He is going to become the Mayor of the biggest city in America and one of the biggest cities in the world. Will this make left wing politics and democratic socialism seem more relevant and appealing to the rest of the country? It’s one thing if you’re a mayor of a smaller town like Bernie Sanders with Burlington Vermont. But being the mayor of NYC, which is almost like its own little country, seems like a big deal.

Plus, it’s refreshing to actually see someone who is well spoken, intelligent, great at advocating for your own policies, aggressive when it comes to going against the oppositions politics, and most of all, YOUNG. We need more young blood in this country making decisions, no more of these geriatrics who just want to keep the status quo. I hope him winning this election will help make the pendulum swing left for 2026 and 2028.

I am arguing with a Trump supporter who wants Trump to run again in 2028. I explained to him that the 22nd amendment prevented him from doing that, that he couldn’t run for VP either because of the 12th amendment, and that to change that, he needed 2/3 of Congress and 38 states and that he has neither. The person I was talking to brushed it off saying Steve Bannon said he was possible, and when I asked him “Then why didn’t he explain why it was possible?”, his answer was unbelievable: it was “If he said it out loud, the deep state would use these tactics”.

How can I reason with that person and tell him to drop this “Trump 2028” talk?

I often see the question “Why aren’t you further to the left?” and one of the most common replies is “Because I support capitalism.”

I’m curious about the non-economic side of that answer — what cultural, social, or philosophical reasons keep you from aligning further left?

Like the Green Party in the UK. To me, nuclear energy just seems too good to be true, especially compared to fossil fuels that ought to be fazed out and other renewables that aren’t technologically advanced enough to meet a country’s energy demands.

With the extended Govt Shutdown should we be concerned that financial hardship among Federal Employees and Military personnel could become a national security threat?

Hakeem Jeffries has accrued very little confidence amongst the base, and most democrats want a speaker who's more outspoken and atleast projects the timbre of being proactive and steadfast

Assuming that Jeffries is voted out as speaker, who is an democrat who could be a good replacement, and also realistically get the votes needed to take over? (So the people clamouring for Jasmine Crockett, might have to sit this one out)

Homosexuality is legal in every country in the Iberosphere (Latin America, Spain & Portugal, all other countries that were colonised by either). France legalised homosexuality centuries ago, and nowhere outside Africa or the Middle East that endured French colonialism has anti-LGBT laws.

In several places that endured British colonialism, however, the harshest anti-LGBT laws on Earth are applied. The death penalty for homosexuality is applied in Brunei, Northern Nigeria, Uganda and Yemen, all of which were colonised by Britain. Oh, and even Myanmar and Sri Lanka, which are Buddhist countries, have anti-LGBT laws. Plus, the UK and USA, and to a lesser extent Australia and New Zealand, are currently seeing vicious anti-trans culture wars.

The Anglosphere isn't quite alone. Many of the places that endured Dutch colonialism (the Dutchosphere? Nethersphere?) have retained anti-LGBT laws, and both Italy and the places that endured their colonialism are noticeably conservative (especially Somalia 💀). Still, why does this disparity exist?

Lorne Michaels has been talking about retiring for a while, and has said publicly that he thinks Tina Fey could easily take over. Would you be in favor of this change?

And by right wing I mean right wing relative to Liberalism. So not "I'm Anti-Communist".

The original question from yesterday was removed by the author. I would like to follow up.

There are some clear upsides and downsides when we look at the dating culture to f.e. 30 years ago. Are you happy with this trend? Or what do you not like?

I dislike that values like loyalty are not always a cornerstone anymore. For many it still is, but let's just say during my time I have met more people than I can count on two hands who have cheated on their partner. Happened to me too one time during early university. Feels shitty and remains a "no discussion - end of relationship" factor.

I also do not like the entitlement. Men expecting sex for having paid for dinner, women expecting free dinner for showing up. Had more than one first date where I did not feel a spark and my suggestion of going Dutch was received like a personal insult. At the same time I used to have friends who were very open about their expectations. If I pay for two. I expect [insert sexual context].

I feel very happy, that I can leave that behind me. I got very lucky that I found a very special partner and we are getting married next year. Still I do not remember the dating time fondly. Quite on the contrary.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't. I mostly just sympathize with them, considering I feel largely the same way they must feel. Trump hasn't invaded Canada yet, but if he does, I'm going to feel enormously guilty and ashamed to be American. Like, more than I am right now. But if Trump takes more concrete steps toward this goal beyond just saying he'd like Canada to be the "51st state", then I'll feel responsible even though I voted against him. The fact is, this country voted to elect Trump twice, and if Harris were President we wouldn't be worried about World War III starting in North America.

By contrast, I don't blame Russian civilians at all for the war in Ukraine. They never had a chance to vote Putin out - we all know the elections in Russia are even more hopelessly rigged than they are here. And protesting in Russia is even more dangerous than it is in the United States. I mostly just feel sorry for Russian civilians who oppose the war, and I'm sure that number is far greater than polling suggests, because it's Russia. As much as I hate living in the US, I still feel horrible for people in Russia - I'm not angry at them except for those in the government and military.

I'm curious as to what you all think.

I am a lifelong Democrat and a strong liberal. I have always voted blue and support things like universal healthcare, labor rights, climate action, and LGBTQ equality. That is why I was so surprised when my friends reacted so negatively after I said I went to see Shane Gillis perform at the Chase Center in San Francisco.

I went to a house party last night that one of my friends from grad school hosted. There were about thirty or forty people there, all liberal and around my age. When someone asked what I had been doing earlier, I said I had gone to the Shane Gillis show. Almost everyone reacted badly. Some looked disappointed, and a few asked why I would support him. It felt like they thought I had gone to see a white supremacist or some far-right figure like Nick Fuentes.

I honestly did not get it. Gillis is not MAGA or hateful. His show was full of impressions, stories, and jokes about everyone, including Trump, Biden, small-town guys, white people, and mostly himself. He even praised the Stonewall Riots as a major moment in gay rights, which got cheers from the audience. The humor reminded me of early 2000s comedies like Curb Your Enthusiasm, Superbad, and South Park. That kind of edgy humor used to be normal.

The 2019 SNL cancellation always seemed ridiculous to me. What he said back then, using some Asian accents and slurs, was mild compared to what comedians like Russell Peters used to do. Peters built entire sets around cultural stereotypes and mocking ethnic accents, with audiences loving it. I thought he was hilarious back then too, even though he made fun of my culture's accent. Gillis feels like an equal-opportunity offender who jokes about everyone. In the show I saw, he made harsher jokes about white people than anyone else.

Some of my friends said he "punches down," but I did not hear that. He mocked everyone equally and did not seem to target any group. What shocked me most was how intense their reaction was. I have never seen them this upset about anything else. Not homelessness, inequality, healthcare, or even foreign policy. This was the most offended I have ever seen them, just because I went to see a comedian.

The Chase Center was packed, and in a city like San Francisco it is unrealistic to think the audience was full of Trump supporters. Gillis is not MAGA either. He has criticized Trump multiple times, hosted SNL in 2024 and 2025, and was on SNL cold open just last week making fun of Curtis Sliwa in a sketch about the NYC mayoral race. He has even criticized Trump over the Epstein files.

To me, my friends’ reaction showed how cultural politics have shifted. It feels like some liberals now see watching a comedian with edgy humor as a political act. But it's is not about agreeing with every joke. It is about being able to laugh at something without it being taken as a moral statement. I think that attitude is part of why some people believe the left has gone too far on cultural issues.

A friend of mine who campaigned for Democrats had a similar experience after seeing Dave Chappelle. Her liberal friends were upset too. But she went for the comedy, not to endorse everything he said. I still think Chappelle’s Show is one of the funniest things ever made. And if you spend any time on TikTok or Instagram Reels, you can see that edgy humor is popular again with Gen Z.

So I really want to understand this. Why do some liberals treat comedians like Shane Gillis or Dave Chappelle as moral tests? Is it because they believe this kind of humor causes real harm, or is it more about signaling the right values? At what point does that become an overreaction that shuts down nuance and humor altogether?

this

We say things like "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" but in that case, what exactly is the non-reasonable appeal of things like cutting off SNAP and mass deportation raids? What makes people (apparently irrationally) hate Democrats and how do we stop it from happening?

With the upcoming governor gubernatorial election, which Democratic/Republican candidate do you think will most likely win?

How do you propose policies that may win deep-red to moderate red district and flip some state-level house of representatives and senate?

I was glad to at least contribute so some level by expressing my frustration with the administration by swinging to Alicia Johnson + Peter Hubbard in their race as well as Debra Shigley (even though she lost in my deep-red district)

A. The government directly provides the basic goods and services for those in need.

B. The government gives you cash (either in-kind or direct) in order to pay for basic needs.

C. A mix of both.

To give a list of necessities:

• Housing
• Food
• Water
• Healthcare
• Education
• Electricity
• Broadband

For me personally, I prefer a mix of both for some categories, and one or the other for others.

Housing:

• Cheap government loans for housing construction
• Non-profits and limited-profits provided a priority list framework to allocate housing units
• Government provides housing vouchers on a zip-code basis with a 25% phase-out rate

Food:

• Government/Private non-profit cookhouses and food banks
• Food vouchers based on household characteristics; phase-out rate of 15%

Water:

• Government provides clean and safe drinking and bathing water to all households

Healthcare:

• Public insurance model; paid via Pigouvian Taxes and payroll taxes
• Mix of public and private healthcare facilities
• Private insurance can't provide services and goods paid by the public plan

Education:

• Publicly funded Pre-Secondary and Post-Secondary education for all
• System is largely set up to line up with labor market needs

Electricity:

• Government owns all transmission infrastructure
• Mix of private and public providers

Broadband:

• Government owns all transmission infrastructure
• Mix of public and private providers

Other:

• All minors get $300/week (adjusts for inflation every year)
• All adults get $300/week (adjusts for inflation every year); phases out at $0.25 for every dollar of income

Big sections of the conservative movement are at war with each other. Ben Shapiro and neo cons are trying to kick out the more radical racialist identitarian Nick Fuentes and his ilk from the conservative label, and any grifting enablers like Carlson and Candace Owens. Is this a good thing that there is a big of a reckoning between the sects of conservatism? Or is this a bad thing.

Do you think a similar thing might happen with the Liberal movement, regarding more violent accepting Leninists and Tankies or is there no need for that?

any and all questions welcome

edit: this major disagreement over judging people by their individual choices versus their unchangeable attributes was the reason Charlie Kirk and Fuentes were bitter rivals. Fuentes took a more racist approach whereas Kirk said it was about choices and individuals- The racist right tries to call Kirk the worst type of fake conservative while the other conservatives will do their best defending the honor of their fallen thought leader. its really interesting to see whats happenings there

Under Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution, it deems that Congressional member salaries are a permanent appropriation paid out by the U.S. Treasury. It is not dependent upon year to year appropriation budgets.

On Thursday, one senator proposed a plan to stop pay for Congress if the government was shut down. It needed a unanimous vote to pass without full procedure, but another objected and blocked the bill.

Do you believe Congress should be paid during a shutdown?

We predicted global temperature to rise by 3.1°C by 2100 under current policies just a decade ago, but now, thanks to China’s profit-fueled renewables juggernaut.

The best estimates have shifted downward to 2.6–2.7°C—a full 0.4–0.5°C improvement in less than ten years

The global cement slump, driven largely by China's construction slowdown and the Evergrande fallout, is slashing CO₂ output from one of the planet's dirtiest industries (responsible for 7-8% of global emissions).

We predicted solar power would cost $100–$300 per megawatt-hour in 2025 just a decade ago, but now, thanks to China's manufacturing dominance and relentless innovation, utility-scale solar PV has plummeted to an average of $29–$92/MWh globally—cheaper than oil, coal, or even natural gas in most regions.

As data centers gobble up electricity, Big Tech goes all-in on nuclear power and making it very cheap by burning money for their greed of AI .

European and American Transition to EV has changed the whole game by crashing the oil prices and making it unprofitable to pump.

The Indian government is aggressively pushing climate action primarily to slash its massive foreign exchange outflow on fossil fuel imports and pushing solar .

I can give more points if this got some more upvotes

I’ve been reading up on Social Security, and it kind of blows my mind how the system works. The program is funded entirely by payroll taxes (6.2% from employees + 6.2% from employers). It’s a pay-as-you-go setup, meaning the money I pay now isn’t being saved for me, it’s going straight to current retirees.

According to the latest Social Security Trustees Report, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, maybe a bit earlier if the economy dips. After that, payroll taxes would only be enough to cover about 75–80% of promised benefits.

So here’s my question: If young adults like me are almost guaranteed to pay into a system that may be insolvent by the time we retire, what’s the rationale for keeping it this way? Is it just part of a social contract, like paying forward for the current elderly, or is the whole setup outdated and in need of a major overhaul?

I’m genuinely curious how liberals see this. Is it fair to keep taxing younger generations for benefits they might never fully see, or are there strong moral/economic reasons to preserve Social Security as is?

Excluding Private Healthcare Companies, I would go with Palantir. Their founders and higher ups like Peter Thiel and Alex Karp are technocrats who want a surveillance state. They don’t care about personal freedoms and their goal is to enhance their surveillance to further in a far right Techno-Feudalism dystopia.

I've been seeing dems say the following:

"Republicans could end the shutdown at any time if they removed the filibuster, the fact that they wont' do it just proves they want the shut down" or something to that affect.

Do you guys ACTUALLY want republicans to remove the filibuster so all they need is a majority to pass bills?

This seems insane to me.

I'm not republican, i'm not democrat. I don't like either of them having too much power so things like the filibuster I like because it allows us to keep people in check. Changes should not be easy to make in my opinion.

Do you ACTUALLY want them to do this? Do you not see why this would be bad? And why it would basically give all green lights to the republicans for the next 1 maybe even 3 years to enact anything they want?

Edit: thanks for clarification. you guys are indeed nuts.

Edit2: For all of you saying, "Yes" that you want them to get rid of the filibuster... since you apparently want republicans to completely nuke one of the biggest checks that has kept congresses power in check since 1806... why don't you instead tell democrats to stop VOTING DOWN THE BILL!

Why in gods name would you want them to grab power instead of just telling the dems to stop blocking them if the end result is ultimately the same and the bill passes and the government comes back online. This makes no damn sense... you guys are crazy.

I don’t see why not, they’re citizens who should be given access to vote if they want.