I'm looking for a range of perspectives on the debate over whether Ukraine should hold elections.

Zelensky's presidential term expired in May 2024. Ukraine hasn't held elections since, citing martial law. Trump has publicly called for elections, saying Zelensky "could have ended the conflict many times" and "should hold elections." ( https://www.afp.com/pt/node/3846598 )

Zelensky has refused. After it he went to the UK asking Burnham for more weapons. He told Piers Morgan "no, of course" when asked if he'd resign, calling it his responsibility and criticizing Trump. ( https://www.kyivpost.com/post/87150 )

Street protests broke out in July after Zelensky fired Defense Minister Fedorov, a popular reformer. Protesters demanded accountability, power checks, and elections. Fedorov himself called for wartime elections and accused the government of corruption ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdew8n9erlwo )

How much should corruption allegations against Zelensky's inner circle matter, given he hasn't been charged personally?
Does an expired term change the legitimacy of a wartime leader? Zelensky's supporters say elections can't happen under martial law; critics say that's convenient. Where do you land?

Would love additional thoughts in comments below.

Let me know what you guys think? What are 3-5 shifts, or more that have really lead to those problems.

I want to get perspectives from across the political spectrum on a foreign policy trade-off happening right now.

The context: The Strait of Hormuz disruption has caused the largest oil supply shock in history. Global oil supply crashed by 10 million barrels per day in March 2026, and Brent prices surged about 65% in a single month.

OFAC issued a general license on October 9 authorizing Russian diesel imports until April 2027. Russia committed to supplying 300,000 tons immediately, 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons afterward (source - https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20261009_33 )

Trump told Zelensky to stop attacking Russian refineries, arguing they were disrupting global diesel supply and hurting American consumers. He also suggested Ukraine might need a new leader. (source - https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-calls-on-ukraine-to-stop-hitting-russian-refineriesand-replace-zelensky-cc9bada8?eafs_enabled=false )

How do you see this situation?
And does the answer change depending on where you sit politically?

I take a centrist political stance.

Needless to mention, against those who prepare with the intent to cause harm, one inevitably, unavoidably, and must also prepare; if countermeasures are omitted, it will eventually become impossible to resist, which in reality results in giving the opponent the power over our life and death. In other words, ignoring or making light of this is equivalent to choosing enslavement.
Some media reports state that Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, currently visiting Japan, also stated the following in a TV interview:
"We recognize that hackers are also using AI (SI) which is available to everyone, and we strive to prevent them from using these tools through new security methods and the like."
Of course, the speed of SI is something that leaves no room to stand against manually; therefore, phrased differently, refusing server facilities would mean handing over the power of life and death, which implies that this is an option leading to the enslavement of the citizenry and thus results in the conclusion that it is illogical.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6598729
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/3010032

On the other hand, while maintaining beneficial SI requires a massive number of data centers, I can also understand the feeling of wanting to reject attracting data centers because their benefits are hard to perceive.
The fact that foolish selectors themselves tempt more strongly, like the sweet talk of the devil, is probably something almost everyone can intuitively understand.

Therefore, for operators planning to operate data centers involving a power consumption of a certain scale or more, how about determining their scale based on a rate (α) established in proportion to the amount of power used, and imposing the following as obligations?
- Based on the aforementioned rate (α), to employ and engage a large number of personnel for socially contributing occupational duties from the districts neighboring the data center operation.
- Based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to mandate assistance toward welfare or educational facilities in the areas surrounding the installation region.
- Based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to construct and operate multiple facilities that serve as the cornerstone of regional promotion.
- To mandate the maintenance and provision of transportation and information-communication infrastructure around the data center construction and operation area.
- Based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to lay out business and industrial parks in the surrounding districts and continue attracting them so that the facilities continue to be filled above a certain level.
- Without being based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to bear the obligation to constantly monitor environmental pollution and deterioration over a wide range—including the energy environment and living environment—and report changes.
- In the event that environmental pollution is confirmed, regardless of the polluter, to impose an obligation on the data center operator to take some sort of measure, including approaching the actual polluter, to achieve complete improvement.

What kind of opinion will you show regarding the above? Can I expect a reply?

Both major parties warn about a rise in extremism in the US, but when you look at institutional power, it’s very one sided.

What does the socialist or communist left actually control? DSA is the largest socialist org and while they have 250 members in public office, almost none serve statewide or in federal office and it's almost all blue city councils.

CPUSA holds zero elected seats. There is no socialist or communist equivalent of a Federalist Society, Heritage, or ALEC.

Now let’s look at the right wing libertarian network control? This is a 50-year infrastructure built by the Koch network and others. ALEC drafts legislation, with about 1,000 bills introduced annually, 20% becoming law. It’s funded by corporations like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries.

The Federalist Society built a judicial pipeline, placing conservative judges including Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

Heritage Foundation wrote the Project 2025 blueprint. That same network of billionaire families has put more than $120 million into the groups behind Project 2025 alone.

The elite elements include the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, Americans for Prosperity, the State Policy Network and many others. That's writing bills in all 50 statehouses, a Supreme Court majority, entire university economics departments and dark money groups like DonorsTrust that can vastly outspend any socialist org.

So why is communism and socialism treated as an existential threat to the US when it controls zero federal branches, while right wing libertarianism… deregulation, privatization of public services, gutting the administrative state, repealing labor and environmental protections, all while currently living in what’s arguably an oligarchy already, has already captured state legislatures, courts, and executive branch staffing?

Is the fear of socialism mostly symbolic Cold War legacy, while the libertarian project is the actual governing agenda? Or do you think the libertarian influence is overstated and socialist ideas are more dangerous long term?

I'm from the United States, and from what I can tell the US is on the worse side of this. However, from my research it seems like we're not the only ones.

So first off is "prison" really a good option? When someone does something wrong, we lock them in a cell and control every aspect of their lives for a set time, often multiple years, sometimes even decades or life. Now what do they do in prison? According to Federal Bureau of Prisons, the have some educational options there. However, some other source (The Marshall Project and Prison Policy Initiative) show that these and work experience in prison do not amount to many useful skills outside of prison. There's also a good chance that depending on the case, it could have gone to civil court as well and a large monetary punishment was given. This means that a lot of people will be in debt with no useful skills, if and when they are released. And if they had the skill set needed, there is a massive issue with the idea of hiring "criminals", regardless of whether they have become better people or not.

There's also an idea that a lot of people seem to have that "if a criminal has done it once, they will certainly do it again". I feel that this is the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As I see it, of course they'll do it again because if they've spent years in prison with no useful skills and no one willing to hire them, how are they supposed to live? So they'll take up criminal activities again, and again, and again until they die, either in prison or out of it. According to CSG Justice Center, Alaska has recidivism rates going up to 57%. This particular source only follows three years where possible though.

Then there's the sentences, which are a complete mess. We all know the meme "Diddy only got four years". Then there's the case of Ryan Holle, a man who lent a car to a roomate (William Allen Jr) who committed an armed robbery that killed a woman. Holle had no clue they had any plan of robbing someone, and still got life in prison without parole thanks to the felony murder rule (it did later get changed to 25 years, but in my opinion that's still too long for lending a car to a roomate). Another example, Lockyer v. Andrade in which California's three-strikes law allowed two consecutive terms of 25 years to life for stealing $150 worth of videotapes. Then there's Brock Turner. He only got 6 months for rape.

Next thing up is what seems utterly insane to me, the idea of trying a minor in adult court. For anyone interested, you can find the age of criminal responsibility in various countries here, but in the US depending on the jurisdiction children as young as 10 can go to adult court (and that can lead to a life sentence in some cases). I personally think 10 is way too young to be giving out a life sentence. In fact, I had an argument with someone earlier who said a six year old who shot a teacher should be charged as an adult, which I do not agree with at all. In fact, the user told me that the kid made a concious choice to pick up the gun and shoot, and that it is wrong to think that such people can be rehabilitated. I think they could if we actually tried.

This is a lot of stuff, and while I have much more to say I will try to keep it relatively short. So I'll finish off with what I think we should do instead. First off, invest in actual rehabilitation. Teach people how to become better people. Next, stop assuming people are set in stone. They aren't, and they can change. Finally, reserve prison only for those who truly show that they will not change. Because the sentence shouldn't be based on the actual crime, but based on the person. Because a 50-year old child predator definitely deserves prison time. But a kid who picks up a gun not completely understanding the complete implications of taking a life does not deserve a life sentence.

So what all do you guys think? Do you agree? Do you not agree? Am I missing important information?

I am generally pretty left-wing progressive (those are NOT the same thing!), but with a notable libertarian streak. Universal healthcare, free college, government investment in mass transit and nuclear power, support for co-ops and labor unions; I support all of this.

Unfortunately, the proponents of those policies bring with them other policies, many of which are specifically aimed against my own best interest. Absurd gun laws, DEI, social programs that only benefit minorities or women, censorship of speech and press they dislike, "Green" policies which are actually worse for the environment, etc.

Not that I have any issue with minorities or women, but most of the people I know are poor, rural whites; why are we being asked to pay more and accept oppression on the justification that those groups had little money and were oppressed in the past? What kind of sense does that make? "Two wrongs make a right?"

Moreover, how do you expect these people to actively vote against their own best interests? Forget ethics for a minute and look at sheer pragmatism: The white working class consists of 100 million Americans, the single largest voting bloc there is, whom it is simply impossible to form a majority position in government without.

That means that the policies they are proposing will never happen... and they know it.

Do you want to help minorities and women? Start by helping everyone.

Over 2,000 years ago, the Roman Empire understood something about human nature that we seem to have forgotten.

The Roman poet Juvenal called it “Bread and Circuses” — a society so consumed by entertainment, comfort, and spectacle that it gradually surrendered its political influence.

Now consider the similarities.

Rome had gladiators and the Colosseum. America has celebrity culture, professional sports, and endless digital entertainment.

Rome used public executions to demonstrate state power. America is now planning to livestream an execution by firing squad.

Rome captivated its population with religious spectacles, prophecies, and mysterious signs from the heavens. Today, Congress holds hearings about UFOs while the public debates the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Rome maintained military forces across vast territories. America maintains a military presence around the globe.

Rome had powerful elites who shaped political life. America has billionaires, corporations, and wealthy donors influencing politics.

Rome had rival factions whose supporters passionately defended their side. America has political tribes that often treat politics like a sporting rivalry.

And while ordinary Romans struggled with economic inequality, the empire continued investing in grand spectacles.

The most disturbing similarity isn't the entertainment, the military power, or even the public executions. It's the relationship between spectacle and political attention.

The genius of Bread and Circuses was that people didn't necessarily have to be silenced. They could simply become too distracted, divided, or entertained to recognize what was happening around them.

None of this requires a grand conspiracy. Distraction can serve those in power even when nobody deliberately coordinates it.

Rome had the Colosseum. We carry ours in our pockets.

And perhaps that's the most uncomfortable question of all:

If the Romans believed they were living in the greatest civilization on Earth, completely unaware of where history was taking them, what makes us so certain we're any different?

I have been reading something and there I found something. It was about an empirical or behavioural approach to understand a political theory. It was about a behavioural turn. Basically, if you want to understand the state of democracy in a country, you need to understand how the citizens actually vote, how elites behave, how political participation occurs and how decisions are made. And this is where I would like to add something. I think every single one of them is equally responsible. Yes, many will push off that responsibility may not be equal, including the one who dissents and the manner of dissent. But hear me out. It is a cycle, a vicious one, similarly like the vicious cycle of poverty we used to study in school. What do you think, what better measures the state of democracy in a country. No AI usage will be appreciated.

I feel like logistically it is difficult to implement stricter gun policies due to the shear volume of them in circulation, the black market, and the great regional differences In laws. Plus 90% of crimes or acts of violence the gun is stolen, a ghost gun, or illegal in some shape or form. Even in terms of the suicide factor East Asian countries have higher rates per 100k people and very few guns in circulation.

On the other hand stricter gun laws in America could deter inexperienced criminals (who would not be savvy enough to illegally obtain them) or people acting on rash/impulse decisions.

Would appreciate people weighing in on both sides. What are some arguments for or against?

I was thinking in terms of healthcare and social security programs to make them more need based rather than age based, and to get rid of redundancies and regulations that drive up healthcare costs.

The leading contributors to the national debt are social security, healthcare, and interest.

What would be a good set of policies to reign in entitlement spending but also maintain a safety net?

I hold the belief that nationalisms have a far simpler origin than it might seem at first glance; I believe that nationalisms stem from the need for a sense of belonging to a specific group.

I have researched this and found several authors with similar points of view, whose ideas and thought processes I will now outline:

• Herder (1744–1803): He believed that humans are born into a culture, a language, and a social group. The combination of these factors forms a "people" (Volk); he did not view us as individual, abstract entities. He argued that the need to belong to a group—to a social community—is an inherent part of human nature.
• Smith (1939–2019): He constructed a framework known as ethnosymbolism, arguing that nationalism succeeds because it connects with ethnic roots and deep-seated feelings of belonging. Humans seek continuity, meaning, and group identity within myths, folk stories, cultural kinship, or the history of the region itself.
• van den Berghe (1933–2019): He proposed that group feeling and the tendency to form nations stem directly from an evolutionary instinct, pointing to a biological predisposition to favor those we perceive as similar to us—those who belong to our same group.
• Tajfel (1919–1982): He demonstrated that human beings have a psychological need to categorize themselves and belong to a group in order to build self-esteem and identity. Thus, nationalisms emerge as a large-scale expression of this phenomenon. However, I should add that this can also occur on a smaller scale, depending on where we draw the line between large and small scale.
• Ignatieff (1947–present): He advocates for the concept of "belonging nationalism." Nationalism satisfies the human need for belonging, providing psychological security—a sort of safe haven in this complex and ever-changing world: "No matter what happens, I will still belong to place X, I will still hold nationality X."

Although these authors hold distinct perspectives, they all follow a specific line of thought: human beings need to belong to a group, and that group can be national identity itself.

I also believe these authors are correct regarding how nationalism operates psychologically. Humans harbor a deep fear of loneliness and being misunderstood. If you are the only one like you, you feel isolated; but if you encounter people similar to you, that feeling diminishes. This similarity can be rooted in shared tastes, experiences, or—as is the case with nationalism—geographic origin.

Now, building upon the foundation I explained earlier under the "Nationalisms" section, I will present my opinion and a series of observations on how this impacts society.

The effect of any type of nationalism on a society is intertwined with who practices it; nevertheless, the core underlying principles remain the same. It is quite intriguing how different political groups view nationalism and why they do so, but in very general terms, it can be explained as follows:

"Core nationalism" stems from the nation itself—the country where one lives. However, as we have seen, nationalist groupings can also form based on other geographic boundaries, such as regions or even continents.

Both of these new "layers" are quite unique in their formation, yet everything originates both from "core nationalism" per se and from how it is perceived through the lens of an individual's personal views or ideology.

Let us start with "core nationalism." This form of nationalism might be more closely associated with right-wing ideology. But here is the key: I will feel nationalism—and I will be a nationalist—if the national identity (whether the one I perceive or the one society projects) aligns with me. If the identity, values, and ideas attributed to a nationality or a country's nationalist sentiment resonate with me, I will feel part of a group—which, as we have seen, is a psychological necessity for human beings.

Therefore, anyone who is a nationalist will feel represented by the values they believe define that nation's identity. But what if I do not feel represented by these values? What if the values represented by my flag contradict my own?

Well, there is the option of not being any kind of nationalist at all and becoming a sort of "citizen of the world," but personally, I will bypass this scenario for now.

If a person does not identify with the national identity—with a core nationalism—they will have to do one of two things: they will need to feel part of either a more general group or a more specific group.

In the case of a more specific group, this results in a more "regional" nationalism. This refers either to a geographical or political region, a smaller geographic area (such as a county or district), or a more politically defined region within the state.

A way to visualize this is through the following example: a person lives in a city, but the city as a whole does not align with their values—or rather, their values do not match the perceived identity of that city. Therefore, instead of identifying with the city as a whole, they identify more closely with their specific neighborhood, where the prevailing values represent them better.

In my experience, this "regional" nationalism is seen significantly more on the political left. But this raises the question: Why would the same person who rejects the core nationalism of a state participate in a "regional" nationalism?

The answer is much simpler than it appears. This person does not reject nationalism itself—since, as we have established, nationalism is merely a large-scale expression of the psychological need to belong to a group—rather, they reject the specific values associated with the nationalism they are repudiating. Simultaneously, they feel represented by and prefer the values tied to this alternative nationalism.

My reasoning for this is that if nationalism itself were the actual issue, we would return to the solution of not being a nationalist at all (which I mentioned at the beginning).

To summarize this idea briefly: "regional" nationalism is the consequence of a core ideal that people firmly reject. Driven by the longing/need to feel part of something larger—part of a group—they end up taking pride not in their nation and its values, but in their region and its values. As I would like to explain in other sections, this can be used as a driver or argument for independence movements

Now for the counterpart: What happens if, instead of focusing on a more specific group, someone seeks a more general group? What if, instead of looking further inward, they look outward?

In reality, something very similar occurs, and the underlying reasons tend to be the same. Both political groups—the right and the left—can identify with this broader form of nationalism, but it is interesting to observe how each side perceives it from its own perspective.

Even though both sides can identify with the same overarching type of nationalism, the right tends to view it more through the lens of ethnosymbolism (as discussed in the previous section), whereas the left tends to view it through values transmitted by entities such as the European Union (in the case of European countries).

Thx for reading , I will try to answer all the questions.

I'm not a politician or someone who studies government professionally. I'm just an ordinary working American who's been thinking about an idea and wanted to see what other people thought about it. We live in a time where almost everyone has access to a phone or computer. When our government was originally established, communication was nowhere near what it is today. Having representatives make decisions for everyone made sense when communicating across the country could take weeks. But what if we no longer needed those representatives to make our legislative decisions? What if citizens could vote on laws themselves? I'm not suggesting we throw away the Constitution or get rid of the Bill of Rights, courts, military, or other important parts of our government. Most of those institutions could continue operating much like they do now. The major difference would be that the people themselves would hold legislative authority rather than handing it over to elected politicians. I also think decisions should be made as locally as possible. Something that only affects one town should be decided by that town. Statewide matters would involve that state's citizens, while national issues would involve the country as a whole. More complicated situations involving multiple communities or states would obviously need a more detailed process. We would still need qualified people running government services. Judges, generals, administrators, engineers, and other professionals would continue doing their jobs, but they would be selected or employed by the citizens. I'm not proposing this because I want to be in charge of anything. Quite the opposite. If something like this ever became a reality, I would have the same single vote as everyone else. I don't believe the person who comes up with an idea should automatically have authority over the people participating in it. I also recognize that I'm not qualified to design an entire government by myself. That's why I'm interested in finding people who understand constitutional law, cybersecurity, software development, and government administration who might want to explore the idea together. The idea would be to start with a voluntary group, work through the problems, develop the rules collectively, and eventually explore whether such a system could be implemented through lawful constitutional changes. I'm sure there are plenty of challenges I haven't thought of yet. That's partly why I'm bringing it up. I'd rather have people question the idea and find its weaknesses than simply agree with everything I'm saying. Does anyone think a system like this could realistically function? And would anyone be interested in helping explore the possibility?

We don't need to go into detail to what this one-country government will be like, what they believe in, how they govern, etc.

If the world became one country, what are your hopes or concerns? Are there any pros and cons to an entire planet ruled as one.

Put simply, large vs small government; can anyone name a "small government" country that is both stable and prosperous?

The opposite is widespread, and of course, having a large government doesn't guarantee stability or prosperity, but a small government pretty well guarantees their absence.

They are not interested in fighting oppression. Their goal is revenge, not justice.
They want to become the new oppressor.

if i was prime minister of the UK; i would build hydroelectric dams in the south and north, i would reduce national insurance contributions for SMEs, i would introduce a balance between a progressive and confiscatory tax in the UK, specifically targeting a wealth tax, land value tax, and exit tax. i would slightly reduce corporate tax rates, i would cut taxes for the working and middle class, i would cut taxes for SMEs. i would introduce tax breaks for new businesses, new local defense start-up businesses, and worker co-operatives. i would deregulate the financial sector, have lots of new anti-trust ( companies banding together) , anti- monopoly and anti-oligopoly laws. i would also use a portion of government revenue to create a large sovereign wealth fund, i would nationalize nuclear electricity plants, and invest in: defense, local defense start-up businesses, science & technology, R+D, Nuclear power ( nuclear fusion technology) and super high-end manufacturing, high-end technology research and electrification of housing. i would subsidize businesses and houses using clean energy, and i would subsidize SMEs ( with low-interest loans). i would lower the export tariffs almost completely, open up north sea gas drilling, build ~100,000 new homes/ apartments on brownfield sites, plant 2 trees for every tree cut down the in British Isles, slightly lower carbon tax, subsidies EVs heavily, raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, abolish the triple lock, cut benefits, and try to balance the budget( achieve a budget surplus), and i would make fat people pay for their healthcare, and slightly subsidized child care, and invest in and de-regulate GMOs for farming

Would we benefit from a No Party system?

This is the UNITED States. The divide that political parties cause seem to create more harm than good. Under this system, candidates must have strong qualifications to be considered. Similar to any other job.

Public-facing attractions should be expected to provide an accessible experience in practice, not merely install accessibility features that satisfy minimum physical requirements.

A wheelchair-accessible elevator is useful, but it doesn't guarantee that a person using a wheelchair or mobility scooter can actually participate. Locked doors, unprepared staff, poor communication, and inaccessible procedures can turn nominal access into a frustrating obstacle course.

My family recently experienced this at a new Seattle attraction. Although an elevator was available, we encountered multiple barriers and delays while trying to get my wife, who uses a motorized scooter, onto the ride. The ride itself was excellent; the process of reaching it was not.

This raises a broader policy question: What should accessibility law and enforcement require?

There are legitimate questions about cost, the practical limits of retrofitting older buildings, and how to distinguish reasonable accommodations from requirements that are disproportionate to a business's resources. But if an attraction advertises itself as accessible, shouldn't it also have trained staff, workable procedures, and a plan for common problems?

Accessibility should be evaluated by whether people can meaningfully use a facility, not just whether the facility has the right equipment.

Where should the line be drawn between reasonable accommodation, regulatory compliance and an obligation to ensure genuine access?

I wrote about my family's experience here:

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-search-for-access-a-familys-ride-through-barriers-b2ef51be5888?sk=2e4c97ad7fb5d38973395fab577105d3

I'm born and raised in india and im 100% confident that reservations are not doing anything to this country and the only reason that they exist is to mess up people.

If anyone wishes to challenge me , please do