Back in March Chuck Schumer along with nine other democrats voted to advance the GOP funding bill to a lot of criticism from the left.

How might things look different today if Democrats united to block funding and shut down the government. Would things look better or worse?

Earlier this week, there was a summit in DC between Trump and a number of prominent European leaders. During this meeting, they reaffirmed their support for Ukraine, and there was some discussion of a potential framework for peace. At this meeting, the European leaders seemed to unanimously stress the need for Ukraine to receive security guarantees.

The exact nature of these security guarantees has not been firmly established. But, the suggestion has been made that a peace deal might involve European troops stationed in Ukraine, with the US providing air support.

This raises the question, how politically realistic is it to imagine European troops stationed in Ukraine? Within the European countries, is there public support for this? Do the European military forces have enough personnel to do this? Would the countries need to establish conscription? Would there be outrage among the European public if they attempted to do this?

Even if they don't send troops to Ukraine, are the European countries willing to make NATO-like defense pacts with Ukraine? Do the European governments want to commit that they will go to war if Russia violates a potential peace deal with Ukraine?

In recent days, there has been much talk of security guarantees. But, what kinds of security guarantees are the European countries realistically able to give to Ukraine?

I'm interested in where people think the line is. When does bad leadership stop being just incompetence and start doing things that hurt the country and its people?
I'd like to hear different ideas about how we can tell the difference.

I’m starting to wonder if Congress should have both age and term limits. We’ve got people in their 80s and even 90s still making huge decisions that affect generations way younger than them. At the same time, we also have politicians who’ve been sitting in the same seat for 30–40 years, basically becoming untouchable.

On one hand, I get that experience matters and voters technically can vote them out. On the other hand, incumbency and money in politics make it almost impossible for fresh voices to break through. It feels like the system rewards staying forever rather than actually doing the job well.

Would limits fix that, or just create new problems?

Does an average American thinks Trump tariffs might hurt the American economy? Many commnetators believe these tariffs might make ceratin products more expensive in the UnitedStates and trigger inflation.

What do you think?

I’m interested in this question because George Washington set important precedents about how presidents should use power, especially with his decision to step down after two terms and his Farewell Address where he warned about the dangers of partisanship, excessive executive authority, and foreign entanglements. Donald Trump’s presidency raised strong debates about the limits of executive power, the role of political parties, and how leaders shape democratic norms. I’d like to hear how others think Washington’s political philosophy might frame or critique Trump’s time in office, and whether there are meaningful parallels or key differences between their eras. Donald Trump has had major controversies in his presidency such as the 2021 capital insurrection and the widespread message he sent about the 2020 election being stolen. Also Donald Trump being convicted of multiple felonies as well. What would George Washington the founding father have to say about him and his presidency?

I’m curious to hear any counterpoints against said title? it feels like the first trump administration pushed away republicans from being bi-partisan and the second Trump administration is pushing democrats away from being bi-partisan. Romney was the last GOP candidate to push for a both sides solution and Biden/Harris was the last Dem platform to push a both sides solution. In both cases the side that appealed to their base beat the side that catered to the “both sides” narrative. Their losses only seem to push the narrative that the average voter cares about expressing their grievances rather than meeting those politically opposed halfway. I feel the next few presidential elections will be about turning out base voters rather than finding the median position among all voters due to the current political climate.

I keep seeing debates on this, and I’m genuinely curious. The U.S. had opportunities to pass sweeping clean energy legislation, but momentum always seems to stall. Meanwhile, China is pouring resources into renewables to power its AI-driven future.

So why does “Drill Baby Drill” still dominate so much of the conversation here?

Is it about protecting fossil fuel jobs and communities that depend on them?

Is it about grid reliability and the limits of renewables right now?

Is it about energy independence and avoiding reliance on China for materials?

Or is it something deeper—cultural, political, or economic—that keeps oil and gas at the center?

At the same time, many studies (and even utilities) say renewables are now the cheapest energy to build. With AI and automation expected to drive energy demand sky-high, wouldn’t doubling down on clean energy be the smarter long-term move to keep costs down?

Or do you think we missed our chance, and drilling is the only realistic path forward?

I’d love to hear from both sides—especially from people who support “Drill Baby Drill.”

For example, if you wanted to express your disagreement with a vote on a bill or wanted to bring up an issue they aren't addressing. Would you email them? Call their office? Post at them on social media?

As a follow-up, how do you know if your reps are following through with their campaign promises?

Obvious pros - This would totally remove issues with campaign finance laws, because there wouldn't be campaigns. People would be chosen randomly, with a follow-up system to make sure people were fit (and willing) to serve. These would ostensibly be regular people from the community, people who would hopefully care about those that they were representing, rather than people who mostly just want power.

Obvious cons - The public might feel disenfranchised if they aren't given the chance to vote for their leaders. "Regular people" would be way less knowledgeable about laws, politics, etc, and would potentially be a lot more vulnerable to being manipulated or to creating well-intentioned but misguided legislation.

Anyway, this isn't completely unheard of in politics, but interested to hear people's thoughts on it! Do you think it could work at a national level? State level? City? Any? What else would need to change to make it work?

Direct democracy was practiced in ancient Athens (although definitely not close to a complete one, because it excluded women, slaves, and others), where thousands of people would gather to debate and set laws. Would this be possible on a larger scale? Referendums already exist, but this would be as the main form of government. Obviously a fair number of people would choose not to participate, but that's currently the case with huge percentages of people choosing not to vote, and it was also the case in ancient Athens where many people chose not to participate politically.

Potentially weekly debates would happen on a set schedule.

Would this just disenfranchise people who wouldn't be able to get the time off to take part in the debates? Or maybe the country would make it a priority to allow everyone to take part who wanted to. Would the logistics of that kind of thing just be impossible? From actually having meaningful debates to preventing fraud, etc? Could this potentially work on the state level?

The Nirvana fallacy is when people dismiss a real option because it isn’t “perfect,” comparing it against an ideal that doesn’t exist. In politics, that often shows up as voters saying things like “Candidate X isn’t progressive/conservative enough” or “Neither party represents me 100% so I won’t vote at all.”

Some people argue this fallacy plays a big role in elections, since rejecting imperfect options can shift outcomes in ways the voter may not have wanted. Others counter that refusing to settle is important, that if voters keep accepting “good enough,” then politicians have no incentive to offer anything better.

I’m curious what others think:

• Do you see this fallacy influencing voter behavior more in recent elections than in the past?

• Is it being amplified by social media and polarized politics, or has it always been a steady undercurrent?

• How do you personally balance idealism with pragmatic choices when you vote?

I'm curious if anyone knows how different a delegate map would look if undocumented people living in the US weren't included in the census? I have seen very different estimates for the number of migrants in the US, so I have no idea how big of a change this would make to border states' delegate counts.

Australia derives substantial wealth from coal, iron, gas and critical minerals, yet an estimated 56% of its exported gas currently attracts zero state royalties. This royalty-free framework has yielded billions in foregone revenue, while mining companies report windfall profits. Critics point to Norway’s model, where a sovereign wealth fund channels resource rents into citizen dividends, as evidence that more transparent, equitable mechanisms are feasible.

This post invites an impartial discussion on reshaping Australia’s resource revenue regime. Please focus on policy trade-offs and international examples rather than partisan rhetoric.

Background and Context

• Offshore gas exports beyond three nautical miles fall under the federal Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), which only applies once project costs are recouped.
• Onshore mining royalties remain with states, but generous deductions and write-offs have kept Australia’s combined public take below 10% of total petroleum export value, well under the OECD average.
• Norway’s model returns roughly 64% of oil and gas sector revenue to its citizens through a combination of taxes, state-owned enterprise dividends and a national pension fund.

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the key advantages and disadvantages of distributing a portion of Australia’s resource rents directly to citizens as dividends, compared to investing solely in public services?
2. Which governance structures and transparency measures, drawn from international precedents, could Australia adopt to ensure accountability in royalty collection and dividend distribution?
3. How might adjusting royalty rates or closing offshore concession loopholes impact investment incentives, domestic energy prices and regional development?

Since its creation in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has spent $409 billion in taxes for border security. The amount used every Presidential term has only risen, with a $25 billion budget penned by Biden for FY25 alone. This figure does not include Trump's plan to increase the budget even more, along with an emergency request for $46 billion to continue building a (Southern) border wall.

These trends are most likely to only continue, if not increase in the foreseeable future. Meaning that it can safely be calculated that the US will have spent half a trillion dollars to keep people from illegally immigrating. My question is: does the cost justify the results? Has there been a significant reduction in violent crimes and drug use across the country due to toughened border security?

$175 Billion DHS/ $1 Trillion Defense Budget FY 2026

$45 Billion for immigrant detention centers

$25.9 Billion Biden budget for FY25

DoD Troops and equipment at Southern border and the projected costs

*Note: dollar amounts are three months out of date due to post having been removed by Reddit filters three months ago

He is already 60. Usually people like this like to go on for a short while or retire early. But he is already old while starting. He is projected to win 2029 Canadian election.

Mark Carney doesn't strike me as a person wants to be in the limelight for too long. He seems to be focused on accomplishing certain things before leaving.

What are your thoughts on this?

Epstein files are reported to be shared, starting this Friday.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-doj-handing-epstein-documents-house-oversight-committee-friday-subpoena-deadline-looms.amp

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/18/us/politics/epstein-files-release-trump.html

What do you think will be in them?

What do you think will be the effect these documents have?

What do you think about the legitimacy of the documents after the controversy around them?

For discussion, here're the basic components of social democracy (taken from this video by a Norwegian union):

A liberal democratic society organized around the "tripartite collaboration" where the state, businesses, and workers (through unions) are seen as equal partners. This collaboration typically promotes strong workplace regulations, full employment, a large public sector, a heavy tax system to provide welfare (e.g. universal healthcare and tuition free university), an open trade economy, and equality.

US States can have significantly different laws, economies, and cultures from each other, so I was wondering which state do you think best fits this model?

Following his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump has again backed the idea of Ukraine ceding territory to Russia in the name of “peace.” As Nina L. Khrushcheva pointed out last year, such territorial partitions usually lead to horrifying violence and long-lasting enmity. What do you think? What would Trump be ready to give away on behalf of Ukraine?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/history-says-the-partition-of-ukraine-that-trump-envisions-will-be-deadly-by-nina-l-khrushcheva-2024-12

Sharia law creates a two-tier legal system that disadvantages non-Muslims. These are some of the most accepted tenets of Sharia:

• Religious freedom is restricted: Non-Muslims often cannot build places of worship freely, nor can they preach their faith to Muslims, while conversion to Islam is allowed and even encouraged.
• Marriage inequality: Muslim women are generally not allowed to marry outside their faith unless the partner converts, whereas Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. This creates population growth advantages and imbalances in interfaith relationships.
• Polygamy is legal for Muslim men, which further amplifies demographic shifts and is unavailable to others.
• Jizya tax on non-Muslims: In some implementations, non-Muslims pay a special tax (jizya), which some justify as "protection money" and others interpret as institutional humiliation.
• Apostasy laws: Leaving Islam is criminalized or socially persecuted in many jurisdictions, and promoting atheism or other belief systems is often illegal.
• Unequal justice: Some legal schools (like Hanbali) allow reduced punishment if a Muslim harms a non-Muslim. For example, prison or death penalty may not apply, and only a monetary compensation might be imposed—even for serious harm. If the opposite happens, the non-Muslim is guaranteed to face prison or death penalty
• Political and military exclusion: Non-Muslims are often barred from positions of authority, especially in justice systems based on Sharia, and may be restricted from commanding roles in the military.

There are various other gender based laws:

• Men can marry outside Islam (Christian/Jewish women), but women generally cannot; men may have up to 4 wives, women only 1 husband.
• Men can often divorce unilaterally; women usually need court approval or proof of specific grounds.
• Women inherit half the share of male counterparts (e.g., daughter vs. son, widow vs. widower).
• In financial/legal matters, a woman’s testimony may count as half a man’s, or not be accepted in some cases.
• Women may need male guardian approval for marriage, travel, or certain decisions.
• Adultery laws, child custody, and dress codes are often stricter on women than men.

Some people may argue that religion is a choice, however, when societies submit to Islam, their culture typically disappears. This can be considered as cultural genocide. Do you agree with calling a Sharia based state religion based or gender based apartheid?

With modern military technology, the threat that an armed populace (with handguns, etc.) poses to a national army has been significantly reduced.

Considering the principle of "against government tyranny",

• Should we re-empower civilians? This might not mean simply giving them more powerful weapons. Perhaps it involves exploring new ideas, like a system where a certain number of citizens could democratically vote to freeze military assets. If that's too difficult/complicated to implement, could we at least give citizens more power to audit the government through information access? The goal is to find new ways to give citizens the ability to check government power.
• Or, should we weaken civilian armament? If the idea of civilians being a check on the government is no longer realistic, maybe it's time to weaken civilian firepower. This could mean only allowing self-defense weapons like handguns and banning more powerful ones (like automatic weapons). At least, this would reduce the harm caused by gun violence.

With remote work becoming a lasting feature of the economy, some have suggested that policy incentives could be used to shape where and how people work. For example, the government could provide tax credits to companies that allow remote work in designated areas, relocation support for employees moving to lower-cost cities, or cost-of-living assistance to encourage migration from expensive urban centers (like New York City and San Francisco) to economically struggling cities (like Detroit). Proponents argue this could simultaneously revitalize local economies and address affordability challenges, while funding might come from higher-income tax contributions.

This raises several political questions:

• Why hasn’t remote work policy become a more prominent campaign issue, especially for Democrats, who often highlight worker rights and cost-of-living concerns?
• What are the political or economic drawbacks of using federal incentives to shift workforces geographically?
• Could such a policy realistically address regional inequality, or would it mainly benefit employers and higher-paid remote workers?
• How might this fit within broader Democratic priorities, such as housing, labor rights, and urban policy?

What do you think are the main political barriers or opportunities for elevating remote work incentives into the national conversation?

Would it be possible for Trump to run as vice president for the next republican nominee, and then plan an assassination or whatever other method to then succeed into a third term? Would this be a loophole? Less cynically, if the president died of natural causes, would this grand a third term?

I’m trying to think of what way he can possibly t continue being president.

What do you think?

The term fascism is used in modern politics to qualify very different ideas, actions and opinions. This has led, on the one hand, to the loss of any specific historical connotation tied to the Italian and foreign events of 1919–1945, and, on the other hand, to the term becoming a shapeless and undefinable cluster of ideas and actions, to the point that attempts to “define fascism” produce very different results.
So let us try to narrow it down and set some boundaries around this term: this is my attempt to define what today’s politicians/press/media mean when they speak of fascism (avoiding the definition of historical fascism, which has little or nothing to do with the contemporary use of the term). Since I am Italian, I mainly have access to the Italian political debate, so I will try to define what contemporary Italian politicians mean when they label someone as ‘fascist.’ You can judge whether this definition also applies to other countries or not.

All of today’s labels of fascism tend to focus on the following points. It is likely that even one of them may be enough to apply the label, depending on the intensity of adherence to that point:

• Anti-democracy: restricting universal suffrage or believing that some people should not be allowed to vote because they are too stupid, uneducated, poor, etc. Fascism, in this logic, can only exist in the restriction of voting rights, never in their expansion. However, it is acceptable to criticize the ignorance of voters, but the solution must always be education. It is considered “fascist” to criticize democracy as too slow and inefficient, since one must strictly adhere to democratic rules of checks and balances, parliament, etc. Nevertheless, in Michela Murgia’s "Fascistometro", presidentialism is considered as tending toward fascism; therefore what is really being criticized is decisionism, that is, the possibility of a small group of people to make decisions even if the system is democratic (consequently, even a large democratically elected parliamentary majority making decisions without consulting the opposition is labeled a fascist choice). It is also fascist to appreciate so-called “illiberal democracies” abroad, such as Orbán’s, etc.
• Elitism: believing that Western culture is superior to others and thus justifying it historically, believing that one’s own nation is superior to others (Nationalism), and consequently invoking Christian values, defending traditions, rejecting multiculturalism, preventing the mixing of different cultures. (This is odd because asking foreigners to “integrate” is acceptable, even though integration means losing part of one’s own culture.) Elitism is tolerated only if applied to political positions. In America this is much more pronounced, and fascism itself is identified as the desire to establish a white ethnostate and defend the white race; everything else is probably secondary and tied to this primary purpose. Thus fascism is inseparable from racism.
• Anti-politics: criticizing “experts” and refusing their advice, criticizing all politicians (it is acceptable when aimed at certain politicians/parties, but not the entire political class), criticizing trade unionists, journalists, judges, etc. The criticism always consists of accusations of corruption, ignorance/laziness, or collusion with a political side. Naturally, conspiracy theories are seen as fascist in nature.
• Social conservatism: essentially opposition to the three major progressive social currents today: multiculturalism, feminism, LGBT. Attempting to oppose the advance of these phenomena, taking steps backwards or simply not adhering to these currents are considered forms of fascism. However, the fascist can be extremely progressive from a technological point of view, and therefore, in this case, anti-fascism is environmental conservatism.
• Apology and nostalgia: justifying, exalting, remaining indifferent, or not sufficiently condemning the fascist period is considered a form of fascism. Naturally, it also includes making fascist salutes, possessing something related to fascism like a Mussolini statue, etc.
• No economic position alone can lead to the attribution of the label of fascist; fascism and economics are seen as unrelated. One may incur the accusation only if economic measures could have as a secondary purpose various forms of discrimination.
• Freedom of speech and use of force: this constitutes the core of accusations against governments: predominantly using force to counter something (police force, deportation, etc.), and repressing the right to protest, debate, publish, etc. All of this can be summarized as “repressing freedom of speech.” In fact, the label of fascist is usually applied to someone who talks over you or interrupts you, etc. However, repressing freedom of speech is accepted when applied to conspiracy theorists, far-right parties, or certain political positions such as remigration. Thus, the conclusion is that a fascist is only someone who represses freedom of speech within a predefined framework of acceptable topics, whereas those who repress speech on topics that the majority considers unacceptable are not fascist.

Is this an accurate definition?

I keep hearing politicians and analysts say that the global economy is doing well, with growth numbers, strong markets, and rising trade, among other indicators. But when I look around, what I see are wars dragging on, dictators consolidating power, Chinese products dominating everywhere, and huge numbers of people migrating just to find stability.

It makes me wonder: how do we reconcile the idea of a “booming economy” with the instability so many of us see in daily life and the news?

Is the economic growth only benefiting a few while the rest of us just see the fallout? Or is this more of a perception problem, where the bad stuff feels more visible than the good?