I have begun to become very discouraged by the state of our economy. Mostly the fact that the quality of everything is going down, all most stores sell is just Chinese crap. I like capitalism in concept, but I have read that this is the product of "late stage capitalism". I am not a fan of communism at all. I think people who work harder should earn more. I think people should have the liberty to make and sell (or trade) what they want to who they want. I think production should be kept mostly in america. I believe in keeping government as small as possible. So what other options are there? Is there some sort of hybrid, or some other way to implement capitalism, that doesnt lead to the eventual outcome of shit quality products for 10x the price?

uncontested house seats 2022
In 2022, democrats left many republican held seats uncontested and had a smaller loss than expected.

Uncontested house seats 2024

Uncontested senate races

In 2026, democrats are contesting every house seat.

I spend too much time online. But I have somewhat fallen for the fact that liberals look down on people like me who live in Texas.

I’m sorry that I’m poor and can’t move out. It something I think about when I hear someone from blue states.

What I mean is the only reason why Trump is doing all the things he's doing is being the Republican controlled Congress chooses not to stop him. By giving DC and Puerto Rico Statehood or representation and Senators it could gives Dems an advantage because even the republicans acknowledge that Democrats would pick up more seats.

Thoughts?

During the latter half of President Biden's term, his administration moved to prevent the importing Chinese brands of electric vehicles (or those built in China) by quadrupling existing tariffs.

In particular, the President’s Memorandum specified categories of products for proposed tariff increases, tariff rates for those products, and year for tariff increases. With respect to tariff increases, the President directed increases on the following products:

Electric vehicles – Increase rate to 100% in 2024
Lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries – Increase rate to 25% in 2024

White House finalizes rules banning Chinese, Russian tech in connected cars

At the time, many supported the move, as they envisaged China endeavoring to flood the market with less expensive electric vehicles resulting in an offering from U.S. automakers that would be no longer competitive. They believed the U.S. auto industry would be irreperably damaged if Chinese vehicles were allowed in, ultimately leading to a U.S. that would be less self-reliant, which was the opposite of what Biden's administration was trying to accomplish, after seeing how vulnerable the U.S. is to the seizing up of global supply chains.

However, others, particularly those who want to see widespread usage of EVs adopted, saw Biden's move as an impediment to increased production of EVs by U.S. automakers. Their view was that disallowing Chinese EVs to compete in the U.S. marketplace disincentivizes U.S. automakers from further developing EV technologies in order compete for the business of a fast-growing base of potential buyers of EVs.

These tariffs has remain intact and is being enforced by the Trump administration.

Would you like the next Democratic administration reverse course?

I'm sure many of us would like to have our desired reforms to stick around and be permamant and not be suddenly repealed at the desire wealthy elites. Situations like the austerity turn under Mitterand's France is what radicalizes people further left because of the failure of keeping capital in check.

We should never be in a position where much needed reforms and programs that benefits millions are prevented or rolled back just to appease wealthy elites. Now granted in the US we have imperial leverage so does China which is why they can get away with what they can. But that should not leave room to underestimate any retaliation from capital.

I asked this in AskConservative so I’m interested to see the differences here.

My personal list, based on impact and character:

Top

1. Abraham Lincoln
   
2. George Washington
   
3. Teddy Roosevelt
   
4. FDR
   
5. Jefferson
   
6. Obama

Bottom:
41. Harding
42. GW Bush
43. Johnson
44. Buchanan
45. Trump

Public education is one of the few things the country buys that still returns more than it costs. Every dollar into Title I or rural districts comes back as kids who can read, workers who stay, and towns that don't empty out.

Now we're watching what this administration calls waste. They tore apart the education department, cut grants mid-year, and then paid lawyers to fight judges ordering the money released. That's spending real money to not deliver money. And add the tuition tax credits that cost the treasury more per kid than the public school ever did, and the "savings" turn out to be a transfer with a demolition fee attached.

Also the timing is the part that I'm puzzled. We're mid-transition into tools that will remake half the jobs in this economy, and the defund answer is to spend less on preparing kids for it? Leaving children without a quality education in the middle of that chaos, and their families in a stretch of economic uncertainty, is a gamble with our future. The money def should be watched and some of it deserves an audit but pulling investment out of public schools right now might create even more problems.

I'm curious what do you all think about defunding public education at this exact moment, with AI reshaping work?

Prop 144 is a ballot measure on the books in AZ that will require ID to vote by mail. The issue is it doesn’t say how and gives the responsibility of the “how” to the AZ legislature.

Georgia has a system where you have to put an ID number on the envelope whereas NC has a system where you have to mail in a photocopy of your ID.

If the proposition passes, how do you think it’ll affect AZ’s elections going forward.

Firstly, we should start with the effect of Prop 144 on AZ elections themselves. The proposition mandates that the legislature has to create a method for ID for mail in voting, while demanding that a method be made by the legislature and signed by the governor.

I think it’ll create a situation where Katie Hobbs will be at odds with the Republican legislature and they won’t be able to come up with a solution. Without a solution created by the legislature and signed by the governor, the AZ Supreme Court (very R leaning) will likely say mail in voting cannot happen and we’ll have in person elections in the state.

My expectaction would be this. Obviously, any case of mail ins being invalidated after being cast would likely result in a Republcian victory. I think it’s too hard to predict what would happen in an even year’s all in -person election. Trump comfortably won in person election votes in 2024 but one would also have to assume that there’d be way more people voting in person if that’s there only option.

But I think the overall result would maybe shift the expect results R+1-2 what they otherwise would be. Thoughts?

Iraqi insurgents targeted civilian coalition collaborators, used child soldiers, suicide bombs, roadside bombs, destruction of civilian infrastructure, torture, assassinations against politicians and civilian collaborators, kidnapping and ransoming of civilians, and many other methods that constitute war crimes.

Many liberals and most Americans view these methods as Barbaric and use the fact that the iraqi insurgency resorted to these tactics to discredit the iraqi resistance to American occupation.

There have been credible reports of Ukraine using torture and Ukraine has been targeting Russian infrastructure and carrying out assassination plots that have targeted civilians . If Ukraine embraced more of the unsavory tactics used by the iraqi insurgency, would you withdraw your support for them and want them to lose? Would you want America and the EU to withdraw support from "Ukranian terrorists" ? Would you support America joining Russia to stomp out what could accurately be called "Ukranian terrorists"?

Is there a fundamental mindset difference, where liberals assume people are "good" and will do the "right" things, whereas conservatives tend to look at people as "bad" and will do the "wrong" things? I think this mindset explains a lot when it comes to policies. Like welfare. Liberals: this single mom just needs help raising their kids after some bad luck. Conservative: this single mom is probably trying to scam the system.

If you accept this mindset, a lot of the policy debate makes sense. No?

It’s obvious at this point that the polls both claim a massive amount of anger among Hispanic people who voted for him, and also claim that reversion is likely.

For me, I’ve been a big doubter for multiple reasons.

The first of them is that a huge portion of this idea predicates itself on the idea Latinos thought only non criminal illegal immigrants would be deported. This seems unbelievable because Trump said the opposite many, many times. And also just about every famous Trump advocate, with the late Kirk being the most prominent advocate of this, was also clear about this. Heck, there’s a video online where a Mexican American comes to Kirk, and he’s visibly upset that the guy is an American at all.

If anything, one question I would ask Hispanic reversion believers is how can they believe the above theory without considering Hispanic people to be unintelligent.

The second would be both of Texas’ biggest statewide races. Especially Abbott vs Hinojosa. Abbott is an open deportation advocate and has made that clear. He is still expected to win Texas, which has a plurality of Latinos, possibly by a comfortable margin.

Overall, I’m interested to see if there are any fundamentals that support these Hispanic reversion poll results, and I’m unaware of any now, though I’m open to changing my mind here.

I made a table chart of different types of liberalism, as they developed historically, focusing on their economic views.

https://i.ibb.co/pj2X2W8V/libspec.png

What do you think about it? Did I miss something? Make some mistakes? Would you organize it differently?

Can be anything, from how he gives answers to how he campaigns.

It's not clear how believing or not believing the woman at the center of this story naturally maps to one's politics.

And what do you think that says about the country? That other serious peer nations like Canada and Germany could elect uncharismatic, slightly awkward, but technocratically capable men like Carney and Merz whose experience in government and the technocratic institutions more than makes up for these personal failings, but in the US we need a person who can light up a room even if they don’t understand the separations of power or the trade-offs of various policy proposals?

I love Harry Potter. It was my childhood. I believe in seperating the art from the artist so ill continue to enjoy Harry Potter. It just meant too much to me for anything to spoil the magic of it. Im sorry if thats bad of me, but when i think of Harry Potter, i dont think of J.K at all.

However i know J.K has pissed alot of people off, and shes hated by the trans community.

But i dont really keep up with social media or celebrity drama. What did she do?

Around 2016-2017 there was this huge push in progressive media to understand the white working class, send reporters to diners, take economic anxiety seriously, etc. Then it kinda stopped? Or at least fell off my radar.

I'm trying to figure out if something substantive changed, did rural economies improve, did those voters shift priorities, did Democrats just give up on that messaging, or if the discourse itself was always more about processing Trump's win than any ongoing commitment.

The policies that would actually help rural areas (healthcare access, antitrust, broadband) don't seem to have advanced much. But the cultural attention definitely moved elsewhere.

For people who followed this more closely: was there a coherent theory of change behind that moment, or was it always reactive? And do you think the abandonment (if that's what it was) was strategic, exhausted, or something else?

Sources:

1.) Yesterday's James Talarico CNN-Jubilee Town Hall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tweubjhuaPo

2.) James Talarico coming out in opposing trans women in women's sports in Sept Fox News interview: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NqUJq22ww1c

In yesterday's CNN-Jubilee town hall, James Talarico expressed support for Texas oil and gas industry, saying he'd oppose climate legislation that'd undermine it. He also praised "fair voter ID laws" (while not committing to voting for the SAVE Act).

Crucially, Talarico said former President Biden "failed Texas" by leaving the southern border unsecured. He wants to reform ICE, but opposes abolishing it, viewing immigration enforcement as necessary.

He also praised bipartisanship and partnering with Republicans, said he will go to the US Senate to represent the 31 million residents of Texas, not the Democratic Party. He said he supports keeping abortion legal while wanting to minimize the number of abortions via contraception access and proper sex education.

Earlier in a September Fox News interview, Talarico came out in opposition to trans women competing in women’s sports in cases where it "endangers safety and fairness."

What do liberals think of Talarico taking these positions?

I think you should need a license for gun ownership and federally it should look like how NY (a liberal state) used to issue pistol permits as MAY ISSUE.

My experience was if you proved you were an upstanding member of society then you could get an unrestricted permit. When i applied I attached proof that I had a college degree, married and i owned my own home.

Also I think there should be a financial barrier and your should also have good credit.

Call it authtarian or racist if you want that if the results will only be land owning men can carry a pistol. It will still reduce crime.

Another example is they give admin titles and fat checks to people doing work of office secretaries.

Andy Harris is one of the most right wing, most-MAGA members of Congress. Since his first election in 2010, he has won comfortably. However, his district doesn’t seem conservative on every issue (supported marijuana legalization and abortion rights).

I think an independent may do better, as it has happened in other districts. Favorite example was in 2022, when Matt Rosendale only won 56% of the vote in a district Trump won 62-63%, due to an independent (coming 2nd place over the Democrat).

Here is a link to the article and I'll highlight some passages below.

Under this option, the PIA for all retired or disabled workers would be the same; that amount would no longer depend on past earnings. Workers with high lifetime incomes would see reductions in benefits under this option compared with the benefits scheduled under current law. Some workers with low lifetime earnings would receive larger benefits than are scheduled under current law.

This option consists of two alternatives, both of which would take effect in January 2024. Under both alternatives, in any given year, Social Security benefits for all newly eligible beneficiaries at their full retirement age would be the same—an amount that would be determined relative to the federal poverty guidelines (commonly known as the federal poverty level, or FPL) for a single person. The FPL is $1,133 per month in 2022.

For both alternatives, eligibility criteria for Social Security benefits and adjustments to benefit levels for early and delayed claiming would remain unchanged from current law, and all disabled workers would be eligible for the flat dollar benefit upon entitlement. Additionally, both alternatives would provide benefits to dependents and survivors as under current law.

Under the first alternative, the flat benefit amount would be set to 150 percent of the FPL, which would equal about $1,770 per month in calendar year 2024. If implemented, the first alternative would reduce Social Security outlays by a total of $270 billion through 2032, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

Under the second alternative, the flat benefit amount would be set to 125 percent of the FPL, equaling about $1,480 per month in calendar year 2024. The second alternative would reduce Social Security outlays by a total of $593 billion through 2032.

Annual savings from both alternatives would continue to grow after 2032 as the new benefit structure applied to more beneficiaries and as average new benefits grew more slowly than they would under current law. The savings would continue to grow even after the new benefit structure applied to all beneficiaries as the effect of slower benefit growth compounded each year.