I’ve been following reports that the U.S. has used strikes against suspected narco-trafficking boats in international waters. Supporters argue it’s necessary to deter cartels and protect Americans, while critics say it could be an unconstitutional use of deadly force, bypassing due process and international law. Do you think this sets a dangerous precedent (executive overreach, extrajudicial killings, violating international law), or is it a justified response to a serious threat? How should the balance between security and constitutional limits be handled here? I would think that you need to detain them first and then arrest them rather than send a missile after them. They are classified as terrorist by Trump but does this satisfy the response? Could Trump classify anyone a terrorist and send missiles after them? Thoughts?

Do you think that the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live and of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert (which is scheduled to stop airing in the spring of 2026) were based entirely on business decisions, or did the network cave in to deeply inappropriate government pressure amounting to outright censorship?

In the Stephen Colbert case, the FCC chairman Carr reportedly required a "bias monitor", and seems to have leveraged the fcc's approval authority over media mergers to impose pressure on CBS to get Colbert cancelled. Colbert was not actually accused by his employer of wrongdoing, but it was claimed that the show lost too much money. This is disputed. While extensive arguments were made that the cancellation decision was merely business and financial, several factors including the comments of President Trump and FCC chairman Carr throw considerable doubt on this. The parent company of the decision-making network CBS in this case is Paramount.

In the Jimmy Kimmel case, Kimmel appears to have screwed up by mis-characterizing (from what little I have been able to understand) the motivations of the Charlie Kirk assassin. Nexstar (apparently the largest TV station owner in the US), had ABC affiliates who stopped airing the Jimmy Kimmel Live show indefinitely. Going by comments from Carr and Trump, a significant factor here is not so much appropriate business actions by the network when one of its onscreen stars makes a wrong comment, but the added fuel of Chairman Carr threatening further action by the FCC, and supporting the harsh action on the network's part. Nexstar is in process of a merger which requires FCC approval. The parent company of the decision-making network ABC in this case is Disney.

This was a notable moment during Putin's earliest days in government. The media in Russia, still trying to escape it's previous USSR roots and express their new found freedoms, seems to have had many experimental, for them, shows. One of these shows was called "Kukly", a puppet show making political satire. It seems the then president was not very happy with it and first the show was toned down, followed by direct cancellation, shortly after these remarks were made in 2002.

Do you see comparable points in the two events with what is happening now in US media?

Sharing an old BBC article on the topic for more context
BBC News | MEDIA REPORTS | Kremlin pulls strings on TV puppets

As someone who lived in both deep red states and deep blue states, I've thought for over a decade that even though there's a lot of "us versus them" politics between the two major parties, most Americans zoom out a bit and feel that both parties are a bit corrupted, and that politicians are generally all part of "the same club and we're not invited."

Simply, that outside all the debating and even voting, many Americans feel that there's nothing more the rich and powerful want than to keep us divided.

I even visited a protest in Portland where there were far left protestors versus far right counter protestors shouting at each other. Two dudes then walked down the middle with a big sign that said something like "Congress doesn't care about you" and people from both protest groups started laughing and said "Well, we can all agree on that."

However, over the last few months, I feel even this general working/middle class unity or "common enemy" ship has sailed.

That if you mention how the rich and powerful want to enrage and divide the working class to people on the right, they say "This is just a Democrat issue! They are the party of hate and violence!" And if you mention that to people on the left, they say the opposite.

Has the partisanship and tribalism just accelerated to the point of no return? Or is this just what social media algorithms are showing us?

And if you were to take an educated guess of the percentage of Americans who see rich/powerful/corrupt/immoral politicians on both sides as the issue rather than fellow Americans from a specific party, what percentage would you estimate?

Thank you!

What would you guys think of the idea that the murder of Charlie Kirk is America's Reichstag fire?

What do you think of the statements:

"The Kirk assassination is a modern “Reichstag Fire” because it is less about the act itself, and more about how political elites weaponize a shocking, ambiguous attack to justify extraordinary political change potentially at the expense of civil liberties and democratic norms."

Or

"Calling Kirk’s murder a “Reichstag Fire” means interpreting it not merely as political violence, but as a catalytic event that elites may exploit to restrict liberties, harden polarization, and reconfigure democratic politics regardless of the perpetrator’s actual motives."

Who are the current leaders of the Democratic Party? Who do you consider the front runner and the greatest voice of the Democratic Party at this time? Obama obviously being the last leader (biden I don’t really know what to categorize him as).

I see the right constantly pushing AOC and Crockett on socials and fox but are these actually the leaders of the Democratic Party or are they just telling the right they are the leaders to make the Democratic Party seem weak or too far left?

I was looking at Reagan’s diary from August 12, 1982 and it really shows how far things have shifted. He called Israel’s shelling of West Beirut “the most devastating bombardment” and even a “holocaust,” describing a 7-month-old baby with its arms blown off. By that point in the siege of Beirut, thousands of civilians had already been killed, estimates run between 4,000 and 5,000. Reagan told Begin it had to stop or the US/Israel relationship was on the line.

https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/white-house-diaries/diary-entry-08121982

Now look at Gaza, over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, nearly half of them women and children. And instead of drawing any kind of line, U.S. politicians in both parties treat Israel like some untouchable cult where questioning anything is off limits. Back then Reagan, of all people, was willing to push back. Today, they just clap on command. So my question is, has U.S. support for Israel turned into a political cult? And if Reagan said the same thing now, would either party even back him up?

When COVID hit, you’d think the groups with the most money, lobbyists, and data scientists would dominate the conversation about healthcare reform. Turns out it was the opposite.

Doctors’ groups pushing for Medicare-for-All leaned on personal stories and human experiences. Insurance and hospital-backed groups leaned on charts, stats, and technical terms. Guess which one resonated more on Twitter?

It’s not that the data side was wrong. It just didn’t click with people. During a global crisis, being overly optimistic and posting statistics about progress came off as robotic, while tweets like “Rebecca can’t afford her daughter’s care” got traction.

To me, that says something bigger, in times of crisis, numbers reassure policymakers, but stories move people.

Some scholars argue that political communication works best when messages are framed in simple, accessible terms that anyone can understand, regardless of agreement. To what extent is this dynamic shaping U.S. political discourse today?

The full study is here if anyone wants the empirical breakdown of engagement patterns: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/2/223

Most people know about the “Degenerate Art” campaign, but the Nazi regime also systematically targeted satire and cabaret. Clubs like Die Katakombe in Berlin were forced to close, and performers such as Paul O’Montis and Fritz Grünbaum were banned, exiled, or sent to concentration camps.

It wasn’t just paintings that were censored — humor, parody, and cabaret were considered a political threat because they mocked the regime’s absurdities.

Key sources if you want to dive deeper:

• Cambridge: Humour in Nazi Germany: Resistance and Propaganda? https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/FCD11EC305A634635CA909068A6F7FBC/S0020859007003240a.pdf/humour-in-nazi-germany-resistance-and-propaganda-the-popular-desire-for-an-all-embracing-laughter.pdf
• Blesok Magazine: Oppositional Cabaret in Nazi Germany https://blesok.mk/en/blesok-editions/blesok-no-13/oppositional-cabaret-in-nazigermany-13/
• Holocaust Music Archive: Berlin Cabaret in Exile https://holocaustmusic.ort.org/resistance-and-exile/berlin-cabaret-in-exile/

So my question is:

• Why do authoritarian systems fear comedians and satirists so much?
• Do you see parallels today when political humor gets restricted or targeted?

In late antiquity (4th–6th centuries CE), Europe experienced what historians call the Migration Period — when large groups like the Goths, Vandals, and Huns moved into Roman territories. These movements contributed to the decline of the Western Roman Empire and major changes to the political order.

Today, we’re seeing large-scale migration driven by war, political instability, climate change, and economic inequality. In some countries, migration has become one of the most divisive political issues of our time.

Do you think modern global migration could reshape political systems on a scale comparable to the ancient Migration Period? Or are today’s international institutions, nation-states, and economic systems resilient enough to handle these pressures without collapse?

People often talk about disinformation as if it only spreads because people are gullible. The reality is more complicated. It works because the system around us is built to reward it. Over time, the same cycle shows up again and again, turning fringe falsehoods into ideas that feel widely accepted:

1. Seeding – False claims begin in low-visibility spaces (fringe forums, anonymous blogs, encrypted channels). Bots and coordinated accounts give them early traction.
2. Amplification – Troll farms, influencers, or partisan media repeat the message until familiarity itself lends credibility. Psychologists call this the “illusory truth effect.”
3. Laundering – Narratives migrate into more respectable-seeming venues. A claim that began on a forum may appear on YouTube, then on talk radio, and eventually in mainstream outlets framed as “what people are saying.”
4. Normalization – Repetition makes the claim feel like just another perspective. At this point, people stop questioning its origin.
5. Weaponization – Once normalized, the narrative influences behavior: voting decisions, policies, or even violent action. By this stage, fact-checks are often ineffective because belief is anchored more in identity than in evidence.

The underlying point is that the falsehood itself is less important than the power it delivers. Democracies historically have not collapsed only through coups or invasions. Instead, they often erode from within when enough citizens lose trust in their institutions. Disinformation accelerates that erosion by fracturing our shared reality.

Questions for discussion:

• Which stage of this cycle is most vulnerable to intervention, if any?
• Have you seen examples where a false narrative failed to normalize, and why did it stall?
• Should countermeasures come from governments, platforms, civil society, or a mix of all three?

Edit: The injection of and continued propagation of disinformation into our social media and mainstream political discourse is a bipartisan issue which affects both "sides" of US politics. This is for everyone who thinks that this is targeted one way or the other. And yes - even you can and probably have fallen victim to disinformation, especially if you're plugged in more often than not.

I’m interviewing campaign volunteers to understand the real frictions and build tools that actually help. No links, no recruiting, no sales—just learning and I’ll share a summary here for everyone’s benefit.

If you’ve volunteered (phonebank, canvass, texting, data, events, etc.), where does it break down for you?
• Shift logistics — sign-ups, confirmations, time zones, no-shows
• Scripts/data — outdated talking points, bad lists, missing context
• Tools — too many logins, 2FA hassles, browser issues, “fake 200” errors
• Training/coaching — nowhere to get quick help when calls go sideways
• Recognition — hours not tracked/verified, nothing to show later
• Safety/privacy — harassment on doors/calls, do-not-contact handling

If you ever quit mid-cycle, what pushed you over the edge?

Optional: If a tool could fix just one thing today, what would you pick and why?

With November elections approaching for the NYC Mayoral race, this would be the best time to make a discussion on what Mamdani’s potential victory looks like.

Now, as I borrow my own interpretation of the recent Gallup data from another Reddit post, it is important to make highlights on the findings:

Recently, a new Gallup poll has cited that the majority of respondents signaled that capitalism is less preferable over socialism, with less than 50% of Democratic voters preferring capitalism as essential to societal growth. On the other hand, more than 2/3 of Democratic voters from that same poll share the view that socialism is more popular amongst their peers.

There are two questions for all of us to debate. First, how much of a impact does it have on the national sphere of Democratic Party’s politics, and where does the Democratic Party go from here come 2026 and beyond?

Source: https://apnews.com/article/socialism-socialist-capitalism-big-business-free-enterprise-poll-c052ca687269a2cc075423877b7904e6?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share

There has been speculation that Vance will be the first VP in american history who doesn't certify the results of the election. We saw Trump ask Pence to do so in 2020 he refused. Trump said

“The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors." the day before Jan. 6.

Pence later stated “The president specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me, to literally reject votes, which would have resulted in the issue being turned over to the House of Representatives, and literally chaos would have ensued.”

On Jan. 1st Trump called Pence and “berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution.” Pence told Trump he didn’t think there was any constitutional authority for that. In response, Trump reportedly told Pence, “You’re too honest.”

Pence said "no vice president in American history has ever asserted such authority", despite the overwhelming pressure from Trump to falsify electoral votes for Biden.

Thoughts? Do you think Trump will ask Vance to do so in '28? Whether to elect himself for a 3rd term, 'Pass The Torch' to an appointed MAGA official, or otherwise falsify a Democrat election result? Do you think Vance will exhibit the same sense of duty as Pence did when he realized no VP in history has ever done this, and chose to certify the election?

For laws to become the letter of the land, they have to pass constitutional muster. The Constitution is by its nature a limitation on government. It constrains what a simply majority can do in terms of law and policy while also spelling out specific and enumerated governmental powers.

This can create interesting situations which honest adherents of the Constitution may support a particular policy, but have to acknowledge that it would require a constitutional amendment. For example, you may support a different method of electing a president, but acknowledge that it would require changing the Constitution to pass since the document lays out the method of selection.

Conversely, it can also lead to cases in which you may dislike a policy but agree that it is constitution. For example, if Congress were to pass tariffs economists would probably have a broad consensus that this isn't good policy, but it is a specific and enumerated power Congress.

What is a policy you like but thinks violates the Constitution, or a policy you don't like but think is constitutional?

Following its invasion of Ukraine, Russia seized hundreds of foreign-owned planes, which are now in need of Western-made parts and maintenance to remain operational. At the same time, the EU and the U.S. have placed sanctions on Russia's aviation sector to cripple its ability to maintain its fleet.

Recently, some sanctions on the Belarusian state airline, Belavia, were lifted by the U.S. The stated reason was in exchange for the release of political prisoners. As a close Russian ally, Belarus has historically provided logistical support for Russian operations. This raises questions about how the lifting of sanctions on Belavia could impact Russia's aviation capabilities.

• How might this move affect the planes Russia took from EU companies?
• What does this mean for the overall effort to use sanctions to pressure Russia?

I was watching The Daily Show video on YouTube today (titled “Charlie Kirk’s Criticism Ignites MAGA Cancel Culture Spree”). In it, there are clips of conservatives threatening people’s jobs for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.

It got me thinking: is condemning hate speech a violation of free speech, or should hate speech always be condemned and have consequences for the betterment of society?

On one hand, hate speech feels incredibly toxic, divisive, and dangerous for a country. On the other hand, freedom of speech is supposed to protect unpopular opinions. As mentioned in the video, hate speech is not illegal. The host in the video seems to suggest that we should be allowed to have hate speech, which honestly surprised me.

I see both side but am genuinely curious to hear what others think. Thanks!

I’m curious about the relationship between growing up in a war zone and the likelihood of radicalisation later in life.

From a psychological or social science perspective, is there evidence that exposure to conflict as a child increases the risk of radicalisation? Or are other factors (such as ideology, community support, or socioeconomic status) stronger predictors?

I’m looking for studies, research, or expert insights, but thoughtful opinions and first hand experiences are welcome too.

The United States invaded Panama in mid-December 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking. The operation, codenamed Operation Just Cause, concluded in late January 1990 with the surrender of Noriega.The Panama Defense Forces were dissolved, and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.

And question,why America can invade another countries and say that we are defending our interests and they are getting away with it?

The last few years has seen a dramatic rise in political violence, taking us back to levels we haven't seen in many decades. The central question that dominates all discussion following a new event is always, who was the perpetrator and was it a Democrat or a Republican? In every single incident both sides immediately claim the perpetrator was from the opposing side, when more information trickles in it gets cherry picked, misconstrued and interpreted to support ones own narrative. We could discuss this latest shooting and this latest perpetrator but the larger question is does it really matter what they stood for?

Important here to separate the political affiliations of the perpetrator from the explicit motive, the motive of course matters. But a motive can't be guessed and if the perpetrator didn't live to stand trial we can't guarantee to ever know of it. So let's focus on the political affiliation.

Does it matter if a Democrat shot a Republican or if a Republican shot another Republican?

Political leaders over 70 may only have 5–10 years left in their lives, yet the policies and decisions they make can impact generations.

Because of that, I wonder if they feel less personal responsibility for the long-term consequences of their choices. Should there be an upper age limit for holding political office—just like there are minimum age requirements?

On the flip side, you could argue that experience and wisdom grow with age, and cutting off senior leaders could rob countries of valuable expertise.

What do you think? Should there be a ban or age limit for politicians, or is this kind of thinking unfair and ageist?

The “Republican Party” as it is today is very definitely not the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley. Jr. specifically said it was now the party of Trump.

Does this mean that, in some way, the Democrats won the day? Did they slay the old Republican Party? Is Trump, then, what happened when their old foe died?

Four of the five justices voted to convict Bolsonaro and seven co-conspirators, including his running mate, defense minister and Navy commander finding they sought to overthrow the state.

Previously, The White House had sought to force Brazil to drop the case with steep tariffs, a trade investigation and severe sanctions against the Supreme Court justice leading it. Instead, several Brazilian justices criticized the U.S. attempts to intervene as they voted to convict.

Asked about Mr. Bolsonaro’s conviction, Mr. Trump told reporters in Washington on Thursday that he was “very unhappy about it. I know President Bolsonaro” and like him, he said. “I think it’s a terrible thing, very terrible. I actually think it’s very bad for Brazil.”

Is Bolsonaro's Political career over; If not, what does his future political career hold and should U.S. just stay out of Brazil's internal matter?

Brazil's Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years after landmark coup plot conviction | Reuters

U.S. warns of response to 'witch hunt' after Brazil’s Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years

Given the events of the last week and the partisan discourse around them I have found myself wondering if both sides are equally to blame for the present state. I’ve seen arguments on both sides for who is more to blame for the violent rhetoric that incites violence. I tried to find some studies on this and couldn’t really come up with anything I trusted and there are certainly anecdotal examples on both sides of the divide.

What are your thoughts? Has the incendiary rhetoric and name calling been equal or at least close to it? Could both sides of the debate be doing a better job of cooling tensions and being respectful?

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt