r/AskALiberal

Whether we are talking the Caribbean boat strikes or a potential intentional strike on Iranian civilian energy infrastructure/bridges, it seems like there are some open and shut cases where Trump/Hegseth/and others may have committed war crimes.

In my experience -and please correct me if you have a different opinion - the only people in any religion that are dangerous are those who are convinced their god is the only true one and non-believers must be punished or converted.

I would like to see a permanent ban or hard regulation on how public space is granted for the purpose of evangelical purposes. That means all of them. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientology, Hindu, Shinto Buddhists and everyone else who falls into these groups.

My reasoning is simple. Tolerance begins with acceptance that your neighbour is different. That your neighbour worships a different god. But evangelism is the definition of not accepting that there are people worshipping different gods.

And maybe a more straightforward and realistic approach: groups with programs aimed at evangelistic deeds shall loose their tax exemption status. No grey area. Either you get tax exemption or evangelise. Pick one.

This thread is for a discussion of the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine. All discussion of the subject is limited to this thread. Participation here requires that you be a regular member of the sub in good standing.

She’s a popular American rapper and songwriter with 1.4 million followers on Instagram.

Here’s a few excerpts from just one of her songs, Sexy Soulaan:

*If you ain't Black, stay the fuck out the business

*I need my reparations, bitch, you gotta bring me my shit

*All the non-Blacks to the back (Ugh)

*All the non-Blacks to the back (Hold on, damn)

*All the non-Blacks to the back (Huh, huh)

*All the non-Blacks to the back, n——

*I ain′t shaking white hands

To reiterate, she won Outstanding New Artist at the 2026 NAACP Image Awards — watched live by 2.2 million viewers — and which is designed “to honor outstanding performances of people of color in film, television, theatre, music, and literature.”

Do you think it’s a good thing for artists who use lyrics like these to be celebrated and given awards like this?

Do you think lyrics like these help or harm perceptions of racial division in 2026 America?

Do you personally have issues with lyrics like these or do you see no problem with them?

Would you be okay with artists of other racial groups being celebrated and given awards while making what seem to be blatantly racist disparaging remarks about other races?

The deadline for the ceasefire between Iran and the United States is quickly coming to an end, and there seems to be a lot of conflicting information about what happens next.

Some media sources have reported that the ceasefire was originally supposed to end Tuesday at 8pm, while Trump has said it actually ends Wednesday night. At the same time, he’s indicated that he doesn’t want another ceasefire and warned that “lots of bombs start going off” if a deal isn’t reached.

What makes this even more confusing is that Trump has also claimed Iran has already agreed to all of his demands — something Iran has completely denied. He’s also said “time is not my adversary,” but that doesn’t really seem to match the broader situation.

This war has been extremely unpopular with the American public, and it’s likely to get even more unpopular the longer it drags on. Trump campaigned heavily on lowering the cost of living, but this conflict has done the opposite — especially with the impact on gas prices. If fighting resumes, prices will probably spike again, which could further frustrate voters.

There’s also the political timing. The war is pulling attention away from the economy, which is what many of Trump’s advisers reportedly want him focused on heading into the midterms. If this conflict is still ongoing by the time people vote in November, it could be a major liability for Republicans. Even having it drag into June could matter, since that’s often when voters start forming their economic perceptions for the election year.

On top of that, it’s not clear what continued bombing would actually accomplish. It seems pretty evident that airstrikes alone aren’t going to lead to regime change in Iran. If anything, escalating attacks on infrastructure could lead to international condemnation and further harden anti-American sentiment within Iran.

To top it off, there’s also pressure coming from within Trump’s own side. Hawkish Republicans — including figures like Mark Levin and Laura Loomer — have suggested they won’t accept anything short of a decisive outcome. Some have argued that anything less than full regime change in Iran would be a failure, and that Iran can’t be trusted to uphold any agreement.

But that raises a huge issue: complete regime change doesn’t seem realistic without a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran — something that would almost certainly result in heavy American casualties and make an already unpopular war even more so. At the same time, a reworked version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) likely wouldn’t be acceptable to large parts of the Republican base. And on the flip side, it’s hard to see Iran agreeing to significantly more concessions than they already have in the past.

All of this makes it feel like Trump may have boxed the U.S. into a genuine quagmire, with no clear off-ramp that satisfies either domestic political pressures or geopolitical realities.

So what do you all think?

Will the ceasefire get extended if there’s no deal by the deadline?
Do you think a last-minute agreement is still possible by Wednesday night?
Or are we heading toward renewed bombing — and possibly even something like a partial ground involvement?

I was reading some Reddit threads and it seems a lot of people are in support of private companies rights to deplatform people. Who are some people that you don’t believe deserve freedom of speech (in the abstract sense not the legal sense)? Reasons can include anything from not wanting to allow misinformation to spread to just not liking what somebody has to say.

The Constitution explicitly states one representative per 30,000 residents.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 permanently capped the number of House seats at 435. There was no Constitutional amendment codifying this, so the law is technically unconstitutional. And due to the nature of seat division and small state populations, representation can range from 500,000 to 900,000 constituents per seat, often creating another advantage for small states with populations below the average division.

If we remove the cap and return to the letter of the law (1 representative per 30,000 citizens) the House would balloon to over 10,000 members. The disproportionate small state advantage in the Electoral College and even the House will be mostly nullified, since electors are equal to the sum of House + Senate seats.

While this may make the House unwieldy and difficult to manage, they can find ways to make it work practically via rules and procedural changes.

If they want to "fix" the crowded House, they need to amend the Constitution which requires a 2/3rds majority, and we can make Electoral College reform a condition of supporting any change.

Why hasn't critics of the Electoral College challenged this law yet? It seems to be the easiest way to avoid outcomes like 2000 and 2016 where the popular vote loser wins on a technicality because they won more places that were disproportionately represented.

Side note: I find it hilarious talking to Republicans about the Electoral College. It seems like they finally found a good reason for having disproportionate minority representation on something, and shriek that if we eliminate it, the republic will die and we will have tyranny of the majority (i.e. they will lose their DEI for farm states that benefits them politically in Presidential races.)

Years ago, Republicans stopped calling it the Democratic party and started saying Democrat party, Democrat mayors, Democrat congresspepole, etc as opposed to Democratic Party. Back then if anyone used "Democrat", you could be sure its a conservative. But im wondering if thats still the case?

Has it become such a part of the lexicon that everyone uses it? Or is it still a safe bet to assume anyone that says "Democrat party" doesnt like Democrats?

I have seen the leftists and progressives support many policies that huge amount of economic literature showing are net negatives. Policies such as unrealized capital gains tax, wealth tax, rent control, rent freeze, rental vouchers, anti-gentrification(when gentrification has shown to be economically positive for communities), No strings attached (no requirement for treatment for homeless who are addicts) housing and services for homeless , complete tution loan forgiveness (even with huge U.S. debt), cumbersome regulations etc.

Their whole talking points are buzzwords like “neoliberalism”, “anti corporate “ , “tax the rich” etc etc. They have no concern for US debt and are not honest that their policies will require huge increase in taxes on everyone to be sustainable. “Taxing the rich” won’t alone be able to enact policies they are proposing.

On many social issues like school excellence and academic achievement they support anti-merit system and policies“equity” which discriminates against Asians and White people. On crime and homelessness too they support policies which have shown to be negative with recent progressive initiatives voted down in referendums in Blue states.

These are some issues I can talk about, and I am not even considering leftists who are socialists or communists whose worldviews are full of ideological dogma too.

I am for increasing taxes on people like me for universal services, but progressives and leftists are not being honest when they are not telling American people that their policies will require big increases like in Europe for the policies they are proposing.

One thing I have seen from leftists and MAGA is even when you present evidence that shows their policies are net negative, they try challenging the veracity of the source because it might not be ideologically aligned but factually correct. As a liberal, that is the biggest difficulty I find aligning with leftists, ideological dogmatism.

Video & tweet link for context: https://x.com/EmmaVigeland/status/2045918846842732867

I’ve been seeing a lot of progressive commentators on X making fun of US Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow for walking into the Michigan Democratic Party endorsement convention with a drumline and supporters. Progressives are calling it “cringe” or “millennial cringe.”

For context, McMorrow is a Michigan state senator running in a competitive three-way Democratic primary against moderate Haley Stevens and progressive-backed Abdul El-Sayed. McMorrow is running as a "mainstream liberal," receiving endorsements from sitting Democratic Senators like Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Martin Heinrich, and Peter Welch. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi endorsed moderate Stevens.

McMorrow's drumline entrance happened during caucus meetings at the state party convention. Here’s the tweet from Emma Vigeland, co-host of The Majority Report with Sam Seder, where she links to the video and calls it "millennial cringe*."* Pastor Ben also piles on in the comments:

Video & tweet link: https://x.com/EmmaVigeland/status/2045918846842732867

I’ll be honest, this mockery rubbed me the wrong way. I’m a professional musician and drummer. I did four years of high school marching band, played bass, tenors, and snare drums in the drumline. After high school, I went to an HBCU and marched cymbals one year and snare drum the rest. I also marched a summer of Drum Corps International and have performed in marching bands at the Rose Bowl and Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade. Drumline and marching band are a huge part of my identity, and as a Black musician, it’s deeply tied to culture, especially HBCU show-style bands.

Seeing something like this dismissed as “millennial cringe” by progressives feels insulting and dismissive of something I take seriously and value a lot. I thought it was awesome to see that kind of marching band energy and drumline representation in a mainstream political setting.

If people want to criticize McMorrow’s policy positions, including on foreign policy, that makes sense. But mocking the style of an entrance like this instead of engaging on substance just feels like an ad hominem.

Wait. Did we do this to him?

So for those not aware:

https://benmays.spps.org/about/new-for-2025-26-afrocentric-program

Apparently the Saint Paul public school district has decided to make an "afrocentric focused public program" that will replace its International Baccalaureate (IB) program.

From their website:

"the Afrocentric program at Benjamin E. Mays will offer a unique, enriching and rigorous educational experience, "through the lens of Black history," designed to empower all scholars to achieve their full potential."

So they are replacing the internationally recognized IB program for a an afro centric one with no external recognition.

So what are your thoughts on this? Do you support this idea or does it just set a bad precedent? Or is it just pointless pandering that is ultimately sacrificing the future of the children for this?

Edit: oh and forgot to ask, do you support or oppose this using tax payer funds? Like if this was a private academy would you accept it but not as a publicly funded program or do.you support public school funds going towards this?

If someone has a net worth above 1 billion, everything after that 1 billion is taxed at 90% when they die. If it is in assets, they become owned by the government. This will either cause billionaires to pay the tax or give it all away before they die, redistributing wealth

There are two sides to this question. I am wondering at which side you stand

One side argues about out mental and emotional fragility that might very well be linked to changes in parenting and early education avoiding challenges.

Helicopter parents are one of these factors. Parents who make sure that the kids will never have to face any struggles or challenges until they graduate high school. Another might be the idea that everyone is special and deserves an equal attention price after tournaments.

A third factor is the constant access to social media with a strong peer pressure in which the majority of kids are forced into conformity over risking disagreement that might turn instantly into online humiliation and cyber bullying. Many children do not risk being the odd one out, even if they silently disagree.

The other side argues that strength need to be redefined from older generations and are natural consequences of changes in abundance and social development.

Older generations defined themselves through challenges and suffering that is no longer a requirement. Such as men being strong only if they strictly refuse to acknowledge their own emotions. Women only being strong if they swallow their pride and be the dutiful housewife. This argument acknowledges the changes in social dynamics that allow women to follow their own career. Allowing a choice basically

Other factors that used to be considered weaknesses are today considered as strengths. For example diversity. There are still old folk talking about the idea that the calls for diverse workforces are a folly and merit should be the only factor that matters.

My own opinion: I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It certainly is true that in a direct difference between when I was in school and what I today see schools arguing about, it has become a place where more and more parents become over involved in their kids day to day education. And that teachers are now to blame for bad grades instead of the kids. Thinking back if I brought home an F, I lost my Play time at the Playstation for half a month.

During my time as a PhD student I was teaching a freshman course on basic botany dissection and DNA extraction methods. It happened almost once a month that someone cried over an experiment not working the first try. On the other end of the spectrum the old professors I met were above average brutal Sons of Bs. So the old definitions of strength are most certainly not something to strive for.

But I am looking forward to your experiences and opinions

Obama ran on a campaign of hope and "yes we can." How did you and the people you know react when he was elected in 2008? Did it feel like national healing and that the country was finally moving on in a positive direction from its history of racial tension? Can such a moment be repeated in future elections?

I personally have never understood this obsession. It’s a handful of deep blue seats that are already never going to go red but also never have their ideologies become a majority.

Yet conservatives act as if they’re some massive harm to the nation in some way. Why do you think that they think about the Squad this much?

I know this is a bit of a random topic, but I've been reading recently about how our youth sports are not in the best place recently (Specifically Linda Flanagan's book, "Take Back the Game" among other resources). The problems in Youth sports are quite numerous which include lack of regulation of safety standards (specifically physical, sexual, mental, etc.), rising costs of playing sports, and over-commercialization of sports. There have been proposals to establish a new federal agency to help set standards for coaches (and referees), conduct research, establish funding channels to lower income families to allow for more access to sports, and other similar functions.

So I ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of establishing an agency for regulating youth sports as well as the problems in youth sports in general.

Plenty of you might say that it's too early to worry about 2028 or 2032 while we're still neck-deep in fascism under Donald Trump. And you might be right. Assuming the 2028 election is free and fair (or at least, not significantly more unfair than elections normally are in the US), the Democratic nominee is probably slightly favored. If they win, they'll have a lot of damage to fix, most notably in the field of international relations. It's a lot easier to break trust than to restore it, but I think demonstrating that the US can in fact elect non-fascist Presidents twice in a row would be a good start.

The problem is that I don't know how we can achieve that. In 2024, lots of voters conveniently forgot that Trump was President during the worst of the COVID pandemic, during which it wasn't even safe to leave our houses. Even if Trump did not create the virus, he did less than nothing to combat it it! There might be a sequel pandemic during Trump's second term, or there might not be, but there are certainly a lot more self-inflicted crises this time. And yet I think it's quite possible voters will forget how many wars Trump started in his second term.

If our former allies continue to hate us (not that anyone who doesn't already hate Trump cares), the next Democratic President might be blamed for that. There were literally a non-negligible amount of people who voted for Trump in 2024 because Biden was President when Roe v. Wade was overturned, even though it was overturned because Trump was President from 2017 to 2021 and got to appoint three SCOTUS Injustices. And who can forget the Afghanistan withdrawal Trump negotiated in order to sabotage his successor? Biden's approval ratings never fully recovered from that.

If there are many crises during the next Democratic President's term that happened because of Trump's second term, it will be an uphill battle for that President to get reelected. Somehow, they will need to make voters remember that Trump is responsible and blame him even though he's no longer President. I think Biden and Harris tried to do that, but whatever efforts they made clearly didn't cut it. What should the next Democratic President do differently?

I think moderates have a difficult time as it is and that a very progressive president would get too much push back to be effective, especially after the midterms.