r/AskUS

Im not asking you to insult them, or create the dumbest caricature you can imagine in order to feel like your sides stances hold up. Im asking who can articulate the opposing sides views in a way that a majority on that side would say, "yup, thats exactly how I feel and why I vote for my candidate"

No explaining why theyre dumb for thinking that way.. or secretly evil. Just wanting you to explain the oppositions views in a way theyd support, to see if either side REALLY understands each other or if its all just people brainwashed into believing the dumbest more evil versions of their political opposition without ever actually listening to them.

Why are you against illegal immigration?

Personally i would call myself a leftist. I do have a few conservative views like abortion and transgender ideology, but mostly i am a leftist.

One of the main issues i see discussed is illegal immigration. Gotta ask: why?
“Its illegal” is not a good argument. Legality ≠ morality.

Whats so wrong about crossing a non-existent line?

And its not like they’re coming and sucking up resources like a sponge, they pay billions in taxes and do not benefit from those taxes. They cannot take social security or wellfare.

They are not commiting more crime either. Seriously think about it. Why would they risk everything to go to a country just to commit crimes? They commit less crimes than us citizens. This includes legal and illegal immigrants. They have much lower incarceration rates.

They aren’t “lazy”. They are not taking up jobs/housing/whatever either. They mostly do intergral jobs to our society. See in colleges in the global south, they teach skills that are not really useful there because there is not good infrastructure. What would an electrician do in a country with only 18% power? Or one where construction isn’t done as much as here? Majority of the jobs they do are construction, housekeeping, cooking, landscaping, agriculture, plumbing, etc. basically trade school jobs. And they only take up 4% of the workforce

And you need to see both sides of the story. My parents are legal immigrants. And i can tell you: it is NOT easy to get into america legally. Let me ask you a question: do you know how to legally immigrate to the united states? No? yeah, thats what i thought. It is NOT an easy process. It is EXCEPTIONALLY hard to come here. Just for a better life. There’s tons of super strict requirements, and only 0.2% win the “diversity lottery” to enter. Only 140k people recieve visas anually. Out of 8 billion people, that is alot. Even if you do get a visa, there isn’t enough judges. Theres a 12Million person backup for only a couple thousand judges. And the costs also skyrocket. I know people still in my home country, and they’ve all tried to apply. Didn’t work. This country is basically impossible to legally enter. Do you see how someone could want to enter illegally now? Most people TRY the legal way, yet it is basically impossible!

Now, i know what you’re saying. “It’s still illegal!”. i KNOW. That is why we should have legal pathways. Personally, i support closing down boarders and not letting illegals in. But letting those already in stay. Ice is just stupid and a huge waste of money. however, there should actually be a way to enter legally. I believe in an embassy system. Lets say you’re a man in guatemala and you want to immigrate to the usa. You’d go to the us embassy, go fill out some papers, identity, go through a background check, pay a fee, etc. and if its all good, you’ll get your visa in like 3-8weeks. This prevents actual violent criminals from getting in. There can even be incentive. Like if you are skilled, if you need to get in for education, if you need to get in for a job, if you have a family, health, etc. if so, you get priority. The rest gets processed in the order they’re recieved. Once you’re in the us you can continue your citizenship journey there. There would also need to be a department of immigration. To process the requests. Ice shouldn’t be abolished but should be reformed. It should stop focusing on illegals in here and focus on those attempting to enter. And it should have more focus on drug smugglers, drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc. it also needs a full rebrand.

I find it hard to believe an entire country can be so brainwashed and toxic. The vast generalizations about 100 million people at a time. Sweeping allegations that the other side are voting the way they do because of the most evil of intentions rather than assuming they are voting for what they believe is the best option based on their own individual priorities/likely outcome. Assuming one side identifies with all the worst possible traits of their candidate rather than the best traits.

Its like Americans have given up on actually presenting the best policies and arguments for their side, and instead adopted the strategy of twisting words and trying to paint their political opponents as the worst possible humans imagineable. Are both sides policies really so bad that nobody can defend them without trying to strawman the other side and attack them on some personal false narrative in attempts to discredit them? ​

Is his gesture signaling the US is in fact on par with if not under North Korea? What do they got over him that Iran don’t?

Why he using rhetoric like “very powerful” about weapons targeted at none other than his own country?

Hi! :D I'm from Europe and I'm doing a SURVEY for Americans. Once I had to make some for school but about my country and now I had an idea to do a USA version. Here are the rules:

- The questions are about top topics in America. Most controversial

- There are 10 questions altogether with mostly YES / NO/ NO OPINION answers

- Obviously only Americans or those living in America can take part

- All answers are correct cause they're YOUR and HONEST answers. I won't answer... your answers, I'll just carry on with the next question and then you're done and annonymous of course

There is no limit in people, the more THE BETTER! So comment down if you're interested and I'll DM you!!🇺🇸🇺🇸

[I didn't have more American friends so I'm searching the land of reddit]

One thing I have noticed in American political discussions is how often “liberal,” “left-wing,” “progressive,” and “conservative” are treated almost as interchangeable labels, even though historically and internationally they describe different political traditions.

Outside the United States, liberal does not necessarily mean left-wing. Liberalism historically has strong connections to individual rights, private property, constitutional government and market economics. A person can therefore be economically liberal while being politically center-right. Likewise, someone can be progressive without being a socialist.

The left itself is a spectrum. Social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, socialists and communists are not the same thing. Democratic socialism is also different from revolutionary socialism. Social democrats generally seek redistribution, stronger public services, labor protections and regulation while maintaining a capitalist economy.

The same problem exists on the right. Center-right liberals, conservatives, national conservatives, reactionaries, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are not interchangeable either. They may agree on particular policies while starting from completely different political philosophies.

This becomes especially confusing with the word “conservative.”

Conservatism in the Burkean tradition is fundamentally concerned with institutions, continuity, inherited practices and skepticism toward abrupt political transformation. It does not simply mean opposition to social change or adherence to religious morality.

And wanting to preserve institutions while allowing gradual reform is fundamentally different from wanting to restore an idealized social order from the past.

The first can reasonably be called conservatism.

The second has another perfectly useful political name: reactionary politics.

Religion complicates this even further. Religious politics cannot simply be placed at one point on the left-right spectrum. Christianity, for example, has been associated historically with conservative and reactionary movements, but also with Christian democracy, Catholic social teaching, abolitionism, the American civil-rights movement and liberation theology in Latin America.

Economics adds another dimension. Someone can be socially progressive and economically liberal. Someone else can be socially conservative while supporting a strong welfare state, trade unions or protectionism. Nationalism, social policy, economic policy and attitudes toward institutions do not necessarily move together.

This is why I find the American political vocabulary so restrictive.

The American two-party system compresses an enormous ideological spectrum into two electoral coalitions. As a result, people who would probably belong to several different parties in a multiparty democracy all end up being described simply as either “liberals” or “conservatives.”

You can see this inside the Democratic Party itself: centrists, social liberals, progressives and politicians associated with democratic socialism can operate under the same party label despite substantial disagreements over economics.

The same applies to Republicans: traditional institutional conservatives, religious conservatives, economic libertarians, nationalists, protectionists and reactionaries can coexist under one party.

So my point isn't that Americans are using English “incorrectly.” Political terminology naturally develops differently in different countries.

My point is that American political terminology should not be treated as a universal ideological map.

Once you compare American politics with Latin America or Europe, the simple equation

liberal = left / conservative = right

starts breaking down very quickly.

There's been discussion of Canada joining the US from time to time, but what about the other way around? Obviously the entire US joining Canada would really complicate things and overwhelm them, but what if it was one state at a time?

Children shot at school is just the cost of a free society according to his organization but his followers have found a way to get free money it seems.

I keep hearing various politicians say the USA is the wealthiest nation and the nation with the largest military in the world. Therefore, the USA is powerful and no need to worry. However, I am a bit confused. If the USA is in debt, how is it the wealthiest country? The only thing needed is a country with $0 in order to be wealthier....right? Or am I misinterpreting the entire thing?

Am I the only one seeing through Trump's bad faith arguments on voting fraud?

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/19/903886567/trump-while-attacking-mail-voting-casts-mail-ballot-again

Hello,

My boyfriend is an American dual citizen and we are both from a country that is on the ban list. We’ve been talking about marriage and that’s how I found out about the ban and that it’s nearly impossible for us to do a spousal visa thing.

I really don’t know much about it and I’m asking desperately if there’s anything that can be done? Or if the ban could possibly be lifted in the next year or so?

Without marriage we would simply have to breakup as there’s no future for our relationship

I appreciate any advice or help

Looking back at the footage, the ambassador was clearly not having a good time and rubio attitude did not indicated him being in on this (he was sinking in the couch pretty much), trump and vance kept berraating zelensky for no reason and focused on the suit when it's not something important or disrespectful and zelensky thanked the us plenty of time for its support so here, trump and vance are making the us look like backstabbers and I don't get what vance has against ukraine, at best he's acting like a putin useful idiot , same goes for trump, even if not paid, bieng a putin useful idiot is not a good look.