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.

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.

I'll first start off by saying the left definitely does this too, like let's say they pretend hamas doesn't hide behind civilians or recruit children and blames all child/civilian casualties on Israel. Blames islamic terrorism on "white supremacy" instead of religious and cultural indoctrination or how they might blame homelessness or foster home enrollment on a lack of access to abortions or somehow it's all LGBT kids getting kicked out by their homophobic parents when the real answer is almost always drug addiction or mental illness, but this post is going centered on the right wing.

I grew up being bullied wherever I went pretty much and whenever I got in trouble for lashing out at kids who did so and I got an invite to the principal's office and even in one instance the superintendent's office, one of the main questions they would ask me or parents over and over again was either, was my father absent from my home life or did I play violent video games and they even pushed me to take written surveys to answer these questions.

Meanwhile the reality was I clearly wasn't reacting to other kids because of video games or my relationship with my father, I was lashing out because of harassment and because I valued boundaries. Looking back at it now I get the impression that they were far more focused and obsessed on trying to prove that video games and absent father figures caused violence and poor behavior than actually trying to address the actual root of the in issue first hand.

Even many of these black inner city kids who acted up who I knew well enough, believe it or not, had father figures, they acted the way they did because their ghetto trap culture encouraged their behavior and their family members were the same way as they are, this is where I knew that how someone turns out has alot more to do with who and what environment that did raise them and not what family member didn't raise them. But yet throughout all the church sermons, all the religious media I watched the message of they preached was consistent, they believed strongly that if kids didn't grow up with their father or if their father didn't engage with them enough they would without a doubt all grow up to be career criminals.

Like first of all, did they ever bothered to take a step back and think about how an absent father affects and overburdens the mother? Instead of just assuming all the suffering is placed on the son who realistically couldn't give less of a shit about someone who he's never met. I've always felt like is this whole absent father stigma was all just an attempt to argue that women are too stupid to raise kids therefore they need a man to do it for them.

Now I have don't have anything against boys getting provided with a male role model or authority figure and I know that two parental figures is better than just one. Fathers are still great but people need to remember that it doesn't just take a father to raise a child, it takes whole village as a matter of fact and it doesn't just require just any father or parent, they have to be of competent too.

And as for the video games segment, violent crime appears to have been at its peek highest in the 80's and 90's with the year 1980 being the highest recorded year for homicides per capita in the US, those murders perpetrated by a generation that didn't even grow up video games like the ones they have today, that only leaves us with cultural and environmental circumstances and coincidentally the criminals of those times also grew up during a time where single parent households were far less common.

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.

In 1989, Donald Trump took out full-page newspaper ads demanding the death penalty in response to the Central Park jogger case. Five Black and Latino teenagers had been accused. Their convictions were eventually vacated, and DNA evidence corroborated the confession of the actual perpetrator.

Yet Trump continued to insist that the men were guilty. During the 2024 presidential debate, he falsely claimed they had pleaded guilty and had killed someone.

This raises a broader question that goes beyond Trump or any particular political party: What responsibility should political leaders have when they publicly demand severe punishment before a case has been decided—and what accountability should follow when the evidence later contradicts their position?

There is a legitimate debate about being tough on crime. But should that ever mean treating accusations as proof, or refusing to reconsider a position after an exoneration?

I'd argue that due process matters most when public anger makes it unpopular. A justice system that can be driven by political pressure rather than evidence puts everyone at risk.

I explore the case and its implications for Trump's politics and the rule of law in more detail here:

https://medium.com/discourse/when-someone-tells-you-who-they-are-trump-and-the-central-park-five-1becfecbe3c9?sk=cff941ccbb03544cfdb71bbb74434f17

I study sociology and specialise in the social aspects of identity. I've got a few questions.

Identity being defined as the collection of meanings one uses to think about themselves (how one understands themself). As well as the collection of meanings one uses to think about and interact with others.

For sake of clarity: A named political ideology (a set of political ideas) can be, but isn't necessairly, an identity. It is an identity when one thinks of themselves as that ideology or uses the ideology to group people together. It is Not an identity when one simply thinks about the philosophical ideas and/or application of ideas.

Is the political ideology you most agree with part of how you identify? (Please clarify which you identify with if yes)

If not, why not?

If yes, how do you think that affects your interactions with others? How do you interact with others?

Does it affect other areas of personal expression such as aesthetics (what you wear, decorations, online profiles).

If you found other ideas to be more worthwhile, would you be able to modify your beliefs? If not, why?

There's no correct answers, obviously. However then more honest and sincere, the better. Thank you :)

The "Party" (not sure about the political correctness here since it’s a "just" a List) established itself mainly as an anti-corruption movement, but I can’t imagine that all their members share the same opinion on certain topics (for example in the discussion around the independency of Kosovo, or "simpler" stuff like economics, foreign affairs,…), which they will have to deal with sooner or later.

Am I wrong for thinking that their party/list will shatter into many smaller parties until there is nothing left of it?

Theoretically it’s not a bad thing, but there’s this risk that old SNS voters go back to SNS since they may feel like the students party is too instable and paralyzed in their decision making since their opinions vary too much.

Not that they would demand a proper wage for their labor, or at they would quit if they ever felt disrespected, but that they would refuse to do any work, under any conditions, no matter how well they were paid or valued by their employer?

Because that's always your primary counter argument against UBI: Where's all that money coming from? Who's growing the food? Who's building the houses? If nobody has to work, nothing gets produced. That's how it works, right?

However, your logic is inherently based on the assumption that very very few people (only about 1-2% of people, which is quintessentially "nobody") will ever work if they have even the most basic needs met. Not just a comfortable existence, but just the bare minimum. They won't even go to work in order to make a little extra money, as long as they aren't literally starving. UBI won't get them enough to afford a PS5, or anything other than $30 straight talk phone. It will get them the bare necessities so they can survive, nothing more nothing less.

But that doesn't matter: If they have EVEN THAT MUCH, 99% of people will stop working altogether, according to you.

So where's your evidence of THAT?

Spend five minutes online and tell me I’m wrong.
The pay sucks. Rent is too high. Groceries are expensive. Nobody can afford a house. Student loans are crushing people. Benefits are terrible. Management is incompetent. The president sucks. The economy is doomed. Dating is a nightmare. Nobody wants commitment. Nobody can get ahead. The future is hopeless. And apparently, even being happy about something is grounds for ridicule.
When did being miserable become a personality trait? When did optimism become something you have to defend? I’m not naive. I know our generation has real problems. I’m not saying we should shut up and accept everything. But somewhere along the way, complaining about life seems to have replaced actually living it.
Something good happens, and somebody has to explain why it actually sucks. Tell someone you’re excited about your future, and suddenly you’re privileged, out of touch, or too stupid to understand how bad things are. I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t have to be miserable to be taken seriously.
At some point, the endless doom and hopelessness starts looking less like social commentary and more like a suicidal emo death cult with a social media account. I’m not talking about people who are genuinely struggling. Life can be brutal, and people deserve compassion. I’m talking about a culture that treats hopelessness like intelligence and optimism like ignorance.
I’m married to a woman I love. I have meaningful work, opportunities to grow, a future I’m excited about, and a faith that gives my life purpose. Is everything perfect? Absolutely not. I’m living in the same world as everybody else.
I work in a place where one lapse in judgment can kill me or leave me permanently disabled. Doing that every day puts life in perspective. Maybe that’s why I have a hard time understanding the appeal of treating every inconvenience as another reason to hate the world.
My generation is damn good at pointing out problems. But what are we doing to fix them? Other than lighting cop cars and dumpsters on fire, what are we learning, building, or contributing? Are we making life better for anyone around us?
I’m also tired of being told what kind of person I must be because of what I believe. I’m a White Christian man. I’m faithful to my wife, proud of my roots, and unashamed of my convictions. Apparently, that automatically makes me a racist, fascist, or Nazi to some of my peers. The cross on my neck comes off with my head. Until then, I’m not hiding my faith to make somebody else comfortable.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But I’m not going to apologize for my beliefs just because someone has already decided who I am. I look at my generation and see enormous potential. It would be a damn shame to waste it being perpetually angry at everything.
Life is happening right now. Not when rent gets cheaper. Not when gas prices drop. Not when the president changes. Not when everything finally goes your way. Right now.
So get off the internet for a while. Touch grass. Pet a puppy. Watch fireflies. Spend time with somebody you love. Go build something. Find something worth caring about, and put some effort into making it better.

What is wrong about not wanting migrants from other countries that do not assimilate to your culture or speak your language?

Every person does this on a small scale. Your circle of friends are likely people who share common beliefs and interests…because you prefer to be around people of the same culture. Companies conduct HR interviews to evaluate whether the candidate truly wants to work for the company and could fit well into the company culture.

Why is it all of a sudden bad when nations do this regarding immigration?

Trump's been saying for weeks that Zelensky can't make a deal and that Ukraine should get a new leader. Is that a legitimate request, or is it asking Ukraine to do something it can't realistically do right now?

On October 10, Trump said: "I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal because he could have made many deals and for some reason he never does" . He also blamed Zelensky for high US diesel prices, saying "he wants to make problems for the world... with diesel fuel" ( https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-trump-putin-diesel-228ccf74b2848c1ff0ac23f038b37512#1 )

A few days later, Trump said: "He doesn't want to make a deal. He says he wants to, but he doesn't. I'm not a big fan of Zelensky".

The case for Trump's request:
Zelensky's term expired in May 2024. Elections are suspended under martial law, which parliament has extended repeatedly.
Zelensky has said he's willing - under conditions. He told reporters in December 2025 that if the US and allies help ensure security, "within the next 60-90 days, Ukraine will be ready to hold them" ( https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-elections-zelenskyy-trump-explainer-3162f3dfb74196801c45ae9060c02f03 )

Is "he can't make a deal" a fair basis for calling for regime change in Ukraine?
What would a "new leader who can make a deal" actually look like? Trump hasn't named anyone.

Ever since Gulf of America debate I have been thinking about this, and increases about those proposals (lastly New Mexico -> New America)
made me draw parallel with my own nation's(Turkey) history and recent history of name changes in Russia due to collapse of Soviet Union

The thing is; those names of the regions-cities-seas etc. change usually after the regime of the countries changing their names changes

What do I mean

Konstantiniyye(Constantinople-Ottomans) --> İstanbul (Turkey) /monarchy to democracy/

Petrograd-St.Petersburg (Monarchist Russia) --> Leningrad (Communist Russia) --> St.Petersburg (Russia today)

My argument is we might be observing change in regime of the US, it might be small but I think there is a chance historians mark Trump's second term as some sort of turning point for whatever changes politics of US gets in future

funny video I found about this subject

Why are we not protesting like the French???? We have so many reasons to be pissed yet we are so self involved , divided, and happily distracted that we are just sheep watching it happen. A building survived 2 world wars … they lit it on fire! I’m not saying violence and destruction, but our willing ignorance is highlighted and underlined by the passion the French show for their people. Someone please explain why we Americans are not making more of a scene about everything that’s happening?

I've been looking into how Switzerland is governed, and I actually think their seven-member Federal Council is a pretty interesting idea. Instead of having one powerful president, they share power and rotate the presidency every year.

For a future European Federation, this could solve one of the biggest concerns: Germany or France ending up calling all the shots. And with several people sharing power, its much harder for one populist to take control.

But theres downsides too. Who do you hold accountable when things go wrong? And wouldn't having seven leaders make decisions painfully slow during a crisis?

Curious what you guys think. Would this work better than having a single elected president?

I hear that this is what much of the population is in many countries yet these parties don’t succeed. Even the one rare example of the Danish Social Democrats (conservative on immigration) had their worst ever election result this year and the only sustainable government that could be formed was parties to the left of them and the centrist Moderates, and the parties to the left forced the Danish Social Democrats’ hand in allowing thousands of people to become citizens when the SD didn’t want them to become citizens, in the meantime Danish People’s Party continues to rise in the polls.

BSW couldn’t even get 5% in the last German election.

THANK YOU for insights into voting blocks and Southern Strategy. The “why” question I tried to pose involved major civil rights legislation, I used the 14A and The Voting Rights Act; why a shelf life of only 25 years or so? Bad math by me? Coincidence? Bad execution? I can’t accept they were bad ideas, does a voting majority believe they were?

I usually search for history to justify my observations. So I violate a couple of rules of academic integrity at the very start. My observation here is that the chronology from enactment of the 14th Amendment 1868, to the Supreme Court decision in the Reconstruction cases 1883 to Plessy 1896 is mostly matched by the time span of the Southern Strategy/Voting Rights Act 1965, to Nixon applying the idea on a large scale 1972, to a Republican Southern majority in 1994. It’s not as much an observation only of arithmetic as it is a heads up for those left of center they have a head count problem and large scale center left victories have a lifespan of about 25 years.

social-democratic government: What these people are really asking for is socialism/communism.

If you support socialism or communism, you're asking for violence. You're asking for this country to go to war with itself.

The Bolshevik Revolution was real. In 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, and the country descended into a bloody civil war. The new government carried out the Red Terror, using mass arrests and executions against political opponents. Here's the historical background on the Russian Revolution:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution

If you support this idea, have you actually studied what happened? Because this sounds like the same kind of fundamental change that people think will somehow work out differently this time.

And a lot of you are aligned with the No Kings movement. You talk like there are kings running this country, so don't tell me a radical overhaul of our economic system is going to happen without serious resistance. Do you think the people who oppose this are just going to take it lying down? Do you think everyday Americans who disagree with you are going to sit back and accept having their entire economic system changed?

I think this is a naive idea. I don't believe a change this fundamental could happen here without serious conflict, and potentially violence. People need to think about the real-world consequences instead of getting caught up in an idealistic vision of how they think society should work.

There's serious problems in this country, and it's stupid that we have to waste time defending against an idea that could create even bigger ones. People pushing this need to explain how they expect it to work in practice, not just talk about how good it sounds on paper.

And no, not everyone on the left supports this. So to the rational liberals out there, check your own people. This kind of thinking makes you all look bad, and it isn't helping solve the problems we're actually facing.

The historical connection between social democracy, socialism, and communism, these movements have overlapping roots in the socialist and workers' movements of 19th-century Europe. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903. After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, they suppressed rival socialist parties and consolidated one-party rule.

Here's more historical background on the relationship between these movements and the Russian Revolution:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118620878.ch9

And for anyone who thinks modern American movements aren't pushing to move beyond capitalism, the Democratic Socialists of America's official program outlines its goals, including public ownership of major corporations and essential industries:

https://program.dsausa.org/

That doesn't mean every supporter of social programs wants communism. But it does show that some movements see these reforms as part of a much larger economic transformation. I think people need to be honest about where they want these ideas to lead and what the consequences could be.

I keep seeing the argument that the UK and EU are "openly opposing" Trump's peace efforts, and that Zelensky is being used to undermine negotiations.

After the Diesel deal, Zelensky went to UK. He met with King Charles III at Buckingham Palace and thanked him for the UK's "unwavering support" . He also met with PM Burnham, who said the UK would accelerate delivery of air defense missiles and go "further and faster" in its support. (source - https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-polytics/4174463-president-zelensky-meets-king-charles-iii.html )

Then he went on Piers Morgan Uncensored and said directly what he had been hinting at. Asked if he felt betrayed by Trump, Zelensky said: "Really, yes ... but it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings" . He said "it's painful when President Trump chooses one side, not our side," and added: "It's a pity we are losing a strong partner" ( source - https://www.reuters.com/5f374b32b07b/world/us/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-it-is-painful-trump-choose-different-side-2026-10-14/ )

He also said Trump's advisers were pushing him "to the wrong side," and that "this is not the right side of history" .

Is this Zelensky "picking public fights"? Or is he a leader watching the US lift sanctions on Russian diesel, and suggest Ukraine needs a "new president" - and then saying so on camera when asked directly?

The UK visit itself was not a campaign against Trump. Burnham explicitly positioned Britain as more reliable than Washington, saying "we are with you for as long as it takes".
Zelensky didn't have to attack Trump to get that. He just had to show up.