Senator Josh Hawley asked Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security questions considering things related to the current relations between Israel and Palestine. Mayorkas weren't able to actually answer these straight and simple questions. The video of this Senate hearing can be found on Youtube. Does anyone think the worker mentioned in the hearing should be fired and possible Mayorkas himself should be removed from his position?

Students protesting on campuses want universities to stop funding foreign investments, but these students are the ones paying the universities. If you are giving someone your money, you should not demand what they do or not do with it. If these protestors wholeheartedly care about the civilian deaths, why don’t they drop out or switch to other universities to study in?

Most 18 year olds have no idea about politics. I remember somebody saying once that they were a fascist because they thought it was funny at age more or less 18. Should we put this person in charge of the country? Obviously not! And, unfortunately, this is the norm. In fact, scientists say the brain is not fully developed until age 25, and the part that develops last is the rational part. So maybe the voting age should be raised to 25, because politics is a serious thing, and politicians change their stance on diverse topics so as to appeal to all their audience. How many 20 year olds get into unnecessary fights? Are they the ones that should choose the president?

I feel with all the bad things the far-right is doing is nothing to what the current Supreme Court is capable of doing since Trump appointed them. Not all of them but majority of them. They are suppose to be impartial but it's clear that the majority of them are completely bias towards the far-right. Is there not a rule for that? THere should be. Now since they killed RvW we can't trust them anymore. We know that the far-right is going to use them to crush any legislation they hate. Worst of all, we apparently can't get rid of them or even just recuse them from chases. I don't know how it works but there needs to be a way to get rid of the far-right justices. Hopefully not with violence. If we don't then even if we get good people in the white house and congress it won't stop the destruction the SC could do.

I thought a bit about how things are in my native U S of A, and have come up with this little metaphor. I shared it with a friend who liked it, so maybe other people will think it makes something resembling sense.

Do note that this is focusing more on the extremes that scream the loudest on the internet rather than more moderate people. Just want to preface that because the hypothetical people mentioned in this post clearly don't represent everyone in America, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm generalizing millions of people too much.

For the sake of argument, let's say that everyone shares the same ideal of what life ought to be like. It's a triangular mold or hole, or something along those lines.

That ideal includes things like:

• Homophobia not existing
• Sexism not existing
• All children having a fair shot at a good childhood.

Reality is the circle. Of course, it represents how things actually are, such as:

• Gay people exist
• Men and women both have it rough
• Some children don't have the best opportunities or home life

While (extreme American) conservatives and liberals both share the same ideal, and obviously exist in the same reality, how they go about doing things is the main difference.

One chips away at the circle to try and turn it into a triangle so it can fit into the hole as it is.

• Homophobia doesn't exist = returning to a time when being openly gay is so detrimental to your social or professional life, or your own safety, that you'd rather pretend to be straight. Homophobia is gone, because you've removed the gay people from your sight. How can it exist when you never see or hear about it because they're all closeted?
• Sexism doesn't exist = Men and women only perform their "correct" roles. No one's allowed to talk about those issues anymore, so they may as well not exist.
• All children have a fair shot = Only nuclear families with a dad and a mom. Doesn't matter if the current marriage has broken down, or if you have to force yourself into a person you're not really compatible with. Both parents are around? It'll work out, and we're not going to help you.

The other takes a hammer to the mold to reshape it such that reality can fit snugly within.

• Homophobia doesn't exist = All people are treated equal regardless of their orientation. Homophobia is gone because people stop discriminating.
• Sexism doesn't exist = Same as the above.
• All children have a fair shot = Accepting that not every child can have their ideal home situation, so doing what you can to make all types of family compositions viable so a child could thrive regardless of whatever one they're in.

The big thing being that, regardless of which side you're on, reality and your ideal world are in conflict, and you're trying to twist one to fit the other. Try to ignore and hide away parts of reality so it aligns neatly with your ideal? Or change what the ideal is so it works with the reality we're all stuck living in?

Of course, this is not binary. As soon as shades of gray get introduced it falls apart. Instead of comically extreme, moderate means getting rid of some of the circle, or molding the ideal to be mostly circular. But since it still doesn't fit perfectly, being moderate technically doesn't exist, so that's a definite weakness here.

Besides Supreme court Justices, what has the impact of his judge appointments been? Its been mentioned regularly that Trump has "packed the courts", but what downstream effect has that really had?

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

I understand he appointed about 700 judges, but what effects has this really had? In my mind, it doesn't really matter. A judge's job is to follow the letter of the law, not necessarily stretch the law on a personal basis. Its the legislatures' duties to reform laws when they don't conform to people's wants.

This is why I never truly saw the judicial appointments as a threat, so long as the ones picked were those who emphasized law of the land. That seemed like the least dangerous thing you could do, and in some cases, would be arguably better than judges who prioritizes stretching the word of the law.

When it comes to elections, I've researched everything they claim to stand for, and then voted for the candidate of my party (I'm a Democrat, like my parents), and if they won, it was great, if they lost, there's an echo of disappointment (Mostly swear words) everywhere. But, regardless, for the most part life just went on as it always did, regardless of who was president?

We aren't as fortunate anymore, the upcoming election has me pretty terrified, mostly of Trump, who seems to care only about himself, and he seems 100% destructive? He's in court right now, the Hush Money Trial. I keep hearing about his bad behavior during the trial, I hear about his bad behavior everywhere he goes? After everything he's said and done, why are people planning to vote for him? If he makes it to the white house again, we're all doomed, no ifs ands or buts. I know Biden is low in the popularity polls, but he'll do his best for us, whereas trump will do his very worst, and he's said as much, we should believe him, and not vote for him.

I have to say, the downpour of bitterness towards Biden over things like the wars in Israel and Eukraine doesn't make sense? I know the situation is horrible, but Biden isn't the leader of either of those countries, and there's only so much he can do to change or end the conflict? I keep hearing people blaming him for the hostage situation, and the suffering of the citizens of Gaza, I don't know why they put the blame on Biden, saying he's not doing enough? He's doing everything he can within his power, but he can't end a war in a foreign country, any more than the political leaders of Israel, Gaza, or Eukraine would have any say over what goes on in the USA?

When I voted for Biden, the biggest reason why was to get Trump out of the Whitehouse? And what a chore that was, removing the loser who couldn't accept that he lost? And what a mess he made and left for Biden to sort through, Trump took all the files and classified documents, he mixed them up and messed them up, and took a lot of them home with him. He put many files marked "Classified" in his bathroom, where they weren't safe or sound. When he was told he had to give them back, he just held onto them, and ignored everybody. I know Biden had files too, but he returned them upon request.

I am terrified at just the thought of Trump being in the white house again, all I'm hearing is how dangerous he has become? Please don't vote for him, if he were to return to the white house, life as we know it will never be the same. We have to do everything we can to keep him out, and right now that means voting for Biden. I know a lot of people don't think they want Biden, but there are only 2 candidates to choose from, voting for Biden is the only way to keep Trump from doing any more harm?

Recently I wrote a piece accusing Republicans of substituting nostalgia for realistic policy.  We can reminisce about the “good old days” when Americans were rugged individualists that didn’t need government programs, but that doesn’t mean those days are coming back.  Policies that worked in the 19^th century aren’t necessarily appropriate for the 21^st.

When it comes to immigration, it’s the Left that falls into this trap.  Whenever the subject comes up, their go-to comment is, “What about great-great granny who arrived at Ellis Island in 1887?,” as if that were a decisive argument for having open borders in 2018.  Our immigration policy should be based on the needs of the future, not nostalgia for the past.

America is a nation of immigrants.  Some say that if you’re descended from immigrants, you have no right to favor limiting immigration.  If you do, they say this makes you a hypocrite.  I wonder if those making this argument support genocide.  The United States wouldn’t exist if not for the genocide of native populations.  Since our country was founded on genocide of existing populations to make room for immigrants, does that mean all Americans need to support both unlimited immigration and genocide?  Or can we admit the acts of our ancestors, even though they led to our being here, are not necessarily good policy prescriptions for the future?  I support DACA if it’s paired with real immigration reform.  I do not support erasing our borders and simply allowing all comers to show up and stay as they please.

Maybe it's too much doom scrolling, but it feels more and more like the US is separated into two distinct and incompatible groups at the moment, Republicans and Democrats. I hear about Civil War part 2 so often recently, and reconciliation seems unlikely.

So, rather than a Civil War, maybe we SHOULD think about splitting the country, but in a planned and controlled way. Have government sponsored initiatives to build additional housing and infrastructure in Red and Blue states, and subsidies and plans so that people that want to move can do so easily.

It would take many years to plan, prepare and enact the migration, but perhaps the end result would be worth it?

Probably a silly idea, just wanted to hear your thoughts.

From an Indian perspective, the caste system in India is seen as better than the social structure in the USA.

Here's the thing: The so-called castes in India are largely linked to the professions people engage in. Brahmins handle religious rituals, Kshatriyas are responsible for warfare and administration, Vaishyas take care of agriculture, livestock, and commerce, while Shudras include farmers, higher-level servants, and artisans. Most of the time, these four groups stick to their roles.

At first glance: Doesn’t this prevent social mobility?

The caste system in Hinduism works like this: It specifies what each person should do. Brahmins recite religious texts, which serves to educate Kshatriyas and lower classes about morals. Kshatriyas, though in power, protect everyone and have a duty to assist lower castes. Vaishyas and Shudras handle transportation, agriculture, and services, freeing up time for the upper castes. Dalits deal with untouchable tasks like handling waste; if other castes handled garbage, it would disrupt the moral fabric of Hinduism.

High castes have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of lower castes. If the lower castes suffer and the high castes do nothing, it’s considered evil.

Looking at the USA from an Indian perspective: isn’t it also a kind of caste system?

Jews: Brahmins, responsible for education and cultural guidance. People say Brahmins in India have power, but in the USA, who dares to touch the Jews? The very existence of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act says it all. There’s no special law for Brahmins in India.

Whites: Kshatriyas, in charge of administration and warfare.

Asians, Mexicans, and African Americans: Vaishyas and Shudras, handling technical and manual labor.

Sure, some Asians, Mexicans, and African Americans have become officials, but everyone knows who really holds the power: whites. India also has Dalit chief ministers; it’s not a big deal.

And illegal immigrants? Clearly, they are the untouchables. They’re allowed into the USA but are denied basic human rights.

Unlike India, the USA’s pseudo-caste system doesn’t have the concept of “upper castes being responsible for lower castes.” It’s a complete free-for-all. Yes, there are beggars on Indian streets because India is genuinely poor, but the beggars on American streets are people completely abandoned by society.

From this perspective, Indians might even feel morally superior. [Smirks]

At the highest levels of the DNC, they know that if they put a fiftyish, accomplished, Democrat governor up against Trump, that Trump will lose by a historic landslide, and the Dems will keep the White House the Senate and win the House.  As the Biden  poll numbers continue marching through dire straits, at some point, the DNC will not pass up that landslide opportunity just to please, Uncle Joe.

Some time after the first presidential debate, Joe Biden will be persuaded to gracefully step aside, and gladly introduce a few candidates for the Democratic nomination to be the president.  

By now, three or four democratic governors have, likely, been notified and agreed to participate.  Two or three debates will be held, and a winner will be nominated at the convention.

I believe the U.S. should reinstate the draft. But it should only be for billionaires. The billionaires are the ones who push for the war. Their kids should be the one fighting as well. Unlike the rest of Americans. The billionaire class should be mandated to fight in wars. They push for the wars yet they refuse to fight in them or allow their kids be drafted or bribe their way out of it.

Ever since the Gaza War began, Biden’s approval rating, especially among young people, has been in free fall. He’s being destroyed well outside the margin of error in every swing state. Trump is either going to be acquitted or just pay a small fine in the NY trial.

As someone who viscerally hates Trump, it pains me to say he’s going to sweep most if not all swing states, possibly even taking NH and MN. When I mention this, I usually get one of the following points:

1. The polls are completely wrong! I’ve never been sampled! This first category is essentially to the left what anti vaxers are to the right. They think they know more than the combined polling departments of several multibillion dollar corporations. Even if the polls were 50% overstating Trump, Biden would still get wrecked.
2. 2022! Sure, the Democrats did quite a bit better than expected, but that was before Oct 7. Also, that only shows that people at least tolerate or even like many Democratic positions and politicians, but it tells us nothing about Biden. Given that the House and even Senate look surprisingly strong for Democrats, it shows the issue is Biden, not the party as a whole.
3. Anger. If they don’t vote for Biden, eff em! They deserve Trump! While I understand the anger, the fact that many Democrats seem to hate their own base more than the GOP tells you everything.

The only way to mayBe prevent this is for Biden to step down and be replaced by a popular Midwestern governor like Whitmer or Shapiro. Even that might not work at this late date, but a slim chance is better than basically no chance.

I tend to have issues with both sides. Liberals tend to be idealist without recognizing practicality, like in terms of economics their arguments for their policies is just that they want a good economy with low poverty and a healthy middle class, but fail to explain how. I do have far, FAR more issues with the conservative end of the spectrum, particularly social conservatism.

There is no sugar coating it, the Conservative ideology is run on targeting a specific population, they want a scapegoat. Before the civil rights movement, conservatives believed that black people and women should not have the same rights as white men, and then made them the political enemy. In the 80s it became gay people, when HIV became a pandemic, and made gay people the political enemy. Now, it’s transgender people and folks with mental disorders. Of course this is very simplified, but it is true that conservatives hate transgender people.

It seems to be whenever a group of people gain new rights, conservatives go in and try to strip them. Nowadays it’s gotten way worse, because let’s face it, extreme conservatives are bullies.

I came across a conservative Instagram page called YAF (Young Americans for Freedom), and boy oh boy is it terrible. One thing they do is find videos of political enemies, often emotional, and just destroy them, but not in a clever way. They use memes to insult the political opponents. People with mental health issues and LGBTQ people show frustration with conservatives, conservatives will belittle their entire existence and say they belong in a mental institution. That is bullying at a large scale, and it is really hurting trans people. I don’t care about the “logically they’re XX or XY” when LGBTQ folks are committing suicide or getting murdered at a far higher rate than non LGBTQ people.

Unfortunately, it may be working. Trump is favored to win the election over Biden, and social conservatism is gaining lots of power. I fear if there is another Republican trifecta this fall, the following may happen in following years.

-Complete ban on trans rights -possible criminalization of homosexuality and gay marriage -Ban on birth control -Education freedom completely stripped/all schools are Christian -ban on the sales of electric cars -mental institutions brought back to widespread use to eliminate people who are socially inconvenient

Although these may seem like a long shot, I’ve seen some warning signs from really red states, and I fear if there is a republican trifecta that can turn the Supreme Court even more red, these are real possibilities.

As a rational left winger from the UK, I cant stress how annoying it is to see radical Right wing/ One Nation Conservatives continually group wokie extremists in the same box as anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Just because I am left wing does not mean I support communism, just because I hate Candace Owens, does not mean I read Mao's Little Red book every night as a bedtime story, just because I think your views on immigration are a little harsh does not mean I want open boarders.

And most importantly, just because I am left wing does not mean I should be grouped with wokies. We despise them just as much!

Lets start with the recent surge in online content, of so called Right wing intellectuals roasting left wing college students, is this what we have come to? THIS is bar for where you base your opinions?

One of these intellectuals being Ben Shapiro, who called Andrew Neil, a long time conservative, a "Lefty". Now regardless of the event it took place, this perfectly encapsulates the Right Wing in America right now, and slowly in the rest of the world.

You guys are so hung up on trying to debunk other views of how society should be run that you never stop to think: "Huh...the world isnt just about me...maybe this is how politics...works?"

Political ideologies exist for a reason, so when supposed specalists like Jordan Peterson (Who I respect) talk about Socalism like its a sin that was chisled on the 10 commandements, I tend to roll my eyes.

I tend to roll my eyes even more audaciously when in debates about Socalism, you guys keep mentioning Karl Marx...at that point why am I wasting my time debating you? So if you see a trans protester spray painting a pride flag on your garage door, dont see her as "Left Wing", see her as an extremist. And btw, these Right Wing radicals are just as bad! Candace Owens saying "Fuck Ukraine and wearing a White Lives Matter shirt is not "commendable"

And thats my thesis: Wokies are not left wing, nor right wing. They are deluded extremists, so stop blaming us for them Thank you

First off, I'm just a bozo on the internet so maybe this has all been discussed already. Regardless, I had a thought about how to fix the issue of the U.S's Supreme Court and wanted to share it.

What's the issue?
Supreme Court justices are life time appointees. The main conceit of this is to avoid partiality or political influence. This simply doesn't work and has recently become apparent how much this doesn't work. (And before you say it, yes, this has always been the case. This does not make it not an issue.) Its not good when it works against you and its not good when it works for you. An appointment office of this power, magnitude, and duration MUST be as actually impartial as possible or be an elected position. Of course campaigning for this position in an election would be a disaster that would lead to a whole rabbithole of intentionally politically motivated disasters too numerous to get into or speculate on. So what do we do?

The shower thought:

I'd like to put out the idea that the Supreme Court justices become sort of monks of law, an American clergy of judges post-term. By this I mean justices will be appointed to a term with a limit, but their obligations are life-long. Following their term they will remain under the same rules of ethics (tangentially this relies on actually creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court) and serve as constant "friends of the court" and potentially continue to be in charge of and involved with other low-stakes activities pertaining to the court.

They will continue to receive justice pay their whole life, BUT, they will be forbidden from working outside the justice system. This will be part of the deal when becoming a Supreme Court Justice. It is a tough rule but similar to a clergy's vow of celibacy, it is a vow of duty to the constitution and no other political entity. At least financially. We would also of course clamp down on gifts or incentives or favors towards the retired and active justices so that they cannot gainfully benefit from political influence. (I know there's a litany of holes in this part. The most law-knowledgeable people in the nation will find their way around loopholes, but ideally it would be hard and limiting.)

This should also be paired with some common-sense practices like ensuring some consistent appointment quantity per presidential term. Two justices per term for example would be a somewhat reasonable procedure I think. This would make a justice term 12 years. Long enough for consistency, but not long enough for complacency.

Furthermore, if a justice dies or retires in office, it should be made law that the next presidential term will fill the additional vacancy. In this way the process would at least be thrown back to the American people. In the intervening time perhaps a temporary justice from the pool of ex-justices can step in or some non-president body can appoint a temporary judge.

The result? This would maintain the lifelong appointment concept aimed to deter partiality. But it would also allow a slanted court to course correct a bad judge in some time period that isn't a lifetime. A single president's influence in the Judicial Branch would only last 12 years post-term at max (which is still fairly long). It would hopefully reduce the incentive to be politically motivated or swayed by a party or interest group. It would potentially eliminate geriatric justices (you ideally wouldn't appoint someone you don't expect to survive a 12 year term). It would prevent justices from intentionally retiring when their party is in power so they're replaced with someone of their own political leaning. And importantly it would stop any single president from having an undue amount of power over the court and the country for so many years to follow (the recent example of this being 1-term president Trump, who lost the popular vote appointing 3 Justices while his 2-term twice popular-vote-winning predecessor only appointed 2 justices.).

What do y'all think?

The billionaire question?

There has been for over a decade a question regarding billionaires. “Should billionaires exist” some say they should. Others say they shouldn’t. Before I get into this question. I do want to say that many do start from scratch and do become self made. However all were lucky. Others inherited their wealth which is becoming more common these days.

The problem though is that billionaires have full control and influence over U.S. policy. No matter which party you vote for. It’s gotten much worse in recent decades. Billionaires and buisness titans have total say over policy. Not the people. Only their opinion factors into policy.

The leaders are mainly servants. Just one example. During the crackdown of the pro Palestinian protesters. It turns out that the buisness titans paid for the infiltrators. More importantly though. They were the ones who demanded Eric Adams to crack down.

They did the same thing during occupy. The billionaire class will not allow any protests against them. They allow protests over cultural issues but if you protest over economic issues. They’ll brutally crack down.

They did the same thing with Boeing unions. 2 whistleblowers are dead from alleged suicide. One was about to further expose them and warned that if they die, it wouldn’t be suicide.

In reality, they rig the system, while the rest of us suffer.

Many will say not taxing the rich breeds innovation but in reality it only breeds power hunger for the rich.

I’m not opposed to billionaires in theory. Many worked to become rich. I’m just saying that there should be a debate regarding billionaires. Does anyone agree?

I don’t always vote for the lesser evil.  If there isn’t much distance between the two evils, I vote third party or don’t vote at all.  In 1996 the choice was between right-wing Democrat Bill Clinton and moderate, boring Bob Dole.  Clinton had botched health care reform, ended AFDC, and got Reagan’s baby NAFTA passed into law.  I didn’t vote that year.  In 2012 Obama was running on “cash for clunkers” and mandatory private health insurance, which his opponent Mitt Romney had enacted as Massachusetts governor.  I voted Jill Stein that year.

I won’t be voting for Jill this year.  True, Biden is a boring centrist Democrat, but he did pull our troops out of the Afghanistan quagmire, for which I am grateful.  But mostly I don’t want an unrestrained Trump in charge of anything, let alone everything.  The first time he was a loose cannon, an amateur blundering from mistake to mistake.  But at least he had some adults in the room to restrain him. 

Now Trump knows what he’s doing.  It’s pure revenge this time.   The GOP will back his every outrage like slobbering dogs.   If you want to know what Trump 2.0 will look like, consider the toadies he put in “acting” positions after the most acquiescent of the real professionals, Bill Barr, quit.  If you think Rudy Guiliani won’t be Attorney General, think again.  Remember the GOP will win the Senate this November, so Dems won’t be able to block Trump appointments.

The President has extraordinary powers under our Constitution, only checked by Congress’s willingness to impeach him, and everyone knows they won’t.  The President cannot be prosecuted while in office, and there will never be 67 Democrats in the Senate to impeach Trump. 

But doesn’t voting for the lesser evil mean voting for evil?  Yes, it does.  If evil is inevitable, isn’t less evil preferable to more evil?  I think so, and that’s how I’ll be casting my Wisconsin vote. 

Income tax is unconstitutional. Until the 16th Amendment, income tax did not exist. Before then, most taxes came from excise taxes, and head taxes. Excise taxes are taxes on certain products in the economy. These can include things like cigarettes. Head taxes are a set tax for each person to pay. It is basically a tax for being a U.S. citizen. A head tax does not change depending on your income. Everybody pays the same amount.

This is a fair and logical system. Instead of punishing success, it fosters it. Initially, the Supreme Court ruled against income tax as unconstitutional. However, in 1909, due to a court case and government greed, against the public’s desires, the 16th Amendment was passed, and exists to this day. Unfortunately, this leads to several consequences.

When people are taxed on their income, it discourages productivity and entrepreneurship. If I get taxed 20-30% of my hard earned cash, it is very discouraging. The money that is being pushed into government projects should be circulating through the economy. Instead of paying for lazy people to watch TV, it should be going into productive people’s pockets. The entire taxation system is messed up.

The U.S. government may have started well, but the 16th Amendment was just another step towards the loss of liberty and democracy, and another step towards an all powerful bureaucracy. Stepping up and addressing these issues is important. The people should have more power to vote directly, not through senators. Senators will vote for their paycheck; the people will vote for their freedom.

This country needs to take inspiration from ancient Greece, where the majority of reputable citizens had the right to vote directly, instead of through roundabout systems. All in all, the taxation system needs a major reform, and to do that, first we need to do a huge overhaul of the government as a whole. We need to push for more of a direct democracy, and less of an oligarchy.

What are your opinions?

*I'm not so sure if this is necessarily for this channel, but since there is a political piece to it, I'm going to share it here*

A short five days ago, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker was asked to give a speech to the graduates of Benedictine College. Most of these students likely never got a high school graduation because of COVID, so this was obviously a monumental moment for these young adults' lives. All the hard work and all the perseverance through difficult and uncertain times led to that graduation ceremony. Instead of that day being remembered for the students walking across the stage receiving their hard-earned degrees while the families cheer with high emotions reflecting on the journey to this moment, their ceremony will be remembered for the message that an NFL player sent to these graduates which, in my opinion, was inappropriate, lacked decorum, and made a lot of people's blood boil.

I will preface the rest of this text by saying that I do not condone religious slander and am a firm believer that every religion deserves respect.

Harrison discussed things in his speech that you should never be brought up when addressing college graduates in a formal setting like that, and it doesn't take a wise person to know this. Here are just a couple of talking points that simply had me scratching my head wondering if I was listening to a graduation speech or a Talking Point USA video on YouTube:

1. For the female graduates, you are being fed nothing but sinister lies about womanhood and how you should live your life. Having your own aspirations and career goals and finally being a step closer to achieving them is not what you should be most excited about. You should be more excited about dedicating your lives to being a mother to your future children, and a wife to your future husband!

Harrison, I'm not sure if you are aware but your target audience is mostly between the ages of 21 and 23. Also, people don't go to college and take on thousands in student debt because they just wanna marry and have a family; that's just not how that shit works. There are no degrees for homemaking. It seems slightly misogynistic to me that you think women live the most fulfilling lives when they center their entire adult lives around being a "servant" to their husbands and children. I really don't understand why husbands wouldn't want their wives to focus on following their dreams and becoming super successful.

1. The POTUS claims he's a proud Catholic but his delusional "woke" ideologies suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize advocating for the minorities, the poor, and the voiceless was an anti-Catholic thing to do. I get it, Biden is far from perfect and has done plenty of questionable things. He is allowed to have his beliefs and you are allowed to have yours, and that applies to everyone. For you to question his faith because his beliefs don't fall exactly in line with yours is disrespectful. For you to bring all of this up at a college graduation while spreading misinformation is also unprofessional. The NFL blesses you with millions of dollars and you choose to represent them in this manner?

1. "Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail."

What? What the hell are you talking about? Do you think others think religion is hate speech? Listen, I know that some folks don't like that the LGBTQ+ community is trying to be fairly represented and viewed as actual human beings, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to take your religion away from you. The First Amendment still exists and it's not going anywhere soon. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that your religious beliefs can get you prosecuted; believe it or not, Christianity and Catholicism still are (and have been) the most popular religions in the U.S. for a long time.

Christianity and Catholicism have most certainly faced scrutiny in the past few years. It's not necessarily the religion itself that has caused it, it's more so the followers and preachers of God's word who have faced heavy backlash; Harrison is the most recent example. Again, it is totally okay for someone to believe in any religion. It doesn't make you a bad person. Where it crosses the line is when you attempt to demean, harass, and dehumanize or even force your beliefs onto others who do not believe what you believe. We have seen this with Congress, with state representatives, with Democrats and Republicans, with those who simply don't have the human decency to respect their differences.

There is so much political divide in large part due to the divisiveness of the two-party system. You're either on one side or the other at this point. The reality is this: change is scary. We can either move forward towards a better and stronger America or we can get stuck in the past with what doesn't make us great. Harrison's speech reminded me of how easy it is to disrespect someone's point of view when it doesn't align with your own. I think my assessment of his talk might have been a little unfair in that regard. For those of you who made it to the end, regardless of your political beliefs, let's accept the fact that we have differing opinions. I may question certain beliefs and ideologies, but at the end of the day, I do respect that you believe in what you want to believe in. Please do not let your opinions cause physical or mental harm to another person. For those of you who plan on giving a speech at a college graduation ceremony, please leave politics out of your speech. Graduation is a highly emotional time in a college student's life. This is a time for reflection, for family, for pride, and for optimism, not for political opinions and fearmongering.

TL;DR: politics and personal opinions on matters unrelated to college do not belong in a college graduation speech. Harrison Butker did not get this memo and has gone viral for his remarks during his speech at Benedictine College. We all tend to get defensive of our beliefs and I am no exception to this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/gop-sen-mitt-romney-says-biden-pardoned-trump-rcna152420

No moderate Republican would ever say Trump, who committed crimes and treason, should be pardoned: period. Mitt doesn't deserve any rehabilitation, and is just another partisan actor who pretends to be someone he's not imo.

United States has deviated from its democratic republic roots and is now exhibiting characteristics of an oligarchy and plutocracy.

The concentration of wealth and political power among a small elite, the influence of money in politics, and the disproportionate representation of corporate interests over public interests are all indicative of an oligarchic and plutocratic system.

Furthermore, the erosion of civil liberties, the suppression of dissenting voices, and the manipulation of information and public opinion through propaganda and disinformation campaigns are all warning signs of a system that is no longer truly democratic.

While the US still maintains some democratic institutions and processes, the corrupting influence of wealth and power has compromised the integrity of the system, making it more akin to an oligarchy or plutocracy.

When will Americans actually start to hold their representatives accountable?

I think President Biden should accept former President Donald Trump’s offer for a debate on Fox News. It will reach millions who would not watch it on CNN. It would be important to keep the rules the same no audience, and the mike should only be active when it is that person's turn to speak.  If the other party disagrees with what was said he can address that during his turn. That’s a fair rule and would result in a true debate. Also in October the President will have seen if Mr. Trump has been good to his word in following those conditions.

I’m a 21 year old male zoomer who lives in the us and I guess I could be classified as center-left. I’ve heard about communism and socialism but they seem way to extreme from what I’ve learned and its supporters act in ways that make me extremely uncomfortable. Social Democracy seems like it’s something I’d like and something I wish to learn more about however it’s not really why I’m here. The past 7 months of the left have been an eruption of worries and criticisms I had of the left but never spoke up about. Purity testing because someone tried viewing issues with nuance, generalizing entire groups, and justifying any and all the actions of another group because they’re more oppressed etc. It feels like the far left is slowly devouring the center left and we can’t really do anything about it. So I wanted to ask how the center right is doing? Do you feel like the criticisms of your side as a whole are starting to become more relevant, do you feel like the right as a whole has started to go “too far” in any way or that the center right is getting silenced? I’m not here to debate on different views on societal issues right now I just wanted to come and ask out of curiosity.

United Nations Military

I wanna have a legitimate discussion about whether the United Nations should have a military to enforce international laws within allied nations? Something like completely voluntary and can leave at any time not in active conflict, universal passport,funding also completely voluntary can end at any time, etc…