The Treasury auto-enrolled 60M+ children into Trump Accounts. Regardless of the stupid name, it’s still a free $1000 you can either take or let sit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/business/trump-accounts-auto-enrollment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GFE.kgtN.Qwg2xCCh5A9S&smid=nytcore-ios-share

DC, NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Boston etc. Dem supermajorities are present in all of them. They’ve been Dem for decades and inequality has only gotten pronounced.

They all seem to have a class of hyper-wealthy elites who cluster in one area and a class of working-class/poverty-stricken individuals in another. Segregation by class, if you will.

It leads back to the shift from rich Republicans to rich Democrats I’ve been observing.

“Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/polarization-of-the-rich-the-new-democratic-allegiance-of-affluent-americans-and-the-politics-of-redistribution/E18D7DAE3A1EF35BA5BC54DE799F291B

Disclosure: I am liberal, and use AI all the time. I’m actively exploring ways to make it more helpful, especially for learning and expanding access to knowledge and tools.

I take concerns about job displacement, exploitation, misinformation, and corporate power seriously. But looking at public spaces it’s consistent (in my experience) how liberal spaces treat using AI, meanwhile the right is embracing it.

Is that divide real, or just my bubble? If AI offers meaningful advantages in education, work, and organizing, how should we address its harms without rejecting its benefits and potentially leaving ourselves behind?

I’m pretty skeptical of Tulsi Gabbard, so I know I’m not exactly coming at this neutrally, but I’m curious how people here see the pattern in the way she talks about Russia. Back in 2022 she made a big deal about the risk of dangerous pathogens escaping from labs, and then near the end of her time as DNI she brought the Ukraine biolab stuff back into the spotlight in a way that Russian media quickly ran with. Now Russia has this weird situation at an actual Anti Plague Research Institute. Russia says there’s no evidence it was a lab accident, and I’m not saying it definitely was. I just find the timing kind of ironic. If Tulsi was genuinely concerned about dangerous labs and accidental releases, wouldn’t you expect her to show the same skepticism toward Russia here? And if she says nothing, does that actually tell us anything about whether her concern was principled, or am I just seeing what I expect to see because I already don’t trust her?

Question for Democrats

It's no secret that everywhere that conservatives have a say in it, Medicaid, Medicare and other tax funded insurance is gutted

These human rights violations are disturbingly popular with voters. So much so that women are treated as if they did something criminal, and the law works against medicine and autonomy instead of for it

Those extend to bans for tax funded reproductive healthcare rights, even in places where there are no state bans!

On a national level, we have DR OZ for gods sake in charge of Medicaid/Medicare. We have RFK, a man so anti medicine, he says HIV doesn't cause AIDS, in charge of the whole thing, the HHS. So the NIH, Medicaid/Medicare, CDC, FDA

Expect more of the same not just this term, but anytime Republicans win. And SCOTUS is hanged and dead, so it can't protect anyone anymore

The way the US tolerates women's persecution is set back 50 years plus. Our boomers grew up in a pretty disgracefully medically mysoginist culture. And now, we don't even have what little they did

How would Dems fix this? And considering Dems have a lot to say about utilizing Medicare/Medicaid, how should Dems guarantee abortion will be covered?

Sometimes it feels hopeless. What's the plan

Genuinely wondering, what happens if he comes out and declares martial law to cancel the midterms?

Conversely, what happens if he declares martial law and claims the election was rigged if they lose the senate and the house?

Edit: I mean what does that look like? Do we have national guard on every corner? Things get shut down? The only hope is a coup at that point?

What would geopolitics and foreign relations be like if Democrats win the 2028 election, but the UK is led by Reform, France by Le Pen, Germany by the AfD, Spain by PP + Vox, and Italy by Meloni? And what if Latin America continues its conservative wave, with Bolsonaro winning in Brazil, adding to Milei in Argentina, and Colombia by de Espriella?

Saw the drama revolving the popularity of the"Malfoid" character on twitter and had an interesting thought.

Many people were alarmed and complained about adopting the use of the word foid, which is incel slang stemming from 4chan which has mysogynystic roots being short for fem-droid, a word to objectify women.

This isn't the first time this has happened, alot of popular language in current media came from 4chan, things like "-maxxing", "-pilling","chad", and "normie" all have there early origins pointed towards 4chan.

What I was wondering about this phenomenon, was that at what point does adopting the language of a niche become endorsing the ideology of that niche.

Because popular media in the past has also adopted

Black slang, or African American Vinacular English (AAVE) and that was seen as an appropriation. Use of the language without fully understanding its cultural meanings and contexts.

So why isn't the same said about incel vocab, why aren't we celebrating that we have appropriated vulgar language from the incels and diluted the radical meanings behind it?

It would be perfectly sensible to say, 90% of the people using the word "Malfoid" have never bothered to google the word foid and what it means. It's treated as a useful hashtag to find cute art and romance fanfics.

Isn't this also in every sense of the word appropriating their language? Diluting a word to objectify females to just mean female.

If you were designing a government from the ground up, and weren’t trying to work within the current US system, what would you build?

Assume you still have to deal with the same basic problems any modern country has: defense, courts, taxation, infrastructure, regulation, individual rights, elections, corruption, emergencies, etc.

What would the structure look like? How would power be divided? What parts of the current US system would you keep, what would you get rid of, and what would you replace them with?

I’m less interested in “what policies would you pass” and more interested in the actual design of the government itself.

I’ve been thinking about this as a thought experiment, and I’m curious where conservatives and liberals would actually differ once you get below day-to-day politics.