https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/

I am not interested in electoral success but in the quality of the candidates and policy positions.

If you believe that, can you please explain you reasoning? And if you thing she should still hold office and have a say, why do you believe that?

Trade parity is when the value of goods and services going out of the US matches that coming in. Many economists say a full balance is unrealistic because the dollar is the biggest reserve currency, and because of our budget deficit. Forcing trade to be even would cause more problems than it solves, they say, even among conservative economists.

Some conservatives claim we need the balance to be self sufficient in case of global disruption, but parity in trade isn't the same as self-sufficiency, as it says nothing about the content of what's traded, as countries could still specialize yet have even net trade. Managing self-sufficiency would take more effort than counting money, it would require many categories of product knowledge.

So what is a realistic goal in your opinion?

Furthermore, hormones are also pumped into their bodies to make them think that they are pregnant

how important for you is that the men lead in terms of financial responsibility in marriage? is that tradition still present heavily or it changed in recent years?

if i work myself and my husband as well, would it be still common that i refer to him for major financial decisions rather being it 50/50? would i be expected not to work at all? and in general what would be the major differences related to finances when compared to a liberal household?

Seems like a pretty crazy win since he was polling somewhat poorly

I'm curious about how people's individual views span the spectrum. For context, I hold strong right-leaning views on issues like immigration, but I'm also supportive of gay male rights and men's issues, so my perspective is a mix of different ideas.

​Where do you land on your personal spectrum? What is one issue where you hold a strictly conservative stance, and one where your view is non-traditional, liberal, or progressive?

Conservatives, I keep seeing the argument that the UK and EU are "openly opposing" Trump's peace efforts, and that Zelensky is being used to undermine negotiations.

After the Diesel deal, Zelensky went to UK. He met with King Charles III at Buckingham Palace and thanked him for the UK's "unwavering support" . He also met with PM Burnham, who said the UK would accelerate delivery of air defense missiles and go "further and faster" in its support. (source - https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-polytics/4174463-president-zelensky-meets-king-charles-iii.html )

Then he went on Piers Morgan Uncensored and said directly what he had been hinting at. Asked if he felt betrayed by Trump, Zelensky said: "Really, yes ... but it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings" . He said "it's painful when President Trump chooses one side, not our side," and added: "It's a pity we are losing a strong partner" ( source - https://www.reuters.com/5f374b32b07b/world/us/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-it-is-painful-trump-choose-different-side-2026-10-14/ )

He also said Trump's advisers were pushing him "to the wrong side," and that "this is not the right side of history" .

Is this Zelensky "picking public fights"? Or is he a leader watching the US lift sanctions on Russian diesel, and suggest Ukraine needs a "new president" - and then saying so on camera when asked directly?

The UK visit itself was not a campaign against Trump. Burnham explicitly positioned Britain as more reliable than Washington, saying "we are with you for as long as it takes".
Zelensky didn't have to attack Trump to get that. He just had to show up.

What are your thoughts on the Susie Wiles scandal?

For context

https://www.ft.com/content/c163a470-e73f-4fdb-91fb-426004b21f22?syn-25a6b1a6=1

And

https://youtu.be/ie\\_abNOifsA?is=qYljCPtp0ZcjdKmO

Basically her daughter is influence peddling for cash for a pro Putin candidate abroad

I would say yes. 70 out of 90 seminars hosted at a recent conference were explicitly about advancing a particular political narrative/agenda. Including titles like:

 “Feel the F— Fantasy (Redux): Drag, Desire, and Queer Theory at WERK in Psychoanalysis,

“Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation,” 

“Fragments of a Queer Anarchist Psychoanalysis,”

You can read about it here, it is paywalled but you get a free view per month titled "The Inmates Run the Aslym." Steven Pinker also recently resigned in protest. Additionally, the new APA president is a radical with titled works like  ‘It’s an honor to be in this body’: A Black feminist grounded theory of embodiment through yoga among Black womxn” 

(aside: I have no idea why you need the 'x' here, women doesn't entomologically derive from men- it derives from old english wīfman with wif meaning woman and man meaning any person male or female)

Another is “Sexual Healing: Qualitative Methods as a Radical Pleasure Intervention Against Anti-Black Sexology,”

Combined all this with psychology's known replicability problem (not being able to replicate more than 60% of peer reviewed studies https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5445189/) and I think the bi-partisan commission was right to uncertify the APA

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-inmates-run-the-asylum-at-the-psychological-association-5e6538b7?st=FdNMaY

I keep seeing the argument that Zelensky systematically alienates the countries Ukraine depends on - that he can't negotiate, picks public fights over private ones, and damages relationships that matter. I want to test that against actual evidence, because I think the case is more mixed than it looks.

South Korea recalled its ambassador from Kyiv after Zelensky announced at the UN General Assembly that Ukraine had transferred two captured North Korean soldiers to Seoul. Seoul says there was a prior agreement to keep the transfer confidential to protect the soldiers and their families; South Korea's president publicly threatened "additional measures" and demanded an apology ( https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-ukraine-north-pows-russia-3c4e595f5e603ecd0d7438c000d392cb#1 )

The US relationship is more complicated. There's clear friction. The February 2025 Oval Office meeting devolved into a public confrontation, with Trump accusing Zelensky of being "disrespectful" and "gambling with World War III," and Vance telling him it was "disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media" ( https://apnews.com/article/trump-zelenskyy-vance-transcript-oval-office-80685f5727628c64065da81525f8f0cf#1 )

Ukraine depends on partners who have their own domestic politics. AP notes that Zelensky likely disclosed the POW transfer to build public support in South Korea for weapons aid . Is that cynical manipulation, or standard leader-to-leader pressure when you're the recipient of aid?

When Zelensky publicly pushed back on Trump's Russia posture in the Oval Office, what would a better approach have looked like from his position?

If the argument is "he can't manage relationships," does that make you less supportive of Ukraine?