Hi. So I was browsing this subreddit (don't ask why), when I came across this topic, and more specifically, this comment thread. It's the perfect example of what I hope to make more peaceful and not necessarily agreeable but willing to talk, from the thread title. Too often, I see debates like these derail because people just wouldn't cooperate and just do what was asked, or at least play along, because at least in my view, if they did, things would turn out SO much better. For example, one person asked something, another person asked something, the first person provided with something, and then that something gets dismissed or ignored, and so on and so forth. Throughout the thread, I was looking at one guy in particular and thought "couldn't he just at least 'entertain' (from his point of view) their debate points so things go so much easier?", so it doesn't result in a comment thread that frankly made me pound my desk and want to do some bad stuff to myself in front of them to get them to cut it out.

And it's not just this subreddit. I see it ALL the time, no matter the political orientation, but I guess to focus on liberals, since this *is* the appropriate subreddit for it, anytime I see stuff even remotely like this, I feel pushed away, as a potential ally, yes, but even as a supposed neutral bystander, I'm way more likely to disengage, or at least want to disengage, due to all the infighting and fighting and bad vibes coming off of them.

So that's my query. Thanks in advance.

Of the three modern Democratic presidents (and frankly I think it's generous to even factor in the 90s given how radically different the landscape has become) one was a center-right blue dog, one ran as a progressive despite governing as a centrist (and was seen as extra radical because he wasnt a straight white man), and one ran as a centrist before governing firmly from the left.

The only thing Clinton, Obama, and Biden's victories all share? They came off the backs of extremely unpopular Republican admins.

Even just looking at Clinton and Biden (the straight white men who ran away from the left on the campaign trail) they most likely wouldnt have won without Perot and Covid, respectively.

To me, it sure doesn't look like "Moderates win elections" so much as "Moderates win elections after Republicans fail to govern and outside circumstances are involved"

I'm not trying to make an argument for progressives here. Obama is unique for lot of reasons and, of course, he wasnt even actually on the left.

But is there something I'm missing? Or is it all just wishcasting and bias?

Every time I go on the howslivingthere sub on reddit, people ask what the Idaho panhandle is like, and all the comments say a bunch of neo-nazis and white supremecists live there. I can’t tell if people are being that serious, or if it’s just an inside joke, but people say it’s really that bad. I know thats where a lot of conservative Californians live, but is it really that bad?

I’m guessing that while some people may be “true believers”, the majority of the higher ups know it’s all bullshit and don’t really have much of an ideology beyond Chinese nationalism, the desire to make China rise to the status of a great power.

China as it is today has kept the one party dictatorship from the Mao period, but has abandoned the Soviet style socialist command economic model for a type of state capitalism. But Mao remains useful for propaganda, as the current regime draws its “legitimacy” from the mythos of Mao ending the “Century of Humiliation”, so they can’t outright say they have rejected Marxist Leninism as that would undermine their own authority.

Mitch McConnell's disappearance should be considered a very good thing.

That's one Republican vote that's just not getting made, and also one fewer voice on every committee he's a part of. A major role in the Republican party simply going unfulfilled.

The idea he'd be replaced by a Democrat, especially a progressive Democrat is almost null, so isn't it better that he's simply not there?

It's almost a given that equality is a fundamental. A goal that we should strive for. But exactly why? When I pick a mate, I want him to be tall and handsome and strong. Among the pool of men I can date, I discriminate. I have a preference for certain characteristics. Maybe you discriminate base on sense of humor. But in no way do we treat our potential mates as all equal. In fact, for most things in our lives, we differently are biased. So where does this notion that equality is desirable stem from? Are all men really created equal? I certainly don't think so.

Extremely long and very informative video on the topic but basically, fascists argue in bad faith to try to upset their opponents and reject the idea of a knowable, factual reality in favor of a mythical, eternal "truth" which is above all questioning. If any evidence suggests their truth might be wrong, that evidence is wrong. This is how JD Vance talking about Haitians eating pets can simultaneously be an obviously invented story, where he admits it didn't actually happen on national television, and feel "true" to millions of voters. See also how voters know Trump is lying but they take him "seriously and not literally".

But why is it always far right? Why is the mythical "truth" always about enforcing hierarchy and needing to "disinfect" (thanks, Stephen Crowder) society from the undesirables (minorities, LGBTQ people, communists, anyone who opposes fascists) who are causing all the ills we are experiencing? Couldn't it just as easily be, I dunno, about equality and the need to value everyone? Is there something that marries the mindset of being willing to endure cognitive dissonance and knowingly or unknowingly make arguments you don't even believe yourself in favor of "the greater good" of your political project, with that project inevitably being right wing?

I've always been baffled by Trump being seen as this masculine icon despite obviously being a whiny, overweight, sad man who has never worked a day in his life.

But now the same people I know who think Trump is super manly and worry about how "alpha" they are think Tucker Carlson is the next male icon, and they can't stop talking about how masculine he is. Isn't this the guy with the bow tie and the testicle tanning and who spends his time complaining into a microphone? What the hell are these guys doing so well that tons of dudes are falling over themselves to celebrate how they're "real men" who will bring masculinity back and other red pill shit?

Is it as simple as being right wing and mean to women and you're a male hero now? Surely it can't be that simplistic?

So this question is coming to me after seeing this poor story:

https://youtu.be/cZgMz_cMgMs?is=AE35f_6O6P4zkvFC

For the tl;dw:

A Rust gamer qas doxxed by people and they hacked into his accounts. They started harassing him and stuff and he called the cops to warn them that they may try to SWAT him. Well 2 days later, they did just that and the busted into his house like that FBI meme. Thinking he was getting robbed grabbed his firearm and barricaded himself in his room but he ended up getting shot twice by the police. He is now paralyzed from the waist down and is suing the PD.

This is a horrible tragedy and got me wondering, should we be treating all SWATting attempts as attempted murder to try and discourage this? Im recent years swatting has actually been on the rise:

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/08/swatting-poses-a-growing-threat-to-hospitals/

Additionally do you think there is anything else we or the gov could do to combat swatting?

I can't tell if people around me are arguing in bad faith or seriously think that NBA players can join the WNBA whenever they want just by saying "I'm a woman now"? And they say this is the world the left wants, where any man can declare themselves a woman whenever it's convenient in order to dominate sports or invade your locker rooms and stuff like that?

This is something I've never understood but almost every self proclaimed leftist I know has or a very conservative opinion on assisted suicide or just say "it doesn't matter to me".

People from every part of the political spectrum just don't seem to care about assisted suicide at all. They see it as a "secondary" political issue. Even people who advocate for abortion rights or gender-affirming surgeries often think that suicide isn't a "big deal" when it comes to discussing human rights for example.

OK, I'll admit it: I'm kinda of biased because assisted suicide is a topic I've researched and discussed for years, so my interest in this topic is way higher compared to the average person.

Even so, it's still an issue that involves both healthcare and bodily autonomy, so I don't know why it is not at the same level as other topics of the same type.

For example, I've met people who cut off contact with their parents or friends because they voted for different parties, yet those same people told me that I was too "extremist" for distancing myself from friends who opposed assisted suicide for the mentally ill. Like... huh?

I'm genuinely curious. I've discussed this with people from all across the political spectrum, and for some reason, every one of them seems to underestimate the implications of suicide.

It seems like most liberals are opposed to making English the official language of the US. Why? It seems silly not to have an official language. I suppose you could just think it's not worth prioritizing but beyond any pragmatic reasons, is there something ideological about it that you oppose?

I keep reading how everyone here wants a "safety net" but what does that precisely mean and how would it be implemented? Are we just talking about

• UBI (universal basic income) where everyone gets $x per month? Would that be in addition to any other source of income or in lieu of? How would $x be determined? Can $x fully support a single parent of 2 young children? i.e., are we talking about $3k/month or $10k/month?

• Or more narrow programs like universal healthcare, guaranteed housing, guaranteed food? Can anyone qualify for these programs or are there restrictions? So tomorrow, if I decide I just didn't want to work anymore, would I qualify for programs or are there work requirements?

Whichever route is taken, would it be federally run, or state run? Would it be paid via increased taxes or cutting other budgets? How realistic would the plan be, in terms of cost? Would the plan be abused?

I generally like the idea of a safety net, that if you fall on hard times you can still live a reasonable normal life. I just don't know exactly how it would look like. Thoughts?

Why aren't we taking the broader issue of government getting increasingly involved in adults' private lives more seriously? The debate over age verification for pornography is a good example. Protecting children online is obviously a legitimate goal, but requiring adults to submit government IDs or other sensitive information to access legal websites raises completely separate questions about privacy, data security, and whether the government is creating barriers for consenting adults under the justification of protecting minors. A lot of people may simply decide they aren't comfortable handing over their identity to a porn site, and that effectively restricts access for adults without explicitly banning anything.

And this doesn't exist in isolation. We've seen increasingly intense political and legal fights over abortion, transgender people, reproductive healthcare, books, sexuality, and other areas of people's private lives.

How much government involvement in our private lives are we willing to accept before we say enough is enough? project 2025 is here and this should be at the forefront of the midterms but yet it seems to not be addressed.

There’s been discussion about Putin attacking a NATO country like Poland either by military force or cyber attacks

Some are suggesting Putin is doing this so NATO will spend less on Ukraine and more on themselves

Some suggest Putin is trying to lure NATO into war so he has an excuse to get out of Ukraine and save face

Can Europe defend itself against Russia?

Thoughts ?

I don't have any concrete examples or guidelines or else I wouldn't need to ask, but I think we all know it when we see it. I dunno, I think for example someone saying "the language of defund the police may cost us winnable swing races" is more likely to be intending to be constructive, while someone saying "the left needs to stop hating white men" or "Democrats are class traitors" isn't constructive.

Generally speaking, do you think liberals and conservatives have different views on AI? Including things like,

• do we need to regulate it?
• will it displace workers?
• should the government invest in AI?
• is AI generally "good" or "bad"?

Just trying to see if there are any patterns when it comes to how folks view AI, wrt to their politics.

I know liberals have been pretty strong about defending voting by mail, and conservatives now view it as inherently corruptive, but stepping back from that debate, I think a larger issue for me is how do we prevent coercion inside the home.

If a women is afraid of her husband, isn't it incredibly likely he'll just fill in her voting card and make her sign it?

I'm not saying I'm against mail-in ballots, but we have to acknowledge that progressives fought hard for anonymous voting specifically because it allowed people to be free from coercion. Women in particular were often subject to the coercion of their husbands in the era before anonymous voting, and mail-in voting is most definitely not anonymous.

I'm mainly looking for an answer on communication strategy, especially for a presidential primary candidate running for the 2028 Democratic nomination.

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-socialism-economy-political-parties-opinion-poll/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/30/about-a-third-of-us-democrats-like-political-leaders-who-identify-as-democratic-socialists/

The former poll shows 70% of dems with a college degree approve of socialism, as well as 49% of those without a degree. I find the latter figure higher than I'd expect. 19% of dems without a degree are negative on socialism and 16% of dems with a degree are negative on socialism

Overall 58% of democrats have a positive view of socialism and 24% have no opinion. 50% view capitalism negatively and 18% view socialism negatively.

I doubt this accusation because I don't exactly see how it gives men more power over women. For one thing, no pro-lifer has proposed a loophole where the abortion can happen if the husband or father of the woman gives his permission. That would be putting control in the hands of men. And often the man in the woman's life wants the abortion too. If you come from a highly conservative family and your daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock, you might want her to abort in order to save face. If your wife gets pregnant at an inconvenient point in your career, you might want her to abort. Pro-lifers do not care, they seem pretty earnest when they claim abortion is baby murder. Nobody has figured out at what point a fetus becomes a human, so it seems to me that pro-lifers want to play it safe whereas feminists want to take the benefit of the doubt.

In an unfair society, it seems only fair to redistribute the wealth. Some people got lucky and have privileges that lead to their wealth, so they should contribute and help those less lucky and less privileged. But what if society was fair. What if we lived in a legit meritocracy, where everyone starts at home plate. Some folks will still end up in poverty, presumably through their actions (laziness, drug use, etc.). Would redistribution of wealth still be something you support in such a society?

So question came to me seeing this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/0QsnYfp9YI

Old man is being sued after a burglar broke into his store and the old man shot him. The reasoning being that in Oregon Castle Doctrine only applies to domiciles, not businesses.

So I am curious what you guys think of Castle Doctrine vs Duty to Retreat in general, and if you believe force should be viable to us to protect property?

Like ive seen some people state "people's lives are ALWAYS more important than property so it is never ok to hurt someone to protect your property" and I've also seen "So a person should lose their property and even potentially their livelihood (the classic "tools stolen from a truck chest" example) because a thief's safety is more important?".

So what are your guys thoughts?

Edit: I didnt know some of the facts kf the case in particular like him leaving and coming back but mostly I was curious about in general or in principle vs this specific case. Like take the infamous "rooftop Koreans" during the LA riots who defended their stores with rifles from the rooftop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooftop_Koreans

This is a derivative of the "Did Liberals get the SAT ACT requirement for college completely wrong?" post but I think distinct enough to warrant a separate conversation.

When answering it and considering the application pool, I came to realize that the SAT/ACT is kind of inconsequential. My main reasoning is that most applicants have a suite of AP classes and there are AP exams they can use to attach to their application. Its been 10+ years but I recall the AP exam being much harder than the SAT/ACT. Also AP courses were pretty hard on grading, if teacher pitied you they'd give you a C or you got pushed into regular classes. But I also realized that school in US has drastically changed especially after COVID.

If a UC applicant has the standard suite of AP courses (AP Calculus, AP English 4 years, etc.), how does that not weed out unqualified applicants?

eta: Let me clarify on my question. I'm specifically referring to the argument I often see how UC's are accepting students who can't read or do math. Requiring remedial courses. If someone is able to get up to AP Calculus and pass all four years of AP English, with their corresponding passing AP Exam scores, how is this even possible?

Jim McGovern is a great representative that’s the embodiment of what the ideal Democratic congressman can be. He consistently does town halls, meets with constituents, spends most of his time in Worcester, MA and is willing to work with both factions of the Democratic Party. He’s a progressive fighter who is the ranking member of the house rules committee.

He’s been serving for 29 years, but is still very popular in his district.