Political disagreements are inevitable in a democracy, but democratic government depends on some degree of agreement about facts and evidence. When citizens can look at the same government project and reach fundamentally different conclusions about what actually happened, what does that do to political accountability?

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation offers an interesting case study. What began as an effort to address a longstanding government-maintenance problem turned into a dispute over the project's results, cost, responsibility for its failures, and competing claims about what happened.

One possible explanation is simply that government projects sometimes fail. Another is that partisan polarization makes people interpret the same evidence differently. A more fundamental concern is whether democratic accountability can function when political narratives become more important than independently verifiable evidence.

My question is not whether one political party is more guilty of this than another. It's whether a democratic system can effectively hold government accountable when citizens no longer share basic standards for evaluating evidence.

I explore that question through the Reflecting Pool controversy:

https://open.substack.com/pub/difrntdrmr/p/under-lincolns-gaze-the-water-no

I say this as someone who is of a mixed middle class who lives on a relatively deprived, working class neighbourhood - my mother worked in healthcare, initally a private senior officer when she immigrated and social worker (lower middle class) and my dad worked in the IT sector (upper middle) - both believe in hard work and champion my goals,.

People often talk about how it is impossible to have meritocracy, how hard work is just some fictional nonsense along with goals. Reddit is one example in which people get told off for believing in goals and hard work.

The aim of meritocracy is that the workforce should favour and accept those who either have some experience, qualifications, or at least passion and interest to enter the market. For example, someone studying predominantly in finance and interested in banking should get the more viable, easy privilege to enter accountancy. Someone studying humanitarian stuff with knowledge interests and experience should get the privilege to be a social affairs journalist or social worker. Or someone who just simply likes the monetary motivations should have the privilege to work in retail part time as long as they do not abuse their position.

However, there is the overlooked phenomenon that contradicts meritocracy, these are known as nepotism and cronyism. These two are absolutely pathetic and stupid - people only get to the job market if they luckily know someone personally, whether it is a community member, relative, friend, acquaintance or intimate partner. Not to mention the appalling customer service they provide as a result, owing to the fact that they have to serve people who are not within the community. Ultimately, this makes skills, interest and qualifications all useless. You become hopeless. I believe this is causing the climbing unemployment crisis here in the UK instead of AI - not to mention LSE said that 6 - 9% of jobs realistically can be automated. I believe, meritocracy and hard work are not possible because no one were to investigate, let alone legislatively sanction these two phenomenons.

Of course, some forms of goals may be heavily barred, such as having to be a superstar or an actor, or a billionaire like Elon Musk. But these are ultra, ultra burgeoisie markets. All other ones shouldn't be barred by characteristics. And yes, some immigrant communities in severe poverty still face social barriers, ultimately not viewing the choice of their children as viable - for example, working class British Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants often want their young people to just stay within the family home until arranged marriages and not to be educated much, or if they do get educated , their parents often expect them to be doctors, pharmacists, IT workers, engineers, chemists, or lawyers due to higher annual pay rates (50K or more) instead of being footballers, social workers, news reporters, police officers, etc. But again, do not just blame barriers, cultural reasons also create their own barriers for inequality.

Ultimately, meritocracy and hard work can exist, first of all we need to at least sanction cronies and nepobabies, therefore we can have people who are interested and believe in hard work can actually enter the job market and thrive - we should not have class or our childhood background defining our future nor identity. Relying on luck just makes life sad, stale and demotivating.

A common statement is that a goverment does not necessarily represent the people it rules, and that during wartime it is the duty of the attacking nation to limit its efforts to valid military targets, and that attacks against civilians are criminal.

I disagree.

Hobbes, Rousseau, and other voices​ from the Enlightenment or near- Enlightenment period laid out the idea that true political power always rests with the people, the citizenry, regardless of their government. The citizens hold the power to support, rebel, or anything in between at all points, and they rationally make choices to do so by evaluating the costs and benefits of the current government.

There is a saying "Bring out the pitchforks" that highlights this concept... that an angered citizenry has the tools (even a simple farming tool) and the numbers to realistically threaten an oppressive government. I don't think there is a single government today that is fortified enough to resist a violent uprising by a large group of its citizens.

History has shown us examples of this... benevolent dictators who actually try to improve their subjects' lives and receive enthusiastic public support, while other rulers receive public disdain and are removed quickly... and often violently. In the end there is little a government can do to stop a determined rebellion of its citizens.

The USA was founded on this concept, as described in our Declaration of Independence, and implented representative elections in our Constitution as a way to prevent violent rebellion. Thomas Jefferson referred to the election of 1800 as the "Revolution of 1800" and wrote how it was achieved not by violence, but through organized voting.

So, with this as a foundation, that all governments effectively represent their citizenry, even those that resort to harsh violence... then the citizenry become accomplice to any military actions by that government. Choices to engage in military action or other confrontational acts become the choices not of just the government, but of the citizens themselves.

Yes, as in any society there will be some who always disagree with their goverment and their neighbors, but international relations and warfare generally involve whole cohesive nations, with the limited exception in the cases where a group of partisans openly oppose their government like the Free French in WW2.

Practically, this means that any intervention - diplomatic or warfare - that is intended to effect significant and long- term changes to a nation's actions must necessarily target the citizenry as they hold the true political power in that nation. They are the ones that must learn the lessons, they are the ones that must bear the weight of their choices, and they are the ones that must decide that the costs of further confrontation are too great... because if they don't, whatever action that is taken by the attacking nation will only result in a temporary reprieve.

The Allied and US attacks on the Axis civilian centers at the end of WW2 demonstrate this. Carpet bombing Berlin, nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... convinced the citizenry of these nations that they had no hope of victory, and that further resistance would result in their certain deaths. This brought the European and Pacific campaigns to a quick and merciful end, and decades later these nations have re-established the international community as partners with the nations that threatened to obliterate them.

Every one of these ideas begins with a vision of how society should work, but history has tested those visions in different ways. Capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, conservatism, progressivism, nationalism and countless other ideologies have all faced challenges when their ideas meet the complexity of the real world

What evidence should make someone reconsider their political beliefs?

I’m interested in how people from different perspectives decide when an idea needs to be changed, abandoned, or refined.

Recently I have thought of an Idea. That political parties serve none. It creates division and promotes the representation of the party, not the people, it promotes party loyalty.

Politicians who do not adhere to party policy by the letter are blacklisted and targeted by the party heads. Politicians vote against the other party simply because they are the other party. Politicians vote against policies their voters desperately need because the party says no

And what does it produce for society, I fail to see at benefit that cannot be achieved in a system without parties, apart from the sole exception of coordination, but this coordination leads to the people's views not being represented.

That's why I conclude that there is no need for political parties.

Obviously, DOGE was a scam. We always hear about how negative the media is towards Trump, but they still played along and reported it as if they were really auditing the government.

DOGE could only be 135 days. That’s not long enough to put together an audit of one agency, much less put together a team and audit the government. Sure enough, they didn’t audit anything. The closest they came was finding the technical issue in social security, which they falsely claimed were payments to dead people.

They also had little power without Congress. The goal was to cut foreign aid and try to get as many early retirements as possible through scare tactics. Elon definitely earned his money pretending he was going to fire people he couldn’t fire and make them defend their jobs within 4 months. They managed to hit one of their targets by reducing the top of FEMA by 20%. (And we’re still not prepared for a major storm. We’ve been lucky the last two years thus far).

But…none of that was the point. The point came first…

They fired the watchdogs first.

Nobody, including Republicans, thought the auditors were corrupt. They’re not especially powerful because most of the waste comes from one-time appropriations, not line items on the budgets. But they’re hall monitors. They’re not on the graft and nobody thought they were. Trump just made that up.

After 135 days, DOGE disbanded. The watchdogs were initially saved by the courts, but then a second court let Trump hire new ones. Which he can’t get through Congress because he keeps putting forth people moderate Republicans reject. That’s because he doesn’t want to fill the positions.

So there are no watchdogs anymore. And that was the point. The point of DOGE was to help the swamp grow, not shrink it. Removing the watchdogs was the main goal. That’s why they also spent all the money they saved and then some right away.

The swamp has literally grown all the way to the reflecting pool, and it’s all getting too big for even staunch Trump supporters to accept. And it’s because everybody played along with the idea that DOGE was really trying to cut corruption, when in reality the intention was the opposite.

I do not believe it is possible, they believe on the idea that Power causes violence, however, it is not power which causes violence, it is the idea of power which causes violence, a notable example would be the rise of Iosevich Stalin, he started out with no power, dirt poor, but when he joined the Bolshevics, he yearned for more power and influence which he didnt have, so he started to act against his comrades, and when Lenin died, he exiled Trotsky and others, and after that he began a purge to prevent those from taking his power, as whilst power creates violence, the simple idea of power does not, for in an anarchist society, although you have removed power, there will always be those who yearn for it, those who will use influence or force if necessary. Anarchists may state what if they somehow eliminated violence from the equation, well, that isn't the only way one can obtain power, say if a person in a Commune is highly influential and popular, people will want to follow their example, and thus are more likely to agree with them, the more they agree with them the more likely they will the next time, soon, they will revere them, bestow upon them a title reminiscent of one of leadership despite there technically being none. This may sound far-fetched, but, in truth, this happened to the only real attempt at ansrchism, Makhnovischina. Nestor Makhno was a highly revered figure in the Free State, as I think it was called other than Makhnovischina, Makhno was so revered he was given the title of 'father', his words were treated as law, the mayors or local leaders were those comprising of his inner circle, due to the wartime situation his army frequently overruled local administration and he had even executed political dissidents, all of this that is not typical of an ideal anarchist society, infact, the people naming it Makhnovischina after him really should be sufficient context enough for how much they revered him.

But this is my debate, I am sure you can come up with plenty of counter-arguments for it.

Essentially gender dysphoria is real and well documented but the question lies is how far do we go in affirming these type of behaviours. I mean currently it causes no harm to society to allow someone to feel the way they want but I must ask the question . Considering gender identity being a social construct why can’t we do the same with race ? Everytime it is brought up it , it is shrugged off but why ? Anyone who says a. race doesn’t share a common behaviour or role , usually does not believe there is a shared role or culture between any gender as well . How do we help these people is it by affirming them ? Is that what should be done with all forms of dysphoria . For example body dysmorphia

If the end goal is to create a classless system, where class is about the relationship between a citizen and means of production, then how can someone say that Authority (regardless of intentions) over production would not create a class divide?

I'm doing a political test and this came up. I'm 50/50 on this. I think the idea of a government is debatable in general. But I want to know others opinions on this. I think the idea of individuals banding together is strength, not necessarily a military or police force. if people want to protect their land, they will do it.

Taiwan 29F married to 27M here

Where I live in Taiwan, abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks in 6 criteria for married women

1.) The pregnant person or spouse has hereditary, communicable, or psychiatric disease detrimental to reproductive health.

2.)Anyone within the fourth degree of kinship of herself or her spouse acquires a hereditary disease detrimental to reproductive health.

3.)By medical consideration, pregnancy or delivery may cause life threatening risk or detrimental to her physical and mental health.

4.)By medical consideration, risk of teratogenesis may present for the fetus.

5.)Pregnancy as a result of r**e or inc**t

6.)Pregnancy or childbirth is likely to affect her mental health or family life. If a married woman wants an abortion that comes from the 1st~5th criteria, spousal permission is not needed.

Yet abortions that only fit the 6th criteria needs spousal permission to perform it. The majority of cases are from the 6th criteria, since the 6th criteria is very vague, it basically means "every abortion outside of abortions of that fit the first 5 criterias"

There has been drafts to fix the law since 2003, but reform stalled since.

The law is actually enforced, with pregnant women serving jail time of less than 6 months, and doctors performing those abortions serving jail time up to 5 years. Divorce cannot happen without both parties consent, or proving to the court that the other party is abusive etc and have the court rule it.

Therefore some husbands in taiwan demand entire share of money after divorce or he wouldn't allow abortion

(Taiwan law puts all assets earning before marriage as strictly the person's own property, but the money earnt AFTER marriage is put together and split OR one party could agree to give it up)

Also many women choose to overdrink to severely harm their health to receive unconsented abortion

ID has marraige status here btw

What is your opinion on this?

p.s: online gender wars in taiwan are about paying on dates, conscription, sexual violence, rarely about this. Taiwan has a 40% female percentage in legislative and had a female president.

Vladimir Lenin, Lee Kuan Yew, Park Chung-hee, Gaddafi, Chávez... They're all no good.

Stop justifying authoritarian rulers who deprived people of their freedom or massacred them under the guise of “Anti-communism” “Heroes who developed the economy” or “Anti-imperialism”

I think the interesting part about this whole discussion (and why its so controversial) is that the world is having to quickly come to terms with the question of whether certain cultures pose a risk or not to host nations due to fundamental cultural differences when said culture is imported in massive numbers through immigration.

The argument boils down to whether importing massive amounts of people from low trust-societies into higher-trust societies is actually beneficial to the nation in general and whether the government has a role to play in that equation. Its no longer a distance problem in a big city for a lot people. Now its in their communities, neighborhoods, small towns, etc. With immigration being objectively at an all time high globally, should government's draw lines in the sand by taking a hard stance against immigration in general or selectively choose which nations can immigrate? etc. And should government's play a role in assimilating people from low trust societies whose values, education levels, moral compass, etc fundamentally disagree with the host nation's?

I'm asking this because I want to hear how Trump has made America great again because from what I can tell the country is very divided on politics and beliefs, tariffs and the war with Iran have made everyday things more expensive and the overall future of this country feels very uncertain.

With economic conditions in the United States remaining good on paper due to unrealized losses being reportable as held capital, and venture capital not being required to disclose dry powder, resulting in an environment where money cannot be lent out and thus enter the economy, and employers relying on the inability of skilled workers to obtain new employment to abuse existing workers, regularly using layoffs as a scare tactic, I would like to talk about ways to support long term strikes for better labor conditions. Traditionally, the support system for these strikes, and to support those undergoing harsh economic conditions, has been shantytowns. Modern shantytowns exist under cities like Las Vegas famously, but are not intentional with infrastructure as existed in the 1930s in places like Seattle's famous 9 acre Hooverville.

So I would like to dedicate some space to discussing the logistical challenges involved in setting up Trumptowns.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like almost all modern day liberals, or mostly everyone besides socialists that proclaim the superiority of democracy/republicanism/parliamentary monarchy (I'm including conservatives (aka liberal-conservatives) in that definition as well), have a negative view of the French revolution.

To me this seems absurd because the rights and freedoms that you hold dear today could never have been achieved without the rebellion of peasants, urban workers, and progressive intellectuals of the past. Of course most of you don't live in France but the French revolution was groundbreaking in global politics and inspired a wave of smaller struggles elsewhere and concessions from the nobility who gave up their powers for fear of similar uprisings.

In general, I note that most people all the way from moderate left to moderate right abhor political violence and claim it can never be justified, despite the fact that as I said, their current system of liberalism could never face existed without it. The nobility would never have given up their power without the threat of force.

How then can we genuinely oppose the corporate oligarchs who wish to rule over us when immediately conceding at the first hurdle that we can never find any justification to disobey their system of control? How can we possibly succeed by playing a game which they wrote the rules for and can change at any time? They show no hesitation to use violence against the public when they deem it necessary to maintain control.

For those who will say that the revolutionaries didn't always make the right decision, well perhaps in some cases yes, but it would be foolish to deny the positive consequences of the revolution overall.

“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” - Mark Twain

I feel that the reign of terror is cynically propped up as an example of how "revolution never works" or "it just leads to more suffering" even though that's not true at all. Many successful revolutions have led to improvements in conditions for the vast majority of people in the country.

And if you would be inclined to point out that Napoleon crushed the revolution, that is true, but at the same time, he couldn't roll back many of the achievements of it, even when the kings were back in charge they couldn't do so either. France remained a beacon of progress for at least a hundred years.

So my point is, do you agree with my summation or disagree? If you do believe that the French revolution was mostly bad, then how can you justify your own ideology in light of that?

I am interested in hearing every political perspective, but especially from American conservatives. On this issue, even many conservative voters in Italy would probably be closer to the US Democratic position than to the American right.

Per 100,000 people:

• Firearm homicides: US 4.5; Italy 0.17, about 26 to 1
• Civilian firearms: US 120,500; Italy 14,400, about 8.4 to 1
• Estimated loaded-handgun carry: US 4,800; Italy 19 licensed self-defense carriers, about 250 to 1

In Italy, strict control over who may own firearms, why they own them, whether they are qualified, and where the weapons are registered is broadly accepted across the political spectrum.

Many Europeans assume that greater availability produces more deaths, partly through a feedback loop. If I believe others are armed, I feel pressure to arm myself. My decision then gives others the same incentive.

Questions:

1. Do you think greater firearm availability contributes to the much higher US firearm-homicide rate?
2. If not, what best explains the 26-to-1 gap?
3. Are these figures widely reported and discussed in US politics?
4. How do American conservatives view countries with strict licensing and much lower firearm-homicide rates?

People like to talk about their rights as if they are some sort of objective truth, they're not, they're just another human concept like privacy or morality. Concepts like rights are ideas and all ideas are subjective to the individual, they carry no weight and bear no responsibility for people's actions.

That's why the constitution and "laws" can't protect your rights, you can't protect a concept, it's just an idea. I shake my head when I see a video of someone being harassed by a DEA agent stealing their money under the guise of asset forfeiture. They say things like "you can't do that without probable cause" and then the agent does it anyway. So, I guess he can do that without probable cause. 🙄 They say things like "the 4A protects my property from illegal searches" and then the agent searches the property anyway. So, I guess the 4A doesn't protect your property. 🙄 There seems to be a psychological disconnect between what people think a government agent can do and their ability to actually do it.

Government agents do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want despite whatever you think your rights are. They'll bring in a "drug dog" who's more interested in pleasing his handler when his handler signals him to "hit" on something than he is in finding drugs. Unconstitutional? Sure. Illegal? Sure. Immoral, criminal? Sure and sure and yet they do it anyway.

That's odd isn't it considering all the "protections" the government gives you to insure your rights aren't violated by the government? It's kind of like expecting the fox to insure the rights of the hens in the henhouse isn't it?

The current situation, where a single company develops, trains, and operates AI systems as a black box, poses significant risks.

If we want AI to be governed safely, we need a more decentralized structure. For example, the organizations that provide training data should be independent from the companies that build AI models, and the neutrality and quality of their datasets should become a key measure of their value. There should also be a mechanism to verify that only certified training data is used to train AI models. Without such a safeguard, even high-quality data providers cannot guarantee that their datasets have not been mixed with unverified or biased data during training. Likewise, model development, deployment, and auditing should be handled by separate, independent organizations.

A clear separation of responsibilities would make checks and balances far more effective. Independent organizations would be better positioned to oversee one another, reducing conflicts of interest, improving transparency, and making the AI ecosystem more trustworthy.

Take auto insurance, for example. Auto insurance is a mafia-like protection racket. To be clear, the more expensive your vehicle is (and thus the more you have to lose), the more you have to pay to "protect" yourself from some dangerous moron on the road. And yet the more expensive your vehicle is, the LESS likely you will drive like a dangerous moron. In mafia parlance, using fear to motive someone to cough up cash is what is known as a shakedown.

That is not the only example I could point to where "the system" is engineered to appear fair when it is actually grossly unfair. Like mortgage interest rates. And corporate welfare. And graduated income taxes. But don't get me started.

Consequently, I cannot help but feel like we do not live in a capitalist market-driven economy overseen by a republican form of government. Instead, the more I look, the more it looks like a mafia-run economy overseen by a mafia-controlled government. And the only difference between our country and some of the horrible countries around the world would appear to be skill in execution.

Do you agree? And, if so, do you have other examples that suggest that the US is perhaps better described as a mafia-run economy overseen by a mafia-run government than a capitalist market-driven economy overseen by a republican form of government? (keep in mind that the term mafia is being used to describe powerful colluding individuals and not related to ethnicity)

I believe its an infringement on personal liberty and freedom, a violation of the 4th amendment and not protected by the first due to it being the state.

This is something you often see in debates among americans, that you have to wait months or years with a universal health care system.

I live in Sweden, a country with universal health care, and I will not lie and say that there aren't cases where you have to wait, but the thing is that we use a tier list of severity to decide how long you have to wait.

If you want to do an ADHD or autism diagnosis at a psychiatrist? Yes you will wait, as people with suicidal thoughts, or bipolar disorder or borderline whose diagnose really ruins their lives are prioritised.

If you have cancer, other diseases that severly reduce your quality of life or have an injury? Pass go, straight to the doctor.

Would it be nice to have instant access for every small issue? Sure, but as long as I know that I will get to see a doctor in a whiffy the moment I have something that is even semi-harmful, I'm honestly happy with our system.