Anonymous #3 10w

I’d choose another country for Education, we have a crisis of people not even graduating high school

22

Anonymous #4 10w

I choose the US because of our colleges, which our highschools funnel into. Even if the highschool education isn’t the best, it gets you into a college education and postgrad education that is the best.

-5

Anonymous #3 10w

I agree that it’s high quality, but university tuitions are rising, making attendance more exclusive, and our goal should be making sure everyone receives fundamental education (i.e. finishes their secondary education) at the very least.

14

Anonymous #4 10w

Yes that is true. Trump’s new bill capped PLUS loans, which makes it practically impossible for lower-income students to attend university. Still, the QUALITY of education is unmatched.

-1

Anonymous #3 10w

Yep… his stupid “big beautiful bill” will make it so that I have to pay insane interest on my medical school loans. I hate him for so many reasons. Anyway, as someone privileged enough to attend a university, I do agree about the quality.

10

Anonymous #4 10w

Yep. I am not going to medical school now because of it… or at least waiting for a new administration to roll it back.

11

Anonymous #3 10w

Good luck to you. It’ll take a long time, but residency can help you work off the bills. I’m projected to start in 2028, so hopefully there will be a significant amount of legislative changes closer to that time.

9

Anonymous #4 10w

Yeah. I refuse to take out private loans, so I will either have to give up on my dreams or wait for things to roll back

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Our colleges are much less affordable than in many other countries, leading to a crisis of student loan debt. Japan’s immigration policy isn’t exactly helping them much with their aging population. And we, currently, are also below replacement rate in terms of births. Also our political system is very dysfunctional.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Oh buddy if only you knew how bad our education system is I went to college for two years to become a teacher and stopped to get a different degree because the institution of education is rotting from the inside out. You could write a 10,000 page book on it and still just barely scratch the surface

0

Anonymous #1 10w

I guess the goal would be American quality of education but higher affordability

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I was grading the quality of education, not cost. Japan’s immigration policy is ideal, their replacement rate is not. Our political system is dysfunctional, but I like the idea that it inhibits the tyranny of the majority and I like the way it is structured. The politicians themselves suck but its structure is very good.

1

Anonymous #5 10w

You can dispute cost but if you’re gonna sit here and argue that we don’t have the best colleges, you’re spewing nonsense. Perhaps, you just went to a shitty college.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I think the suckiness of our politicians is a symptom of the structure. A winner take all system inhibiting political diversity, a system which disproportionately empowers rural conservatism, a system that allows for gerrymandering, a lack of Supreme Court accountability, an erosion of checks and balances, the enabling of corporate lobbying. It prevents “tyranny of the majority” by making a tyranny of the minority (primarily conservatives).

1

Anonymous #3 10w

We have excellent colleges, but those mean very little if the foundation of our education is weak. And I don’t think that, for the large percentage of Americans who don’t go to college, a poor system is sustainable for the wellbeing of the country. Discussing just colleges is ignoring a massive amount of the population

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I also think the multiethnic reality of our country and a history built upon immigration is very incompatible with Japan’s xenophobia. Like they have political groups dedicated to fearmongering about Zainichi Koreans and Japanese Brazilians. We should not aspire to Japanese hyper-racism.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

It goes both ways lol. What about in the 60s-80s when liberals were staunchly outnumbered? The political pendulum swings back and forth, and our political system stops one side from accumulating insurmountable power. While it seems like Trump has broke that, he will get smoked in the midterms, and things will revert to the way they were. Pendulum.

3

Anonymous #1 10w

Whose ideal military is Israel?? Like holy larp they could’ve at least given the US that one (I don’t support the MIC, just recognize the capabilities and engineering of the US Military)

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Everyone can go to their local community college for practically free. If they choose not to further their education, that’s on them.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I don’t know I mean I’m 50/50 on it. I see that but at the same time, I also agree that people born here should be prioritized by our government over newcomers. H1B visas are fucking terrible. The border has been terrible. I don’t agree with what Trump or ICE are doing at the same time though, so it’s a tough position for me.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

That does not change that our political system disproportionately empowers specific geographic and ethnic subsets of voters. Not only does the makeup of the house and senate disproportionately empower rural voters (who tend to be conservative), the electoral college turns the presidency campaign from “appeal to the most voters” to “convince a tiny number of centrist swing voters”

1

Anonymous #1 10w

There is a reason for this. Our system was made that way so that the slave states would have disproportionate power relative to their small white populations. People SHOULD be empowered. Minorities should not be tossed aside. But why are rural (mostly white) people the one minority deserving of that attention, at the expense of more urban minority groups. It wouldn’t be as much of a problem if rural voters didn’t vote in racist awfulness.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I think the system should be fair. If it’s fair and most of the country is conservative, so be it. But currently it gives conservatives disproportionate power, which is being used to harm vulnerable minorities (which is what a constitutional system that isn’t a direct democracy should prevent)

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I don’t know man like I understand the argument, but I think it’s important that a candidate address the needs of the suburbs of Atlanta, the farms of Iowa, and the urbanites of Detroit all in one campaign because that addresses the needs of all Americans, not just urbanites. Otherwise, candidates would hardly distinguish from one another and just bounce from city to city appeasing to their voters. Also, FYI, the majority of voters live in suburbs (~52%), not cities. Cities and rural areas…

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Are roughly 25% each, so yes, I do think it is important that a candidate address both considering suburbs being swingy. Also, you can make the population argument, but rural America is the backbone of this country regardless of its political leaning. Their voice shouldn’t be ignored in favor of big city millionaires who want to expand out into their land and turn it into cookie cutter apartments.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Well I think the house should be expanded every census to make each seat represent that population of the smallest state (WY) as opposed to inflating Wyoming’s electoral power. I think that would solve that issue, which I do believe is a growing issue and agree with you on.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I live in a rural town. Rural America is supported overwhelmingly by the tax base of larger urban centers. When our system leads to such disastrous stuff as Donald Trump, that indicates it’s not working well. You’re acting like the electoral college requires appeal to the vast majority of Americans, but it doesn’t. Donald Trump didn’t appeal to black voters. He didn’t campaign for Indian Country. He got the votes of suburban and rural whites and some Latinos.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

And urban America is entirely supported by the agriculture of rural America. It goes both ways.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

The system we have is massively harming not only this country’s ethnic minorities, but this country as a whole. If a system hurts black people at the whims of rural whites, how is that a system that protects minorities? And by the way, tons of farmers are millionaires. They make well above the national average.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

We have a system where farmers receive billions from the federal government to prop them up but then we are cutting food aid from needy children.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

You say that as if farmers, who are arguably hold arguably the most important role in America, aren’t deserving of the money they make. Again, I think the problem with marginalizing minorities lies moreso in the structure of the House and I agree that it should be fixed.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

And in return, those farmers supply the entire country. I don’t agree with aid cuts.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I do think the house is a big issue in that regard so I do support working to fix that. But I think the electoral college is also an issue. Plus, the college being a “winner takes all” system state by state is a massive problem. If you took that away it would solve the biggest issue with the college imo (especially if paired with a house restructuring).

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Right, but the system we have puts people in power who do those aid cuts. That is the product of disproportionately empowering white conservative voters in elections.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I think the electoral college is perfect aside from recounting each state’s votes to align with what their new representative + 2 senator count would be if each state got added votes from my aforementioned proposal. Doing it any other way would further limit the corners of the country that candidates reach out to.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I’m gonna be honest, farmers get spoon fed. They get cheap water, they get cheap land for their cattle, they get preferential loans, they get a preferential type of bankruptcy, they get propped up by government incentives. And then we treat the migrant workers who do a ton of the actual labor like shit. I’m fine with the farmers existing, it’s an important job. But I’m tired of them fucking over everyone else politically, and being extremely entitled.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Sure, but they are about to get molly whopped in the midterms, which our system also empowers. All of the situation we are in can be accredited to the dumbfuck DNC for not having a primary. It has very little to do with a voter base that was hesitant to vote for such a disastrous VP. Literally Walter Mondale 2.0

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Yeah and they should. Without them, neither of us would be here.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

That doesn’t make it right. The midterms are still going to be way closer than they should be based on the actual Republican base in this country. That’s due to the structure of the house and senate (and by extension the electoral college) but also gerrymandering being legal. Trump shouldn’t have even been president in the first place, most of America didn’t vote for him the first time.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

So they deserve to get tons of money but the migrant laborers who do the work get treated like garbage? Meanwhile the tax base that props up the farmers is harmed by their political choices. Yeah it’s a symbiosis. But that doesn’t mean the farmers have the right to fuck over everyone else.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Both sides of my family come from farming backgrounds btw. I just work in conservation and have seen how incredibly selfish the resource extraction professions (fishing, logging, farming) are regarding natural resources. The farmers are just the pinnacle because it also extends to politics and finances.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

The midterms won’t be close. Dems are polling ahead in Idaho, Texas, Wyoming, South Carolina, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Alaska and a poll yesterday had them tied in SD. Do you realize how bad things have to be for Republicans to be behind in polls in those states?!? Even if they don’t win them, which they probably won’t win most of them, it still shows the state of how the country feels toward this administration.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

And that is a valid argument to make. I am just emphasizing their importance as a whole.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Right, in any normal system though the democrats would have a much more landslide victory relative to the political attitudes in this country. And the republicans wouldn’t have a majority in the house because what they currently have is due to gerrymandering.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Like what you are saying is “if the democrats are winning that means the republicans must be extremely unpopular!” And that’s kind of my point. Even with being unpopular, our system still provides republicans with a buffer that gives them disproportionate political power due to having a primarily white and disproportionately rural base.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Well yeah gerrymandering has to change I won’t argue that. Expanding the house to make each seat Wyoming’s population would make it harder for them to do.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Well white people make up the majority of America. I don’t think it should be criticized to say that white voters should have the most say in elections considering they make up the majority of voters.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I think partisan gerrymandering would be illegal. Honestly if we banned it, changed the house population system like you suggest, and then make the electoral college allocate electors to multiple candidates based on the vote split within a state, I’d take it. I don’t like the senate but I’d let it be if those other things happened.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

The key here is disproportionate. White voters have more political influence relative to their population. What we ideally want is ethnic groups having an influence proportional to their population. Because currently black people are politically marginalized. They have less influence than they should relative to their population.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I think the senate is a very important balance to the house. I get the criticism, but it is still important imo. As for splitting the electoral vote, I am 50/50 on that, but I lean toward winner take all just because it puts more of an emphasis on trying to win a state as opposed to just ignoring them. It would also make states with uneven electoral votes have WAY more power than ones with even votes.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Black people are genuinely the least politically marginalized minority. 12% of congress is black. 13% of the US is black. That is practically equal representation. Compared to hispanics, who make up 10% of congress and 20% of the population, and 4% for Asians who make up 8%. Black voters are not politically marginalized at all, though Trump stomping on the VRA will probably change that soon. As it stands though, they are not.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

That’s why I’m willing to leave the senate be, because I do get the concept behind that existing in a federal system. My main thing with the electoral vote is that it would make it more representative of the whole country, and it doesn’t completely disenfranchise the political minorities within each state. Plus I think there’d be a benefit from incentivizing winning MORE of a state rather than just barely over half.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Well we can agree to disagree on that. I understand the disagreement, but I think the electoral college is fine. Also like I said, your way gives way too much power to states with uneven electoral vote counts.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Like you would still get rural states having a say, and it would still even be disproportionate due to the senate electoral vote. But suddenly republicans in California matter, as do democrats in Texas. And this would be MASSIVE in enfranchising the southern black population, who are extremely politically active, but are held back by gerrymandering and a very partisan white population.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Any system which leads to the 2016 election is not fine. Where a candidate whose platform is racism and xenophobia can become president with most Americans voting against him. A president should be representative of the majority of the country. Leave the state-by-state representation to the senate.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

That logic is still flawed though. There are enough black voters in Georgia to flip it. There are enough black voters in the Carolinas to flip them. There are enough black voters in Mississippi and Louisiana to flip them. Same with Florida.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Okay but think about the millions of Republicans who don’t vote in the Pacific states, New England, Illinois, and NY/NJ because they just assume their vote is useless. This is especially true for New England Illinois and California which have essentially no swing districts for the house either, so there is no reason for them to be engaged. In TX and Florida, there at least WERE a good amt of swing districts in 2016 that made it make sense for Dems to turn up regardless. And FL was still a…

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Swing state. In all honesty, idk how we’d implement it but I kinda wish we had a system like Australia where everyone has to vote because then we’d get a genuine feel for the state of the country. I think you could say pretty confidently that people wanted change in 2016 and had everyone in the country voted, Trump prob would’ve won the popular vote. Maybe I’m wrong, but who knows.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I was actually specifically thinking of Mississippi when I said this. It has an extremely politically active black population, but they essentially don’t matter in presidential elections. They can’t flip Mississippi or South Carolina, it isn’t even close. The only southern states where black votes matter in presidential (or senate) elections are the ones where there’s a significant enough affluent white population to be flipped. Thats Georgia and North Carolina. Black voters tend to be ignoredz

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Sounds like a great argument for making electoral college votes proportional to the candidates. Republicans in Oregon and democrats in Arkansas alike both would have their votes matter, which also should drive up political engagement across the board. Now everyone’s votes matter because even if one candidate wins the state overall, some electors can still go to their rival.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Hey Trump won the popular vote in 2024. The majority of the country can vote for stupid shit. But at least that stupid shit can be genuinely democratic and it should reflect most Americans wanting stupid shit.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Well maybe not in this last election because of how much Trump boosted turnout, but generally, they would have at least gotten closer.

1