r/moderatepolitics

A direct quote from Trump's speech:

"We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms if we are foolish, stupid, and unwise," he continued. "But if we terminate the filibuster as we should do and immediately vote for the SAVE America Act, then we will not lose an election for a hundred years. We do that, we're not gonna lose an election for a hundred years. The communist party is made up of illegal immigrants, criminals, and everybody that doesn't want to work. Communism is a loser. It always was. And it is right now. It's a big loser. Look at the people that are promoting it. They are not the people you are going to follow."

This editorial by the Guardian comments on the recent nationwide anti-immigration protests, including some violent assaults by vigilante groups, in South Africa.

The article correctly condemns the xenophobic violence and highlights the inability of many anti-immigration voices to correctly diagnose the root causes of declining living standards: government corruption and mismanagement. A similar article was written in the FT: https://www.ft.com/content/a95dbb80-fb98-4c85-8b8b-cfc1f6e7d70c

I am posting this because the recent June 30 protests were the biggest issue in South Africa in the weeks leading up to the "deadline" protestors set for illegal immigrants to leave the country.

Happy 250th, everyone. With all the chaos in the news right now, it’s easy to feel like the country is actively falling apart. But I ran across this interesting article today that takes a step back to look at the deep historical architecture of the US, and it honestly gave me some perspective

The main argument is that the American identity isn't just two and a half centuries old, but a continuation of a legal and philosophical journey stretching back thousands of years. Our institutions are basically evolved versions of ancient models the Senate mirrors the Roman Republic, and the House of Representatives traces its lineage straight to the British House of Commons.

What really clicked for me was the point about modern political gridlock. As someone who loves breaking down how media narratives are shaped vs. how these foundational systems actually function, I always find it fascinating to see how people freak out over legislative gridlock. The constant friction between the White House and Congress isn’t a modern glitch or a sign of collapse. It's an intentional feature built on English common law and a deep historic aversion to tyranny. The system was designed to be agonizingly slow and difficult to make sure no single person could get absolute control.

John Aziz argues that the Mamdani-aligned wing of NYC politics — including recent primary winners like Darializa Avila Chevalier — has shifted from reformism to what he calls "destructivism": abolish police, prisons, borders, and capitalism, with no articulated replacement. His central question is that a society without those institutions still needs to enforce order, handle dangerous people, and allocate resources — so who gets that power instead? Is "abolition" politics better understood as a serious governing program or as a moral signal, and should candidates be held to answering the "replace it with what" question?

Hello everyone, and welcome to the weekly General Discussion thread. Many of you are looking for an informal place (besides Discord) to discuss non-political topics that would otherwise not be allowed in this community. Well... ask, and ye shall receive.

General Discussion threads will be posted every Friday and stickied for the duration of the weekend.

Law 0 is suspended. All other community rules still apply.

As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. Comments arguing over individual moderation actions or attacking individual users are *not* allowed.

Two weeks ago, delegates at the Texas Republican Party’s convention used their platform to formally call for an end to IVF, as they argue it acts to “destroy embryonic life.” At the time, Paxton publicly disagreed and said he is a “strong supporter of IVF and pro-family policies.”

However, on Saturday Paxton did an interview wit the Washington Examiner at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference in Washington, D.C., where he expressed openness to restrictions on the procedure, telling them: “We need to have restrictions, so that we don’t lose fertilized eggs, if that’s possible, and we need to just examine the issue. But I know that there are also a lot of couples that couldn’t have children without this, and so you’ve got two competing good things that need to be dealt with.” Paxton also declined to say that he would support national right to IVF bills.

It seems like Paxton is trying to strike a balance between two constituencies: voters who support IVF access and social conservatives who believe embryos should be legally protected from fertilization onward.

Is there a realistic way to reduce embryo loss in IVF without substantially reducing success rates or increasing costs? Do you see Paxton’s comments as a genuine policy position, or primarily an attempt to navigate a politically difficult issue? Should states regulate how IVF clinics create and handle embryos, or should those decisions remain primarily between patients and their physicians?