Options:

Alabama
Arkansas
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia
Wyoming

I recently came across a Military.com investigation reporting that the VA approved more than 625,000 upgrades to 100% disability ratings between 2023 and 2025.

According to the article, the number of veterans rated 100% disabled increased by approximately 122% between June 2021 and June 2026, from roughly 941,000 to more than 2 million.

Meanwhile, according to the VA's FY2025 Annual Benefits Report, approximately 6.34 million veterans received an estimated $174 billion in disability compensation, with total compensation reaching approximately $185.6 billion when survivor benefits are included.

I recognize that VA disability compensation is intended to compensate veterans for service-connected injuries and illnesses, and that a 100% disability rating does not necessarily mean someone is unable to work.

That said, I'm curious how liberals evaluate this kind of spending growth, particularly in the context of federal deficits, competing budget priorities, and the broader debate over entitlement programs.

Do you view the sharp increase in 100% disability ratings primarily as the government finally fulfilling its obligations to veterans, or does the pace of growth warrant greater scrutiny of how disability ratings are determined?

Would you support an independent review of the rating system to assess what's driving these increases, including whether current eligibility criteria and evaluation methods are appropriate?

More broadly, should veterans' disability compensation be subject to the same fiscal scrutiny as other federal benefit programs, or do you believe military service creates a fundamentally different obligation?

Are there any liberal candidates that actually believe in worker protections?

It seems the GOP mostly ignores it; but it is going to be a big conversation moving forward. Does any candidate actually seem to have a good grasp on protecting workers while not limiting innovation?

that's it

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I personally rarely see actual Democrats be interviewed.

OTOH, throughout the past decade, reporters have loved visiting places like Midwestern diners and going to Trump rallies to interview Maga voters. I also don't hear as much talk about voters who live in urban areas as I hear about rural voters.

i am from Europe and i am wondering what are your thoughts and opinions on our liberals here and our liberal parties. i am asking this because generally speaking even though you both share the same "liberal" name both liberal groups tend to like diverge some in policies particularly in economics. for example European liberal parties like ALDE or Liberal Initiative in portugal for example generally want a smaller state, fewer taxes on the rich, and are very focused on cutting red tape and bureaucracy but at the same time are still socially liberal supporting LGBT rights, maurijuana legalization, strong civil liberties protection, etc etc. but in the US liberals seem to still be socially liberal but are more left wing on the economy like especially with regards to taxing the rich or expanding government services/welfare state. i am curious as to what you think of them then. do you think of them as allies, or do you view them more negatively (in the sense that you may consider them to be too right wing/libertarian in the american lingo of that word)

I feel like this is a big problem. they go on strike for a pay rise, Government doesn't want to raise tax because that's election losing so they instead make service shitter in someway to save money. Public sector employee doesn't get paid based on outcomes so its fine if kids fail or people die in hospital. Public service being 5-10% worse come next election isnt going to be a major issue at the next election so everyone gets away with making service worse till service collapses and becomes none functional.

People most failed by this arent voters or didnt live long enough to be able to vote next election

In real life it's not going to be as extreme as entirely funded by cuts, it's usually only partially funded by cutting services

Is it worth changing that part of the platform if it means winning in other areas?

As someone from India. I would argue my country is one of the worst countries to live in. We have countless problems and are basically the laughing stock online.

And i think democracy is a factor. Most asian countries that became wealthy had a period of authoritarianism or dictatorship. For example china taiwan south korea and singapore are the main examples. But I would argue Thailand Vietnam and Indonesia also are good examples of this while not exactly "developed" they are a far cry from India.

We are one of the only country in asia that never really had a dictatorships and we are argubly one of the worst places in India to live in. A lot of the problems that we have like civic sense,women's rights, infustructre could be fixed by a strong government with proper enforcement of laws.

Essentially as the title says.

In the modern day, more and more people's lives are tied online. More and more social media and online media like YouTube make up a good deal of people's social interactions.

So when telling people "thats just online randos", "thats just online thinking" etc, how effective is it really? Im not asking if its CORRECT, but if its effective or it sounds more like cope or dismissiveness.

So I'm sure we've seen the results with the Brazil election with Lula winning but does anyone else fear a coup with US support? With the exception of Bolsonaro the right practically won every election. I know there was a coup back in 2022 that failed but apparently the Biden administration had pressured the Brazilian military to accept the results. Considering the current administration and the US had helped participated in the 1964 coup. I don't think it's far fetched to assume.

Thoughts?

Like sure I get why they don't support Ukraine (although I full on disagree with that) but why are they so insanely deranged about Ukraine where nearly half the posts on that sub is about Ukraine? And they act like Ukraine is the spawn of Satan himself.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/jobs-and-the-future-of-work/gen-z-are-competitive-job-market-randstad

https://fortune.com/2026/09/25/despite-entry-level-job-apocalypse-half-of-gen-z-planning-to-look-for-new-work-before-end-of-2026/

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2026/10/20/gen-z-workers

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/bay-area-tech-workers-mounting-layoffs-strain/

I’ve been lurking on this sub for a while, and from all the discussions I’ve seen, I’ve gathered that liberals generally believe that we should streamline the immigration process and grant visas and pathways to citizenship to everyone who applies, provided they aren’t criminals.

Naturally, these people would be competing against the local population for jobs. Jobs are clearly limited, and I don’t see how bringing more people into the country would magically create new jobs for everyone.

So in light of that, do liberals believe there should be a cap on immigration numbers at all? If so how much exactly and how would that be calculated? Do you think we have an obligation to let young Americans graduating from college find jobs first, or should they be forced to compete with people from all over the world for the limited pool of jobs in America?

Lula has won the runoff election with approximately 51% of the vote, despite losing to Bolsonaro in the first round. Are you happy with this outcome and did Brazil make the right decision?

Recently I was in a major US city driving a car and there was a disheveled man in the middle of an intersection angrily yelling and gesturing at traffic. My thoughts are that he is in psychosis (in a medical sense, I'm a physician) and that he poses a threat to himself and the surrounding public (due to causing a roadway hazard) and likely needs immediate hospitalization. I called 911 and tried to tell them he needs medical help for mental illness but the dispatcher said they were going to send just police. I don't want anything bad happening to the man from a police officer shooting him because they don't know de-escalation techniques but I don't know what else I could have done. I don't live in this city and don't know of local resources, nor could I disrupt traffic longer than needed to stop and call 911.

Andy Beshear is decently well known for being a Democratic governor in a red state, Kentucky, something which is increasingly rare. To the casual observer, this, combined with him being a soft-spoken white man, makes him come off as a moderate. But, those more in the know are aware that, socially, he's to the left of practically every mainstream Democrat outside the DSA, particularly when it comes to his support for trans people. He has never wavered in his vocal allyship (even as he clearly gears up to aim for national office), while also never making the mistake of engaging with extremist ideology.

I would absolutely love it if there were more politicians in the country who were economically moderate and in favor of a strong border, while also being anti-ICE and willing to fight like Hell for minority groups, but that just doesn't seem to be much of a thing.

Why do you think that is?

Darializa Avila Chevalier (DAC) from NYC, covering parts of Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, is a genuine extreme far-left wacko will likely get elected to congress in next week's midterm elections. For those out of the loop, she is very anti-Ukraine and disgustingly pro Russia. She wants to abolish all police and prisons. She said COVID-19 was a "European plague" originating in France, and is against interracial relationships involving white people. She wants to abolish all borders and have zero deportations period. This is among many other completely batshit insane things.

She is a full fledged extreme leftist who wants government to facilitate the "seizure of the means of production." She seems like a genuine Marxist-Leninist and tankie, as opposed to the garden variety American DSA supporter who mainly advocates for Scandinavian style social democracy with backing for worker cooperatives here and there.

Most Democrats view her as a liability that Republicans will actively use to bash the broader Democratic Party in the head. She makes Zohran Mamdani look center-right, because compared to her, he is, despite them both being DSA. On top of everything, based off of her statements and interviews, she is clearly ill informed on the issues and truly pretty stupid.

So how should Democrats in congress treat her, especially if they win the House? Complete ostracization: as in outright refusing to seat her in the Democratic House caucus, no committee assignments, no leadership, demonization etc.? Helping support a more sane primary challenger to her in 2028? Or is the better approach begruding acceptance that no matter how extreme or ridiculous or toxic or wrong her views are, she is a legitimately elected candidate and deserves a say?

I see little to no evidence showing Gore would’ve won if the recount was completed. Is there even any evidence?

Perhaps if a full recount of every ballot was done, but that’s still a toss up, and a Gore win wouldn’t be guaranteed.

Or is the actual concern that SCOTUS shouldn’t have stepped in at all or made the wrong decision?

The decision that the equal protection clause was violated was 7-2 btw. It’s not like it was a partisan decision. A supermajority determined that the Florida court erred.

The 5-4 decision was the holding that the recounts had to be stopped.

To me, it seems like this talking point exists simply to stir up discontent. What do you think?

And by "Post-Scarcity", I mean, "all physiological needs are met for very low cost/virtually free; allowing all within society to pursue their own desires freely".

You can choose to answer only one part of the question, or all three. Be as detailed as you wish.

I've been beating around the bush with what I've really been thinking with my last few asks, and I apologize for that, but this is really the question I need to hear a good answer to.

I was raised by far-right parents, but a combination of being a dumb kid too stupid to internalize any of what they were saying, being a closet trans girl, and having a much older leftist brother kept me from ending up like them, and by the time I got to college, I was a leftist voting for Clinton in my first year eligible to vote. Since then, I have consistently voted downballot for Democrats every two years.

I am now questioning why I should bother continuing to do this.

I'm sure many will read the above and say "Because Republicans hate you" and really that's not even fully true. The far-right? Sure. Average conservatives? Not so much.

Meanwhile I've got bones to pick with leftists and liberals alike. Over the last few years, I've woken up to the extremist nature of the far-left and, among plenty of other harm they've caused, I think they're largely responsible for the anti-trans moral panic that's swept the country in the 2020s.

And liberals? They have made it VERY clear to me that "Just win baby" is more important to them than anything else, regardless of who gets thrown under the bus. I could deal with politicians not supporting trans women in women's sports; I don't support that either, even if I don't think there should be laws about it.

But it's just bridge after bridge this election season that candidates keep crossing, and liberals keep defending. Call us slurs? "Just win baby!" Decry "trans ideology in schools"? "Just win baby!" Take a stance against necessary healthcare being covered by insurance? "Just win baby!"

And not one of these people who insist "they're still better than Republicans" ever have a rebuttal when I point out how Labour UK also went down this slippery slope, and is now further right on this issue than MAGA.

So if neither party wants my vote as a trans woman, I should just vote as an upper-middle-class woman who wants lower taxes, a strong border, and safe streets.

This is where I am right now mentally.

Why do you think I should continue voting Democrat?

Just trying to determine if it's my imagination or confirmation bias or others are seeing this. Reddit has always been overwhelmingly left-leaning and still is. But, I feel like hardcore MAGA wingnuts are suddenly coming out of the woodwork and adding their 2 cents to every other post I make now and it's NEVER been that way before. I'm certain of it.

I don't want to live in an echo chamber. I'm an independent and have been for decades. I keep an open mind. I want to hear intelligent conservative arguments. That's fine.

But the number of deranged, delusional MAGA people I seem to be seeing now is like nothing I've ever seen here before outside of the gun subreddits I hang out in and the political subreddits that I very rarely frequent. Now it's everywhere.

Am I just imagining this shit or are you seeing it too?

I am looking for non-fiction books that cover liberalism and enlightenment ideas to help fortify any blind spots I might have politically. In an age of vibes based politics and populism, I find myself wanting to be even more principled. Here is the current list I've been working on:

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

Second Treaties of Government by John Locke

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu

The Republic by Plato

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle

First and Second Discourse, Social Contract by Rousseau

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

Symposium by Plato

The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Also if you recommend books for communism I'm just gonna assume you're illiterate <3

Definition below. It’s used in workplaces heavily. And elsewhere. Manufactured culpability refers to a condition or process in which criminal responsibility, blame, or guilt is engineered, conditioned, or attributed to an individual whose behavior was shaped or induced by an external system rather than authored by their own autonomous intent. [1, 2, 3]
Depending on the context, the term appears across distinct academic, legal, and political discussions:
Psychosocial Targeting & Criminology: In forensic psychology and legal theory, it describes how sustained psychosocial targeting or coercive environments destabilize a person's identity and self-regulatory capacity over time. Through structured processes (such as behavioral entrapment or ritualized humiliation), a person may be conditioned to react in ways that the legal system subsequently harvests and reattributes as proof of their intrinsic criminal character, creating a "justice gap". [1]

Political & Historical Contexts: In political science and totalitarian studies, regimes have deliberately manufactured culpability among subordinates (through shared complicity or entrapment) to ensure loyalty. By implicating officials in wrongdoing, the system binds them so they cannot afford the regime's collapse. [1]

General Legal Definition of Culpability: In criminal law (such as under the Model Penal Code), standard culpability requires a voluntary act paired with a culpable mental state—such as acting purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Manufactured culpability highlights situations where these traditional markers are artificially induced or structurally compromised. [1, 2, 3]