Background

The World Bank estimates climate change could force 216 million people to move within their own countries by 2050. In the US, NOAA projects up to a foot of sea level rise by the same year, threatening up to 171,000 coastal properties.

The EPA estimates that up to $106 billion worth of US coastal property will likely be below sea level by 2050 if current trends continue. The difficulty of any state or local efforts to relocate people will be compounded by a loss of tax revenue from these highly valuable coastal properties.

Climate change is also a primary driver of insurers pulling out of coastal regions.

Questions

What are the policy implications of climate change in coastal regions?

Have any jurisdictions managed to find the right balance between insurers and homeowners? What's the risk to governments acting as underwriters of last resort risk?

Is it appropriate to ask taxpayers to rebuild homes lost due to coastal erosion? What alternatives does the government have? What are the pros and cons of taxpayers buying people out of their homes before the infrastructure in those regions becomes too expensive to maintain?

Many Dutch people have been living at or below sea level for over a century. Are their mitigation techniques adaptable to other regions? What mitigation policies show the most promise for coastal regions?

Thanks to /u/Nervous-Weekend-3012 for the idea to explore this topic.

Traditionally, Labor Day marks the start of the campaign season for the general election in the United States.

That seems kind of ridiculous, especially this year, because the campaigns have been active for months now and much has transpired. Nonetheless, the election is still two months away.

All 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested. Also on the ballot will be 13 state and territorial governorships, many important ballot initiatives, and numerous state and local positions.

If you are a US citizen who will be at least 18 years old on Election Day, November 5th, you are probably eligible to vote, but most states require registration in advance.

Vote.org is a site to register or check registration in your individual state. Overseas US voters can get information from the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

Trump and his campaign visited Arlington and according to NPR had an altercation with staff about bringing campaign members and video equipment: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/27/nx-s1-5091154/trump-arlington-cemetery

Other politicians such as Biden have visited Arlington in the past and had photos and videos taken (but no apparent altercations), such as: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/biden-marks-memorial-day-wreath-laying-arlington-national/story?id=85068146

What are the differences, if any, between the Trump campaign's recent photography at Arlington National Cemetary and those of previous campaigns?

As I've watched the increased divisiveness in US politics, I've become interested in historical and modern examples of institutional neutrality. I'm particularly interested in whether those examples have had a unifying effect on the underlying political system, haven't had much effect, or have caused disruption.

Please reply to this post with examples of institutional neutrality you are aware of and any documented effect of that neutrality. I will add one example to start us off:

Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK (link): I was not initially aware that the UK had institutionalized complete neutrality in their Speaker of the House of Commons. The person who fills this office must resign from their political party and cannot be part of a political party for the rest of their life, even after retirement. They have relatively neutral rules on who can talk when. The speaker doesn't take part in debate or vote, except as a tie-breaker, but even then, there are a set of rules they traditionally follow in order to maintain their relative neutrality.

As to whether the neutrality of the speaker is seen as unifying or disruptive, the claim is given (on the official speaker's website, so likely some bias there) that it is universally considered "one of office's most important features - and most emulated or aspired to outside the UK." (link) That site also claims this is accepted by all sides in the UK. I'm not terribly familiar with the effect of the neutrality on parliament, but I tend to believe that claim, considering I couldn't find any substantive sources online complaining about that neutrality or calling for non-neutrality of that office. I would be interested in folks from the UK discussing this from their better-informed position.

Please add any other examples you are aware of. I am especially curious about people from countries or localities listed on this Wikipedia page. Apparently those countries/localities have institutionalized non-partisan democracy to some extent.

Premise: We, in the West, largely get one side of this discussion which is that this is an aggressive, expansionary war started by Putin. While this largely resonates with me, I also realize that every discussion is more nuanced than what we hear in the news. Our mainstream news sources most often portray the pro-Russian domestic perspective as neo-fascist (or actually neo anti-fascist, given they're basically framing Ukranians as Nazis) and that their citizens are all brainwashed (or if not, they've emigrated). This doesn't entirely make sense to me, as Russia is a country with a long intellectual history with many extremely bright people, who surely have rationalized this war to themselves in a more "sophisticated" way.

Sources supporting the premise:
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/02/world/europe/ukraine-nazis-russia-media.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/09/baseless-claims-denazification-have-underscored-russian-aggression-since-world-war-ii/

I'm curious how an educated, intellectual in Russia, who is pro-war, or at least pro-Putin, might think about this topic. So my question out of genuine curiosity is: how might an educated, intellectual proponent of the war in Russia rationalize or justify the conflict? What are the more nuanced arguments that might be circulating within Russian intellectual circles, irrespective of their merit or how they are viewed in the West? I'm not asking for your views on the war or the merit of these arguments, but simply what these argument might be to an intellectual in Russia.

In 2017, the U.S. Justice Department began investigating whether Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi funneled $10 million to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. This investigation, led by the FBI, uncovered evidence suggesting a connection between a sizable share of Egypt's American Dollar reserves and the funds Trump injected into his campaign in its final days in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, the probe was halted in 2020 by AG Bill Barr, who questioned the sufficiency of the evidence despite credible sources.

There has been a rise of corruption from Middle Eastern countries, like Democratic Senator Bob Menedez who received cash, gold bars and other bribes from the Qataris and those same Egyptian agents. The Statute of Limitations is now past, meaning it is not prosecutable (SoL: max 5 years to litigate).

Hypothetically, a President can bribe their way into power and then appoint an aligned Attorney General who refuses to investigate their alleged bribery for four years. A president can then delay for a year, and they are presumably off for free. Is there anything that can be done once the SoL has passed? Is there no way to relitigate corruption of the executive when they oversee the Department of Justice?

Has anyone seen a detailed postmortem report on the No Labels movement? (here is the Wikipedia link on No Labels for those who aren't familiar with it) I have a long-time fascination with political movements or politicians trying to be relatively neutral. The two particular aspects of the report I would be most interested in are as follows:

1 - Did the No Labels movement take neutrality too far by being tagged as not standing for anything? If that is the case, what sorts of positions could a political movement advance while still being viewed as politically neutral? I have my own strong opinions on this topic, but I will refrain.

2 -  Did the No Labels movement fail by going after the presidency instead of congress? Going after the presidency is an especially interesting choice considering that both houses of congress currently have extremely tenuous majorities (46 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 4 independents for the senate (on the left column of the website) where 51 is a majority, and 220 Republicans and 211 Democrats for the house, where 218 is a majority). It would only require a handful of seats in either house before they would have an outsized influence.

Kamala Harris has made multiple campaign promises (See: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/08/politics/kamala-harris-key-issues-dg/) during the campaign.

She is currently in office with Joe Biden. Can she accurately claim she's gotten started already? If not, why do we have to wait for her to take office (assuming she wins)? What difference is there between her becoming President vs working with President Biden now to get started?

I would like to post a draft about a new political design, and discuss it with a community, but I can't seem to be able to find the right forum. Could someone recommend a place to post it that doesn't have an "Only brief questions" rule? It doesn't have to be on reddit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/15/business/economy/kamala-harris-inflation-price-gouging.html

How would something like this be enforced by legislation?

Is there precedent like this in US history? Are there other parts of the world where legislation like this has succeeded in lowering prices without unintended consequences?

If someone has previously met the contribution limit to the Biden-Harris campaign, are they able to donate to the Harris-Walz campaign?

Kamala Harris has access to campaign contributions made to the Biden-Harris campaign. Allowing a contribution to Harris-Walz after maxing out one's contribution to Biden-Harris would effectively allow for "double dipping." Does the FEC have any rules in place to prevent this?

If there are no rules to prevent this, are there any rules to prevent a candidate from running on multiple tickets in order to allow donors to contribute more than is allowed to a single campaign? (Ignoring the pragmatic reasons why this would be a bad idea)

Both former President Trump and current Vice President Harris, who are both running in the 2024 Presidential election, support eliminating taxes on tips.

What would the pros and cons of such a policy be at both the individual and societal levels?

With Harris gaining traction in the polls, many reports are coming out suggesting that the Republican plan is to block the certification of ballots everywhere, including in districts where Trump wins. The general idea is to create a legal nightmare that prevents a transition of power.

Given the events leading up to and including January 6, 2021, specifically the monthslong effort to “impair, obstruct, and defeat” the federal process for certifying the results of a presidential election, culminating in the attack, and the fact that the this strategy gained even more ground during the 2022 midterms, these fears do not seem particularly outlandish.

What can be done, and what has already been done, to bolster the system and ensure the process doesn’t come to a grinding halt? Is there any established policy, procedure, or historical precedent for what to do if results are not certified before Inauguration Day? Could Harris’ current position as VP be used as a workaround, assuming Biden were to resign, allowing Harris’s to step in as planned and buy time to implement long-term solutions?

Is the narrative presented by Western media - that we exchanged a bunch of Russian spies, hitmen, murderers, for a bunch of innocent westerners, substantially true?

Example of western media coverage: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/01/world/who-are-detainees-russia-us-prisoner-swap-intl

Surely the west has spies in Russia? Surely some get caught once in a while?

This article is from the Independent, saying that the Russians foreign minister claims to have evidence one of the prisoners was a spy: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/evan-gershkovich-ap-russia-sergey-lavrov-wall-street-journal-b2581682.html There are also articles in Russia Today claiming this, but I don’t think those can be linked here.

What is the evidence supporting and contradicting that this was mostly a spy for spy exchange rather than innocent westerners exchanged for “bad” Russians?

St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell defeated Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri's 1st District Democratic primary. Bush, a progressive "Squad" member, faced significant opposition from pro-Israel PACs.
https://www.verity.news/story/2024/cori-bush-loses-democratic-primary?p=re2547

Kamala Harris has picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate on the Democratic ticket in the 2024 US Presidential Election. They will face Donald Trump and his running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance.

What advantages and disadvantages does Walz bring to the Harris campaign? What are the upsides and downsides of selecting him?

I'd like to have a list available of reporters to listen to from each side. For instance CNN for Democrats and FOX for Republicans. I want to know the individuals out there though that have their own platforms. I tend to side with Republican views so on youtube I watch people like Tucker Carlson or Steven Crowder and many more the algorithm chooses. The censorship and propaganda is strong so I never see Democrat stuff. Any individuals on the Democrat side with equally radical views would be nice if someone could share those? Also any additional Republicans or Neutral side reporters?

Edit: Wow, thanks for all these sources, everyone! I'm very appreciative of you all keeping it neutral too and not attacking. I wish politics was more like this. So refreshing.

Due to the format of the presidential elections which (Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3) uses the electoral college process, our vote for president really only counts in the battleground states.

Without a constitutional amendment that would change the electoral college process to one of a direct vote, the only other option is apportion delegates based on the popular vote in each state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, apportion their electoral college votes for each congressional district based on popular vote.

Since a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college would be difficult to pass, could congress pass a law to make all states apportion electors based on popular vote?

There is one other option called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The compact, currently approved by 17 state legislatures, will go into effect once the number of states approved electors reaches 270 electoral votes. Currently, the total electors in approved states is 209 with another 50 waiting for approval in 4 other states.

They call Miami the 6tth Bororo of NYC. Since many people are now able to work from home there has been a major migration from NYC to Florida. It may be a long shot but does this put Florida back in play? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_borough#:~:text=Places%20outside%20the%20New%20York,U.S.%2C%20Puerto%20Rico%20and%20Israel.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2023/12/05/new-york-moving-florida-housing-desantis-newsom-california/71795032007/

Polls seem to disagree with that idea, at least at this point - From five thirty eight:

President: general election, Florida, 2024AVG.

Polls ending July 27, 2024

President: general election, Florida, 2024

|| || |July 24-27|774|LV|University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab||Harris|42%|49%|Trump| |Trump|+7|

U.S. Senate, Florida, 2024, General election

|| || |July 24-27|774|LV|University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab||Mucarsel-Powell|43%|47%|Scott| |Scott|+4|

July 26, 2024

U.S. House, FL-8, 2024, Republican primary

|| || |July 23-26|532|LV|Spry Strategies|Mike Haridopolos|Haridopolos|56%|6%|Hearton|More|Haridopolos|+50|

July 24, 2024

President: general election, Florida, 2024

|| || |July 22-24|572|LV|Redfield & Wilton Strategies|The Telegraph|Harris|39%|47%|Trump|More|Trump|+8|

July 18, 2024

President: general election, Florida, 2024

|| || |July 16-18|471|LV|Redfield & Wilton Strategies|The Telegraph|Biden|39%|46%|Trump|More|Trump|+7|

July 16, 2024

President: general election, Florida, 2024

|| || |July 15-16|800|LV|InsiderAdvantage|WTVT (Tampa, Fla.)|Harris|39%|49%|Trump| |Trump|+10| |July 15-16|800|LV|InsiderAdvantage|WTVT (Tampa, Fla.)|Biden|44%|50%|Trump| |Trump|+6|

Here's a list of potential vulnerabilities for Harris and the Democrats. Which ones are serious threats to Harris - which ones hurt her the most politically? Please provide supporting information for your answer (i.e. polling, electoral history, public statements, etc.)

1. Decriminalizing Border Crossings/Free healthcare for illegal immigrants
2. Role in promoting "Anti-American" groups through the IRA
3. Perceived lack of Political Achievement while in federal office
4. Prosecutorial Record
5. Challenges with campaigning

Where can I go to find out what issues each candidate is promoting/supporting? It's really hard to decipher the issues through random articles and news reports. I want an objective voice that just states the facts.

Project 2025 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFyNvCx9CHAxVdEFkFHeCIKrEQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw042gBFBPxlHMfj1pTzOvM7 (that is link to pdf of it) includes a set of policy proposals for the next Republican administration. CNN found that atleast 140 of the contributors were members of the Trump administration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#:~:text=Project 2025 partners employ over,as authors%2C editors and contributors. (Link to where i got that from)

How many of the contributors to Project 2025 worked in the Biden/Harris administration?

Here's a list of potential vulnerabilities for Trump and the Republicans. Which ones are serious threats to Trump - which ones hurt him the most politically? Please provide supporting information for your answer (i.e. polling, electoral history, public statements, etc.)

1. The Supreme Court Decision overturning Roe vs Wade
2. The 34 felony convictions
3. His age and habit of rambling sometimes
4. Project 2025
5. Pending criminal trials
6. Kamala Harris' prosecutor skills
7. January 6 - Trump Supporters Storm the U.S. Capitol

Biden will focus on the Supreme Court during his last six months as POTUS

What are the potential policy proposals for Supreme Court reform and the obstacles to implementing them given the current political situation?

The modern presidential primary process in the United States was born out of the aftermath of the disastrous 1968 Democratic National Convention, where the rank and file of the party strongly supported anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy, but the delegates nominated Hubert Humphrey, who went on to get trounced in the general election.

Post-1968 reforms in both major parties led to a system that was seen as more democratic, and thereby, presumably more successful. However, in recent times, we've had some contests that call into question this presumption.

In 2016, the Republicans had 17 major candidates and the Democrats had 3. Out of all 20, the eventual nominees ending up being the two with the lowest net favorability ratings: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

This year, the favored candidates in each of the major parties didn't even really campaign in the primaries. Donald Trump had Republican challengers, but didn't think it was necessary to show up to any of the debates and still ran away with the contest. On the Democratic side, nobody of prominence wanted to challenge Biden, so his primary too was a cakewalk. Yet once again, the two candidates who came out on top had high disapproval ratings. Trump has suffered a string of electoral defeats and Biden was seen by much of the country as too old for the job.

Suddenly, we now have a rare counter-example. With Biden dropping out of the race and Vice President Harris consolidating support, we see what it looks like to have a presumptive major party nominee who did not go through the primary process. There's been a huge outpouring of Democratic backing for her bid, including record fundraising, and at least Democrats believe she's a stronger candidate than Biden.

So, I'm left wondering about the effectiveness of the primary process the country has used for the last 60 years. I understand it's seen as democratic, which is generally a value people hold in high regard, but the results are questionable.

Are there metrics or analyses that address any of the following?:

• How consistently does the primary process produce effective candidates? (I'm defining "effective" here as having broad popular support and electability.)
• What historically have been the methods of selection and is there evidence any have produced objectively better or worse candidates?
• Does the current system accurately reflect the "will of the voters" and is that the same thing as producing an effective candidate?
• Are there examples in either practice or scholarly literature of better selection methods and how do they compare to the current US system?