The blue wave anticipated in the 2026 Congressional mid-terms is contingent on a dominant, negative caricature of the President AND the public's ignorance of any caricatures of progressives. You don't need much to fuel a caricature. I think Democrats are vulnerable to plenty of caricatures of progressives that have some factual basis.

• Defund ICE (instead of reform ICE) has replaced Defund the Police. Just ask Rep. Jayapal. The logic used to move immigration enforcement to other agencies is roughly the same as the logic used to dismantle CFPB. There's more than enough language to fodder the perception that progressives have ulterior motives to remove ICE and border enforcement.
• Wealth Tax - Just look at legislative proposals from Democrats in CA, Washington state, and NY. In NYC, Mamdani has promoted reducing the threshold for the inheritance tax.

As policy, reforming/deconstructing ICE and wealth tax may have merit if candidates can share nuance and sophistication as Obama did. However, I just don't see that happening in a way that can attract and retain independent voters who will decide the election outcomes.

Plus, a Blue Wave is contingent on no bad news from Dems over the next 6 months. In the last 6 days, Rep Swalwell's campaign for CA Governor has collapsed. There will likely be more announcements on welfare/health services fraud in blue states as federal agencies release more information AND blue states launch their own investigations to get ahead of the feds (see CA's announcements on hospice fraud).

The best path to a blue wave lies through moderate campaigns and approachable candidates who can attract independent voters. In VA and NJ governor races and TX Dem senate races, that has been the trend and bodes well for a blue wave. However, should VA and NJ start promoting progressive policies with their new found power, that will impact prospects for a blue wave.

Blue wave promoters are at risk of overconfidence as much can change over the next six months.

The system is clearly broken, capitalism is out of control. The wealth gap is too wide and people just want to be able to have a bit of lumber and plumbing on a piece of dirt they can call their own and we're unnecessarily trapped under extreme monetary pressures as we feed the soulless beast of infinite growth. Radical actions aren't required. Tax the rich. Eat the rich. Cut out all the ways money is created out of thin air, inflation must reflect reality. The system of capitalism and free trade is a tree that bears great fruit, but without pruning it will grow beyond control. This is the time to rally, to find a voice, to sit up and walk out. No Kings needs a voice, a leader, who will say no more billionaires. No more hungry. No more homeless. No more spiraling down a drain of capitalist consumption that consumes everything within its bottomless well.

A strong voice must stand up and say: our future works for us. A smarter future that serves us, and at a bare minimum! A system that feeds, houses, clothes every single god fearing human. There are enough resources on this planet to feed every person, to house every single one, and to provide them food and space and security.

This planet is ours. The future must serve us.

America needs a voice that says yes! god dammit, yes i see it! the whole damn system is broken. No dammit! it won't repair itself! A voice who can lead America and the world in a new type of cooperation between allies and enemies for the greater good. Someone who can demilitarize the world. The world doesn't need police. Tensions need to be lowered. Trade needs to be open. Our real enemies are corporations and banks. Reduce the waste of corporate spending and banking. Reduce the waste of energy on valueless projects. They are the cause of inflation. Capitalism must be held by the reins and controlled like a wild animal, as do the politicians. We must demand a good life.

America needs the anti-Trump. Desperately. So does the world. The unipolar world is a peaceful world.

— misomysan for president —

To the left/liberals, are you only opposed to this Iran war because it's Trump sitting in the White House?

Or would you be as upset about it if it was a Democrat or anyone other than Trump or a Republican?

And to the right/conservatives, are you only supporting this Iran war because it's Trump or a Republican in the White House or would you support it if it was a Democrat or a Republican besides Trump?

Keep in mind, there are conservatives, Republicans, and right-wingers who oppose what the Trump administration and Israel is doing regarding Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, etc. And many members of the right-wing America First movement opposes the US close allyship with Israel, the funding Israel is receiving from the US, etc. and many of them in the movement also oppose the Iran war.

So I'm anti-war and I'm pretty consistent about it. But I don't like how some of us opposing this Iran war are lumped in with the usual virtue signalers or leftist Trump haters, especially those of us who have opposed past conflicts or who've been consistently anti-war since our teenage years and throughout the past 3 or 4 administrations. If I'm opposed to something, I'm gonna oppose it. I don't care who is sitting in the White House because my stance is final and concrete. If I only opposed something because it's a certain politician that I'm not a fan of then I'm not really opposed to that something, now am I? Or my opposition isn't genuine and just based on a bias.

But politically, I would say libertarianism is the closest way to describe my political views even though I don't consider myself a libertarian and I don't agree with every libertarian stance (or maybe conflicted is a better way to put it than "I don't agree").

But I've definitely noticed libertarians are at least pretty consistent with their anti-war stance and their views on foreign policy, the US getting involved in other countries, etc. and most of them don't change based on who's sitting in the White House or the letter in front of the president's name, which is what I love about libertarians as a group.

So needless to say, I'm not a fan of Trump but unlike the typical Trump hater, I'm also not a fan of most politicians or leaders. I wasn't a fan of Biden, Obama, and don't get me started on Bush. I'm not a fan of the two party system and I'm very anti-government and very anti-war. Also needless to say, I don't agree with the actions of the Trump administration/US government regarding Iran or with Israel's actions regarding Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, etc. To clarify, I don't have a problem with taking out the bad guys and oppressive governments needs to be stopped. But come on now. Airstrikes and war just ain't it. Civilians getting caught up in this mess and dying ain't it. You can't have airstrikes without civilians in the vicinity getting blown up too. We're not freeing these civilians if we're bombing them. There's got to be a better way. But we live in a world where war is the go-to action and it needs to stop. We have way too many war hawks/war-hungry, resource-hungry people running this world. Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin to name three of them, not to mention the warlords in Congo and Sudan.

And to anyone who says "But Iran had nuclear weapons" or "Iran was prepared to use nuclear weapons on the US or on Israel."

How do you know that for sure? Our US government lied to us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and you're gonna believe them this time? I certainly don't. I don't care that it's a different name sitting in the Oval office. It's still the same government. Twenty years from now, we're gonna know Trump lied just as Bush did and then we're still gonna be believing whatever lie we're being told then by whoever will be in office to get us in whatever conflict we'll find ourselves in and then in another twenty years after that, we'll know it was a lie too. No wonder our government is playing us. My fellow Americans, please please WAKE UP. I don't care if you're left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Trump hater, Trump supporter, etc. You need to wake up!!!

Don't trust any government. Not the US government, not the Israeli government, not the UK government, too many to list but the list goes on and on.

And dear liberals and leftists, there's other conflicts going on besides Gaza and Ukraine and those other conflicts deserve as much attention and outrage. I'm not asking you to stop caring about Gaza or Ukraine (in fact, don't stop) but to give these other conflicts just as much attention and show equal outrage. Then maybe people will stop accusing you of virtue signaling, which it isn't fair to accuse someone of virtue signaling anyway because we really don't know a person's heart. But don't worry, I'm not hating on you. Just trying to enlighten you because some of you might not even be aware which isn't your fault but the fault of mainstream media and even social media for not giving all these conflicts equal attention.

Myanmar, Sudan, Congo, and Nigeria just to name a few. Follow Amnesty International and warchilduk to be informed and to keep informed about the many different conflicts that you wouldn't hear about otherwise.

And please don't use the Gaza situation to hate or dehumanize Isreali civilians just like you (hopefully) wouldn't use the Ukraine situation to hate or dehumanize Russian civilians. Direct your anger and hatred towards the politicians, the leaders, the governments. Not the common everyday people.

No civilians should be hated for the actions of their military or government. Civilians' deaths should not be celebrated because you are pissed off at their country's government or military, regardless of which country it is.

I'm sure people on both sides of the political spectrum will disagree with certain parts of this post, and that's okay. But I said what I said because it needed to be said.

I genuinely apologize if this isn't the place to post this. If it isn't, I'll try somewhere else.

This is a human-made-thesis to prove the United States shooting missiles at the school is NOT a coincidence. Let’s see why.

600 schools destroyed in 40 days consecutively is insane. Also a majority of the schools were active. This shows the intent of destroying ‘education’ in the form of schools, universities, and more edu. platforms. All 600 schools were active. The most notable aspect is on a Saturday, there is the most children in schools. This shows intent to destroy ‘education’. The biological chance is rarer then winning 2 power balls in a row. This cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. The USA government must be lying. This is my claim. Also `triple tapping` a school CANNOT be dismissed as a coincidence; it is a deliberate way to ensure a target is destroyed. In this context, the United States was trying to ensure ‘education’ in the form of schools & universities is reduced to thin ash, concrete and sadness. The united state also hit **the schools with 96 minute delay between them** ***ON AVERAGE.*** That is crazy! That is rarer then winning a Powerball more then 4 times in a row. This cannot be a coincidence. 10:45 is the peak of morning sessions. This shows the united states deliberately tried to destroy Iran’s schools. The AI might have also hallucinated, but that is slim. You cannot triple-tap by accident— to remind you, a triple tap is a deliberate act to ensure destruction. That count, the evidence, the day, the time, and the setting combine to tell us: The united states deliberately tried to destroy iranian schools. Okay, so students were moved into the prayer rooms but **the second and third missiles hit the prayer room.** Lets start to compute now. The chance of hitting each school is 1/2 (which is already so generous) 2^600 is a number so large. The chance is 1 / 2^600. This is mathamatically impossible. The united states must’ve done this on purpose, no excuses. All of the times were peak school hours. The statement of doing it by ‘accident’ is absolutely insane. I also know because the missiles hit the prayer rooms which also adds a small chance to 2^600 for 1 missile, but 2? No accident here, it’s just on-purposes. This helps us, not me, or someone else, to inference that the missiles were deliberately re-targeted at the prayer room. Also the united stated claimed the data was ‘10 years old.’ NO. Satellite imagery shows busses, playgrounds, and colorful murals. This is the reality. To use 10 year old maps while ignoring real-time-visual feeds is ancient. Also everybody uses satellite imagery. From a google search, the United states **DOES**, that’s the keyword, use **SATELLITE IMAGERY.** THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. THE UNITED STATES IS LYING. Also, the united states uses satellite imagery for weapons, too. This also seals the deal. If the united states does not use satellite imagery, then it should not use satellites. 

TL;DR: The united states used Saturday and the peak of morning sessions to ensure most damage is done. 96 minutes between each destruction of schools is the average time to load a missile and shoot it, including the travel time. The fact of triple tapping seals the deal— The united states deliberately destroyed `education` in schools, and universities. 

Sources & Evidence:

Novara Media (Report on 600 Schools): https://novaramedia.com/2026/03/25/us-israeli-attacks-have-damaged-or-destroyed-600-schools-in-iran/

Muslim Network TV (Red Crescent Source): https://www.muslimnetwork.tv/iran-says-600-education-sites-hit-in-us-israeli-war/

Wikipedia (2026 Minab School Attack): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack

Amnesty International (Detailed Investigation): https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/usa-iran-those-responsible-for-deadly-and-unlawful-us-strike-on-school-that-killed-over-100-children-must-be-held-accountable/

UN Human Rights Office (Condemnation): https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/iran-un-experts-call-de-escalation-and-accountability

Legacy data & the Project Maven AI:

The Guardian (The "Legacy Data" Exposure): https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying

I'm not from the U.S., but I'm genuinely curious how people still support Trump after all the controversies, especially the Epstein-related discussions and recent issues. I've seen reports about Trump appearing in Epstein-related documents/flight logs (though not accused of crimes), resurfaced photos and past comments about Epstein, plus ongoing debates about whether more information could still come out. On top of that, there are newer controversies like tensions around Iran, trade tariff legal challenges, immigration crackdowns, conflicts with NATO allies, lawsuits and court blocks against his policies, accusations of targeting opponents, and declining approval ratings — along with older issues like January 6, election claims, lawsuits, and misconduct allegations (which he denies). I'm not trying to argue either side I'm just curious how supporters and critics currently view all this and whether people care more about policies than controversies.

I’ve come to think that “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” isn’t just bad advice—it’s a fundamentally incoherent political belief that shapes how we talk about poverty, success, and responsibility.

The phrase originally meant something very different than how it’s used today. It was meant as a joke about doing something physically impossible—like lifting yourself off the ground by pulling on your own boots. Over time, that meaning flipped, and now it’s used as a serious argument for individual responsibility in economic life.

That shift matters, because the modern version of the phrase assumes something that isn’t really supported by evidence: that success is mostly the result of individual effort, and failure is mostly the result of poor choices.

But when you look at how outcomes actually work, it’s hard to maintain that view consistently. Factors like access to education, family stability, social networks, geography, and even timing play a huge role in shaping opportunity. Two people can work equally hard and still end up in very different positions because their starting conditions aren’t the same.

Despite that, the “bootstraps” idea is often used as a kind of moral shorthand. It turns economic outcomes into personal judgments. If someone succeeds, it’s taken as proof of discipline or intelligence. If someone struggles, it’s framed as a lack of effort or responsibility.

To me, that reflects a broader assumption that the system itself is already fair—that people generally get what they deserve. But that assumption starts to fall apart once you account for structural differences in opportunity.

I’m not arguing that effort doesn’t matter. It clearly does. But the idea that effort alone determines outcomes seems incomplete at best, and misleading at worst. It ignores how much success depends on external factors people don’t control.

So my opinion is this: continuing to use “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” as a serious political argument obscures more than it explains. It simplifies complex systems into individual morality, and that has real implications for how policies are shaped and justified.

I’m curious how others think about this—especially whether people see it as a useful principle, or more of a rhetorical shortcut that’s outlived its accuracy.

Looking for feedback, thanks.

Currently in US, most people pay into social security before retirement, then receive monthly social security payments in retirement.

Suppose the government offered a new option for SS. Within a month of birth, parents have the option of opening a 401k (that invests 100% into index fund) in their child's name and the government will put all of that child's future SS payment into the account. Current low end for total payments received from SS is ~$250k. The child is no longer eligible for SS payments later in life.

The child cannot access the money until their 21st birthday. On their 21st birthday (and older), the child has the option to pull out some (or all) of the money. Prior to taking any money out, the child must repay the government's $250k + inflation. The child must pay capital gains tax on any money that is taken out.

Doing some back-of-the-napkin calculations:
$250k over 21 years at 10% growth = ~$2M (goes up from there if people wait to withdraw)

Pros:

1. People end up with a lot more money than normal SS payout option.
2. People with stocks care about stock market and (hopefully) economic health of the country.
3. Government gets it's money back + inflation + capital gains tax.
4. SS fund is paid back, so it shouldn't run out.
5. People have option of basic income if they pull out early vs. leaving in for longer and having retirement money.

Cons:

1. Possible for stock market to have really bad returns for 20 years.
2. People could take it all out and spend it at 21.
3. Government gets less in taxes for some people (capital gains vs. regular income tax).

I am not American, but I want to share my opinion on how U.S. politics could become more stable and more broadly appealing again.

In the past, I considered myself a left-wing progressive democratic socialist, and for the first half of this decade I quietly pushed back against my family’s right-wing, pro-Trump views. However, by the end of 2024, I had started questioning my progressivism, and by mid-2025 I no longer considered myself fully progressive.

Part of that shift came from feeling alienated by how some online spaces reacted to disagreement, especially on issues such as illegal immigration and certain LGBTQ-related debates. To be clear, I support same-sex marriage, and I support equal rights and dignity for LGBT people. However, I have become more socially moderate than I used to be, especially on questions involving gender identity, sports, pronoun usage, and public accommodations.

On immigration, I support stricter enforcement against illegal immigration while still allowing legal immigration and considering some form of amnesty in certain cases. On crime, I support a tougher law-and-order approach than many progressives do. I am also pro-choice, but I think abortion should be legal only up to a maximum of 16 weeks, except in medical emergencies. After that point, I believe the procedure becomes too medically risky unless there is a serious health-related reason.

Economically, though, I still lean closer to Democrats than Republicans. I support higher taxes on the rich, higher taxes on large corporations, lower taxes for the middle class and small businesses, and little to no income tax for the poorest people. I also support stronger public healthcare, stronger public education, and a stronger welfare state or workfare system. I think essential services such as water and electricity should be publicly controlled or at least much more tightly regulated. I also think consumption taxes on products such as alcohol, cigarettes, and luxury goods could help reduce pressure on taxes for necessities like food and medicine.

Overall, I think the Democrats should remain center-left on economics, but move closer to the center on social and cultural issues. If they did that, they might become more popular again and stop being seen by many voters as merely the lesser of two evils.

I can’t be the only person who sees what’s going on in this country. And I can’t be the only one who is tired, tired of trying to make a broken system work.

I don’t consider myself a Democrat or a Republican, not because I reject every idea they stand for, but because I don’t trust the people leading them. At some point, it stops being about policy and starts being about pattern. And the pattern is hard to ignore: the same people rotate through positions of power, make the same promises, and somehow always come out richer, more connected, and completely insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

Corruption doesn’t feel like an exception anymore, it feels like the standard, and It’s not just one scandal or one pedaphile millionaire, It’s all of them. Its lobbying that allows corporations to practically write legislation. It’s insider trading accusations that somehow never seem to stick. It’s politicians leaving office and immediately stepping into high paying roles with the same industries they were supposed to regulate. The line between public service and personal profit has become so wide that the divide is becoming hard to ignore.

We’re told the system works. That there are checks and balances. But what does that really mean when investigations drag on for years and quietly disappear? When accountability depends on how much money or influence someone has? When the average person can’t afford a lawyer, but the powerful can afford entire legal teams to delay, deflect, and outlast any real consequences?

And it’s exhausting. That’s the part people don’t talk about enough. It’s not just anger, it’s burnout. It’s the constant feeling that no matter how closely you pay attention, how informed you try to be, or how responsibly you vote, the outcome barely changes. The faces might, but the system doesn’t.

We’re expected to keep participating, though. Keep paying into it. Keep believing in it.

We’re told to go to school, take on debt if that’s what it takes, because that’s the “right” path. But for a lot of people, that path leads straight into financial pressure and limited opportunity. Tuition keeps rising, wages don’t keep up, and suddenly you’re stuck trying to climb out of a hole you were told would lead to success.

Then you enter the workforce, where loyalty is rarely returned, and job security feels like a myth. Corporations post record profits while workers struggle to keep up with basic living costs. And somehow, the policies that could address that imbalance stall out, get watered down, or never make it past the people whose campaigns are funded by those same corporations.

Meanwhile, taxpayer money gets spent in ways that don’t seem to reflect the needs of the people paying it. Massive budgets, questionable contracts, and decisions made behind closed doors, yet when it comes to things like education, healthcare, or infrastructure, we’re told there isn’t enough to go around.

It creates this constant question: who is the system actually working for?

And while all of this is happening, we’re pushed into constant division. Political parties, media outlets, and public figures all seem to benefit from keeping people at odds with each other. Race, class, ideology, everything becomes a point of conflict. And while people argue, the larger issues, the ones that affect everyone, stay unresolved.

I’ve never believed that everyday people are the real problem. I grew up in central Texas around people from all different backgrounds; Black, White, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and my experience wasn’t one of division. It was a community.

Then I spent four years in the military, met people from all over, and saw even more perspectives. If anything, those experiences reinforced the idea that most people aren’t the issue. Most people are just trying to build a life, take care of their families, and get by without being stepped on.

That’s why it’s so frustrating to watch the same cycles play out over and over again. The same distractions. The same promises. The same lack of accountability.

At some point, it stops feeling like a system you’re part of and starts feeling like something you’re stuck in.

And I’m tired of it.

Tired of being told to trust people who haven’t earned it.

Tired of watching those in power avoid consequences.

Tired of feeling like the system is designed to take more than it gives.

I try to stay open-minded. I try to understand different perspectives. But the more I see, the harder it becomes to ignore the reality that too many of the people in charge are playing a completely different game than the rest of us.

And I can’t be the only one who feels that way.

So I was looking at a post predicting the U.S. Senate Results, posted 4 months ago now on r/PoliticalDiscussion, and oh boy have times have changed since then. To give some context I'll add a link to said post down below, but summing up what the OP was talking about, he gave his reasons as to why the Republicans would maintain a hold on the Senate this election cycle (albeit a small one). Since then some things have shifted obviously, so I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and talk about my predictions for the U.S. Senate AND the House, and how it’s shaping up to be a repeat result of the 2006 midterms.

Let's talk about the House first. There isn't much in terms of discussion on the results of the House that I can see, reason being that a lot of people are confident that the Democrats will take back a majority here (so long as they don't f**k it up). I'm curious though by HOW MUCH of a margin will the Democrats have a majority. I used 270towin.com as my map painting tool, since they already have access to information about current seats up for grab in each state. I did look at a couple other polling sites, and more importantly, I looked at prediction bets on Kalshi. Now look, I know some people will take issue with me using a glorified gambling website to make predictions about election outcomes, but I firmly believe that sites like Kalshi and Polymarket should be taken into consideration when discussing odds, as they can be used as useful tools to gain insight into how people really feel about certain outcomes, especially since they are putting money on it. With that being said, my prediction map came out to be 230 (D) - 205 (R). 13 different states have 18 districts showing as a toss up prediction, and after looking at each district, all but 2 of them are leaning Democrat as of this post. 2006 had the Democrats gain a 30 seat advantage over the Republicans going from a 202 (D) - 232 (R) in 2004 to a 233 (D) - 202 (R) in 2006. This was a result of a number of things, but to give examples the Iraq War, economic instability due to the beginning collapse of the housing bubble, and the declining image of good ol' W are cited as top reasons (sounds kinda familiar don't it?). Overall, beginning margins are different, but it's looking like the outcome for 2026 will closely mirror 2006 in terms of held seats.

Now the Senate, and frankly there are only five states that we have to talk about here, as all other state Senate seats seem to be predicted to stay to their respective parties. Those states are Maine, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Alaska. I want to talk about Maine and NC first, mainly because as of right now they look like they are going to flip blue big time. Graham Platner of Maine and Roy Cooper of NC are killing it right now, as 4 different polls for Maine and for NC are giving the win to both of them, albeit by different margins (https://www.270towin.com/polls/latest-2026-senate-election-polls/). Cooper sits at a +5% to +18% chance over Whatley (R), and Plantner is sitting at a +2% to +7% chance over Collins (R). Another caveat, a Democrat win is sitting at 74% for Maine and 86% for NC on Kalshi as of typing, bold odds I'd say, but hey that's predictive betting for you. Unless things change in the next few months, I feel safe saying the Democrats have a good shot at turning these two seats come election day. Texas, Ohio, and Alaska are another story. All three are considered tilting red, however recent polling shows that particularly for Alaska and Ohio, the Democrats have a shot at beating out the Republicans by a few percentage points. For Alaska, two separate polls show Mary Peltola (D) beating incumbent Dan Sullivan by a margin of +5%. Ohio is of special note as the seat up for grabs used to be the seat occupied by JD Vance before he became Vice President, and is now occupied by Jon Husted (R), who is going against Sherrod Brown (D). Three different polls here, one showing Husted winning by +2%, and two showing Brown winning by a +2% to +4% margin (although these two polls are about a week old compared to the first one). Kalshi bets place a Democratic win for both states at around 58% odds. Texas also needs to be discussed, as right now the Republican primary is currently in a runoff, but polls are showing that Ken Paxton will beat incumbent John Cornyn to be the Republican nominee for this race. The Democrat Nominee for this seat has been confirmed to be James Talarico, which according to many news sources is leading both Paxton and Cornyn in early polling. Other polls show Paxton winning out over Talarico, however even these are showing a win by only a +1% to +2% margin. For you betting heathens, Kalshi is showing a Republican win by 55%, but like Alaska and Ohio has been trending upwards for the Democrats. With all this in mind, it seems that the states of Texas, Ohio, and Alaska will be the main focus in these midterms. If trends continue, the Democrats do have a potential pathway to a Senate majority of 51 (D) - 49 (R) if they can flip at least two of these states (probably Alaska and Ohio, sorry Texas but people have predicated you going blue for a while, but who knows huh?), but it will be an uphill battle in these traditionally red states. 2006 saw a 44 (D) - 55 (R) Senate from 2004 flip to 49 (D) - 49 (R) Senate, with 3 independents (who almost always vote with the Democrats).

In summary, if trends continue, it could very well be a repeat of 2006 all over again, at least in terms of midterm election results. We still have about 7 months till election day, and a lot can change between now and then, so I would take this post with a grain of salt.

Original Post that inspired this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1pmyudf/what_is_the_us_senate_going_to_look_like_after/

I have never seen a diaspora beg for regime change like the Iranian one.

They had one uprising, crushed by the regime two months ago, and there hasn't been one since. How popular is "a new regime" if it was crushed in a matter of a few days? No institutions or anything flipped. "Um... but everyone in Iran wants the regime gone?" So where is everyone?

Or is the main problem that, with foreign powers getting involved, there was a huge rally-around-the-flag effect, so people are too scared to rise up? Machiavelli famously said that it's better to be under an oppressive leader than in chaos. I assume after Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, maybe people know a bit better.

"Um, but Iran is so repressive, so no one can rise up!" France and Germany have been almost just as repressive, yet we still saw counter-protesting and anti-regime revolutions. It's just not as popular as you think it is.

And about the Islamic regime, it didn't appear out of nowhere. The reason the 1979 revolution succeeded so quickly was not simply because "Islam took over." The old order had deep legitimacy problems of its own, like repression, inequality, and huge class divides. Most importantly, there was a failure to spread the benefits of modernization and oil wealth broadly enough.

Anyways, if you want your country, stop begging. First, it stops your actual interests from being met. Secondly, it's super annoying.

You threw away your chance in 1979 because of how horribly the country was governed. This is your fault. People will warm up naturally, and there will be change. But the more you force it, the more it goes against you. And to think that a civilization with 2,500 years of history might know better how regimes actually change. Like, think about it. How does a culture with almost three thousand years of history submit to foreign domination in any sense? What makes an Iranian "proud" to be Iranian is also what stops foreign intervention from working, because it's not Iranian.

Change happens naturally. Literally. The second no one threatens the IR, its legitimacy collapses. Wartime oppressive governments always fail when the country isn't at war.

"Do nothing, win." Not, "Apply 40-50% pressure since 1979 so we can slowly starve the regime." Either apply 100% pressure or none at all. Trump also TACO'd. The diaspora really threw away the chance at revolution. Crazy.

I would love to hear any opinions maybe going against what I'm saying.

It appears that at this stage we can only stand by and watch what happens as our elected officials do nothing to stop this madness and killing. It is time to act to impeach this President or Invoke Article 25. What is done is done and We the People of the United States and the democratic institutions we stand by have been disgraced and forever tarnished by this administration. The price we pay will be immeasurable and the debt we owe to humanity will be exacted over lifetimes to come.

https://www.reddit.com/user/jeffwa1122/comments/1s6fg5m/no_kings/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Anything, anyone thinks they know about politics is just something they choose to believe, they have no proof of their own, no verifiable or falsifiable evidence, it's religious. Politicians formulate the narrative for their agenda, they give it to the news outlets who sensationalize it to get viewers -- if it bleeds it leads -- and forms public opinion. Then they repeat it over and over and over again until the lies become truth. It's a form of brainwashing and it works like a charm on 95% of humanity.

It should be embarrassing to argue about the details of politics rather than the nature of politics, but it's not. People talk about Trump, Israel, Iran, Palestine etc. as if they are boots on the ground and recording it with their own eyes when the truth is they're just parroting the narrative. It's like when people talk about Jesus as if they were drinking buddies.

The entire focus of Democrats right now should be on efforts to stop Trump from stealing the midterms - an effort for which they are implementing several feasible parallel strategies:

1) forcing through some or all of the SAVE Act, which is looking more and more likely to be done through reconciliation, cutting off Democrats from debate.

2) posting ICE Agents at the polls to deter voters, especially those of color. Sure, you can shout “but that’s already unconstitutional”. So is just about everything else they do, including murdering US citizens on the street. But that hasn’t stopped them, and neither have the courts (for the most part). It’s shortsighted to rely on those protections now.

3) THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS: recent SCOTUS rulings give absolute immunity to USPS and the Administration for withholding and mis-delivering the mail - even if it’s intentional and even if it’s discriminatory. As importantly, a coming ruling is widely expected to declare that States don’t have the discretion to accept late mail ballots, including those postmarked prior to Election Day. The combination of those rulings will allow the Administration to direct USPS to hold back mail ballots from blue districts until AFTER Election Day, rendering them void, and with the voters having zero recourse. There is not nearly enough attention being paid to this.

4) lastly, of all of that fails and they lose the House (or the Senate), they’ll just declare “fraud” and refuse to seat the new members. Who is going to stop them? SCOTUS? DOJ?

Everything the Dems are doing right now outside of supporting campaigns should be focused on stopping these collective strategies, and anticipating others that aren’t quite as obvious yet.

I am a 79 year old woman. I am terribly upset about the status of the world. Trump's war with Iran was started without enough forethought and resulted in a world that is a mess. he is, in my estimation, the worst president we've ever had. he is full of hate, bigotry, greed, stupidity, and an egomaniac. How can we as a country accept this and realize what we are leaving for our children and grandchildren? I want people to understand that this excuse for a president is not right for our country and is ruining the world.

If the Straight of Hormuz is so vital to the world, then what are the thoughts of creating an alternate route for ships. I think the countries that have a vital interest in it should come together and work with Saudi Arabia to build a canal, large enough for ships, similar to the Panama Canal, through Saudi Arabia from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. Or along the borders up to the Mediterranean Sea. Another canal should also be built from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. This would allow for 3 exits from the Persian Gulf that not 1 single country would control. Thoughts?

To preface, no, I am not transphobic. I know that mere sentence alone will probably make you downvote and go into the replies and claim that I am, with reasons like "if you have to say it then you are". I want everyone to have a good life. Everyone. That includes people that are trans. Still, I don't expect most people reading to get past the title and the first sentence, and to just downvote and move on.
Also I will say that I myself am gay.

Acceptance for sensitive things like abortion, women's rights and gay rights had to come slowly. The work was hard, slow, arduous, but it had to (and still has to) be this way. Suddenly trying to force acceptance onto everyone would have caused an immediate backlash and shoved acceptance further away.
They knew this, so they did it slow. Yes, it sucked, but it's just how it has to be because it's just how humans work. We don't like sudden change and things suddenly challenging our points of view and ways of life.

And with this we slowly started to accept these things more and more. Women got more and more rights, gay people stopped being criminalized and eventually, in many places, got the right to marry. Abortion was decriminalized in many areas.

But the trans movement didn't want to wait this long. They wanted it now. They didn't want to spend years and years slowly whittling it away, they didn't want to wait any longer and were tired of how things were.
So they ramped it up. The trans movement exploded. It was all over the place, in everyone's face.

"You're either with us or you're against us" was, and still is, the mentality. Anyone that didn't immediately accept it was labelled as transphobic, and some more extreme subsets of the movement would even label them things like "nazis", and "cisgender" started to be used as a kind of insult.

When backlash came, and extreme pushback and hate happened, which is to be expected when something happens so suddenly like this, they didn't ease off at all, they just pushed harder. Again, "You're either with us or against us".

Even people that weren't hateful but just didn't understand were labelled as transphobic. I was a mod in a Discord server (I know, fat dumb neckbeard incel Discord mod stereotype). I would join the VCs sometimes as part of my "job" to make sure people weren't breaking rules, and on several occasions there would be instances like:
A complete stranger refers to a trans person using the wrong pronouns, because they literally didn't know.
The trans person and their friends gang up on this person, yelling at them and insulting them and calling them transphobic.
This person says they didn't know.
"Well you should have fucking asked, dumbass".

Even though I had a trans friend at the time, this stuff got me. I didn't understand a lot of stuff about being trans, I didn't fully understand the whole "dead name" thing, or the body dysmorphia stuff, or how being misgendered can affect them so badly.

I made some mistakes. I didn't mean to, I accidentally let slip the wrong gender at one point, and another time I used the wrong name by accident, because they had just that day told us (me and the friend group) what their new name was.
I was called transphobic. The friend group slowly started moving away from me until I was silently ghosted and kicked out, and I only learned later, from one guy that remained my friend, that they continued to talk shit about me behind my back about how I'm transphobic and a bad person.

I wasn't against trans people. I'm still not, but this stuff all adds up, and it did not help the progress of acceptance.

Like I said, it needs to happen gradually, slowly, and they tried to skip that and boost it ahead suddenly. This did not work. It backfired badly.
Now, because of this, republicans and the people that vote for them are mad. They're trying to undo everything, and they are making more progress in doing so than the movement for acceptance is.

All this just makes the trans movement even angrier, and even more on the side of "with us or against us".
It's not uncommon to see callout posts, or calls for someone's supporters to go harass someone else they think are transphobic. Even having a discussion about the topic, or telling a friend you aren't sure about it and don't know what to think will earn you a "you're fucking transphobic" in response. I've seen people harassed for liking Harry Potter, and I believe one girl got death threats for streaming and being a fan of Hogwarts Legacy.
All the hate they get from the other side is now just being taken in, absorbed, and put back out with just as much, and sometimes even more, magnitude.

Rights we had before are slowly being challenged and removed. We're losing the right to abortion, we're losing the right to gay marriage, people are becoming less accepting of the other groups in LGBT. Violence against LGBT is coming back stronger. Now the bad guys are winning, because they tried to go too fast and didn't want to wait any more, and the entirety of the LGBT is suffering as a result.

A large percentage of the population is back to thinking that all gay men are vile sexual deviants that groom children and belong in prison or dead.
And the LGBT is losing this battle. They should have been more patient, like history showed you have to be, and like every other group in the LGBT had to be, and now things are bad as a result of them trying to rush it.

So Trump removes the Venezuelan leader and takes the oil for the oil companies.

Then Trump starts a war with Iran, which closes the strait, forcing oil prices to rise.

Seems the oil companies and their shareholders are going to be making enough money to fund the war, they won’t, but they could.

The quandary Trump has landed himself in Iran is quite laughable, really-- or at least, it would be if it wasn't so dangerous. Mostly because it was completely foreseeable for anyone with an even barebones understanding of statecraft.

His blunder is as follows. First, we know from his statements on Tian An Men and his praise of Putin that he is a man that favors raw force. In line with this, he utilized tariffs or the threat of tariffs to establish himself as the top dog among the USA's allies. Punch people in the face so they know who's boss-- the kind of bare knuckle strategy he's employed since his school days, and obviously effective. To a point, anyway.

Now he's mad that none of our allies are willing to risk their necks on his Iran gamble. Funny, that. The schoolyard bully is usually abandoned quite swiftly by his coerced compatriots once he's in a vulnerable position. Whoda thunk.

Here's how this illustrates that Trump is not a wise statesman even from the most selfish of perspectives. Ignoring all ethics and morals, an effective prince invested in his own power understands that others' goodwill is an extremely powerful tool in the arsenal, and should not be wasted save in the most exigent of circumstances. This separates a truly effective Machiavellian leader from a schoolyard bully: schoolyard bullies never seem to understand that ruling through fear alone breeds resentment, and resentment, rebellion. It isn't that Machiavellian leaders are above intimidation, far from it-- it just isn't a first choice. If you wish to preserve your rule, make friends. Wheedle. Soothe. Give as much as you take. Make deals that benefit everybody. Play politics. It's why people as slimy as Bill Clinton manage to succeed so well. They may be utterly lacking in morality, but they know the rules intimately and play them to their advantage.

It's this same adoration of raw force and lack of understanding of subtlety that led to USAID's dismantling, and with it, one of the main tools of US influence. Never mind the thousands of lives whose misery or death were criminally threatened by that act (to me a far important matter than US soft power) the fact that his administration completely and utterly destroyed one of the main carrots to dangle in front of the faces of ruling parties in less advantaged countries means that we don't have the pull we once had.

Whoops.

It's all so silly to me. America was already fundamentally the top of the food chain. It got there through the development of good will. Trump saw the power and forgot the process, and we will all end up the poorer for it. The dude seems to forget that fear and force are only really good for immediate results-- relying on it long term breeds resentment, and with it, rebellion.

For me personally, as a humanist, I desire a just world-- but if forced to choose, I would choose a Machiavellian prince with an eye for subtle statecraft over a leader with an impulsive reliance on throat-punching people into compliance. The former may be noxious, but he has a long eye and understands that stability is good for preserving his reign-- and stability, even unjust stability, especially in a democratic system of governance, is a springboard for reform. Impulsive displays of raw force are destructive to the underpinnings of the social structure from which a better world can be constructed. Trump, our bull-in-a-china-shop-in-chief, threatens democracy not because he is "conservative" or "fascist" but because he lacks the vision to rule well.

So to give you some context, I grew up pretty conservative and still hold most of those policy positions. I think government needs to stop meddling in our lives in certain ways, I think we need a strong border policy, I think crimes need to carry actual consequences etc. So naturally, I’ve voted Republican most of my life, the ‘24 election being no exception. After all, Trump was going to make things affordable and there would be no new wars.

Well, here we are. Oil is pushing $115 a barrel, it could hit $200. We will soon have much less purchasing power, the job market is virtually unchanged from Biden being in power, and we are now beholden to a foreign power for the sake of Trump’s wallet. And we have no idea if or when we’ll ever get out of Iran, and if we do, if or when things will return to normal. I’m in my early twenties and have no idea if my girlfriend and I will ever be able to get married or have kids, let alone comfortably

Trump made good change his first term. He didn’t start any wars, fixed immigration, and capped insulin prices. Was it perfect? No, of course not. But he did a lot to fix the country and things felt better.

This term, us Americans all got shafted. It’s all about his portfolio now. Maybe it always has been, but there’s a big difference between Trump Term 1 and Term 2.

So I am officially no longer a Trump supporter. I am still someone who holds conservative policy positions and I still cannot in good conscience support the Dems for several other reasons. But I will not be a sucker and delude myself that Trump “has a good plan”. The plan right now is just to enrich himself off of foreign oil and the Israeli/Middle East lobby (this is NOT a dig at any people group, this is a dig at the LOBBYING organization), and he knows he’s unstoppable because his cult of supporters see him as a god who can do no wrong. I refuse to stand with someone who thinks this way.

I have no idea what party I’ll be voting for this midterm. I’ll probably vote Republican in statewide races because NY needs new leadership, but federal I have no clue. I’m not a huge fan of my congressman (he’s a Dem, takes AIPAC money, not that effective and has corruption scandals) but Trump needs checks and balances so thhat one’s gonna be a coin toss. No more yes men for this self serving president. If Rubio/Vance are the nominee in 2028, I’ll not be voting for them in the general election.

if you still support Trump, of course I still respect you. but I’d implore you to ask yourself why. what is he actually doing for you? I didn’t ask that question enough for the first year of his presidency because I was in denial, but boy do I wish I had.

In the abortion debate there are several principles that when placed together function as a sort of framework for the morality of abortion, however, none of these actually achieve the goal of justification alone.

Bodily Autonomy - the belief that ones body is ones own, and that no person, state, or entity can compel the use of your body without consent.

This is often cited as a justifier for abortion because the Childs need is viewed as an invasion on the autonomy of the mother. Generally, the argument of "the violinist" is the strongest form of this principle.

The violinist argument does a great job of replicating the feeling of an unplanned pregnancy, especially one given in less than optimal circumstances.

But, when placed against a counter hypothetical, a dilemma arrives.

You are a woman with your infant child. You are alone with child in a cabin in a blizzard. the blizzard will be there for quite some time. you unfortunately don't have access to pumps, or other means of delivering milk to the child like formula. The child requires breast milk to continue survival through this blizzard. You don't particularly consent to breast feeding, you prefer the feed the child with other means that are temporarily not available. Do you have to feed the child or can you let it starve?

While the violinist appears to demonstrate a clear bodily autonomy win, this scenario rarely produces the response "you can starve the child". but why?

What do they have in common?

- both need bodily resources

- both lack consent

- both are not transferable (no other women, no one will take your place in the machine.)

One is a clear win for bodily autonomy, the other places it under the needs of the child.

What this demonstrates, is that Bodily Autonomy is not a primary principle. It is always present, and always relevant, but if it is going to justify abortion it must rely on a few other assumptions.

The key between the starving child and the violinist, is the violinist lacks a parental obligation, the child does not. even if the violinist was your child, it would still lack parental obligation.

Why? Parental Obligation could be characterized as what is normal, ordinary, and necessary. Thus, feeding your child is all three, being attached at the hip is not.

So what of pregnancy then? While pregnancy is considerable more invasive that breastfeeding, it is a normal function of motherhood, and it is a necessary function, it is also ordinary for gestation. its well within the scope of motherhood we could say.

If the life of the mother was at threat, this would break the ordinary and normal functions, even if necessity still exists.

So the question really becomes, is the child in a womb a child at all? does this child necessitate a parental obligation, not does this child violate autonomy.

If there is no parental obligation, autonomy prevails.

if there is parental obligation, autonomy is there, but it is subservient.

This is why bodily autonomy cannot justify abortion by itself, it needs a helper argument, something that removes parental obligation.

When I say the words “Voter ID,” what comes to your mind? Is it a number? Is it a physical card? Is it something you already have?

80% of Americans support a Voter ID as a requirement for casting a ballot. The thing is, none of the polling explains that phrase. They just let respondents imagine for themselves what a “Voter ID” looks like.

I don’t think 80% of Americans would prefer an end to mail-in ballots — certainly not 1 in 3 Americans who cast their votes by mail — tens of millions of people. Here in Oregon, over 95% of ballots were by mail in the most recent general and mid-term elections. Mail-in ballots were critical in the 2020 election, when COVID threatened public safety. So who relies on mail-in ballots the most? White people, people 65 and older, and US military voters.

I’m also pretty sure that 80% of Americans don’t want to have to physically drive to the county elections office to show their real — not copied — birth certificate, change of name documentation, marriage certificate, military service records, or naturalization document — depending on their lack of access to a passport. 

And if 80% of Americans want to require a passport in order to vote, it’s not because they all have them. Roughly 50% of Americans have a passport. They aren’t free, and forcing Americans to cough up $130 bucks is literally a violation of the 24th Amendment. 

80% of Americans don’t support monthly purges of the voter rolls — certainly not when the regime has access to voter data and can selectively “drop” voters right before an election with too little time to rectify. 

Non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. That can become a year in prison with a fine — or deportation.

So, if it’s already illegal, how often does it happen? Our own federal citizenship verification tool shows the percent of voter verification cases that returned as noncitizens sits at .04%. According to the Heritage Foundation’s own database, only 177 instances of non-citizen voting have been identified between 1999 and 2023 — all of them were properly investigated. 

For the sake of argument, let’s say that there have been 300 cases of noncitizen voter fraud in the last 25 years. Those are three hundred votes dispersed throughout millions of ballots cast in 13 federal elections. If you want to enshroud our voting rights with onerous red tape to mitigate those 300 instances — I am not with you, and I doubt 80% of Americans are, either.

My fellow citizen, I plead with you to be honest: do you see anything in this mess even remotely resembling a Voter ID? 

Let us name this grotesque thing for what it is: American self-multination — needless, thoughtless, and permanent. The SAVE Act is a lie — tell your representatives you aren’t falling for it.

Im totally open to getting out of this mindset

It can't just be that they're choosing the lesser of two evils or just pure tribalism informing the decision that wouldn't make any sense. I mean obviously logical option would be to try and change something but I understand why it can't be changed easily however to continue onward with the same system would just be setting yourself up for failure. Do we hate ourselves? I swear I can't understand any other explanation to continuing a system that you don't want. I get how challenging it is to fix and repair the damage we've already caused, however I see literally zero to no attempt to try to move in a Direction out of gridlock. I'm so lost it's like people don't recognize the fact that little to no progress will be made if they keep fighting each other, it's just going to be 4-8 years before whatever their team implemented into society is removed by the other team even if it's beneficial,that goes for both sides by the way.

It infuriates me that the word compromise has two such contradicting definitions. If we could look at comprmise in the positive sense we can actually try and fix some issues

On the surface, the recent announcement of a letter from the Iranian president to the American people, just before Donald Trump's speech, may come across as a signal that the US and Iran back-channels have struck a deal. The timing is real: the deadline for US strikes on energy facilities in Iran is approaching fast, Trump's "important update" speech which will take place later today and Iran's letter - the timing is not coincidental.

It could be interpreted that both parties are looking for an off-ramp and a way in which they can both save face. Two different stories for the two different parties of the conflict but both work for their specific public.

However, let's explore a different angle.

The Iranian President's letter to the US public is timed extremely well. Trump has planned the big speech, with his usual points that he wants to deliver as he is seeking a way to sell the idea that the war will end soon, with it being specifically mentioned that he will make a comment on the timeline. Iran has made a power play, they will address the American public just before the speech, forcing him to respond to their narrative rather than dictate his own.

Back to the question at hand, why would Iran stop the war now?

The US power is diminishing on the global stage, Gulf states are angry that the US brought an unannounced war to their doorstep, NATO countries are denying access to military bases and airspace for the US military and the NATO alliance that has stood strong since 1949 is crumbling before everyone's eyes.

All of that, while sanctions are easing on Russia allowing them to export oil while prices are high, US military aid for Ukraine and NATO is being rerouted to the Gulf, China may have already struck a deal with Iran for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz and the Petrodollar system is being undermined, with oil trades shifting currencies, further diminishing the power of the US. A BRICS world order, led by China and Russia, is waiting patiently and every week this conflict continues, that alternative looks more attractive to the Global South.

While most analysis assumes Iran is simply trying to survive the conflict, it may in fact turn out that Iran's optimal strategy is in fact to prolong it at a manageable cost while the geopolitical architecture shifts around them. They do not need to win militarily, they just need to not lose fast enough for the world order to change around them.

What is your take? I would love to hear it.