A common fallacy I see in political discourse - is the insistence that the historical persistence of a particular institution or practice is proof of its necessity.

But historical precedent alone is not a substitute for an argument.

Religion has been around for a long time - but this is not evidence that God exists - or that religious belief is a fixed part of human nature.

Another common fallacy is to treat the absence of historical precedent as proof that a particular political or economic system will inevitably fail.

But this is treating the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

No civilization has ever been vegan - for example. All known historical civilizations have used and exploited animals for various purposes.

But it’s not obvious why a vegan civilization would be impossible. The mere fact that a vegan civilization has never existed before is not - by itself - an argument against veganism.

If you want to genuinely claim that a certain political ideology is impossible or unworkable - you need more of an argument than appealing to historical precedent alone.

This is more a warning than a debate proposal.

I’m Brazilian; I simply cannot believe how easily Flavio managed to flee to the U.S.

Are there no checks?

The Liberal Party (PL, Partido Liberal), to which Flávio Bolsonaro belongs, includes members who are either imprisoned, formally charged, or under investigation for their ties to factions that Donald Trump has designated as "narcoterrorist" organizations.

Look up "Marcio Canella," "Danilo Morgado," and "Knoploch". The first is in prison for laundering over $1 billion for the CV; the second is under investigation for allegedly having his campaign financed by the PCC; and the third appointed a corrupt individual, who is himself under investigation, for negotiating the transfer of CV inmates in collusion with the faction itself.

There are several videos of Flávio Bolsonaro campaigning for Canella for the Senate; English-subtitled and dubbed versions are available here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgMygPEjlp8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayAS_MFp9Os

Dude, Canella was caught less than two weeks ago. How the fuck Bolsonaro Jr. can be allowed to stay in the US with a visa?

I won’t mention old allies from other parties, but you can look into it yourself: Bacellar from União Brasil, TH Joias from MDB. Both is in prison, related to links with CV, the first by leaking police information to CV members and the second by criminal organization, drug trafficking, international trafficking and illegal arms trade, active and passive corruption.

Search for "PL (Liberal Party)" along with these names on Google, or ask an AI to provide a summary for you, specifically in the context of the 2026 elections.

His party is far worse than you might imagine. Donald Trump has no idea who this man really is.

I'm not even talking about other scandals like Banco Master "giving" $24 million dollars for Dark Horse, the shit movie they filmed about his father. The bank owner was just a brazilian "epzzt-ein".

Im not even talking the day Bolsonaro Jr. negotiated covid vaccines in a boat during a barbecue with prostitutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kghRIM9dA8o

I'm not saying Bolsonaro Jr. is criminal, obviously.

But consider this: he has been a politician since he was 21—he is 45 now—and yet, the first time he might actually be held accountable for everything, he wants to head to the United States to seek refuge.

Our tax system already seems pretty progressive,I’m confused by that statement.

I'm Swedish, but I'm following the US midterm elections with great interest. The outcome matters not only for the United States but for the entire world. I'm concerned about America's slide toward authoritarianism under Trump and MAGA, as well as Trump's reckless foreign policy and other developments.

But what should the Democrats do in the current situation? I've been thinking about a couple of things.

1. What if the Democrats lose the midterms?

The Democrats have put almost all their eggs in one basket: winning the midterms and taking control of both chambers of Congress, or at least the House of Representatives. I follow several left-leaning YouTubers, primarily David Pakman, Brian Tyler Cohen, and Glenn Kirschner, and they also seem completely focused on this goal right now. Polls, early voting figures, and other indicators do suggest that the Democrats could win majorities in both chambers, although the Senate races look close.

But polls have been wrong before, and early voting figures don't tell the whole story. It would therefore be a mistake to take a Democratic victory for granted. We have to be prepared for the possibility that they might lose. Yet I don't get the impression that the Democrats or the left-leaning commentators I follow are preparing for that possibility. That's a problem.

If the Republicans win, it will be more important than ever for the Democrats to get their act together and do everything they can to fight further abuses of power by the Trump administration, the MAGA movement, and the ultrawealthy, and to resist America's slide toward authoritarianism.

There needs to be a plan for this scenario, and it needs to be developed now. But so far, I haven't seen any sign of one.

I'm worried that if the Republicans win, the Democrats and left-leaning commentators will lose momentum and become too demoralized to tackle these vital tasks before it's too late.

That absolutely must not happen!

The Democrats need to develop a contingency plan for this scenario now.

2. What if the Democrats win control of the House?

If the Democrats win control of at least the House, my understanding is that they intend to launch investigations into abuses of power and corruption by the Trump administration, something we've seen plenty of over the past two years. They plan to compel Trump administration officials, and possibly Trump himself, to testify before Congress under oath.

This could certainly produce a great deal of valuable information, even if it's far from certain that anyone will actually be convicted of a crime. Trump can use his veto power, and the Supreme Court has granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution for certain official acts.

But valuable as these investigations may be, there's a risk that Congress will focus too heavily on them and neglect the work of improving ordinary people's lives.

That means tackling issues such as bringing down the cost of living, fixing the healthcare system, getting rid of Trump's tariffs, ending the war with Iran (which affects fuel prices and much else), finding a humane solution to the problems surrounding immigration, addressing climate change, and much, much more.

Otherwise, there's a risk that voters will think in 2028:

"All the Democrats do is try to go after Republicans and Trump officials, over and over again. But that doesn't put food on my table or give me access to affordable healthcare. Everything has just become even more expensive. I'm voting for the Republican presidential candidate and Republican candidates for Congress this time. Surely things can't get much worse than this."

And then the Republicans could win back Congress, a new Republican president could take office, and America's slide toward authoritarianism could continue.

That must not happen.

Holding the Trump administration accountable is important, but improving the lives of ordinary Americans is at least equally important.

If you have undying, unconditional support for THE government, no matter what it does, or how bad things get... Then your "politics" are meaningless. Your proposed politics, are fantasy; Your REAL politics, is supporting a violent oppressive regime.

If you say any of the following "I support the police", "I support the military", "I support lawmakers", " i support the president", then you support THE government, full stop.

Sometimes self-awareness is hard for people. So lets Imagine if we were talking about Nazi Germany. Lets say a German citizen under the Yeimar Republic said "Look buddy, I dont support the actions of the gestapo, the camps, and the killings... But boy oh darn dont you dare say you dont support the police! How can you not support our brave, heroic police? What are you, a criminal?" How would you react to this individual? Do you perceive them as actually being "against" their Nazi government? Because they functionally are not. They are simply a supporter, whom complains.

Being a whiny, begging supporter ≠ being an opponent.

Someone who opposes a government isnt pledging allegiance to its flag, beating themselves off to its law enforcers, and voting for politicians. Those who oppose the government **stop participating, disobey, resist, and build alternative systems to make them redundant.**

Going along with a gang of people you KNOW to be violent, murderous, and monsterous, is politically exactly one thing: Being their supporter and accomplice.

Left-wing ideologies are for government intervention when that intervention creates a more just society. To them the state has a responsibility to enforce its will upon its citizens and others to generally improve people's lives. But if the state has a responsibility to improve lives why should it stop at the border? If government intervention is justified domestically than it follows to reason that it is also justified internationally.

However, it is this exact logic that serves as a justification for imperialism. I see no difference between the United States forcing democracy upon the people of Vietnam and the British Empire forcing "civilization" upon the people of Africa. The Soviet Union preformed the exact same empire building, claiming to speak for the weak regardless of their opinions on the matter.

I think the left fails to realize that not everyone wants to be Norway, or America, or Socialist, or Communist. Instead, they insist they and they alone know what kind of political system other people ought to have and once you've taken that position, it becomes morally unjustifiable to not "help" these people.

The only way to avoid the slippery slop to imperialism is by embracing a philosophy of freedom. A genuinely anti-imperialist foreign policy needs strong belief in individual liberty, self-determination, and respecting the freedom of other societies and, by extension, the individuals within those society, to make choices we dislike. I argue that the only correct response to the abuses of others nations is that of strongly worded letter.