18 Days in Minnesota: How immigration agents killed 2 US citizens | CNN Politics

If you haven't seen this it's a brutal read.

With so much else going on in the world do you think topics like this are still on many people's minds?

This is a question I am taking from Nate Silver's "13 questions for the Center left."

I post it here because it has been something that has been bothering me a lot lately about the conflict on the left right now.

It seems to me that there is this group of figures like Silver, Jonathan Chait, Matt Yglesias, or even Derek Thompson who believe that there is a sort of intellectually pure technocracy under threat from both the left and right. These people essentially believe that there is a kind of seculer data driven truth "centerism" that is objectively correct and that all deviations from it are born of a passionate irrationality.

I find this idea very objectionable for a number of reasons, so I wanted to get a feel for how people think about it, particularly from people who affiliate with this idea.

Last year, Trump issued an executive order called NSPM-7 designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and asserted "The radical left causes tremendous violence."

Stephen Miller recently gave a speech stating that left wing terrorism "left to run its course, it always becomes a gulag." 

I acknowledge that left-wing violence exists and has increased over the past few years. However, research shows that most politically-motivated violence comes from the right, and that right-wing actors are significantly more violent than left-wing actors.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/

It's also rich coming from them because Trump incited the January 6th riots with his "stop the steal" rhetoric and he has refused to condemn the racist violence during the Charlottesville riots.

I am myself black, and asking this genuinely.

For those who use the "Everyone is an illegal immigrant since America is stolen land” argument about illegal immigration, how do you believe it applies to Black Americans who are descendants of slaves (such as me)?

During discussions about illegal immigration, people sometimes say, “Unless you’re Native American, you’re an illegal immigrant because you're on stolen land too.” I understand the point about the dispossession of Native peoples, but using it against Black Americans seems...absurd at best?

It also seems to me to assume the other person is white? Which would be close-minded in of itself.

For black people, our ancestors did not voluntarily immigrate. They were kidnapped, forced onto ships, enslaved, and denied basic rights (and citizenship!) for centuries.

I of course support treating immigrants humanely, regardless of status. That said, I just don’t believe this particular argument is historically accurate or persuasive.

Sooo.....can you please explain how this argument is supposed to work for black people descended from slaves?

Especially in a case where domestic manufacturers are uninterested in competing at the lower price end of the EV market.

Sometimes it seems like barriers to progress or rational evidence based policies are permanent, built in defects in the structure of the US government.

For instance, despite the massive, decades long body of serious, evidence based criticism from legal experts and scholars, economists, major medical associations, and policy institutes on the left and right criticizing the language and implementation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 its politically safer (and therefore more rational) for lawmakers to do nothing that would improve drug policy than to take on the self licking ice cream cone that is the DEA. This is because the structural design of the U.S. government ensures that once an agency is established by law its societal utility will rarely be re evaluated, allowing it to persist completely detached from its actual performance. This inertia is a flaw because its preventing change that experts and most citizens currently believe would be progress

What are some other problems with the mechanics of the system that seem to be there regardless of who has the majority

Was looking at the weekly thread, and someone mentioned John Rawls. I realized I hadn't read him, despite reading A LOT more civics than the average person. Which texts are foundational but ignored? Fiction or non-fiction welcome.

I'll start. I'll pick John Locke's Two Treatises, The Code of Hammurabi, and Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations. Locke because you can see the strengths and flaws of Enlightenment ideals so clearly. Hammurabi's Code because you can see both the progress of justice, and some of the root, shared ideas we have as humans even though it's an utterly alien culture. I was surprised reading the Wealth of Nations by how much he grapples with the concept of monopolies and private actors enriching themselves at the cost of the public; this doesn't come across at all when you talk to uber-Capitalists online.

Fiction, I'd go with In Dubious Battle, great work showing how messy union organizing was, and how it was necessary.

One of the biggest assumptions in the U.S. debate is that allowing Chinese EVs into the market would automatically destroy domestic manufacturing. Brazil's experience suggests something far more complicated.

Brazil reduced barriers to EV imports, allowing Chinese manufacturers to compete. At first, companies like BYD and GWM simply imported vehicles. But as demand grew, they didn't just keep exporting—they began investing in local production.

Instead of building entirely new factories, many Chinese manufacturers reused plants abandoned by legacy automakers.

BYD is taking over Ford's former industrial complex in Camaçari (Bahia).

GWM acquired Mercedes-Benz's former factory in Iracemápolis (São Paulo) and has already started local production.

Geely partnered with Renault for production and distribution in Brazil.

GAC announced investments in Brazil through a partnership with HPE Automotores, Mitsubishi's representative in the country.

Rather than replacing Brazilian industry, Chinese manufacturers are putting idle industrial assets back into operation.

Ford is probably the best example of why the debate is more complex than many assume.

Many people outside Brazil claim Ford left because of government policy. That simply isn't true.

Ford itself explained that the closure of its Brazilian passenger car plants was part of a global restructuring after years of weak profitability and excess production capacity in South America. Today Ford still sells vehicles in Brazil, but most are imported. Its only remaining manufacturing operation in South America is now the Ranger plant in Argentina.

Ford's strategy also changed globally. After nearly 50 years, the company discontinued the Fiesta in 2023 to focus on SUVs, pickups and electrification.

Ironically, even Ford increasingly depends on Chinese partnerships in some markets. The Ford Territory sold in Brazil is based on a vehicle developed through Ford's Chinese joint venture.

This isn't unique to Ford.

GM now sells electric vehicles in Brazil based on Chinese platforms developed with SAIC-GM-Wuling.

Toyota, Nissan and Honda have all expanded partnerships with Chinese manufacturers because China has become the global leader in batteries, EV supply chains and affordable electric vehicles.

Even Japanese automakers are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with Chinese manufacturers inside China itself.

Brazil also demonstrates something that often gets overlooked.

Competition forced traditional manufacturers to adapt instead of simply disappearing.

Peugeot and Citroën have grown after joining Stellantis.

Renault is moving toward higher-value products while partnering with Geely.

I’ve noticed a recurring trend regarding how political and non-political communities operate and moderate themselves on Reddit. Many subreddits explicitly labeled as socialist, communist, or broadly "leftist" have strict sidebar rules stating that liberals are not welcome, and expressing liberal viewpoints will result in an immediate permaban.

I want to approach this with some nuance. I understand the desire for ideological consistency. If a subreddit is dedicated to discussing Marxist theory or socialist organizing, the moderators likely don't want to spend their energy constantly re-litigating "Capitalism 101" with liberals who fundamentally disagree with their premise. In the context of Reddit, heavy moderation acts as a tool to maintain a highly specific community focus without threads being derailed.

On the other hand, liberal subreddits (including this one) generally pride themselves on being "big tent" communities that value free speech, open debate, and the marketplace of ideas. We often allow leftists, conservatives, and moderates to engage and debate, provided they follow basic civility rules.

This dynamic creates an asymmetry on the platform. Curious to hear your thoughts on:

• How do you view this subreddit dynamic? Do you see leftist exclusivity as a necessary moderation tool for their specific goals, or is it a sign of ideological fragility?

• Is there a strategic disadvantage on Reddit? By keeping our subreddits open, do liberals risk having our platforms co-opted, brigaded, or overwhelmed by those further left (or right) who do not share our foundational values?

• Should liberal subreddits adopt stricter boundaries? Would we benefit from drawing harder lines to foster purely liberal discussions, or does the act of banning dissenting ideologies fundamentally contradict what it means to be a liberal?

interested to hear where everyone draws the line between maintaining a healthy spaces for discourse.

EDIT: I just wanted to get other people's thoughts (I personally love the marketplace of ideas, but I thought it was interesting that meme/non political subreddits have taken this 'no liberal stance')

Full disclosure, I'm personally monolingual. However, I remember talking to someone on Discord a few years ago. This person was from Mexico and traveled to the Netherlands that year, and he talked a lot about how lucky Europeans were to live somewhere with so much history and culture. To that end, he highlighted how amazed he was that so many Europeans knew three or four languages, whereas most Americans only speak English.

Honestly, I can't help but wonder if that's a key reason why we Americans are so ignorant about world affairs and therefore keep voting for Trump and people like him. I'm aware that there are historical reasons why Europeans needed to learn more languages than Americans to get by. But a language is not just a writing system - it's a way of seeing the world. And if English is seen as the global "default language", that gives Americans even more of a superiority complex when we do travel abroad.

I think the monolingual culture in the US is symptomatic of a country where most people have no idea (or desire to know) about the rest of the world. The rest of the world has better health care than us, the rest of the world doesn't let their kids get slaughtered in their classrooms, and the rest of the world sees us as monsters for those reasons and many others. In that regard, the Iran War is just the flavor of the month.

Europeans take so much effort to learn English and sometimes the languages of neighboring countries. Hell, most of them speak English better than most Americans. The least we can do is return the favor. Maybe then this country will be less ignorant and less inclined to think we're exceptional in any way other than exceptionally evil.

For the sake of argument, let's say that you were President and could sign mandatory European language education into law with the stroke of a pen, no matter how much Republicans tried to obstruct it.

Something I've been thinking about alot as the gambling epidemic continues to grow and get worse and worse, and affect younger and younger people all the time. I'm not one to dump over everyone's parade, and I'm in favor of legalized vices such as gambling, but I think like with tobacco, it causes so much widespread and irreparable harm to both individuals who get addicted and partake in it, as well as to their love ones indirectly

Would you support gambling "variants" of laws and regs such as the Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act, Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, and Master Settlement Agreement? Effectively the idea would be to ban all forms of advertising legal gambling and all loopholes to get around it.

For the record, I also think this should be done for alcohol and marijuana (most states that have legal weed already do this, though), but I imagine that would be considered a bit more radical around here, so I digress on that, for the focus to be on gambling.

In my state, some of the worst MAGA years for legislation was 2023, 2024

But, it's only gotten worse

My Midwest state has a maga Republican Governor, AG, state supreme court, state House and Senate, both maga Republican us senators, and majority us reps

The people and the candidates demanded the most radically persecutory and anti medicine politics, like many so called former swing states

But after this long, I think we're just another cog in this maga country

Libs complain about Dem politicians all the time and still vote for them. But one conservative does this about MAGA, and everyone says it's over.

Dem voters compromise with MAGA's central platforms

But for ten years, I've heard Dems insist it's almost over. We're starting to wake up. They're sick of Trump now.

It's like they live in a totally different country

The people, IMHO, are getting what they want. That's the problem with this country. And they're glad they did this, and they'd do it again

If we do manage to pass some sort of universal healthcare system that is desirable, what are next ideas to champion after getting past the biggest hurdle ?

I don't mean "what do politicians do?" I mean what you think politics fundamentally is.

I think this question is pretty straightforward and doesn't need further elaboration.

The question was not straightforward and does need further elaboration. I am asking what you thought 2026 would look like exactly ten years ago in July, so before Donald Trump won his first presidential election. But if you want to give a before and after to give the full scope of your perception of the future that's totally fine.

Pezeshkian is the president of Iran and a member of the reformist faction, an Islamic liberal political faction in Iran according to Wikipedia. What are your views on how he is doing as president so far, his domestic and foreign policies? Do you think he handled the Iran crisis well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_reformists

Much how the right said calling everyone a Nazi would come back to bite the left, did they help bring socialism back into the zeitgeist?

Edit: i want to askaconservative this question but idk how to phrase it

Russia argued that Ukraine’s military alignment, Western support, and possible NATO integration threatened Russian security. The United States has similarly treated Iran’s nuclear capacity, military development, regional alliances, and influence over strategic waterways as threats warranting sanctions, military pressure, and now direct strikes.

This does not make the cases morally or legally identical.

But do they reflect a similar great-power logic: that a powerful state may use coercion or force when another country’s military development and alliances are seen as threatening the regional order it wants to preserve?

If the logic is materially different, what is the principled distinction?

It is a topic that is hotly debated in Germany right now. Merz' successor was for a while thought to be Jens Spahn. But now it came to light that Spahn and his husband have taken the services of a surrogate mother in the US for cash. The CDU are positioned that surrogacy is forbidding as it would open a flesh-market in which women may exploit their own bodies for money. While surrogacy without exchange of money or goods is also forbidden and shall remain so in the eyes of the CDU. Jens Spahn was forced to resign voluntarily by public pressure and internal pressure.

I think it does clash a bit. Women shall have the right for self determination in a similar way a woman in Germany can became a prostitute without any legal dangers.

For the controversy I am sharing the following links: Each I have checked for their auto translate. If you encounter a paywall, let me know and I will post a link with a free translation

Jens Spahn: Privates, Skandale, Rücktritt – CDU-Politiker im Steckbrief

Jens Spahn: Die Skandale vor seinem Rücktritt – Maskendeals, Villenkauf und Antidemokraten - DER SPIEGEL

Auf dem Höhepunkt stolpert Spahn über altes Skandal-Muster - FOCUS online

Rubio & co released a 99-pahe report today that names Cuba as the top sponsor of left wing terrorism and the largest influence of left wing politics.

It also, in my opinion, revived McCarthyism with a blacklist of 43 current politicians, groups, and activists that are the leaders of this new wave of "American Communism" and the undefined "left wing terrorism". Everyone from Mayor Bass to the DSA, Mamdani, George Floyd, and Ilhan Omar are targeted for their extreme left wing activism.

Is this a new red scare? Is it the start of a crackdown on leftist activism? Are we going to see arrests of big names

Link to the report: https://www.state.gov/cuba-the-capital-of-21st-century-communism

Link to summary from Ken Klippenstein https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/after-political-terrorism-event-us

*that you're not a part of

Link: https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2079261483800637650

Link to the full interview where he talked about it for those curious: https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-press/2026/07/20/full-transcript-michigan-democratic-senate-candidate-abdul-el-sayed-01004833

And for more on MTG and her policies, here is a profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene

so Trump recently put a 50% tariff on canada, and he keeps threatening to either do tariffs or cut off trade with various countries. But didn’t the supreme court say he can’t do that? At this point, shouldn’t people just treat his tariffs and threats as “old man yells at clouds”?