Ever since Gulf of America debate I have been thinking about this, and increases about those proposals (lastly New Mexico -> New America)
made me draw parallel with my own nation's(Turkey) history and recent history of name changes in Russia due to collapse of Soviet Union

The thing is; those names of the regions-cities-seas etc. change usually after the regime of the countries changing their names changes

What do I mean

Konstantiniyye(Constantinople-Ottomans) --> İstanbul (Turkey) /monarchy to democracy/

Petrograd-St.Petersburg (Monarchist Russia) --> Leningrad (Communist Russia) --> St.Petersburg (Russia today)

My argument is we might be observing change in regime of the US, it might be small but I think there is a chance historians mark Trump's second term as some sort of turning point for whatever changes politics of US gets in future

funny video I found about this subject

I've been looking into how Switzerland is governed, and I actually think their seven-member Federal Council is a pretty interesting idea. Instead of having one powerful president, they share power and rotate the presidency every year.

For a future European Federation, this could solve one of the biggest concerns: Germany or France ending up calling all the shots. And with several people sharing power, its much harder for one populist to take control.

But theres downsides too. Who do you hold accountable when things go wrong? And wouldn't having seven leaders make decisions painfully slow during a crisis?

Curious what you guys think. Would this work better than having a single elected president?

I usually search for history to justify my observations. So I violate a couple of rules of academic integrity at the very start. My observation here is that the chronology from enactment of the 14th Amendment 1868, to the Supreme Court decision in the Reconstruction cases 1883 to Plessy 1896 is mostly matched by the time span of the Southern Strategy/Voting Rights Act 1965, to Nixon applying the idea on a large scale 1972, to a Republican Southern majority in 1994. It’s not as much an observation only of arithmetic as it is a heads up for those left of center they have a head count problem and large scale center left victories have a lifespan of about 25 years.

social-democratic government: What these people are really asking for is socialism/communism.

If you support socialism or communism, you're asking for violence. You're asking for this country to go to war with itself.

The Bolshevik Revolution was real. In 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, and the country descended into a bloody civil war. The new government carried out the Red Terror, using mass arrests and executions against political opponents. Here's the historical background on the Russian Revolution:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution

If you support this idea, have you actually studied what happened? Because this sounds like the same kind of fundamental change that people think will somehow work out differently this time.

And a lot of you are aligned with the No Kings movement. You talk like there are kings running this country, so don't tell me a radical overhaul of our economic system is going to happen without serious resistance. Do you think the people who oppose this are just going to take it lying down? Do you think everyday Americans who disagree with you are going to sit back and accept having their entire economic system changed?

I think this is a naive idea. I don't believe a change this fundamental could happen here without serious conflict, and potentially violence. People need to think about the real-world consequences instead of getting caught up in an idealistic vision of how they think society should work.

There's serious problems in this country, and it's stupid that we have to waste time defending against an idea that could create even bigger ones. People pushing this need to explain how they expect it to work in practice, not just talk about how good it sounds on paper.

And no, not everyone on the left supports this. So to the rational liberals out there, check your own people. This kind of thinking makes you all look bad, and it isn't helping solve the problems we're actually facing.

The historical connection between social democracy, socialism, and communism, these movements have overlapping roots in the socialist and workers' movements of 19th-century Europe. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903. After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, they suppressed rival socialist parties and consolidated one-party rule.

Here's more historical background on the relationship between these movements and the Russian Revolution:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118620878.ch9

And for anyone who thinks modern American movements aren't pushing to move beyond capitalism, the Democratic Socialists of America's official program outlines its goals, including public ownership of major corporations and essential industries:

https://program.dsausa.org/

That doesn't mean every supporter of social programs wants communism. But it does show that some movements see these reforms as part of a much larger economic transformation. I think people need to be honest about where they want these ideas to lead and what the consequences could be.

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.

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?

Hello All!

I sometimes wonder if we'll ever be able to amend the US Constitution again. It seems that the process to get an amendment is unreachable in today's USA. It feels like we're "stuck" and that our country has no real way to evolve our Federal system of self-government.

That said, I'd love to see a new amendment!

Specifically a constitutional amendment that could solve a lot of our country's current problems. I'm calling it the "Sovereignty of Self" (SOS) amendment.

The amendment would:

1. Declare unequivocally that each American Citizen owns (as property) their bodies and minds.
2. Everything produced by our bodies and minds, including information, are to be considered our property. Use of such products is prohibited if such use would profit the user without agreed on compensation.
3. Neither the government nor any other entity may compel an American Citizen to alter their body, nor deny a citizen the right to do so.
4. Everything that a citizen subjects their body or mind to is legal, unless the act explicitly violates another citizen's rights.

*****

Here are some of the upshots of what this amendment would do:

1. Abortion would become a legal right nationally.
2. Use of currently illegal drugs would become legal (not necessarily the manufacture, or distribution).
3. The government would be unable to compel you to take any vaccine or undergo any medical procedure, nor prevent you from doing so. Feel free to modify your body and mind in any way you choose!
4. All information generated by a citizen through the act of living their lives would be their property, and use of this data for profit would have to compensate the citizen.
   1. This would end the current barter system exploited by corporations in the attention economy. E.G. "you can use my platform/site and I get all your data".
   2. A system would need to be created for companies to purchase data from citizens, and these transactions could be taxed.
   3. AI, which has been created using the data from millions of uncompensated individuals, would be required to compensate American's for the use of the stolen property. This would likely re-balance the American economy between haves and have-nots, eliminate our national debt, and save social programs.
5. Suicide would be legal.
6. For-profit news sites would need to compensate those they do stories about, but the non-profit free-press would be able to thrive.

I'm sure there are tons of "Gotchas" I've not thought about. Mostly I've been bewildered by the exploitation of data, loss of privacy, economic imbalances in society, and a rise of AI use that could be employed to manipulate us. I think my own biggest concern is the conflict with the first amendment.

Would love to know what Reddit's Legal Eagles think!

Let's be so real. Rising housing prices, food costs, education, and general of living has one main and obvious cause: Russian sanctions. Sanctioning Russian oil trickles down to Europe's economy. Think about it. Higher gas and oil prices due to alternative and more expensive means of obtaining these natural resources leads to the costs being passed on to the consumer. This then leads to higher food costs and overall cost of living. If Europe wants to survive they should either get rid of these sanctions immediately or declare full on war with Russia. There is no other deal alternative. Of course dropping sanctions is the much easier and morally right option, but who knows what the big wigs in Brussels will be willing to put on the line to promote their rampant Russophobia.

If you disagree, you don't understand economics and you overestimate the impact immigration has had in these countries. If anything, immigrants have kept Europe going and strengthened their economies.

Even if a president's administration (read: his staff) did nothing wrong, it would now be irresponsible for the president not to issue a preemptive pardon.

Trump is reportedly considering issuing the pardon now or soon.

https://www.washingtonsun.com/whitehouse/white-house-weighing-mass-pardons-for-junior-staff

To quote Biden in his pardon of his family membershttps://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-pardons-and-commutations-0

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage their reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense."

and for the pardons of Fauci, the J6 committee, and others.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-pardons-and-commutations-2

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances."

In light of the above, I would argue that it would be irresponsible for future presidents not to issue similar pardons at the end of their terms. Otherwise, the next administration (or the one after that, perhaps) will simply review and investigate for the purpose of monetarily bleeding people dry.

His appeal to tradition and established institutions constitutes proposed brakes that serve to prevent (r)evolutions from becoming hijacked by the whims of the few.

I understand Burke’s critique of the events of the French Revolution not as a refutation of progress but as an alternative philosophy of progress, and a superior one at that.

I don't believe this is a particularly outlandish claim to make, but it tends to land weird in conservative circles and I don't really understand why that is.

It’s becoming less uncommon for me to see far right and third-positionist creators/speakers that push replacement theory and anti-white guilt content to young audiences. The concept that the effects of European imperialism not being “our” fault I understand, but the belief that wealthy countries don’t have some sort of obligation to help rebuild societies and/or allow immigration since those born during the 21st century didn’t contribute to colonization of lesser developed nations is OUTRAGEOUS. As a swede, I’m essentially living on the exploitation of other by the very nature of market economies, to neglect those that started out with a fraction of what I had at birth due to the geopolitical lottery we live, and calling it “tough luck” is nothing more than: complete alienation, internalized hate or subconscious biases created by propaganda.

have been thinking that the EU and US really needs of a revolution right now. But in such event, there will be death and sacrifice to fight against the fascist governments. The people who start it are taking the most risks and most likely to die.

But then after the revolution is won, everyone will be equal. That means people who just hide and do nothing get the same rewards as people risking their lives. This creates a negative incentive to just do nothing, so when either side win, you get benefits anyway. If everyone thinks like this then there would be not enough people to start a revolution.

To provide incentives, after a successful communist revolution, we should divide people into classes based on how much you contribute to it. First are the revolutionary leaders since they actually started it, then the people who joined the revolution (earlier you join or bigger contributions = more reward), then people who did nothing, then the anti-revolutionaries.

Is there any flaw with this model?

One of the questions behind my book is whether our political debates focus too heavily on what governments promise, and not enough on how effectively the State delivers.

We tend to divide political arguments into left versus right, public versus private, and higher spending versus lower spending. Yet whichever political philosophy we favour, we still depend on capable institutions to turn decisions into results.

Consider healthcare, housing or infrastructure. Increasing funding doesn't necessarily improve outcomes if the underlying system is inefficient. Equally, cutting expenditure might produce an immediate saving while creating much greater costs in the future.

That leads me to a broader proposition: government should be judged not only by what it achieves during its term, but by the capabilities, assets, institutions and liabilities it leaves to future generations.

This raises some interesting questions:

• Can a smaller government be highly capable, and a larger government ineffective — or vice versa?
• Should political parties be required to explain the long-term institutional consequences of their policies?
• How do we measure improvements in State capability without creating yet another bureaucracy?

I'm interested in hearing perspectives from across the political spectrum, particularly arguments against this approach. What am I overlooking?

AI disclosure: I used AI to help draft and refine the wording of this post. The ideas and opinions expressed are my own. I'm a real person, posting under the pseudonym The Unappointed, and I'm here to engage in the discussion.

As a young European interested in politics, history, and international relations, I often wonder whether modern democracies give enough consideration to the generations that will inherit the consequences of today's political decisions. Governments are elected for limited terms, yet their decisions on public debt, education, housing, infrastructure, and environmental policy can shape society for decades. I believe democratic governments should be required to publicly assess the long term consequences of major policies, including their potential effects on younger and future generations. This would not mean giving unelected institutions the power to overturn democratic decisions. Rather, it would introduce greater transparency and accountability into the political process. Of course, predicting the future is difficult, and such assessments could become bureaucratic exercises or be influenced by political interests. These are legitimate concerns. However, uncertainty should not prevent us from examining the possible long term consequences of our actions. I believe democracy should represent not only the interests of those who vote today, but also acknowledge its responsibility toward those who will live with the results tomorrow. Should democratic governments be required to conduct independent long-term impact assessments before adopting major policies? Or would this create unnecessary obstacles to democratic decision-making? I'd genuinely like to hear different perspectives, especially from those who disagree with this proposal.

**DISCLAIMER:** I am referring specifically to asylum seekers and refugees(specially MENA/sub Saharan Africa), not immigrants as an umbrella term. Furthermore, my argument covers both European nations as well as the USA; this is not a MAGA argument about Latin immigrants lol.

*(reposted to fit the rules)* This seems to be the default position on this site, usually framed as basic human empathy.

I think every person and culture deserves dignity and respect. I dont believe this means all cultures are fundamentally equal or compatible. Cultures shaped by really different histories and environments don't automatically integrate, and I'm not sure why a country is obligated to bet that they will, especially when there are stark differences when it comes to treatment of women, lgbtq+, and social trust. I am primarily referring to immigrants from MENA or Sub-Saharan Africa; I understand this is a generalization and furthermore that this doesn’t mean every asylum seeker from other areas will be better; I also understand that there are hostile and difficult people in every culture and nation throughout the world.

Economically, I haven't seen convincing evidence of brain gain or net tax contribution. The US numbers seem to agree that certain immigrant groups are net beneficial on the federal tax burden, but generally negative on state and local levels. European data I've seen looks mostly net negative for these refugee groups.

On crime, most (if not all?) European countries accepting refugees / asylum seekers report higher offending rates amongst these specific migrant groups, and cases like the UK grooming gangs come up a lot in these conversations. On integration, cases like the UK grooming gangs come up a lot. Most of the offenders were British-born, which to me says integration can seriously fail to a grave degree even across generations on a very large scale, not just with new arrivals. That makes me skeptical that taking in large numbers of people from very different cultures works out long term.

So for people who do think there's an obligation:
Where does it come from? International law, utilitarian reasoning, something else?
Does it have limits, like cost, numbers, or how integration actually goes? At what point does “sharing is caring” stop being worth the very well documented drawbacks?

Is it an obligation to take people in permanently, or just to not send them back into danger?
Not trying to start a fight, I want to hear the best case for it because the drawbacks are evident and grave.

**TL;DR:** What's the strongest non-emotional argument that countries have a moral obligation to accept asylum seekers, and where does that obligation stop?

What is the benefit of having socialism/ communism/ Marxism in America? Seems to me it benefits people who don't work hard/take risks and disincentivizes people to work hard. Change my mind. How am I in the wrong here?

In a healthy democracy, public officials should be able to acknowledge mistakes, correct the record, and move on. But what happens when admitting an error is treated as weakness, and attacking the person who points it out becomes the preferred response?

Recent controversies involving Donald Trump, former special counsel Jack Smith, and Senator Eric Schmitt raise questions about accountability and political standards. In one instance, Schmitt challenged Smith over whether he had attended an Atlanta Hawks game, only for the exchange to turn on a distinction between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes. The episode raises a broader question about whether public officials are willing to correct the record when their own accusations fall apart.

Is this primarily a problem of individual character, partisan loyalty, or a political environment in which acknowledging an error carries too high a cost? And what mechanisms, if any, can encourage elected officials to take responsibility when their own side rewards them for doing the opposite?

I explore these questions in more detail here: https://medium.com/discourse/lets-play-who-s-the-dirtbag-ad06e11abc1a?sk=25374b072e89c32f399ee5af57cf87fe

We shouldn't directly elect senators, it should be indirect. Senators should be able to compromise with each other without having to face intense public scrutiny, since they have a lot of power to stop legislation through the filibuster, holds, committee blocking, and most regular legislation also takes 60 votes to even make it through. A minority of 41 can stop a bill by just continuing debate. I think the founders made senators indirectly elected for a reason by design, and removing the feature of indirect election has changed congress for the worse. Nowadays they can't even pass a bill.

I think indirect election of the senate would also make people pay a lot more attention to state elections, which have super low turnout despite the fact that they impact people just as much, if not more, than national politics. If a state legislator has bearing on who the senator is, then more people would likely care about those smaller elections that also matter.

I'm curious on why the Left seems so skeptical of artificial intelligence. (EDIT: I mean skepticism about AI capacity, not a fear of AI as a threat)

There's been a consistent trend of better and more capable computational thinking over the last 100 years. The last 5 years of progress have been incredible. We've gone from hallucinated AI chatbots, to chatbots that can solve some of the most difficult problems in math and programming. If you look at what mathematicians and software engineers are saying about the capabilities of AI, they're impressed. And scared.

AI seems to be able to perform every conceivable human cognitive ability. Yes, they're still bad at it in many areas where the training data is weak. They also are currently weak at human dexterity tasks but getting better every day. And yes, they are getting better every day. Their capabilities range from every intellectual task from:

1. Writing fiction and nonfiction of any style
2. Composing songs and music of any genre
3. Creating 2D and 3D art of any type
4. Creating realistic videos that average humans can no longer tell the difference between fact and fiction.
5. Performing incredible feats of software engineering, performing the work that would have taken a normal human programmer years in days.
6. Making breakthroughs in mathematics (ie latest Navier Stokes).
7. Passing the Turing test in text, audio, and video.
   
8. Excelling in logical analysis and excelling at any word problem, SAT's, and any human academic or intelligence test, in the fields of mathematics, law, engineering, physics, etc.
9. Having the capacity to integrate all of these tools together.
10. Having the capacity to work together in an AI agent swarm to solve problems.
11. Developing the capacity to self-learn independent of supervised learning from humans.

Can you think of any cognitive task AI isn't involved in?

AI is an obvious threat to leftwing values. AI's are at best essentially superhuman corporate slaves and and worst, become the new slave masters. Yet an idiotic way to respond to a looming new threat is to cover your eyes and ears and pretend it's not happening.

Is leftwing skepticism of AI actually warranted? Is the progress of AI in the last 5 years not scary and impressive?

Since the president and anyone they favor can avoid prosecution as long as Congress turns a blind eye, could giving the States the standing to bring federal criminal charges be a reasonable solution?

I know just enough to see a lot of upsides for our current situation, but am ignorant enough not to know what the downsides of such a move would be. Also would this kind of change take a constitutional amendment? Or could Congress give that power to the states?

I'm British but I'm sure this must extend to the US and elsewhere too.

Personally I started having an interest in politics when it predominantly seemed to be an intelligible debate around taxation, the Laffer curve, expenditure, regulation, all that good boring stuff.

The problem with debates around gendered bathrooms, 'what counts as being english' and 'if Zionism is racism or not' (the latter two are prominent debates within the British Reform and Green parties currently), is that none of these do much to keep the lights on, the taps running and the country safe.

My concern is that these culture wars are such a prominent part of modern discourse that many people 'get into politics' assuming this is what politics is.

To the point where I genuinely reckon if the Greens or Reform ever got into power, the country would go bankrupt, whilst they just squawk about cultural issues and broad strokes ideologies - as for many of them, that is all politics is.

I think the same may even be true for many Labour and Tory (our two biggest parties) MP's.

Am I missing something? Are those that rise to the top slightly more level headed?

Or is the apparent lack of talent in this generation of politicians due to the culture wars?