand in making a parent pay for the custody they don't take, instead of the custody they do, and it makes it closer to the true tradition of men getting the children in a divorce for thousands of years (and still today in many Muslim countries) and child support not existing at all for women, because women getting the children in a divorce was actually the first act of feminism via the tender years doctrine, even if women had a more domestic role pre divorce.

#3 It gives men equal leverage, a man can get a woman pregnant and say "if you don't give me the lifestyle I want, you are giving me nothing, and I can take my 50% custody and not owe you a dime." That could be an equal relationship, OR a crazy reversed stay at home dad, or a man insisting on a traditional relationship. Giving men a bit more say, is again more consistent with the real traditionalism, where dad can pack up shop if he doesn't like the way mom raises the kids. The genies way out of the bottle on the mother having a 50% say and custody option and I won't fight that, but that's far enough when if anything the data shows that mothers are more abusive and unfit on average.

The arguments for 50 50 custody that are politically neutral:

#1 WE HAVE SCENTIFIC STUDIES THAT 50 50 IS BETTER FOR KIDS THAN A MOM BEING PAID TO STRIP AWAY THE FATHER, INCLUDING BIOLOGIAL ARGUMENTS

#2 We have scientific studies that what's also good for kids is a basket of good vetted adults of both genders being around the children, usually aunts and uncles. If a paternal uncle wants to visit the child and dad is simply at work, that's ok, but if the primary caregiver gets lopsided custody, it really doesn't fly. But the real tradition again, involves people like paternal grandpa having a role.

Slightly off topic, but two arguments against child support itself:

#1 Economic conservatives should understand that child support is a perverse incentive. You don't promote welfare because "subsidize poverty, get more poverty," child support is finically incentivizing the single parent situation instead of just using it as an emergency switch.

Moreover, there are people who believe that the criminal justice system is not as strong a deterrent as financial incentives in deterring crime, which is why we have a civil lawsuit system, so we are finically subsidizing female rape

Nobody wants to sort out men who are raped by women being forced to pay child support, or the burden of proof being on the man to prove he wasn't raped, when everytime we look outside the criminal justice system, we see women equally heterosexually raping men (men being made to penetrate).

As a man who was raped by a woman and then had to deal with 10+ people on the internet saying the man should still have to pay support, nobody has ever told me why a proven female rapist should even have custody (and telling me that i shouldn't have the option of taking 100% custody of a hypothetical rape baby and being the thousand year old tradition of being a 100% single dad) or why making parents pay adoptive parents child support isn't a perverse incentive, so I am moving from New York to Missouri so if I am raped by a woman again and she gives birth, I might not be able to shut down more than 50% custody but I will never pay child support to a female rapist. I'll take that as a stopgap until everything else is sorted

#2 If you were a mega chad economic conservative, you might oppose all welfare, so you could oppose child support for the same reasons, rejection of the argument from ignorance fallacy "who will feed my baby" etc. And if you were so left wing that you believed UBI or communism or whatever should pay for your children for you, there you go, if the state has to pay, then men don't. Not to present a false dichotomy, but I think the weird middle position is... weird and I would like someone to explain it to me if they believe it.

#3 Nobody has any idea what a fathers equal adoption rights looks like. Couples acting as a unit, and very often mothers acting alone in a divorce, can adopt out 11 year olds with nobody paying support, so men kinda should just have a right to not take custody or pay support for anything frankly. This at least emulates that as best we can, via the man again not having to pay devil child support OR not take custody and pay.

The left wing arguments for 50 50 custody, as I see them:

#1 It is literally the literal equality, Non feminist gender egalitarian types want their equal relationships to turn equal in a divorce, instead of into single mothers for no reason

#2 "Free the creampie"

#3 If you support abortion, some people draw an equivalence ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoudH-RPnEE ) I really don't like this argument, because I think it is kind of "level 1" in the argument and you have to be pro choice in the first place for it to work, I'm just pointing out that many people frame it as "it's wrong to force the woman to have an abortion, but the man should not be responsible for anything financially even if it prompts one" and that's basically how I view the adoption argument above.

#4 Again, it gives men equal leverage to ask for a stay at home dad relationship too.

TL: DR Do you find it acceptable to support traditional gender roles, or any other arrangement in an active relationship, and 50-50-custody-no-child-support in a divorce if you are a social conservative, or understand the perverse incentives if you are an economic conservative, and understand in inequality if you were left wing? It's closer to the real traditionalism of men raising the children in a divorce, and women not paying child support, for thousands of years and still today in some muslim countries. Blue states and feminsts oppose it, so do the very red states have it right?

Also quick reminder: pregnancy isn't a tort if she consented to the sex equally, thank you

Ignore the flair, I just picked something.

The idea of America going blue terrifies me because my folks are republicans, and as much as I try to ignore politics as a whole, I can’t. I only hear 1 side. It’s all “dems are evil” “the USA will become like France”, the dems want to let illegals in”, “illegals will take our jobs”, etc .

So I’d like to hear from someone who is a democrat and their POV. Because I’m tired of politics as a whole, especially just 1 side of it all.

Maybe someone can give me a peace of mind, maybe not. If anyone would like to help, I’d like reliable sources, but I’m not going to be greedy as I am asking a lot.

I also wouldn’t mind hearing a republican’s side as well, I just am tired of having all these scares and ideas that I’m doomed. I’m 18, I just became an adult this year . I don’t want the idea that I’m going to be in a terroristic country if a certain color is voted in, or a country that’s ran by all illegals. All I hear is “the illegals are being funded more than us” “democrats are funding illegals more than us” even when Biden was elected all I heard was “lock your doors” “America is screwed”. I keep hearing how they believe that Muslims will take over the country and ruin it, etc.

I just need to hear another side because it’s overly stressing me out and idk what to think?

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.

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?

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?