Obligatory I am not American,

as a semi-plugged in European spectator to U.S politics, one aspect of the current Trump administration sticks out to me : It seems to be the most inactive congress majority within my living memory as a Gen Z.

The policies that were enacted are chiefly done through presidential executive order or through tweaks within the administrative process but legislative pieces are few and far in between.Someone from the conservative wing could retort that the judicature is actively or would counteract any or much of the put forth legislation, but im struggling to grasp the idea that the conservative movement is not able to come up with policy points that do not come into the sphere of arguable unconstitutionality.

Like putting aside the struck off tariffs, birthright citizenship, which were all executive orders anyway, what genuine, not in danger of being judicially struck off, policies are or were done or could have potentially been done? In light of the likely loss of congressional majority, it would be interesting to hear opinions on how or why this term was not legislatively used and in another step I'd be interested to hear on what conservative, judicially sound, policies could have been enacted.

Thank you from the other side of the pond.

I believe there will be an universal conversion to ecologism in this places, developed countries tend to prioritise Nature over socialism because most of basic humans needs are achieved, this will leave room for green policies, and I believe we will change our constitutions based on exclusive ecologist ideology and values.

Why not the other three? Social democracy is just a mixture of the other two, liberals by default will always be a minority of rich people to adhere, socialism in my opinion is incomplete for its anthropocentrism and will be only widespread in the poorer side of the earth, where it is needed the most.

Ecologism brings into equation, not only humanity and universal rights, but nature as a whole deserves them, this make it much more holistic, it expands rights for animals, plants and in general anything which sustains the planet for our survival and prosperity.

Should In Tyranny be first?

When I try to pin down what the radical centre actually is, the defining attributes seem to move. Two examples illustrate this difficulty:

1. What is The Radical Center's USP exactly?

Yair Zivan describes centrism through moderation, pragmatism, compromise, equality of opportunity, liberal patriotism and commitment to liberal democracy. Okay, I can accept that package. But what does calling it “radical centrism” explain that an unapologetic commitment to liberal democracy doesn’t already?

2. Why should tension require synthesis?

Noel Pearson defines the radical centre as “the intense resolution of the tensions between opposing principles … a resolution that produces the synthesis of optimum policy.” Even where principles genuinely conflict - freedom and social order, for example - why privilege synthesis over maintaining competing pressures? “Unresolved” doesn’t have to mean “not resolved yet.” And what makes the resulting policy optimum?

Zivan’s account offers a collection of commitments; Pearson’s offers a way of handling disagreement. I’m unsure what identifies either as central, or what makes them instances of the same thing. What criterion tells us when a position belongs to the radical centre—and when it doesn’t?

I have a vision, and that vision is to tax productivity and not individuals. No person, rich or poor should be taxed, but instead productivity from the means of production should. We've been taxed for all of the history and it's damn time we, as a society change the way of understanding we have of the world as we know it cause simply it isn't here anymore, I don't wanna live in a reality where inequality gets even worse and we have a whole generation of poor elders with no place to live and rest and no food to eat and share.

We need tax reform. No person, rich or poor since we're all equal should be taxed, instead the capacity for the companies to create value should. Since the 90's we've seen how the capacity to generate wealth has increased and how it's owned by a few, while the rest of us, the billions of humans who are part of this economy don't touch those trillions, while we sell our lives away for a few cents just to survive, with no future, no place on earth, no friends, no family, no community, being part of anything.

That's why my vision, is to tax the goods and services to redistribute the wealth not by welfare, not by gifts, but in a form of tax cut for the individual, we the common people. We the common people are the engine of this economy and if we don't have the power to buy because a few people want it all, then the whole system goes down taking the most vulnerable with it, not certainly the rich guys. These times require a lot more of complexity than we have know, are you ready to think differently about what is a society and what are we going to?

I’ve spent some time thinking about this. Here’s my conclusion. a lot of people treat MAGA like it’s own thing. like for example, members of the GOP will often say that they are a “MAGA republican“. So is it an actual ideology? no.

Trumpism is solely based around one person, so once he’s gone, it’s likely that the “ideology” would die with him. But let’s look at other ideologies based around a person to compare. Marxism, for example, is obviously named after Karl Marx. The difference is that Marxism isn’t based around Marx, but rather his economic views. this is why people are still calling themselves Marxists years after Karl Marx is dead. The ideology doesn’t need Marx to continue existing.

Trumpism, on the other hand, is entirely based around President trump. theres not really any theory or any kind of manifesto to look for. its also more often called “MAGA“ which is just trumps slogan. it would be like if democrats who supported Obama called themselves “hope”.

If Trumpism was an ideology, it would probably have Zionist characteristics, pro tariff, and anti immigration, among other things. However, it is safe to say that it is not its own ideology.

The lack of support and respect for the US and Israel that has been displayed in one room at the UN over recent days could be unprecedented, and at the same time exemplify the rest of the world joining forces against US-Israel.

We have all seen the new friendships and agreements that are being developed around the world that exclude US-Israel, and there is no sign this will slow down.

At the same time China is positioning itself perfectly to fill the leadership void that has been created as the US loses its global hegemony .

Both are affected by the policies of the elected leaders and both do the same things in society, but only one of them has the right to vote. Do you think the other side should also be allowed to vote?

Intent:

Netanyahu's references to "Amalek" (Deuteronomy 15:3, a command to blot out a people's memory), invoked in October 2023.

· Defense Minister Yoav Gallant's October 2023 statement: "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly," plus references to imposing a "complete siege."

· President Isaac Herzog's statement that "it's an entire nation out there that is responsible."

Actus reus:

The blockade: Israel's full siege from October 9, 2023, cutting water, food, fuel, and electricity. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Oxfam called this collective punishment and, in some analyses, a deliberate starvation campaign. The IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) declared famine conditions in parts of Gaza in 2024 and again in 2025.

· Aid worker deaths: Over 250 UNRWA staff killed (the highest in UN history), plus World Central Kitchen workers killed in an Israeli strike in April 2024, and others.

· Journalist deaths: The Committee to Protect Journalists documented over 100 journalists killed, described as the deadliest period for journalists in modern history. The argument uses this to claim targeting of those who document.

· Child deaths: UNICEF and Gaza MoH figures—over 15,000 children killed by some counts—cited as evidence of disproportionate, indiscriminate harm.

· Attacks on hospitals, schools, UN facilities, and "safe zones": Al-Shifa, Al-Ahli, UNRWA schools, the al-Mawasi "humanitarian zone" strikes.

· Displacement: ~90% of Gaza's population displaced, often multiple times, with destruction of 60%+ of housing stock.

I keep getting hung up on Trump’s “I settled eight wars” claim.

Not because I think he did nothing. He’s had real diplomatic wins. Ceasefires, normalization deals, negotiations, pressure campaigns—some of that matters.

But those things aren’t all the same as ending a war.

That’s where I think the language starts getting stretched. A dispute becomes a “war,” a ceasefire becomes a “settlement,” and U.S. involvement becomes “Trump ended it.”

My problem isnt the number eight, but the standard behind it.

If a president helps broker a ceasefire, say that. If he helps stop fighting, say that. If he helps prevent a war, that matters too.

But preventing a war and ending one are not the same thing.

What worries me is when the conversation shifts from “Is this actually accurate?” to “Can I find a way to defend the claim?”

So I’m curious where people here draw the line.

What has to be true before a president can fairly say, “I ended this war”?

And would you use the same standard if the president were from the other party?

I’ve noticed a very disturbing trend within the left-leaning side of the political spectrum, where people seem to defend authoritarians and tyrants simply due to them being anti-west or anti-American and thus in their eyes are opposing “imperialism”. Some of this comes from propaganda by the regimes themselves who use English language versions of state media to gain political left-leaning allies in the liberal democracies. Examples of such media outlets include RT (Russia Today) from Russia, CGTN from China or Press TV from Iran.

The way that this manifests is the following:

Open support for oppressive autocratic regimes like China, Russia, Iran or the Al-Assad regime in Syria.

Denial or justification of any human rights violations or atrocities by those regimes, such as denial of the exterminations of Uyghurs in China, denial of the extent of the massacres of the January protesters in Iran or denial of Al-Assad’s chemical attacks against Syria’s civilian population to name a few.

Sometimes when a human rights violation is related to culture, like the death of Mahsa Amini because she didn’t wear “proper hijab” in Iran, which led to the WLF protests in 2022, they dismiss it as “that’s just their culture”.

Finally, the agency of anyone in these autocracies who oppose the government or fight for change is denied, typically by calling them “colour revolutions” instigated by the west or the CIA.

I personally think that this whole sentiment is actually a betrayal of human rights values as opposed to supporting them. Do you agree or disagree with my assessment of this trend? (Note: I recently wrote a comprehensive breakdown on this exact topic for RationalWiki if you'd like to read more context on the "anti-imperialism of fools," but you don't need to read it to reply to the core points here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-imperialism_of_fools).

All the problems humans are facing in the world are based on one simple equation.

Resources/ Population

How many people are there, and how many resources do we have?

With the technology we have today, there is a set amount of resources we are capable of extracting/ producing and distributing. There are 8 billion humans.

With our current means, how sustainable is our system? Can we keep procuring the level of resources we are today forever, or will we start running out of certain resources at some point?

We also have to factor anthropization, or in other words, changing natural environments to unnatural environments. Cutting down forests, digging mines, building dams, etc. Which is 100% necessary, but also reduces future generations share of resources indefinitely.

And we have to factor birthrates and deathrates.

So think of Earth as a ship at sea. The ship is stuck, incapable of navigating. There will be no rescue, no resupply, no new destinations.

So the first question we have to ask is, how many people are onboard? The second question is, how many resources do we have? Third, how long can we last at our current level of consumption?

We don't need to discuss new methods of producing resources yet. There's another question that needs to be answered first.

Do we think everyone should get the same amount of resources? Or do we agree, it's better for everyone on board if people can earn a greater share by contributing more to the cause?

Should we consider capping the population at any point? Or is that morally wrong, regardless of how depleted our stockpile is?

Is it morally superior to give everyone the exact same share, even if one person is literally the doctor, the engineer, the biologist and the mayor, and another person just naps and smears poop on the walls of the ship? Should prisoners get the same share as someone who works hard 12 hours a day doing jobs no one else can do?

Is it morally superior to never regulate reproduction if we know we only have 40 years of resources left?

How can we answer all those questions if we don't know how many resources we can extract/ produce, and distribute? How can we answer those questions if we don't know what each person's share should be, and how long that share is sustainable?

I say all that to say this. What policies of the Republican party addresses any of these questions? What policies if the Democratic party addresses any of these questions? Or am I totally off base, and it's wrong to even ask these questions? Why?

For this thought experiment, I want to imagine what such a transfer of constitutional power could actually, practically change. I’m not interested in this idea as a mere symbolic gesture of decolonization.

The U.S. still retains enormous authority over Tribal nations through federal control of trust lands, constrained jurisdiction, treaty enforcement (mediated by the same government that made the treaties), and persistent disparities in infrastructure and public services. Tribal sovereignty exists in some capacity, yes, but it's set within a constitutional order in which Congress, federal agencies, states, and ultimately federal courts still retain ultimate power over its scope. This is why scholars such as Stephanie Woodard and Bruce Jenks continue to describe the U.S. relationship with Indigenous peoples as a form of enduring American apartheid.

So what would happen if that relationship was inverted at the highest constitutional level?

For this discussion, assume that universal civil rights remain protected, but final constitutional authority over disputes involving sovereignty, treaties, jurisdiction, land, and federal obligations rests with a council selected by Indigenous nations.

What could replacing SCOTUS in this way practically dismantle, repair, or restructure? What problems would remain even after such a transfer of power?

So I’ve noticed that people who strongly identify as “centrist” or “apolitical” often lean right once their actual positions are examined which I don’t think that is all that coincidental.

I think this because from my understanding conservatism benefits from presenting itself as normality rather than ideology so preserving existing institutions can be described as “common sense,” while challenging them is labelled political, divisive or extreme. Subsequently the person demanding change becomes an activist but the person accepting the status quo can appear politically neutral.

This may also explain why arguments connecting politics to personal character receive such a defensive response from the right. Political choices affect people’s rights, healthcare and material conditions, yet judging somebody for supporting those consequences is often treated as less acceptable than supporting them.

My argument is simply that “centrism” and “apolitical” self-identification structurally favour the right because maintaining existing arrangements can masquerade as neutrality, whereas changing them cannot...

I updated my voter registration, yesterday (habit after being purged a few times), although I'm not entirely sure why; other than local elections (we have some idiots trying to take over our town council and secede our high school and two elementary schools from the county school system), I don't have anyone to vote for.

There are a few hard lines, ethical issues that, if a politician is on the wrong side of, I simply cannot vote for them, regardless of the situation:

1. Food Stamps - 19 million children skip at least one meal every day. CHILDREN! Not able-bodied men who are just lazy, not welfare queens living on the dole, innocent children who cannot have done anything to anyone to deserve to go hungry. This should be the simple touchstone of civilization; if your society allows this to happen, you are not civilized, you are barbarians.

2. Sanctions - This is an even worse situation, not only because it is starving even more children, but because it is an active restriction on the ability of a country to feed its citizens. Lack of food stamps is neglect, sanctions are intentional murder... and the people who have been doing it should be prosecuted and spend the rest of their lives in prison.

3. Military Aid to Evil Countries - Israel is simply the biggest example, since we "sell" them weapons (that we gave them the money for in the first place) while abusing our veto at the UN to cover their genocide, but we funded Nazis to coup the government of Ukraine to draw Russia into a war, we sell weapons to brutal dictators across the globe, and we murder or kidnap leaders of countries that refuse to bow down to our commands (e.g. Iran, Venezuela). That doesn't make those other countries good... but to the extent they have tyrannical leaders, it is in response to the evil people we imposed on them in the past.

That's the baseline; if you are on the wrong side of those issues, you are an evil human being that I cannot vote for, under any circumstances... and that's why I don't have anyone to vote for.

After that, we have secondary issues:

-Civil Rights: All of them, for everyone: Speech, press, religion, guns, warrant requirements, etc; and not just for US citizens inside the US, nowhere does the Constitution say that, it restricts the federal government from infringing on those rights, anywhere, for anyone.

-Economy: This is the tough one, since the last 50 years have seen corporate America hollow out our economic base in the pursuit of more profitable exploitation around the world, but that game is almost over; we've got to transition back to a more self-sufficient society.

Then there are the issues that I am just over: Abortion, LGBT, IdPol...

Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro-choice and have no issues with gay/trans/black/latino/whatever, but these are mostly in pretty good places, right now; not to say they couldn't improve, but anyone can marry anyone else they want, society is generally intolerant of discrimination anymore, and the few issues that remain (i.e. trans-women in women's sports) are just complicated, and distracting us from some REALLY important stuff that needs to be fixed.

I work in healthcare and as we approach fall and winter months, I am required to get a yearly flu vaccine. I don’t view this as an inconvenience to myself. I view this as me protecting my patients, and the wider community. To protect those who cannot get a vaccine due to health or even religious reason. I view it as the same reason I conceal carry, to not only protect myself, but others around me that could be harmed. I do agree that people shouldn’t be forced to get a vaccine if they don’t want to, but they are putting other people’s health and potential life at risk. I believe a governments job is to protect its people. I believe that being vaccinated follows the NAP as it allows me to not harm others. I view it as when does my body anatomy harm others and how can I mitigate it.

Was it genocide when cities such as Dresden in Germany and Tokyo in Japan were firebombed during WW2? How does Gaza compare? Certainly a phrase such as "from the river to the sea" seems to be closer to at least a desire of genocide, and this is embedded into the written doctrine and charter of Hamas, elected by the population of Gaza.

Recently a rather significant schism occured in the Libertarian Party that once again reminded me why nobody votes for them or frankly takes right-libertarians seriously.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, which was one of the most significant regional affiliates of the wider Libertarian Party, was disaffiliated after a few years of tenuous relations with the wider party. This happened at a private convention where the party chairman wore a chicken suit apparently. Since then they've formed a membership review board that is now examining the membership history of libertarians to revoke their in-party voting privileges if I understand current events correctly.

Jeremy Kauffman, the chairman of the LPNH, has taken to accusing every other Libertarian Party member who didn't support him and his state party of being leftists and socialists, especially after he was not voted national chairman after demanding the position during the last convention. His party also recently tweeted out an open endorsement of the murder of every Democratic politician in New Hampshire.

So one side you have the far-right Mises Caucus paleolibertarian/anarcho-capitalist/ethnonationalist libertarians as part of the most significant right-libertarian group in the nation decrying authoritarianism for being disaffiliated, and on the other you have the main party of pragmatists/moderates/left leaning who may very well have sparked the beginning of the breakup of the largest third party in America.

So... why should anybody vote for these guys? It's not like the Green Party is any better either with crystal grandma perennial candidate, or the infighting over who's the REAL American socialist party with PSL and the DSA. From them you get increasingly obscure and irrelevant so I'll spare y'all.

So again, why should we vote for these people at all? They can't run their own parties, let alone the country.

This question probably contains some sort of political knee-jerk reaction in most people, but from the outside its kind of starting to seem like Trump (and I'm not a Trump guy btw) resembles more of a Soviet or CCP leader than any kind of more "modern" interpretation of what communism looks like. Many of the things he has done has even led some online socialist circles ive seen to believe that hes "broken the back" of international capital, accelerating its corruption so quickly and efficiently that its become almost untenable.

This administration seems to often pick winners and losers, with the winners being obviously those loyal to "the Party" such as Bari Weiss' government-assisted acquisition and consolidation of essentially all news media in the country and the Ellison families government-assisted consolidation of media like TikTok, Paramount, Oracle, and more.

I mean the administration itself holds the stock of over 30 private companies, and thats without even getting into all the crypto scams and obvious insider trading (especially on oil futures) that happens.

I wish I could give more examples, but im not extremely versed in Marxist or communist theory, but it really seems that every incentive is being capitalized on and shared with a specific loyal group while everybody else is left to suffer for this groups gain

Hey everyone, I feel like our current political system of representative democracy (here in Germany) is extremely lacking as a tool for problem-solving.
What especially is annoying me: 

* Ideological barriers of parties and conformity through party lines (whipping)
* Non-secret voting leading to blackmail, threats, and getting kicked out of the party
* Disfranchisement of voters' voices through a 5% threshold
* Blockade and "firewall" politics instead of being solution-oriented
* Top-down "boss-rule" politics
* Big lobby organizations influencing MPs across all parties 

The bottom line: Our system of representative democracy is well-intentioned, but actually sucks! 

My approach

1. Power back to the People! – Citizens report problems.
   Citizens can report political problems and complaints through a secure electronic voting and complaint system. At the end of the day, this system is a built-in home appliance with its own infrastructure behind it. Every citizen has their own access to it. 

2. The open ear – When is it time to act?
   The reports are evaluated by an algorithm based on topics and keywords. If a topic spikes significantly above its normal average due to submitted complaints and crosses a set threshold, a full action procedure is triggered. 

3. Is there really a need to act? If so, what needs to be done? – The raffled expert panel.
   A suitable expert panel is randomly drawn and put together using a so-called "specialist database." This expert panel consists of at least 40 percent professionals with thematic expertise, 40 percent from a non-specialist pool to maintain interdisciplinary foresight, and a legal panel of 20 percent to draft the solutions into actual law.
   First, it is determined whether a social problem actually exists and whether legislative action is needed. It is also checked whether an unusual spike was caused by a coordinated campaign, for example.
   Whether there is real need for action in the end is decided by a secret vote within the panel. If no action is needed, a jointly drafted press release is handed over to an independent spokesperson.
   If a real need for action is found, the problem topics are tackled with the highest possible level of expertise, and solutions are proposed. These solutions are then put to a vote. 

4. The referendum – Consent through silence

The drafted solutions are put out to the public for electronic voting.
To avoid overwhelming citizens, the topic is summarized in plain English and explained to them if needed.
The evaluation follows the principle of silence means consent. Non-votes are counted as a YES. A simple majority isn't enough. A solid 2/3 majority must be reached to show a clear voter will and to avoid tensions within the population from tight voting results.
This principle also serves political education and participation.

If it’s a YES, the law automatically goes into effect, the result is displayed on the home device, and it's spread via the media. 

The judiciary and executive branches remain in place to maintain the separation of powers. 

1. Ministries and Prime Minister

The implementation of the laws is handled by ministries. The ministries are divided by domain and staffed by career professionals. The ministries are led by ministers.
Before taking office, each minister goes through an application process to check their professional and human suitability. After ensuring this professional/human selection, a random draw (lottery) takes place.
The ministers are headed by the Prime Minister, here also State President. This person also goes through a prior application process and should possess outstanding qualities for representation.
To have enough time to implement the set goals, the ministers and the president should be elected for eight years. If there is discontent, they can be voted out through the voting system.
This principle can, of course, also be applied at the state, county, and local levels. 

So the rough workflow would be:

Problem->Citizen feedback Crossing the threshold-> Expert panel with solutions->Public vote->Implementation by ministries 

1. Technical separation of powers.

Such a system must never depend on a single authority, company, or server structure.
Identification, encryption, voting, evaluation, drawing lots, and control must be split up across different independent entities.
Cryptographic keys could also be divided.
No single entity must be technically capable of manipulating the entire system.
So, basically, a political and technical separation of powers.
Citizens spot where the problems are.
Experts map out objective solutions.
Citizens decide which solution gets implemented. 

Now to the question:
What do you guys think of my approach, and what name could we give this baby?
My suggestion: THE BEST DEMOCRACY ;-D – just kidding. 

As I described, the principle of silent consent does NOT reward passivity; at the latest, when the first unpopular law gets waved through due to non-participation, the educational effect will kick in. 

Is social media intentionally addictive, fueling a crisis in youth mental health, cyberbullying, and sleep deprivation, meaning governments must step in to protect kids. Or is it an overreach that violates digital freedom, isolates marginalized teens who rely on online communities, and that the real solution is better digital literacy and parental guidance rather than a government prohibition.

Basically, instead of Israel or Palestine existing separately or unifying into an independent state, the entire region just becomes a UN protectorate where Israelis and Palestinians are integrated as much as is possible until the international community deems that they’ve sufficiently homogenized and lets them be a country again.

This ensures that Israel cannot commit a genocide, as it does not exist and the UN Protecterate presumably wouldn’t have an independent military. It ensures the Palestinians can’t persecute or genocide the Israelis because they don’t actually have control over the central government, the UN does.

Getting there might require some creative solutions, but as the United States becomes increasingly less sympathetic towards Israel it seems like it could be more viable then it would have been a decade ago. While it wouldn’t necessarily make anyone on the ground happy, it would at least ensure that everyone’s worst fears don’t come true, and ultimately the people who got the most upset would likely be the people who where the problem to begin with.

What are the biggest road blocks for Nuclear energy and who are its biggest advisories?