Like Im growing tired that My house, my car, my livilihood,my grocerires , my value and function in society, my entire ability to make ends meet and survive in the world. Is entirely depedent on the financial decisions of people who dont know me or care about me.

Like its genuienely surreal. My salary, my mortgage, my investments ,my very existence and ticket to be in this society. Is entirely based upon the notion that someone buys my labor.

Through no fault of my own, i could loose my career tomorrow. And society would toss me away.

“The President on 30+ separate occasions told the American people that the war with Iran was over, and yet you come here to ask for $87 billion with $67 billion going to the Pentagon and ongoing conflict operations. So the question is this, have we won the war giving your emergency request for 87 billion no basis or did the President lie to the American people 30+ different times?”

Now this hypothetical question would most likely be asked by democratic senator, but it begs the question: is it fair to ask this?

Taylor Farms lobbied to delay the FDA's new Food Traceability Rule by 30 months, arguing the supply-chain tracking requirements were too costly and complex for businesses to implement.

Given that Taylor Farms is now linked to the ongoing Cyclospora outbreak, is this the kind of deregulation you generally support?

Do you view rolling back these tracking rules as a necessary win for business efficiency, or a step too far that risks public health oversight?

What do you think are the most significant questions of fact (as opposed to opinion or morality or priority or similar) where the left and the right have significant disagreement?

How could those disagreements be resolved through evidence?

I ask politely for good faith in your responses, i.e. let's not talk about straw man positions or fringe internet kooks but factual positions widely held by a substantial (say 1/3 or more sort of level) of left or right wingers.

Edit: fascinatingly almost none of the top level responses to this are what I would describe as disagreements of fact, they are all about moral frameworks. Perhaps this type-mismatch is part of the reason we talk past each other?

This thing bugged me from the start. "MAGA" is supposed to be about America First - not only "no more wars", but also "I don't care about other countries, no matter what their perception of us is".

First Trump rambled on about Canada. Then Trump rambled on and on about "Greenland" and so forth.

The "he's joking" doesn't fly, I think he has started a fantasy of global conquest. This is a pattern of behavior from him.
And obviously the Iran war. It's that same attitude that has motivated him in his 2nd term.

But that was the motivation he got from invading Venezuela (which is also another example of global conquest but it was actually serious).

Are people telling that in his ear ? Or is he really in to global conquest. Has any noticed his attitude change on this policy ?

Saudi Arabia assisted in 9/11 and the killed A Saudi journalist.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-saudi-arabia-nuclear-program-uranium-6bb82164c890a7dc335cbfc2c628a3da

Correction: Saudi Journalist ordered by the crown prince.

It had been my impression that the focus of Donald Trump‘s immigration efforts, on which he ran for the presidency, was to remove criminally violent immigrants who also did not enter the country legally and did not have a legal right to be here. Am I wrong in that understanding? If I am not wrong, are you speaking up against what is happening now? If I am wrong, why do you want non-violent forcibly be removed from the country?

For those who don’t know: The Byrd Rule is a Senate procedure that prevents non-budgetary policies from being added to budget reconciliation bills.

Obviously this reconciliation faces many hurdles in the Senate and that’s before they even start working on what the package will fully entail.

And personally I see no way to pass the parts of the Save Act like required ID through budget reconciliation making it lose its essence.

Even granting that some states provide a free voting ID, the SAVE Act itself does not appear to require states to issue a qualifying ID free of charge or cover the cost of supporting documents such as birth certificates or name-change records. It provides for free access to copying equipment in certain government buildings, but that is not the same as guaranteeing a cost-free path to obtaining the required documents.

Should a federal law imposing these requirements also guarantee that every eligible citizen can comply without paying for documents, replacements, transportation, or other necessary steps or are those costs an acceptable personal responsibility?

At what point does requiring someone to spend money solely to satisfy a voting prerequisite become functionally too close to paying for access to the ballot?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/isps-long-nightmare-of-having-to-list-all-the-fees-they-charge-is-finally-over/

Title. I am a big comics enjoyer. If you read comics, which are your favorites?

Here's my list, in no particular order, and I'm sure I'll leave some of my favorites out:

The Long Halloween
Batman Year One
Watchmen
The Dark Knight Returns
Lazarus (ongoing)
The Wicked and the Divine
The Walking Dead
The Power Fantasy (ongoing)

What are yours? If you're reading an ongoing series, which ones?

Where do you want to be? When you voted in 2024, what were your aspirations for the next 4 years? Have the last one and a half years been what you expected

I think he's a disaster, and I think he's not really a conservative, at least not in the sense that we've understood that word to mean since after WWII. I'm curious to see how he's going to be received once he has to try and take the party reigns away from Trump.

Is this article legit? It says the officials would not release the final scores and there was no scoreboard. Sounds fishy to me. What’s your opinion?

https://www.notus.org/national/america250-civics-competition

When I think about what has been the MOST destructive situations in our 250 year history which has cost the most American lives and taxpayer dollars over the last 100 years I really can't think of anything more harmful, destructive and wasteful than our wars. All while China has kept itself out of major military conflicts since WWII.

We also are breeding the next generation of terrorists by our actions overseas in the middle east. So now our children will be targets as they grow up and travel abroad one day. Terrorist cells will also grow here in America over time.

But when I hear from Conservatives they will praise Trump over and over again for his fight on illegal immigration and fraud. All while he pardons one convicted felon after another who has been found guilty of fraud and many other financial crimes. And as he spends billions of our hard earned tax dollars and vital resources which are running dangerously low on the most destructive situation for the US (based on history) and a totally unnecessary war?

How is this making America Great?

Had an idle thought. There are plenty of slowly dying communities in parts of most western countries.

Usually getting unemployment benefits involves some reciprocal commitment to either directly perform public service where you live, or to show that you are actively trying to get employed.

Numerically, most unemployed people live in cities where they are not needed (otherwise it would be easy to find employment.) In dying communities, an influx of subsidised adults would be a source of spending and potential employees or new businesses.

Is it unreasonable to say "we'll subsidise your living expenses, but you have to choose to move one of these towns. If you want to stay in your home city, fine, but support will be limited."?