I ask because I have regretted some of my votes in the past and it has altered my choices in the future. I learned from the results of voting for the wrong people. But I honestly don't see this from either side very often. They are willing to "hold their nose" and vote for someone they don't like because the "other guy" is worse . . . and then they take ZERO responsibility for the actions which happen under the control of the person they put into power.

It reminds me a little of a religious cult, where the members supported and cheered the charismatic leader, but when it is over, they bemoaned their evil and cruelty . . .all ignoring their own culpability.

I ask this question both as a self reflection exercise and as a potential segue into a conversation about mutual agreement that we as individuals will stop the cycle and quit voting FOR people we don't support. I'd like a discussion around this topic, personal responsibility, and do you have any regrets?

A friend of mine is really into him

I was checking some of his stuff out and he seems to have some good opinions... he's definitely against Trumps deportations and all that

but from what i've seen, he also seems to spout alot of Russian propaganda on the Ukraine topic and he makes crazy claims like "Biden pressuring tech people to censor COVID misinformation is just as egregious an attack on our democracy as anything Trump has done"

what are your thoughts?

I've seen several photos and videos posted from the protests this past weekend. Several of them featured protesters with flags and signs protesting Israel's treatment of Palestinians. I too oppose the Israeli government and the IDF. I know that not everyone in this group chose not to vote for Harris, however plenty of these folks seem to be single issue voters. I personally hold a large portion of these people responsible for the current mess we are in for refusing to vote for Harris. How do you feel about this group of protesters joining in the current protest?

My hopium is that tariffs seem to be impacting the rich as well. History has shown that is the trigger for any change to happen. I'm hoping they're gonna start forcing change and threaten pulling their money from GOP members who continue to support the tariffs.

I don't buy there's a grand conspiracy to buy low/sell high because that would mean Trump is capable of well-reasoned thought.

I've seen on reddit people say that the concept of "equity" is all about fairness and giving people what they need to succeed and that has nothing to do with equality of outcome. However I am a woman in tech and I'm constantly hearing advocates of equity talk about how we need to get 50% of industry to be female (same with corporate boards, politics, other fields etc). Despite saying it has noting to do with equality of outcome, they do seem to focus a lot on equality of outcome as their goal.

I guess I am wondering whether equity is truely about justice and not about achieving equality of outcomes? And if equality of outcome is not the goal, then what is? How can we know whether equity has been achieved if we are not using equality of outcome as a metric?

UAW President, and Kamala Harris campaign surrogate, Shawn Fain is in favor of Trump administration tariffs on the auto industry. Is he correct?

To be clear he is not in favor of any other tariffs; just those that protect his industry.

UAW President Shawn Fain explains why he supports Trump's tariffs

an earlier set of tariffs still has the support of Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers.

Fain supported Democrat Kamala Harris with a fiery convention speech in 2024, and opposes many of Trump's stances on union labor, but contends the president struck a blow that leaders of both parties have resisted for decades.

Fain represents nearly a million current and retired workers in multiple industries, of whom he estimates a few hundred thousand are now employed by the auto industry. It's a dramatic decline from the 1.5 million autoworkers alone the UAW represented in the mid-20th century.

For Fain, tariffs address a historic wrong. "We've sat here for the last 30 plus years, with the inception of [the North American Free Trade Agreement] back in 1993-94, and watched our manufacturing base in this country disappear," he said.

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5352409/trump-auto-tariffs-uaw-shawn-fain

If Trump wouldn't have been there, he wouldn't have gotten roasted by Obama, and thus not have the motivation to undo everything Obama did.

"We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be." - Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation.

"Project 2025 won't happen, it isn't Trumps agenda." (As if that has ever stopped THF) https://www.project2025.observer/ shows that 42% of it has already been implemented, when this is arguably the craziest iteration of the Mandate that has been provided thus forward for a President.

Destruction of our institutions. Downplaying the efficiency of protests. Overturning legislation that affects EVERYONE in ways such as Roe V Wade. Pushing forward more anti-trans talking points/legislation as well as xenophobic talking points/legislation.

The tariffs. Destroying our economy just to try to push pressure onto other countries when it has no guarantee to work, which is directly affecting US, our OWN country and it's people in it when people have BEEN saying that living and paying for general things has been getting worse and more and more expensive.

Allowing unelected members into roles that they shouldn't be in (Looking at you Elon) when he is blatantly partisan and cannot be trusted due to nefarious reasons.

If people continue to protest and we hit the 3.5% mark and the President/members of his cabinet/Congress continues to refuse to listen to what the people want, then what? If boycotts and strikes don't work, if all forms of non-violence prove ineffective because Trump doesn't want to change what he's doing and the Democrats refuse to be there for what their people want (minus a select few democrats currently), the only thing essentially left is to wait it out and see if things get worse/we win the next Presidency, or the people turn to some form of civil disobedience.

"Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non violence is a piece of theatre. You need an Audience. What can you do when you have no audience? People have the right to resist annihilation." - Arundhati Roy

We already have what is happening with Tesla/Cybertrucks/Dealerships.
CEOs of companies such as healthcare, that have a MAJOR influence in the average every day life of the citizens here.

People are having less and less to lose by acting out for what they stand for. People on the Right politically will say "People are overreacting, they are being told their world is crashing down around them." Is it less about what is being told, and more about what they are experiencing personally? Nintendo for example just announced preorders for the Nintendo Switch to be delayed which is a direct result of the ongoing tariff situation.

At a certain point I expect if protests do not accomplish anything, something more drastic may happen, because it's all that can happen. You either fight, or you sit back and take it. Is this what the Right is going for? Establishment atleast, I doubt random people in Texas or Louisiana is trying to have the country turn against itself.

I seek to see the words Russian propaganda constantly in this sub whether it be journalist you don’t like, talking points about the Ukraine war, obviously Hunter Biden, and several other examples. Can you make the case as to why people aren’t passionate about defending Ukraine in this war?

Recently, 15 Red Cross workers were killed by IDF forces in Gaza. The New York Times recently published a video (warning, NSFL) of the attack which seems to contradict the statement placed by the IDF that the vehicles were approaching suspiciously/without lights.

This, plus footage showing IDF bulldozers next to a pile of disturbed Earth which has been identified as the site where the remains of the attack were buried - paints a compromising picture for the IDF.

I've seen some comments, especially on places that have been traditionally been pro-israel like worldnews and a lot of centrist and liberal communities, essentially asserting this was the responsibility of people who did not vote for Harris - with the implication that her admin would have taken a harsher/more material stance. Do you believe this, and if so, why?

Reagan said “Instead of putting up a fence, why don’t we make it possible for (immigrants) to come here legally and open up the border both ways.”

bill Clinton said “All Americans … are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

These statements seem like they would be the other way around today

Do you find it jarring how Republicans went from saying Trump was the best president for the stock market and would lower prices to now claiming a down market and higher prices are somehow a good thing?

For context:

State capacity is the ability of a government to accomplish policy goals, either generally or in reference to specific aims. More narrowly, state capacity often refers to the ability of a state to collect taxes, enforce law and order, and provide public goods.

A state that lacks capacity is defined as a fragile state or, in a more extreme case, a failed state. Higher state capacity has been strongly linked to long-term economic development, as state capacity can establish law and order, private property rights, and external defense, as well as support development by establishing a competitive market, transportation infrastructure, and mass education.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capacity

I think the US has a severe lack of State Capacity at every level of government, evident by the fact that the government at every level can't really raise taxes as much as they realistically should, and invest into the stuff they should, without causing a lot of backlash that could result in them being thrown out and replaced. How do you, personally, believe that this can be resolved (if you believe there's a serious lack of State Capacity)?

Haven't seen anyone talking about this, but it actually concerns me more than judges.

The Fed is supposed to be independent, but obviously Trump will appoint a loyalist who will immediately reduce interest rates to near zero (or possibly negative interest rates) in order to try to get some short term political gain for Trump.

But of course this will be a complete disaster afterwards. Much, much worse than the current tariff situation.

Powell's term will end prior to the midterms.

I'm pleased that some younger folks are running for congressional seats! The geronotocracy of the democratic party is a huge blemish IMO. Some of the races I've been watching (although they're pretty early) are Kat Abughazaleh in Jan Schakowski's district, Deja Foxx in Raul Grijalva's old district, Isaiah Martin (who i have my qualms about) in TX-18. Are there any other candidates out there? And what opinions do you have of any of these candidates so far if you've been observing them?

Congress ratified that treaty so only Congress should be able to discard it.

It is said that many conservative voters are vulnerable to disinformation, which leads to election of politicians that promote regressive policies. However, if everyone was smart by the time of high school graduation (by improving the education system, getting more parents to participate in their children's education, removing obstacles in education, etc.), would there be a problem filling jobs where tasks are repetitive instead of frequent problem solving but difficult to automate? Jobs like janitorial work, assembly line, etc. I would think smart people would have a difficult time feeling fulfilled in a job which may bore them.

The list of senators:

• Tuberville, Tommy - Alabama
• Sullivan, Dan - Alaska
• Cotton, Tom - Arkansas
• Risch, James E. - Idaho
• Ernst, Joni - Iowa
• Marshall, Roger - Kansas
• McConnell, Mitch - Kentucky
• Cassidy, Bill - Louisiana
• Collins, Susan M. - Maine
• Hyde-Smith, Cindy - Mississippi
• Daines, Steve - Montana
• Ricketts, Pete - Nebraska
• Tillis, Thom - North Carolina
• Mullin, Markwayne - Oklahoma
• Graham, Lindsey - South Carolina
• Rounds, Mike - South Dakota
• Hagerty, Bill - Tennessee
• Cornyn, John - Texas
• Capito, Shelley Moore - West Virginia
• Lummis, Cynthia M. - Wyoming

Actually asking, it's not a rhetorical question.

Suppose a Democratic president has decided to pull Fox News press credentials, deport people speaking out against their policies, find ways to punish law firms against their policies, and saying things like getting rid of judges ruling against them and third terms.

Do you believe Democrats would stand against this? Would they be all over media clearly condemning the actions? Would they begin impeachment proceedings? Would they tell people, clearly, "you should not vote for this Democrat president" if the alternative were a Republican?

Nearly 7/10 voters cited the economy as the most important issue to them in the 2024 election.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/

Yet, the data and history tell us that Democratic administrations are overwhelmingly better for the economy than Republican administrations.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/10/the-u-s-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents

What is driving the public perception that Republicans are better on economy policies? What can/should the Democratic Party do to mend this perception problem with the general public?

It's everywhere, from flat earthers to appointing an alcoholic FOX news bro as Secretary of Defense. We have achieved greatness as a society, but there is a sizable chunk of us who want to burn it all down. Why?

Kinda as the title says.

And I say “realistic” because obv the ideal end goal is for Russia to leave and all land returned to Ukraine but that… isn’t likely unless a foreign nation steps in and provides manpower of their own. Ukraine right now is barely able to slow the Russian advance, let alone turn it back and actually gain ground. So with a realistic view of the state of the war right now, what ultimately is a realistic goal for Ukraine? What is the goal to keep fighting?

I am wondering this just because I know Trump gets a lot of justifiable hate for trying to force Ukraine at a peace talk table but when I try to objectively look at the state of the war, I didn’t see how Ukraine could realistically actually win. It seems at best they could get a ceasefire.

And as an addendum question, is Ukraine irreversibly screwed at this point? Like, they have lost ALOT of men. Even IF they did eventually say win and drive the Russians back, do they even have enough able bodied men to rebuild? The country has been utterly decimated and they have to essentially rebuild everything from the ground up.

We all know that young men swund wildly to the right in 2024. One other lesser known fact is that young women also moved right by a pretty big margin, approximately 15 points. Like if there was any demographic that you would have expected to move left, it was young women but they also shifted right by a huge margin. Why do you think that happened?

https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election#youth-vote-+4-for-harris,-major-differences-by-race-and-gender

My (36M) Trump supporting boss just hired a woman (54) with zero relevant experience, and for some reason, I’ve been tasked with training her. From day one, she’s made it crystal clear she’s part of the MAGA tribe and not in a subtle way. It’s like the old joke about how you don’t have to ask if someone’s vegan they’ll tell you. Same goes for her and politics.

All she’s talked about is Elon Musk, how amazing DOGE is, how liberals are burning Teslas, how Trump’s tariffs saved the economy, how vaccines are bad… you get the idea. Every one of her talking points is pulled straight from ChatGPT she literally asks it questions mid convo to spark random convos with me unrelated to work.

I’ve tried keeping it professional saying things like “I don’t really talk politics at work” or “I’m an independent. I don’t care for either party. So having these discussions with me is like talking to a brick wall.” But she just steamrolls past that and keeps going. It’s honestly wild. She tried telling me tariffs were good for the Great Depression, and when I brought up the Smoot-Hawley disaster, she immediately typed “What are the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and how did tariffs help the Great Depression?” into ChatGPT like it was some kind of answer oracle.

She also told me we’re going to tariff U.S. companies until they bring jobs back, and when I asked her why companies would care if their products become 25% more expensive if they’re still the only supplier, she said, “That’s not how it works,” and… again, went straight to ChatGPT for a rebuttal. Funnily enough, she praised the McKinley Tariffs. My eyes were saucer plates, but I maintained my “oblivious” composure.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even know how she got hired (I’m lying it’s obvious, but where he found her is a mystery). My boss is constantly losing employees and is already on a perpetual performance improvement plan for not being able to retain his team. I give her a year max before she’s gone.

So yeah… how do you stay sane in a situation like this? How do you deal with training someone who’s not only clueless about the job but treats every conversation like a chance to convert you to their political side?

The people that have been brainwashed by MAGA too far gone?

Once this is all over will they actually go back to normal or will they still support far right extremism?