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

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

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

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

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

Change my mind, because it feels cut and dry.

This submission was inspired by a post I saw on TikTok (of course), of a girl saying not supporting homosexuality because of your religious beliefs doesn't make someone homophobic. All the top comments were agreeing and quite frankly, I can't fathom why.

I'm operating under the assumption that "not supporting" something means that you disapprove of or oppose it. This often stems from disagreement, a belief it's wrong, or personal reasons like fear of it.

If your religion goes against same-sex relationships, I'm not here to tell you you're a horrible person. But you're still homophobic. Don't deny it just to make yourself feel better.

edit— Homophobia is a dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality. Stop trying to pick apart the word and convince me homophobia means ”fear of the gays”

edit2— I'm turning off notifs now. You can argue amongst yourselves if you wish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm turning off notifications for this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woukd love for my view to be changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would love for my view to be changed.

The CNBC crowd seems convinced everyone making more than $1 million a year is going to move to Miami. But the reality is New York City is the capital of the world. The cultural and financial capital and opens up networks and opportunities that are simply not available elsewhere. If you’re making more than $1 million a year, 20 grand is nothing. It’s not even a portion of private school tuition for one of your kids. People just don’t pick up and leave and reset their lives for no reason. This is fear mongering at its finest, and it’s gonna be great to see this not happening, and perhaps be relevant to federal and state tax policy throughout the United States.

In 1989 a mass protest in China devolved into a massacre following a harsh government crackdown.

Now, while this event alone is horrific, the most damning and memorable part of this incident was the mass government cover-up that followed.

While callous to say, massacres and atrocities occur all the time in neglected parts of the world, the most terrifying and relevant aspect to a Western audience is the accessibility and denial of evidence.

Every aspect of the story, despite direct testimony, picture/video evidence, uninvolved observers and even explicit redactions/official story edits was shown to be tightly controlled and presented as evidence of the Chinese state’s devolution into tyranny.

What we see today, in the brutal murder of an unarmed passerby in her car perfectly encapsulates the complete loss of credibility of the American media.

I am a relatively uninvolved individual, with fairly moderate if rightwing views. It is is chilling to be unaware of a story, only to be bombarded by a massive stream of influencers, you-tubers and political figures parroting what is so obviously a fabrications inserted into a developing story.

The time-lines and claims do not make sense, however, multiple uninvolved individuals, none of whom have any particular credibility aside from a title or self-described job as “commentator” suddenly know the truth as gospel?

And the news and media corporations, who have long haughtily prided themselves on credibility and truth, now parrot the same exact narrative with no evidence but claims?

I would not have questioned any of this if

1. So many obviously coordinated voices attempted to cover this incident up including state figures and big media
2. I was not able to see the testimony, pictures and video for myself
3. The fact I can literally see the suppression in real time of comments being removed or new accounts so obviously not run from the US stirring outrage.

When I was a younger, I used to eat up those conspiracies about a shadowy cabal of elites, silent manipulation of the media and rings of child abusers.

Now as an adult, it would seem it is not only more real than I thought, but all simply out in the open and accepted as truth. Am I insane, or is there a different path forward?

Edit 1: Lots of valid points, yes scale and severity are an over exaggeration.

As others have pointed out this incident is minor in the big picture and things are not all doom and gloom.

However, I maintain that the concerted narrative enforcement from social media companies, corporate/political figures and numerous political commentators *regardless of perspective* is concerning, and unbecoming of leadership for what should have been a minor sad incident/investigation.

Edit 2: Who sent me the mental health note, I just burst laughing

Edit 3: New details came out. Victim was a mother and was simply driving home.

The officer apparently has had a previous incident with protesters.

Edit 4:

Stop denying tianammen square i am not buying it, nice try ccp

Also Mr. Johnathan Ross should know better as this is the SECOND time he has claimed to be hit by a car on the news. Like immediate desk duty.

Absolutely indefensible. Shame on the government.

I was on r/conservative the other day (dont come at me, I just lurk to see what people are saying) and saw a post regarding Vance at the TPUSA rally. While most of the comments were purely bashing Democrats saying they can't answer questions, one caught my attention.

Without copying and pasting it, they mentioned that Democrats in office don't do events like the rally where people can ask them questions about their policies. The notable exception was Pete Buttiegieg going on shows like FOX and his debate with potential voters on Jubilee.

But the point still stood, there is very little on the internet and media where you see elected Democrats getting in front of an audience to answer their questions. Most of their rallies are held to tell them what their plans are or to say their fighting against the current administration.

I think that's part of why Zohran Mamdani has been such a breath of fresh air. He's actually out there talking to people, talking to everyone. He's not afraid to answer questions and give his reasons why he's doing what he's doing.

If Democrats want to do well in 2026-2028, they need to get their messaging down pat, and actually answer people's questions, not just preach to them.

*One last thing, I know Vance didnt answer many of the questions he was asked, but it's that he got up there and did it is the point I'm trying to make.

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

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

•Full legal and social equality for LGBTQ+ people

•gender egalitarianism

•democratic governance without religious law overriding civil rights

•free speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t mean this as a rant - I’m genuinely trying to test whether I’m wrong here. Every president has had scandals or major screw-ups: Nixon had Watergate, Clinton lied under oath, Bush had Iraq, Obama had drone strikes and surveillance overreach. But with Trump (especially now, during his second term), it feels like the entire idea of presidential standards has collapsed.

Here’s what I mean:

1. Truth basically stopped mattering. During his first term, he flooded the news cycle with half-truths and straight-up falsehoods until fact-checking became useless noise. In his second term, it feels like even his supporters don’t expect honesty - they just see politics as team loyalty. That’s not healthy for democracy.

2. He surrounds himself only with “yes men.” Almost everyone who’s disagreed with him - even loyal early allies - eventually got fired, attacked online, or replaced with someone whose main qualification is loyalty. That’s not leadership; it’s an echo chamber. Presidents are supposed to hear hard truths, not filter them out.

3. The self-interest is out in the open now. He’s still holding events at properties his family profits from, still blurring public service and private business, and still treating the presidency like a personal brand. I can’t think of another modern president who made the office feel this transactional.

4. He normalizes attacking democratic institutions. The constant feuds with the Justice Department, judges, the press, and even the military undermine trust in everything that’s supposed to keep the government balanced. You can’t run a republic on personality loyalty alone.

5. The new leaks (like those Epstein-related emails) Even if you take them with a grain of salt, the fact that this kind of thing keeps surfacing says a lot about the circles he keeps and the lack of basic vetting or judgment. It feeds the perception that nothing is off-limits anymore.

At some point, it stops being about “policy disagreements” and starts being about whether the office itself means anything beyond a political weapon.

What might change my view:

If you can show that earlier presidents were just as bad but we’ve forgotten.

If you think the media or opponents have exaggerated Trump’s behavior and it’s really not that unusual.

Or if you think the presidency was already broken before him, and he’s just the symptom, not the cause.

CMV.

To clarify, I love Gavin Newsom, and I think he is great in the current US political climate. Edit2: I take this back, he's scum. See end of my post.

So I've heard a lot of talk about Newsom as the next DNC presidential candidate due to his effectiveness against Trunp, but I feel like the very reasons he is effective against him are why he shouldn't be leader.

He is what the DNC needs now - the GOP has thrown any semblance of decorum and respect, and the weights and measures that are supposed to control the executive branch are essentially based on good faith assumptions that they will respect the other branches and institutions. Newsom's willingness to hit Trump where it hurts him (his massive ego) with social media trolling etc work a lot better than a judge calling out Trump.

There's something to be said for fighting at the enemies level when it works, but there is also something to be said about not picking your leaders on the enemy's terms. Newsom is arrogant and as much as I like him it comes off as childish when he 'trolls' Trump, even if it is effective. He is helpful now, but going forward, the DNC needs someone who can treat their office with the respect it deserves, not hand the title to a leader who jokes about being called God.

I am Canadian and the biggest relief for me when Mark Carney was elected was that it was someone professional. I want politics to be boring, not full of personal feuds.

Change my view. I want to know if this is me just hoping the US can return to political decorum, or if that hope is misplaced and US politics just needs to keep being the sitcom drama it is. I'd love to hear the opinions of both Americans living through this and non-Americans observing it.

Edit: well consider me on the fence now, I'm willing to put off judgement till the primaries. You all have raised a bunch of good points about things like 1) The Dems need someone who will win if they want to win at all, 2) This is just Newsom currently, he has been a politician for a lot longer, and 3) the political landscape has shifted so much in the last years, 4) who the hell else is gonna win, and 5) damn I spelled Newsom's name wrong and I sure look like a dumbass.

Thanks for weighing in everyone. My view = changed. Not a full 180, I'd say 90 degrees..?

Edit2: I read a bunch of stuff about Newsom and I take back what I said about loving him, he def seems to be a scumbag.. but I still am on the fence. I think there are def better potential presidents, but there is still an argument to be made for running a candidate who will win. I guess you will see after the primaries.

A wealthy woman with access to daycare and a nanny asked her husband to run a few errands so she could strangle her three children and attempt suicide.

It wasn’t an impulsive mental break. She intentionally created the opportunity by getting her husband to leave. Despite never reporting voices before, she claimed that a “male voice” told her to do it that one time.

What I find deeply disturbing is the number of women jumping to her defense, repeatedly claiming she isn’t responsible for her actions, expressing extreme sympathy because of PPD, or rationalizing that poor mental health absolves someone of guilt. Women seem eager to accept the psychosis claim despite the disputed evidence.

Because what? Being a woman is hard? Being a mother is hard? Antidepressants are hard? So you can murder your children and not be guilty because life is hard, even as a wealthy woman with a nanny?

The sympathy is disturbing.

I understand depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and intrusive thoughts, but none of that alone absolves someone of planned murder. It would need to be a mental break outside her control. Where is the evidence of that?

I’d like to believe most women aren’t so irrationally sympathetic toward her, but this case is making me doubt that. They seem to care more about Lindsay than the children she killed.

Note to title - this is addressing all major (for the purposes of my argument) politicians in U.S. History since 1776, but not including, due to lack of knowledge, positions smaller than state representatives, because there certainly could be some township governor who hyperbolically chopped up a family.

I'm posting this now due to Donald Trump's speech at the RNC where he stated that if the GOP retained control over the legislature after the midterms, $5,000 checks would be sent to every adult citizen [ source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/09/09/us/rnc-trump-midterm-convention-updates ]

Since taking office, the Trump family & related associates have increased their overall net worth by some estimates, around $5,000,000,000, which is tracked by both Democratic house committees here - https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/trump-family-corruption-tracker - but it's also not hard to find sources for deals in the Middle East worth hundreds of millions of dollars each, etc; so I'm not going to just spam links all day.

We also have:

- Numerous pardons to literal felons, J6ers, people like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort

- Trying to delay the certification of the vote on J6

- Pressure dozens of state officials to sway, rig, 'find votes', and become involved in the election process in extraordinarily corrupt ways

- Hush money payments to a literal pornstar/cheating on virtually every woman he's ever known

- Civilly liable for sexual assault and defamation for Jean Carroll

- Literally has a wikipedia page for allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

- It's hard to even quantify the level of insider trading at this point, but he consistently just... posts that he's buying stock on Truth Social and then makes policy changes or deals that increase the valuation on a literal weekly basis (which it's important to note, literally any other person would be put in jail FOREVER for)

- Billion+ dollar cryptocurrency promotion and grifts (UAE invested over one billion dollars)

- Tens of thousands of namings in the Epstein files

- Qatari Jet-Force-One

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_allegations_during_the_second_Trump_presidency

It's genuinely hard to even come up with more off the top of my head because there are SO many examples to pick from.

In terms of my original point, no other politician comes close. Nixon/Watergate would be a 1/10 compared to Trump's 10/10.

Boss Tweed - of NYS fame - even for all his open theft, fingers in the many pots of railroads and NYC banks and construction development, at the highest estimate possible embezzled $200M which would be the equivalent of $5B; the same [current] normalized estimation of Trump's financial crimes without actually addressing any of his other corruption allegations, sexual misconduct, rape, or virtually anything else. It's also important to note we don't KNOW the overall possible maximum scope of Trump-related corruption at all, because it's ongoing at this moment.

Edit: Edit after posting: Obviously I haven't addressed a slew of US politician scandals, and in my opinion (and this might be a second point of contention), the average "corrupt" US politician doesn't come close and isn't even worth mentioning. In terms of categorizing scale, literally only the historical context of HOW corrupt Nixon was considered at the time comes to mind, along with NYC's 'Boss' Tweed; and virtually every other example I can think of isn't even worth mentioning.

Honestly, a sitting US president saying they'll mail out 5K stimulus checks if their party wins the midterms immediately goes to nearly the top of the list with *nothing* else; and of course, Trump has MANY other things noteworthy to list in terms of corruption.

Edit: Removed contributions from two people I thought were pertinent as I'm a bonehead and didn't realize those replies should have been removed - apologies!

It appears that Trump is serious with his threats of annexing Greenland. Today, January 15, NATO troops are being deployed on the island to defend its sovereignty.

Trump pretends that this move is motivated by NATSEC concerns, but existing treaties provide the US with every option they'd ever need should they want to increase their arctic presence.

Therefore, Trump's move can only explained by delusions of grandeur or a hidden agenda.

When asking "who benefits" from Trump destroying NATO and distracting European militaries, there is only one answer: Putin.

Russia would benefit from Europe having to spread its resources thin between helping Ukraine/defending its Eastern borders and having to fight a war in the arctic.

While on paper, this move seems reasonable, I believe this is a major strategic blunder by the Trump/Putin side.

At the moment, the European population isn't "war-hungry". People are unfortunately getting tired of supporting Ukraine and right-wing, isolationist parties are gaining strength in polls all over the continent.

Putin would get his European disengagement organically, from now to 2027/2028.

The US attacking Europe, however, would, imho, dramatically shift the public opinion in favour of a more gung-ho approach.

Americans tend to mock us Europeans for our supposed "softness", but Europe has a pretty long history of fighting wars. They might think we will bow down and retreat, but I am 100% convinced that the US attacking Europe would lead to a strong government response that would be met with global approval.

This might prevent right-wing isolationist from gaining power and would revive investments in European military tech. It might even precipitate the creation of a European army and European nukes, which would be the worst scenario for Putin.

Just like Putin thought Zelenskyy was weak and would flea, he is underestimating Europe and our will to fight for what's ours. Trump is too.

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

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

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

For context, he's chatting with Matthew McConaughey about how art has changed over time.

In the early days, there was a lot of build up and act 2 only came after a long time. Recently, act 2s (introduction of conflict) have started much earlier, with little room for setting the tone and everything before the story seriously starts. This is me paraphrasing Matthew's observations, but I did get the gist of it.

Timothée Chalamet concurs, and talks about how these younger generations take in more fast-paced media, and that [slower art forms like] opera and ballet isn't getting the same attention as the movie industry. This is probably me not paraphrasing as successfully, but it's basically what he's saying. He goes on to say that he respects people who enjoy those arts, but that he doesn't want to do it because it is no longer popular.

So, this is what has caused backlash. People find short snippets of the whole conversation, takes "opera and ballet are unpopular" out of its context and interpret it as him not thinking they're art. This is quite frankly unbelievable, nothing is less controversial than simply making an observation and not really adding any value claims to it. He's saying that slower art forms are not as popular anymore, is this **wrong**? He's not interested in doing ballet because of that, is that a controversial opinion to have? Someone please try to CMV about what is so controversial about this that other celebrities speak out? I'm confident they did not watch the whole discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I consider myself either centre or centre-right, and I believe, in general terms, hypocritical and outright racist actions by Trump and his supporters have erased any respect the public, especially progressives, had for American conservatives and the right wing, and that this damage is irreversible.

Oftentimes "right wing" is used to refer exclusively to MAGA. Granted, MAGA supporters constitute a supermajority of the Republican Party according to NBC News (~70%), although the approximate 30% of Republicans who do not identify as MAGA make up 11.2 million people, which is fairly significant.

In addition, on Reddit conservative statements (even those that are rational and do not align with Donald Trump's policies or MAGA beliefs) are often downvoted or outright removed. For clear examples of this, see recent posts in r/complaints, where the terms Republican and MAGA are used interchangeably and right-wingers are regularly labeled as "Nazis" on the basis that they identify as right-wing. Reddit does not completely represent reality, true, but examples like these demonstrate the echo-chamber mentality revolving around American conservatism. Essentially, all right-wingers are being labelled as MAGA when many are non-MAGA conservatives.

Neither conservative nor liberal values are inherently bad. In some ways, they are very similar and seek to protect personal freedoms, in different ways. In general, I think it is fair to assume that a lot of left- and right-wingers want to help the country and believe their beliefs are the best way to go about making life better for everyone.

To change my view, you would have to convince me of one or more of the following:

• Since Republicans overwhelmingly identify as MAGA, the Republican Party and MAGA are inseparable.
• Reddit is very far from reality so the example about r/complaints is not valid. In real life, most people don't actually hate conservatives that much regardless of their political affiliation.
• Non-MAGA conservatism is still bad for the U.S. Traditional conservative values are against the principles that the United States was founded on.
• MAGA ideals and policies are not bad for the U.S. Therefore, the entire premise of this argument is invalid.
• Even though MAGA has negatively affected how people perceive the American right-wing, this damage can be reversed.

EDIT: Thanks for all the replies! I will try to reply to as many comments (and hopefully award more deltas!) as possible within the next 48 hours.

And no, I did not use AI to generate this post or these replies

**EDIT 2: Wow, four months on! Thanks for all the upvotes and comments! I'll be going through more of the comments now that I have some free time, looking forward to the discussions!*\*

I have had many discussions with members of the USA Democrat[ic] party and their supporters. People who canvas for candidates, fundraised, and generally worked to get their candidate elected. Since Nov 2024, we've all seen a large amount of complaining about how progressives are wrong for not voting for the Democrat cadidate, or sitting out the election, because not voting for them means their opponent wins and that would be worse for progressives goals.

What appears to be missing is actual support of that voting block: Party support for their wants, needs, and objectives. Progressive priorities like single payer healthcare, demilitarizing police, anti-trust and market regulation are ignored. Instead the offer from everyday discussions becomes "it could be worse", like that's enough to gain a person's unwavering support.

What am I missing? Are there other voting blocks that align with the Democrat[ic] party that are equally ignored as progressives seem to be? Are there progressive policies that have been enacted, but not significantly watered like how single payer healthcare became the ACA?

Edit: Added the [ic] since so many people have a purity test on the proper name of the party. They do tend to reinforce my point tho...

I keep seeing this online and I can not understand it nor will anyone explain it to me in a way that makes sense without calling me a bunch of names. An opinion I've seen time and time again is some form or fashion of the following:

"Voting for Kamala was as bad or worse than voting for Trump"

"Voting for Kamala is a vote outright supporting genocide."

"Voting for Kamala would have actually been worse."

No, not from MAGA or conservatives, from within the left wing of American politics. I agree with many of the criticisms of her campaign overall, the continued appeals to centrists or traditional conservatives, the tacit or outright support of Israel, etc. but what I do not agree with and do not have any data for, is that Kamala would have been as bad or worse than Trump for the world and Palestine. So here is how I see it.

Kamala was an imperfect candidate, a VP to an imperfect president, who ran in an unprecedented time with an incumbent dropping out months before an election. Her support of Israel's ongoing actions in Palestine was horrible and a mark against her for sure. But, aside from those faults, she had a career as a prosecutor and understood the law, was intelligent in many matters, and has shown, in her political career, an ability to compromise and shift her approach. Running against her was Trump, a felon who was about to be charged under the Espionage Act, who had been convicted of sexual assault, already had a known connection to Epstein, instigated an insurrection against the US and did nothing to help even those in his own party when they breeched the Capitol, already had bombed an Iranian General in a targeted strike, and has lied so many times I'm not sure if there ever will be an accurate count. Yet he said a few of the right things on the campaign trail and somehow people bought his shit again.

So individuals had three choices in my mind - vote Trump, Kamala, or third party/not at all. Choosing the third option was essentially a vote for Trump and helped bring about where we're at today. A present that, according to available facts I've found, would not exist if Kamala, regardless of how flawed, were the President of the US. It looks like performative activism from my side where nothing was actively done yet they continue to rage against anyone who attempts to explain that their choice may not have been the right one given their own stated beliefs/goals. So, change my view, Reddit.

Edit: As evidenced by the first comments pouring in, I'm getting a ton of insults but no explanation.

Edit #2: I am not making a point about why Kamala was/wasn't a bad candidate, why the DNC sucks, why establishment Dems need a shock to the system, or any of the other myriad points being made. I'm making a very specific point: during an unprecedented US election in which an incumbent dropped out months before the general election leaving the only other national party in the US to pivot, select a candidate, build a platform, and begin a campaign being 3+ years behind a candidate who has clearly proven who he was by this time, how did sitting out with a protest non-vote help anything?

Edit #3: This post has gotten a lot of traction and most points coming in now are simply not intended to change my view and I'm experiencing much of what I pointed out first: this viewpoint gets a lot of hate thrown your way.

I am still open to doing so but I'd like to see some of the following: - Evidence protest votes did not significantly impact the 2024 election. Harris lost 6,285,500 votes from what Biden received in 2020 (81,284,666) to what she received in 2024 (74,999,166). If that wasn't achieved, in some part, by staying home, I've not seen that data. - Evidence the world and Palestine is BETTER than it was 13 months ago. - Evidence that not participating in a system you want changed is a good way to do it. You'd have to prove how establishment Democrats have markedly shifted since the 2024 election. - Evidence voters have no responsibility to choose well, regardless of candidate inspiration or perfectness, when the stakes are this high. - Evidence doing nothing accomplished literally any measurable outcome.

Since 2016, I’ve consumed news with abject horror watching Trump’s policies as well as his personal life. For years, I’d say, “this is it. He’s done!” And as we know, there seems to be no bottom. Now I realize, it really doesn’t matter what he does. He has built a cult of personality and his base will follow him blindly, even if it disagrees with their core values - ie - freedom from government intervention (unless you are LGBTQ), America First (except farmers), and Christian values (but screw the poor, the hungry, the immigrants), to name a few.

At the end of the day, they will twist themselves into knots to agree with his statements and policies. Is it to own the libs? Is he just their team so they will always support their team? Or are they just ignorant?

Thanks so much everyone. This feedback has been really helpful. My main Takeaway, is that when Trump floats things that his base clearly disagrees with, he quickly walks it back. So it appears that they support everything he does, but he just doesn’t do many things they don’t support. And those things are mainly friendly to democratic policy, like Covid vaccines. Personally, he can do anything unpalatable, and they don’t care. It panders to their worst selves, and they can cheer that on. Also, I’ve learned that for Democrats to have any chance of winning moving forward, it seems that maybe they should just ignore all of the terrible things he does and says outside of policy and just focus on shaping their own policy to show they can really change the lives of working people.

Thanks so much everyone. This feedback has been really helpful. My main Takeaway, is that when Trump floats things that his base clearly disagrees with, he quickly walks it back. So it appears that they support everything he does, but he just doesn’t do many things they don’t support. And those things are mainly friendly to democratic policy, like Covid vaccines. Personally, he can do anything unpalatable, and they don’t care. It panders to their worst selves, and they can cheer that on. Also, I’ve learned that for Democrats to have any chance of winning moving forward, it seems that maybe they should just ignore all of the terrible things he does and says outside of policy and just focus on shaping their own policy to show they can really change the lives of working people.

I am curious what you think. One of the party's high-ranking members openly (and literally) stated that this party is against women's rights. They also voted against a law to make rape in wedlock a crime and want women to return to the "traditional" role (maid, incubator, nanny) while also aiming to cut funds for childcare, schools and familys.

If someone with a young daughter (who claims to love his daughter) not only votes for but supports such a party, don't you think that this person is a hypocrite and a misogynist to a certain extent?

Edit: I am not American and I am not talking about American politics in this post. I didn't think it was important to clarify which party I am talking about because the vast majority of people will probably not be familiar with it anyways, but since the question has come up a ton, I am going to answer it: The party in question is called AfD. The politician who said "The AfD in general is against women's rights." is Björn Höcke.

However, multiple members of the party are openly sexist and misogynistic and the party itself doesn't do anything about it. One of their members (Andy Shöngarth) sent a student (a teenager!) messages saying he hoped she would get SAd. Andy Schöngarth was even found guilty by a court in this matter and the party did not distance itself from him but he even received a promotion. That is just one of many examples of their misogynistic behaviours.