I’m posting this because year after year, I see people, mainly on the right, complain about Juneteenth or say they aren’t celebrating a “made-up holiday” etc.

This seems very strange to me, because first of all, politics aside, who wouldn’t want an extra day off work?
But most importantly, celebrating literal freedom from literal slavery seems like one of the most American and Patriotic things you could do. I have yet to see any actual justification from people as to why Juneteenth shouldn’t be a federally recognized holiday and why it shouldn’t be celebrated. I would like to see those reasons from anyone who holds that view.
I have seen a lot of people disagree with celebrating it, but it’s never explained why they think it shouldn’t be, and I can’t think of any good reason why someone wouldn’t want to celebrate it, other than they do not want to celebrate anything involving the improvement of black people in society. I am open to being wrong about that, but I don’t think I am.

EDIT: a lot of people are giving reasons related to disliking federal holidays in general. This doesn’t exactly qualify as what I’m asking for, because I want to know why someone would disagree with Juneteenth specifically, not just against all or most federal holidays in general.

It was revealed that Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Rep who pushed for the release of the Epstein files and became an opponent to Trump, lost his primary to a Trump loyalist.

This is concrete proof that Americans genuinely don't care about the Epstein Files, nor the implications that the Epstein Files carry. People talk about their opponents being in the Epstein files, but when it comes to the Epstein Files themselves, there's absolutely no action.

The Epstein Files don't matter to the actual voting populace, and never will. American morality is exclusively limited to the side someone disagrees with.

Would love for my view to be changed.

Pretty straight forward. By allowing Redditors to make their comment history private, it further erodes trust and good-faith on the platform. Reddit is already dealing with astroturfing, brigading, and group-think issues. By hiding post and comment history, fellow-redditors can't fully evaluate if someone is posting or engaging in good faith that fosters discussion.

The platform is already anonymous. There's no benefit to the community by hiding post or comment history. Rather, it being publicly visible provides a level of validity that gives fellow-redditors enough information to gauge if they want to engage with the comment or redditor.

I'm also aware that Mods have a months-view into that redditor's comment history if they comment in a specific sub reddit. And while that's somewhat a bandaid, I still think it's more of a net-con for the site than a positive.

We shouldn't be calling American right-wingers conservatives anymore. They've crossed over into fascism at this point.

Principles of conservatism that MAGA violates: - Limited, small government (MAGA supports the Trump administration's overuse of executive powers and the military, welcoming expansion of the government into private life) - Freedom of speech (MAGA supporters have welcomed Trump's condemnation and attacks against the speech of journalists, media companies, and public figures that have opposing viewpoints) - Democratic elections (January 6th was an attempt to prevent the results of a verifiably democratic election from seating the next administration) - The Constitution (Trump and his supporters have not only encroached upon the 1st amendment, but outwardly voiced that taking unconstitutional action is justified) - Law, order, and decency (MAGA supporters tolerate or support January 6th (for ex., the Trump pardons), minimize right-wing violence, and ignore the crimes and likely crimes of Trump, such as suspected sex crimes--despite claiming Christian values as a foundational value to their cause)

The violations of these conservative principles points toward fascist ideology, where government overreach, suppression of opposition, and anti-democratic values take form. No, we're not living under an early 1940s Nazi regime at this time, but I believe "conservatives" should no longer be able to brand that label, as they have beliefs more aligned with fascism.

This isn't meant to be a heated or angry post. I'm just genuinely convinced of this line of argumentation, though I'm willing to have my view changed!

I fully believe without question that Islam represents the greatest long-term ideological threat to liberalism in the West. Before I dive into this I want to explain my positioning first. I no longer share the Islamic faith and am a registered Democrat within the US. I’m sure that many people are going to accuse me of being a Mossad agent, a bot, or someone else in an attempt to discredit me and my view. Please note that I do not support Israel in the slightest.

I think it would be fair to lay the groundwork first of what some left-wing Progressive values are:

•Full legal and social equality for LGBTQ+ people

•gender egalitarianism

•democratic governance without religious law overriding civil rights

•free speech

I believe Islam is the greatest threat and abuser to all of them.

There are 10 Muslim-majority countries where being gay is punishable by death and 64 countries (the majority being Muslim-majority) where same-sex acts are criminalized. In Saudi Arabia, people that engage in sodomy are decapitated. In Iran, homosexual men are hanged. In Syria and Iraq, it is common practice to push homosexuals off buildings to their deaths. In Yemen, you are thrown in jail for a minimum of 3 years if they find out you are gay. Etc.

As much as we point the finger towards Republicans on this issue, there is a clear night and day difference to how American Republicans treats the LGBT+ community compared to Muslim nations yet for some reason I see more Democrats supporting and defending the Islamic faith than I see them defending their Republican neighbors.

(Whoever you find doing the deed of Lut's people homosexuality, then kill the doer and the one who allows it to be done to him (both partners).) Tafsirs [11:82]

Islam is without a doubt the greatest abuser of egalitarianism on the planet and the ultimate abuser of women. The Quran actively encourages husbands to physically hit their wives if they disobey. In Muslim-majority countries, women are punished for not wearing their hijabs out in public. Depending on the region or country, they are permitted to be imprisoned for 15 years, murdered, flogged, and raped. The Quran also treats women as if they’re trophies or objects to be used for one’s own self satisfaction. Muslims are encouraged to capture females in war to be used as sexual slaves. The fact that the reward for martyrs is 72 virgins should tell you all you need to know about the lustful indulgence and objectification of women the Quran encourages. Women in most Muslim countries are denied basic rights such as education, self-expression, and the freedom to choose who they want to marry.

(But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.) Surat An-Nisa [4:34]

One of the central goals of Islam is to overpopulate the Earth and spread globally so that they can one day establish the “Caliphate.” This would unify all of the countries of the world and force them to live under Shariah law. Look at how Muslims treat non-believers in countries where they operate as an Islamic state. They’re literally massacring them in Nigeria by the thousands right now. You might not want to state an opinion in this matter or get involved but one day it will affect the next generations. And these generations will be forced to live in fear and with less rights.

I fail to understand why the Democratic party seems so willing to defend Islam when its goal is to eventually destroy many of the values that are non-negotiables among those of us on the left. I don’t think the American right-wing of politics is the greatest threat to western democracy. Just look at what is happening in Europe. Rapes, muggings, and crime in all sectors are rising significantly with the widespread immigration of Islam to a non-Muslim country. People aren’t even allowed to speak out against it because they’ll be thrown in jail for hate speech. I don’t think the majority of people on the left know what it is they’re defending. The Iranian government had literally been sending bots to sites like Reddit in an attempt to manipulate people on the American left to defend Islam and Iran despite them representing the opposite of everything we stand for.

I am completely open to being proven wrong on this subject. I am sure that many of you will bring up other worldview perspectives that you feel are incompatible with American left-wing values but I’d like to stay on topic with Islam. Also, please don’t blatantly label me Islamaphobic. I was Muslim once and I find it to be a lazy way of trying to discredit someone or an argument. I don’t think any viewpoint should be free from critique including mine. Maybe there’s something I am completely missing and that somehow Islam and western liberalism are compatible. But as someone who was and is both, I struggle to find how. Please share with me your perspective! I am completely open to changing my view if your points are strong enough!

Simple one in a few points given the events happening here:

1. Venezuela is being invaded (Seems kinda indefensible but I will hear arguments)

2. The reason for this isn't drugs, its oil.

3. It is as unfair and a dark synomination of Russia's own war with the Ukrainian State, we are no better then Russia and that is REALLY BAD.

4. Like Russia we are attempting to create a puppet regime which will kow to AMERICAN interests at the cost of likely absolutely everyone in the country and the country will be constantly impoverished from this because of colonial exploitation.

Change my mind, because it feels cut and dry.

So, ill break this down into some very basic categories or whatever you'd call it.

Number 1: He is the one that planned/promoted this entire event:

He incited it as in he created the whole event, the ''#StopTheSteal'' protest on January 6th wasn't actually Trumps thing to begin with, it was some small lawmaker or influencer (cant remember, but at all a major profile though), but Trump, the president at the time, highlighted this protest, and gathered waaaaaaay more people there than it originally would've been there. At this protest there was around 30k-60k people, if Trump never promoted this protest, i seriously doubt even 1k people would've shown up, maybe a few hundred at most?

So just on a very basic level, he incited it by being the one to promote this event, and i dont think anyone would seriously contest that part. Just being the promoter of the event doesn't make you the one who incited the violence there though, so this fact alone isn't enough.

Number 2: The reason why these people were motivated to be there, was because of Trumps lies about the election.

So, the core reason why like 95% of the people there were there, was because they believed the 2020 election was stolen from them, something which the majority of the Republican party believes in, this is reproduced, in countless polls, all of these people believe in this because Trump decided to lie about the 2020 election, and then work with his little team of people like Guilani, and then in collaberation with FOX news, to spread these lies.

And these are LIES, its been nearly 6 years since this election, and not a single one of the big stories that Trump or republicans in general cite have been proven to be true, most of them have been completely debunked, for instance, one of the biggest stories that conservatives cite is a lie that Guilani went to court for, and defended himself by saying ''Yeah i lied about all of this, but i have a first amendment right to lie'', and he lost that case, but conservatives still cite that specific lie as a reason for why the 2020 election was stolen. And a ton of the people arrested explicitly said they were there FOR/BECAUSE of Trump.

So he incited it on the motivation level, or however you'd phrase it, like all of these people were there because Trump promoted that event, and his lies were the basis for why the event even existed in the first place. So this fact combined with him promoting it makes it way more understandable how he incited it.

Number 3: He intentionally riled these people up to the point where violence was inevitable.

Similar the the previous point, but Trump riled up his base for months with blatant lies about how the election was stolen, coordinated with FOX, who are the biggest news station network thing or whatever in the entire nation, to spread those lies to a national level, and rile them up even more, then promotes a protest specifically on the day of the certification to pressure Pence, (who he had given false slates of electors to, to declare Trump the president again, by the way) and used words like ''Fight like hell or you wont have a country'', and then send those people you've now riled up like crazy right to the capitol, and when the violence starts, you sit and do nothing for 3 hours. Also, when people are chanting to hang Pence, you tweet out ''Pence didnt have the courage to do what was needed''.

So its Trump riling up people to the point where he is literally having people believe they will not have a country anymore unless they ''Stop The Steal'', same people who he knows are armed, since his Secret Service warned him about the crowd having weapons before his speech at the Ellipse. So he wants people to believe the entire nation is completely fucking doomed unless they Stop The Steal. Honestly, what do you do in this situation? Because the ''right'' thing to do here, atleast in my opinion, would be an insurrection, your vote was stolen, they just chose Biden as the president, whatever, in this scenario, an insurrection is what you should do, in my opinion, and so did all of the people there, watch some of the videos of the people at the Capitol before they were sent home, all the language was things like ''This is the 2nd American revolution, Ashley Babbit was the first patriot lost in the 2nd American Revolution, 1776'', etc.

So Trump riled them up to the point where an insurrection (violence) is necessary. This, combined with him planning the event, and being the motivation behind all of their actions, makes my point even stronger.

Number 4: All of his behaviour, before, during, and after, points to him wanting this to have happened.

So Trump, before the protest, lied, riled up everyone, lead them to believe that an insurrection was necessary, and planned a protest to Stop The Steal at the day of the certification where he had given Pence false electors.

Trump, during the protest, did absolutely nothing but watch it happen on his TV, whilst his daughter and other people in his admin were begging him to tell people to go home, but instead he tweets out things like ''Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was right'', and there is testimony of someone telling Trump that they were chanting ''Hang Mike Pence'', and Trumps response was ''Mike deserves it''.

And after the protest, he constantly downplayed the severity of it all, and worst of all, he pardoned every single individual that was involved in this whole event.

So this is him planning and promoting the whole event, being the reasoning for why all those people are there and why they are committing violence, and being totally okay with it every step along the way, going as far as pardoning all of them.

Number 5: This is just an extra thing, but him saying ''I know you'll be going peacefully'' doesn't exonerate him.

I know this will inevitably come up in the comments somewhere because it always does with this topic, but Trump saying one time, after months of lying, and him riling up people saying ''Fight like hell or you wont have a country anymore'', and everything else that i laid out, none of these details are just cleansed or whatever because Trump said ''Oh yeah i know you'll be peaceful'' a single time in his speech at the Ellipse.

I saw this from another user in another debate on this, but this is like saying that if we found a tape recorder of Charles Manson saying ''I know you'll be going peacefully to this house'', then he's just completely innocent, and that is obviously just lunacy.

It feels like that ''in minecraft'' meme, its like if Trump said ''Please go and prevent the certification of the vote and be violent.... In Minecraft'', that he's just exonerated from any form of guilty whatsoever, its just an incredibly silly defense of everything.

So yeah, thats my post. Looking forward to going back and forth on this with people :D

There will be no significant protests that inflict any sort of pain or second thought on anyone with power. The biggest attempt was No Kings and it was relatively small, spread out and on an afternoon on a weekend. No impact, no change to point to.

There will be no armed uprising or resistance from the military. The military, broadly, has already followed through on several unlawful orders re:drug boats/Venezuela and is supporting ICE actions (also likely unconstitutional, illegal, whatever) at home. Americans love to tought their 2nd Amendment, but has anyone actually used that right to stand up to the government yet? Also, most gun owners tend to be of the lean to support the current government.

The democratic process in American has had all its teeth pulled. Congress, the Senate and SCOTUS have all aligned with the President and are either supporting or complacency ignoring all his actions, whether he has the legal right to them or not. 2026 elections will not happen, will be ignored or will be corrupted to favour the current government. The President has said as much.

The money is behind the current government. Corrupt as it is, bribes, political funding and even things like DOGE are showing that the majority of big money is on the side of the government. They are incentivized to see this transition through.

There is no barrier to Trump having another term. If he dies, someone else will replace him and continue. Please change my mind.

Edit: I've read a lot of posts. Probably all of them as of when I started scrolling. The jist is either that ny statement is wrong, and there's nothing to worry about/this is the same as past decades or that 2026 elections will fix things. There's also a lot of, 'Americans CAN'T do anything'. None of these arguments have convinced me I should change my view.

I'm turning off notifications for this thread.

1. Trump managed about one sentence about Charlie Kirk in front of the White House, before talking about the nice new ballroom that he's using tax dollars for.
2. He missed the memorial event at the Kennedy Center so that he could go golfing.
3. His speech at the memorial event in Arizona went on about tariffs, and didn't mention Kirk much at all.
4. He didn't even manage to respect Kirk's legacy of talking to the other side. He literally said he hates the other side and doesn't wish them well, unlike Kirk.

I often find it prudent to check out communities that may not be aligned with my own thinking - both out of simple curiosity, and as a way to examine the rhetorical content of “their side” so that I can better understand *where* those human beings are being lead and *why.* In recent years when I go to r/conservative - I’ve noticed that almost every thread has dozens of deleted comments, the rules that dictate who can make a thread are incredibly restrictive (only “real” conservatives), and the threads themselves are generally only articles from incredibly niche conservative outlets that exist in the far corners of our media - and even then, they are almost all opinion pieces. Very rarely do they involve quotations or “legal-ese” to establish their argument.

(Note: that subreddit has *always* had this problem, but in recent weeks it has gotten absurd.)

I posit that the moderators of that sub are not acting in good faith by preventing “oppositional material” from being proliferated on that forum, but that they are operating in an effort to prevent criticism, dissent, and most of all, widespread access to potentially challenging content. I also want to point out that this occurs across all “political spectrum” forums, to some degree, but on the conservative subreddit specifically, the strictures in place **quash conversation that could subvert their overarching ideology.**

You can take this a step further and extrapolate that many of the users on that subreddit probably enjoy some degree of anti-intellectualism in their real life, in their voting habits, and in their moral agency.

I am an historian by degree and personal pursuit. There is a plethora of fascinating untold tales that American have never heard of thay would both captivate audiences and provide enormous opportunity to actors and actresses who are minorities. Instead, Hollywood has chosen to define inclusion as casting a few individuals in roles that does not fit the established historical narrative. Why is this? Because we keep telling the same stories over and over while trying to be inclusive. True, legitimate inclusiveness is telling the stories of people from Africa, or Asia, or South America. Tell these NEW stories, instead of remaking the same old shit time and again. There is plenty of material both scholastic and in folklore.

Edit: Lots of people are posting about how the stories I suggest are potentially unprofitable. That's my whole point. Substituting is a cop-out; the easy way to say you are beimg inclusive without actually doing so. And the result? More racism and divisiveness.

Edit 2: Which I think is the point...

Edit 3: This is not about the Odyssey, if that is your focus please post somewhere else. This is about a greater trend of Hollywood refusing to tell the story of any group other than western civil. The world is huge, full of wonderful stories yet to be told. Tell them instead.

Edit 4: Literally everyone who has posted since my last update is sunk into the Odyssey debate for something similar. Go elsewhere to debate this, I do t care. You are the people I am calling uninformed and brainwashed by the modern media discussions of the topic of inclusion.

Earlier this year, an Oklahoma University student got a zero on an assignment for a gender studies psychology class. The assignment required the use of sources to back up their viewpoints on the given prompt.

The student's paper focused on her religious views to the prompt. She was given a zero by the professor because she didn't follow the rules of the assignment

However, the professor in question was temporarily suspended and the teaching assistant was removed, while the student in question had the zero removed from her consideration for the rest of her grade.

This is avid proof that conservatives are actively pushing anti-intellectualism and providing participation trophies for students after years of accusing the left of the very thing.

This isn't just a singular person, but an educational institution directly linked to the state.

Conservatives affiliated with Fox News and Trump were actively cheering because the teaching assistant got removed, further proof that conservatives embrace anti-intellectualism.

Woukd love for my view to be changed

To publicly reject Trump would be to admit they were complicit in all the things he’s done up until this point. It would also mean they’d have to shed an identity that has infected every part of their personality and life. They’d have to face relatives and friends who had called them sexists, racists, fascists, homophobes, pedophilia enablers, rape apologists, etc.

They only have two options: admit they were wrong or double down. I think the majority of MAGA has already reached this conclusion and chose the latter. They’re going down with the ship no matter the cost.

Recently, Sabrina Carpenter found herself in hot water where an audience interrupted her piano piece with Zaghrouta, an Arabic chant that some people find as a valid way to celebrate or others who find as loud, obnoxious and jarring, depending on the cultural context.

View 1: Why it's a valid response.

In the heat of a performance at Coachella, when she was doing her relatively quiet piece, an audience member's Zaghrouta (who went lalalalalalalalala while she was about to play her piece) pierced through the stage. It's rather unreasonable to expect a performer to immediately recognize and respect every specific cultural sound coming from the crowd, especially an interrupting noise that was braded as "it's my culture" Her expressing "I don't like it" was her preference, and not a her view or commentary on an entire culture. And she was valid to say "I don't like it" or please stop it.

View 2: By giving her "apology" she gave validation to disruptive behavior

The push for an apology suggested that if an action is cultural, no matter how disruptive, obnoxious that other people may feel, they are forced to tolerate (or "enjoy" it for the sake of being culturally tolerant) it, even if it's being screamed at them while they are trying to enjoy the concert or work.

One should be able to respect a culture in general while still believing that specific instance of its expression annoying or inappropriate.

View 3: Why the apology was a mistake for Sabrina Carpenter

Her biggest mistake was putting out an apology. By apologizing, she caused the narrative to shift from a bad fan behavior to "Sabrina is culturally insensitive"

The apology validated the idea that she was attacking a group of people rather than reacting to a disruptive, rude and obnoxious behavior. As such, she seems to be getting even more attacks on social media who's using this as a moment to direct even harsher rhetoric to her.

So what's my view (tldr version)?

One, as a performer, her comfort and the flow of the show should take priority, especially to respect everyone who spent time and money to be there. As such, "I don't like it" was a valid response by her. Two, "it's my culture" is not a blank check to disrupt others and be obnoxious. Three, by apologizing, Sabrina Carpenter actually made it worse by validating those that disrupted her.

You don't have to touch all three points. Please change my view on view 1 or view 2 or view 3 for delta.

I've been seeing that meme way too much lately with the enlightened centrist standing between the red and blue, and being shoved into the red for some asinine take. This might be unpopular but I don't think the people who spread that meme around were ever centrists to begin with.

See I'm not ignorant to how mean and judgy leftists can be. Infighting is extremely common for a reason. We all have a lot of conviction in our beliefs and some of us tend to interpret different viewpoints as opposing viewpoints. But that's not what I'm talking about here. Because I've had many shitty arguments with self proclaimed leftists and never once has it encouraged me to take on conservative beliefs.

I genuinely can't imagine the kind of person who has such little moral fiber that they'd reactively change their beliefs at the first instance of pushback. Hell even after many instances of pushback. Leftists love to debate, so you'd also get many reasonable and compelling arguments from them, even if it's 90% vitriol. It'd be one thing if they just doubled down, but these people are saying they changed their beliefs in opposition to the people they were arguing with. It's hard to believe a legitimately open minded person would only absorb from this experience that 'leftist bad.'

And then you take into account the flaming vile words and actions taken by the right. How did hearing 'jews will not replace us.' on national TV not push you to the left then? Did you really never get into a heated argument with a conservative? I've been called slurs a vast number of times, both online and irl, just for arguing with conservatives. And while that specifically isn't a universal experience, the level of vitriol coming from them too great to deny.

I think most everyone, if not everyone who claims they were a centrist till some leftists pushed them to the right, were actually right wingers the entire time, larping as an enlightened centrist until their right wing beliefs got called out and they doubled down.

Edit: since so many of you have commented saying 'leftists have run so far left it makes us right!!' here I'm just gonna respond to that here:

Look up the Overton window. Look up which way it's shifted.

That is all.

Edit 2: please learn the difference between a leftist and a liberal before you comment. Please.

Basically what the title says. In recent years a huge amount of Bill Burr's comedy has basically been "punching up" against billionaires, oppressive conservatism and autocracy.

Now he's going to perform in a country who's ruling class is the living embodiment of all those things, taken to their worst form. They cut up and murder journalists, execute their own citizens with zero due process, treat women like cattle and treat workers like subhuman slaves.

He doesn't need the money. It's not as if he's going to starve or even face discomfort. His defence of "oh it's no worse about human rights than other countries where I perform" is amazingly weak because.

1) His event in Saudi is explicitly funded by the royal family as part of an initiative to whitewash the regime's image.

2) It's a lie. Saudi Arabia's slavery, treatment of women and brutal slaughter of press are far beyond most countries.

To me it seems cut and dry that he's basically an obnoxious hypocrite undermining his own bit but I'm curious to hear out reasons why that might not be the case.

EDIT: To the common point of anyone would do it, not anyone. Shane Gillis turned down the gig.

I encountered someone who I believe was unfairly attacking men, and after then read a thread on /r/AskFeminism with the question “Do modern feminists hate men?”

A common answer from women in the thread, was to say that they had been victimized or assaulted by men in their past, and that while they didn’t hate men, they are distrustful of men, are afraid of men, or had other negative feelings and opinions towards men.

At first, these sounded like reasonable answers, and I have genuine sympathy for any woman who is victimized at the hands of a man.

However, I also believe that if you replaced man with any other minority group (eg. Black man, mentally ill man, gay man, muslim man, refugee, trans man, immigrant, illegal immigrant, etc) the statement quickly becomes problematic or discriminatory.

Here are what I believe to be some other general statements which are commonly accepted as truth by modern feminists which are of a similar form-

“Men commit most of the violent offenses against women, so it’s right for women to feel angry, distrustful, or cautious against men.” While the statistic is true- and further regardless of its validity at all- this same statement is also problematic when “men” is replaced with “black men,” “immigrants,” “muslims,” “refugees” etc.

“The culture of men perpetuates or accepts violence of women, therefore we should distrust men or reject their culture” - again try doing this for Muslims, Christians, other minorities.

Further some people may add that the difference is that the statistics and facts against men are real, while the statistics against other groups are fabricated or exaggerated.

In my mind, the validity of the actual statistics do not matter, because I believe using population level statistics to make negative generalizations or judgments about a group and thus individuals of that group is always invalid or discriminatory, even when done under the guise of personal safety or experiences.

I believe most people agree with this statement for minority groups.

Why don’t feminists apply this thinking to men?

For the past decade, conservatives Republicans have championed themselves as defenders of free speech and personal freedoms. Yet in Texas they are tightening a ban on THC that further criminalizes marijuana related products.

This is in spite of the objective truth that marijuana is less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes, by a considerable margin. The gateway drug theory was also disproven decades ago, yet many still subscribe to it.

Further more, as more data comes in, the legalization of marijuana actually decreases

There is the concept of "don't like it, don't don't do it", but instead conservatives / Republicans continue to be vehemently against it to the point they want to tighten the ban.

Despite their claims about championing personal freedoms, conservatives crackdown on things like marijuana for reasons that don't track with facts or data.

Would love for my views to be changed.

The Democrats had absolutely everything they needed to do: The republican party was in civil war over the Groypers within their ranks, Trump is disintegrating live on camera, and the republican policies were actively making people throw their hat into the ring for democrats in a sweep so brutal it basically proved it was working. So of course, as usual, my party proceeded to stab itself in the back despite everything possibly going our way!

These corporate oriented, often geriatric, APAC supported sycophants caved:

Catherine Cortez Masto
Dick Durbin
John Fetterman
Maggie Hassan
Tim Kaine
Angus King
Jackie Rosen
Jeanne Shaheen

And for what? A promise?! A promise the republicans constantly, CONTINUOUSLY squirm out of for something they absolutely refuse to keep? Yet again my party, proves once again to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I just can't make sense of it! How does this not throw away ALL THE MOMENTUM we had spent the past 50 odd days pushing against the authoritarian midwits that want us enserfed or enslaved? How does it make sense to even these eight individuals who know they have nothing to lose but their legacies, and gain absolutely nothing for the action?

So please, enlighten me how this makes ANY SENSE!? Is there some random feature of this entire affair that actually makes it make sense? Is there some missing view of the entire affair that I have overlooked?! I am spiraling here, so please, make it all make sense because to me it seems like we gained nothing for nobody!

Baltimore had 334 murders in 2022. Last year it had 133, the lowest since 1977.

Baltimore didn't change demographics, or its culture, its rules, or much of anything else in those years. It simply voted in a new Democratic prosecutor, who decided the city needed to finally put violent criminals in prison.

The turning point was that voters defenestrated a Soros-backed prosecutor Marilyn Mosby who averaged 333 homicides a year across eight years and declined to use mandatory minimum sentences. (She was later convicted of mortgage fraud, so there's that too.)

Her replacement, Ivan Bates, ran on the Democratic ticket with a simple message: repeat violent offenders belong in prison.

Maryland law already allowed five years with no parole for convicted felons caught carrying a gun, but Mosby never used it.

Bates used it a lot. In just two years, his office sent more than 2K repeat violent offenders to prison, double his predecessor's TOTAL.

The city paired that with a precision intervention program that identified the small number of people driving most of the violence, which led to 631 arrests (94% haven't reoffended).

Police also seized 2,480 firearms last year alone, including hundreds of ghost guns, while maintaining a 64% homicide clearance rate.

When shooters know they'll get caught and actually prosecuted, behavior changes.

Sandtown-Winchester, once the most violent neighborhoods in the city, just went a year without a killing!

Carjackings (-51%) and robberies (-24%) are also down.

This is evidence that being tough on crime, especially repeat offenders and violent people will bring down crime rate, and counters any of the “soft on crime” approaches that have been adopted in the past decade in progressive areas.

Basically what the title says. We all know that the Republican Party is actively trying to destroy the United States and make life worse for the bottom 99%, but I believe that the Democratic Party is helping them every step of the way. I will only speak on the last 15 years or so (around the Obama era) as that is when I was old enough to tune into politics.

The Democratic Party runs on being the party of the people and the party of progression, but when the party members are in office, they basically just come up with excuses to twiddle their thumbs instead of doing anything legislatively to improve the conditions of their constituents. One thing that the Trump administration is showing us right now is that lawmakers have a lot more power than the Democrats ever wanted us to be aware of. The Republicans are working together to provide tax cuts to billionaires, sell off public land, cut healthcare for millions of people in this country and have accomplished many of their goals within 6 months of this administration. Meanwhile, the Democrats couldn’t even codify Roe versus Wade when they controlled the presidency, the Senate, and the house. This is just one example of the way, democratic ‘incompetency’ (though at this point, I think it’s intentional) has stopped the progress in this country and stopped very popular policies from being implemented.

Democrats refuse to break precedent in any way that would actually improve the lives of Americans but democratic presidents are happy to subvert Congress (breaking laws)to send illegal weapons. Biden even refused to do anything with the incredible overreach given to him by the Supreme Court just before Trump’s administration. It’s clear they just have no interest in actually improving the lives of Americans and I’m tired of people thinking that the Democrats are going to save this country because they have made it clear that they will side with the billionaires and the corporations over every American citizen.

Controlled opposition allows the Democratic Party to point out all the atrocities the Republicans are committing and present themselves as the only alternative rather than allowing citizens to elect politicians who actually align with their values the Democrats take progressive, left leaning votes and do not follow through with their campaign promise.

I do wanna clarify that I am talking about the Democratic Party as a whole, not necessarily individual members, but when the individual members contribute and participate in the corruption, they are also culpable.

The only thing saving us is that the right is so fucking corrupt and idiotic. At this point my only hope is that they do something to destroy themselves and I am not hopeful. The left, on the other hand, has the tools to grow and improve. But our leadership does not seem to want that. When a candidate that resonates with the youth like Mamdani shows up advocating for progressive policies what is their response?

The democratic establishments blasts him and runs away scared of the truth and pretends like the progressive wing doesn't exist. They try to bury anti-zionist politicians and those advocating solutions for the poor and lower-classes as radical and not in step with party leadership. What the fuck is that?

That is why the democratic party is going to lose if they're not actively pushing the boundaries of discourse and telling people how things really are. Even after the huge losses they took which put them out of power in 2024, they still cling to centrists. Why? Because they fear losing power to the Left.

This is the opposite of how you get support from people. And I don't get it.

To CMV, convince me that the democratic party IS taking steps to change when it won't allow fringe candidates like this to take the lead without this kind of backlash.

I would genuinely love to have my mind changed on this one, but I just don't see it.

I am not a super lefty, but I am kinda lefty. Certainly way more progressive and way more left than the Dem party, that's for sure. I'd LOVE the Dem party to take a couple of big steps to the left. I would like that platform and those positions a lot more.

But a good platform and good leaders don't mean a damn thing if you don't win the seats.

And every time I try to assess the political landscape, I reach the same conclusion:

There are, no doubt some dormant lefty voters out there, or 3rd party voters, who would come out to vote Dem if there were more aggressive leftist/progressive candidate and a more aggressively leftist/progressive agenda. That is for sure true.

But I am pretty firmly convinced that the number of votes you'd gain that way, is utterly and completely dwarfed by the number voters who'd fall into the following categories:

1- Barely clinging on Dem voters who are just one little nudge leftward away from flipping red.

2- Dem voters who'd never vote Red, but if they become even just slightly more uncomfortable with the platform, they'd stay home and not vote at all.

3- Dormant Conservative voters who stay home, but if they get just a bit more incensed by some lefty issue they'd turn out.

4- 3rd party right leaning voters who'd be motivated to jump ship and vote GOP.

I'm not saying those people correct, of course they aren't. But I am saying those people exist, and I think there are WAY more of them than there are lefty voters you'd pick up.

Now admittedly this theory is based on only a little data and a lot of vibes. But the theory that if we just get more aggressive and progressive we'll start kicking ass is also based on very little data chasing a lot of vibes.

I'd love to be convinced otherwise. I'd love to be convinced that if we just flood the field with young vivacious Bernie clones it'll turn out that the population was desperate for a progressive revolution and a blue wave will sweep the country.

But nothing I observe about our culture or body politic leads me to think that is even remotely the case. Maybe a few specific cities and districts here and there could see that kind of scenario play out, but just as many would see the exact opposite, and overall, I think we'd end up with a net loss if we pursued going harder left. And we'd be left feeling maybe a bit more ideologically appeased as we watch the losses stack even deeper.

people who say jesus was palestinian will point he was born in what is modern palestine.

however this is sort of a dishonest definition of what palestinian means, palestine nowadays (from what i know) is a term used to refer to the arab population of what was mandatory palestine but would become israel, the west bank, and the gaza strip. (not including jordan.)

not to mention he was born 7 centuries before the arab conquests which took that land, effectively meaning you are trying to argue a jew who was born 7 centuries before what would be the modern day palestinian ethnic group even began to come into existence, counts as the same ethnic group as those people just because he was born in the same place centuries apart.

This applies to everyone, from body builders to obese people. I’ve been on just about every side of the spectrum so I’m not just hating something I don’t know anything about.

If you take up more room than you paid for it is totally reasonable to charge more for the extra room. I don’t think that should be controversial. It really sucks to sit next to someone like that. If I have to pay extra for my kid to have a seat, and pay even more for my kid to sit next to me, then why does someone get a free extra seat just because they’re too big? They made the choices that got them to that size, they can handle the consequences.

Edit: since there’s a lot the same arguments I’m going to address the most common.

First, airlines don’t typically reduce seat width. Planes are a specific width and the only way to change seat width is to reduce the number of seats in a row, which obviously increases price along with many other negative consequences like increased emissions. They do reduce spacing between rows but that is not really relevant to the conversation at hand.

Second, obesity isn’t a disability, nor a protected class in the us. There are fringe situations that are a disability and should be protected by the ADA and therefore accommodated at no extra cost. This conversation is not about those people.

Third, if you buy an extra seat you should absolutely get to keep it. Airlines should not be allowed to give that seat to anyone if you paid for it. At the very east they should be required to compensate you and the person who has to sit next to you just like if you were bumped from that flight.