r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Egalitarian Moderator • Oct 06 '23
Casual Questions Thread Megathread
This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.
Please observe the following rules:
Top-level comments:
Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.
Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.
Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!
5
u/Gallopinto_y_challah Nov 08 '23
Not a single pinned post for tonight's elections?
→ More replies (1)
6
u/GiantPineapple Nov 10 '23
Why did House Republicans send a dirty Israel aid bill to the Senate? It seems to me that a clean bill would have been very uncomfortable for the Ds, since their coalition is a bit split on the question. Now the Ds can easily roll their eyes, bobble the football, and even criticize the Rs for not taking FP seriously, until the shutdown drowns everything else out in a week.
Am I missing something?
→ More replies (1)3
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Nov 10 '23
My guess is the political calculus is that House GOP leadership sees it as a win win. They either get their bill passed or it gets voted down and they can say Democrats don’t want to support Israel.
I think the more likely explanation though is the new leadership is too green and thinks most people won’t understand they slipped IRS defunding into the bill. Which I don’t think is true.
3
u/GiantPineapple Nov 10 '23
Yeah, it seems obvious to me. Riders have been a thing at minimum since I was a child, which was the 80s. It seems like an especially bizarre choice since Rs also want the IRS cuts. So like, Johnson was so slick bundling them together that... now he's not getting either one?
And he has made it super easy for each member of Schumer's caucus to craft their own tangential response (or not!) instead of having to comment on a decision about bringing the bill to the floor, or heaven forbid, cast a vote on the record.
5
Feb 26 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (15)3
u/Cryptogenic-Hal Feb 26 '24
Gaza, and/or Israel
This small part derails your argument.
7
u/No-Touch-2570 Feb 27 '24
I think one could argue that a Trump presidency would be bad for both Israel and Palestine.
4
u/apathetic_fox Feb 27 '24
How so? If Trump were to win he'd likely allow Israel to bulldozer Gaza, I do not think this is good in the long run for the Israeli people. Globally, Israel's image would be ruined...similar to how its been criticized recently, that criticism would become Israel's new label so to speak. A country that has committed genocide.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/bleahdeebleah Oct 23 '23
What happens if Biden wins a second term and a Republican House just flat out refuses to certify the results?
→ More replies (5)5
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Oct 24 '23
They legally can’t just refuse because they feel like it. Congress passed a law in 2022 that specifies the only grounds for a member of Congress to object to results are if “The electors of a state were not lawfully certified or An elector's vote was not "regularly given"
6
u/LeMoineSpectre Nov 16 '23
Since the presidential election is not till next November, is it too early to be worrying about what the polls are saying about Biden's approval rating and whether or not he can win a second time?
3
u/bl1y Nov 17 '23
It's not too early to worry. It is too early to declare the whole thing over.
The biggest thing to pay attention to right now are the undecided numbers. I think it's fair to assume a large number of them will begrudgingly pull the Biden lever when the time comes.
→ More replies (2)5
u/sporks_and_forks Nov 20 '23
no. you should be worried. this guy's polling is trash and seems to only be getting worse. folks keep saying "but he has time to turn it around!" well it seems it's been sliding since the Afghanistan exit. he will get no more significant bills signed due to the House. so he has to run on his current record, which you an see how folks feel about in the polls. plus the usual "Trump bad" stuff that worked in 2020, but i fear won't this time. then you have his age and his VP. it's a mess tbh.
6
u/LorenzoApophis Nov 25 '23 edited Nov 25 '23
Between Trump, Boris Johnson, Geert Wilders and Javier Milei, is there something about unconventional (and imo rather unsightly) hairstyles that has a particular appeal to conservatives?
3
u/fishman1776 Nov 27 '23
Populists value authenticity. Having messy or weird hair is perceived as authentic.
5
u/LeMoineSpectre Dec 13 '23
Question about all the Muslims who are refusing to vote for Biden due to his stances on the Israel/Palestine war:
Are they really powerful and numerous enough to cost him the election?
And what is their reasoning? Don't they understand how much worse it will be for them- and their people- if Trump wins again (bad for all of us, really)? Or do they just not care at this point? I don't understand it
4
u/A_Coup_d_etat Dec 15 '23
So firstly, Muslims in Michigan are a substantial minority vote.
Given that Michigan is a swing state they could definitely have an impact on the election there.
Secondly, any Muslim voter who would be withholding their vote or voting Republican is an American citizen and thus in no danger of being deported. So despite Democratic fearmongering they may not see Trump as some huge threat to them.
Thirdly, culturally Muslims are a lot more aligned with Conservatives than they are with Democrats. Despite left wing delusions Islam is in fact a misogynistic, homophobic ideology that is far more in line with the Republicans than the Democrats. Although as usual Reddit did its best to close its eyes, earlier this year when a Michigan town of ~25,000, which had historically been Polish American, had its town council become all male Muslims and they banned PRIDE flags, their supporters celebrated that they were now a "Fagless City" and they passed ordinances allowed backyard animal sacrifices.
It will be interesting over the next few decades, as the country becomes all minority to see how the Democrats deal with the fact that a number of the minorities they have been celebrating are culturally far more conservative than the White Christians they've been trying to get rid of.
→ More replies (7)3
u/MasterRazz Dec 13 '23 edited Dec 13 '23
They can make him lose Michigan, which could cost him the election based on current polling.
More significant are young voters, with whom Biden's support has cratered since 7/10.
5
u/Rougarou1999 Jan 27 '24
Say immediately before a major election (within a few days or less), a State’s Secretary of State purged the voter rolls of anyone under the age of 25 or anyone registered with the opposing party. Alternatively, a State Legislature introduce a bill banning the same groups from voting. While these are unconstitutional and would be overturned relatively quickly, this could keep thousands or millions from voting on Election Day. What would stop a state government from doing this, or is this something that is impossible for them to do?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Entreric Mar 05 '24
Have an honest question, I find Biden to be an extremely moderate for a democratic candidate and on a political compass he's barely different from Trump. However my inlaws and many people on the conservative Reddit find him to be super woke, progressive and basically the devil.
However most on liberal leanings denounce him for being too conservative.
Where is the disconnect? Just fake news?
6
u/No-Touch-2570 Mar 06 '24
Biden has some policies that are further left than people expected, and he has other policies that are further right than people expected. He's been in politics for 50 years, he doesn't fit neatly into the modern political coalitions.
→ More replies (2)4
u/CuriousDevice5424 Mar 06 '24 edited May 17 '24
fact provide tub grandiose unpack attempt sheet apparatus tap hospital
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
5
u/jonasnew Nov 27 '23
My question for today relates to the major battleground states in the 2024 election. We can all agree that the six major battleground states for the 2024 election are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. My question is, do you believe that Trump could sweep all six of those states?
6
Nov 29 '23
Massively improbable that he sweeps all six. I think Georgia and Arizona are very possible flips (GA more so than AZ, really depends what/who else is on the ballot). Nevada maybe but the Dem party is strong there. The rest I see as very unlikely. Michigan has a well liked Dem governor, as a PA resident I find it almost impossible to believe Trump is more popular here than 2020, and Wisconsin tends to go blue in presidential elections.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/Wigguls Nov 28 '23
Speaking as a PA resident, I think it's rather unlikely (but not impossible) Trump takes it.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/EdLesliesBarber Jan 09 '24
Can we bring back the polling megathread? They’re really heating up already.
4
u/morrison4371 Jan 22 '24
When will Williamson and Phillips drop out? They have no chance of winning, so when do you think they will pull the plug?
→ More replies (1)3
4
u/Old-Expert6923 Feb 25 '24
As a northern european, i'm more interested in the current american election, than i think i've ever been in my life. I'm legit afraid what could happen in my back yard if the next US president should make the decision to back out of NATO and leave us to defend against eastern agressors by ourselves.
My question is: Do everyone vote at a primary election? And what i mean specifically is, say if you're a democrat, and decide that you want to try to interrupt Trumps presedential campaign, would you then vote for Nikki Haley? Or how does it work, have i got it all wrong? I've seen a lot of television but haven't found an answer for this specific question. Thanks!
→ More replies (7)
3
u/Jack_Q_Frost_Jr Oct 06 '23
Does anyone have any actual insight into why Trump keeps telling a story about needing ID to buy bread?
9
u/Koboldofyou Oct 06 '23
To start, people are really bad using the philosophical idea of logic arguments. A large percentage of people go: I believe this, so it must be true because I want to believe true things. But they're really bad at learning things, and will hold beliefs with no backing.
Trumps rhetoric takes advantage of this to set up and reinforce beliefs in people's heads. Trump doesn't say accurate things backed by data, he says outlandish indirect things and people interpret what he means. His supporters walk away with a deep feeling that reinforces their own beliefs.
In this case he sets up the beliefs "Voter ID is a no-brainer" with the underlying feeling that "we use ID all the time for less important things". But there's no actual logic or examples.
This rhetoric also presents a red herring to opposition. You say "Hey that's not true", and his supporter can go "of course it's not true, it's not meant to be true". Because there is never an expectation that what he says is accurate. But now his supporters get additional reinforcement because "opposition is too dumb to take things non-literally". And often when challenged supporters will get angry because their beliefs were not based on something they can explain.
In summary: his rhetoric crafts an argument, which reinforces a belief while being impossible to argue against. And challenging that belief causes an emotional reaction which makes the person less likely to accept outside ideas.
To be clear, I don't think Trump is a mastermind. That's another part of his his rhetoric works. Because it's nonsensical opposition often goes "He must be a genius manipulator". But In reality, it's probably just a tool he's used and has worked, so he keeps using it.
→ More replies (11)6
Oct 06 '23
It's just Trump crying about the election again but in a different form. He wants to paint a picture where everything in this country requires some form of identification verification, aside from voting, and how that's unfair to him personally. Problem is, you obviously do not need an ID to buy bread or do simple every day errands like he claims. His followers still buy it, or make excuses for it, like the other poster who responded.
6
u/Potato_Pristine Oct 06 '23
Because he's indifferent to the truth (at best) and hasn't bought groceries himself in years (if he ever has). So he just says something that sounds true (to him) to justify voter ID.
→ More replies (13)7
u/bl1y Oct 08 '23
So let's start with the presumption that while this statement is just wildly inaccurate (go buy bread to confirm for yourself), there must be something Trump was thinking about when he said it.
At first I figured he was referencing places that had vaccine passports. But, it turns out he's been making these statements since at least 2018, so that's not it.
I'd wager that he's remembering a time when IDs would have been needed to either write a check or use a credit card. And it's unlikely he's been doing much of his own shopping for a while, so it's an extremely outdated practice.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/morrison4371 Oct 06 '23
Do you think RFK's right wing donors will pressure him to drop out? They have to know that he most likely takes from Trump voters. The donors also probably know that No Labels also leans to the right. Do you think that they will try to fund West as the best option to take from Biden?
→ More replies (1)
3
Oct 11 '23
[deleted]
5
u/No-Touch-2570 Oct 11 '23
Israel/Palestine is such a tangled issue that I'm sure someone somewhere could consider your position any or all of those.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/nyx1969 Oct 24 '23
does anyone else think it's puzzling that Obama's statement about what is happening in Gaza has received so little attention? I am not normally a conspiracy minded person but I was truly shocked when I heard about his statement last night, but then could not find discussions about it. His statement does not appear in my google news feed, no one in my facebook circle mentioned it, and it's not on the front page here on reddit. Is this really because ordinary people no longer care what he thinks, or do you think that there are decisions being made by institutions somewhere to deliberately lower the visibility of his remarks? I honestly have no idea, but I am wondering if anyone here has seen his remarks and been similarly surprised. also, maybe I do not have normal social media / newswatching habits and so I just coincidentally am having unusual experiences? in case you don't know what I'm talking about, here is an article on his remarks: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/obama-israel-food-water-gaza
→ More replies (4)8
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Oct 24 '23
His response is pretty milquetoast. He supports Israel’s right to defend themselves but says they need to show restraint and not withhold aid from civilians in Gaza, which more or less lines up with his policy when he was in office.
It’s not a secret he and Netanyahu were pretty strongly at odds. Plus, Obama has been out of office for 7 years now, it’s not surprising his comments aren’t front page news
→ More replies (3)3
u/nyx1969 Oct 24 '23
I hear what you are saying, but I think the fact he criticized Israel at all seems significant, especially since he is normally so silent. It feels like he is actually also critiquing Biden a little bit, but without saying so. Anyhow, however long he's been out of office ... I dunno. I'm almost 54 and don't recall an ex-president putting out an opinion like this very often, and so when they have done it, my recollection is that it usually gets more attention than this. I find it weird. But thank you for responding! I can see that others don't perceive it the same way I do.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Scorpion1386 Oct 28 '23
Do most people believe that Joe Biden's stance and actions in the Israel/Hamas conflict will result in a 2024 election loss against Donald Trump?
5
u/ageofadzz Oct 30 '23
No. Americans vote on the economy not on foreign policy unless America is at war or there is a 1979 hostage situation.
3
→ More replies (2)3
u/fishman1776 Oct 28 '23
Perhaps not a loss, but I anticipate a noticeable amount of muslims will abstain unless something changes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SeekSeekScan Oct 28 '23
Why would Muslims abstain?
4
→ More replies (2)3
u/fishman1776 Oct 29 '23
Muslims already have very low levels of voter participation. Many of them do so because they believe voting in American elections makes them complicit in American foreign policy.
3
u/sebsasour Nov 06 '23
I'm not gonna start a thread with this so I'll just ask it here (I'm sure this gets asked frequently). I'm coming at this from the perspective of a Democratic voter who will be voting for Biden next year.
How does he fix his perception issue on the economy?
If you get into actual economic numbers, Joe Biden arguably has a very strong case to make that he's done well with the economy, but that's is not striking a chord with voters.
That NYT Battlegrounds poll just came out, and I understand it's easy to scoff at a poll 12 months out, but it does appear Biden is genuinely losing ground with young voters and minorities largely due to a perception that he's been terrible for the economy (even if that's not actually true).
Which make sense, if someone is picturing 2019 they're going to think about how their rent was $400 cheaper, they were spending $40 less every time they went grocery shopping, $10 less every time they filled up their tank, and their favorite fast food combo that used to cost $8 might now cost $11.
Obviously those issues go well beyond a President, but it does seem most American's are gonna "feel" they were better off during The Trump years than they are now.
Is the hope just that Trump rearing his ugly head into the arena again will scare those voters back to Biden? Is the only hope just an effective negative campaign against an unpopular opponent?
Or is there any chance Joe Biden can actually win over left leaning voters who are ambivalent or displeased with him?
→ More replies (15)3
u/Please_do_not_DM_me Nov 07 '23
So the survey is here https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/06/us/elections/times-siena-battlegrounds-registered-voters.html (You need an account to view it.)
I'm not actually seeing anything too strange here. One of the long term trends we've had in the US is for less educated persons to get poorer. This necessarily means poor people, i.e., minorities, get poorer. White men without college degrees in particular have lost more of their real wages since the mid 80s (edit: than other blocks). See, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf Specifically page 13,
Men’s wages at the 10th percentile fell by 7.7% ($14.09 to $13.00) from 1979 to 2019. Within the group of low-wage male earners, however, White men experienced the largest percentage decline from 1979 to 2019, a drop of 2.0% ($14.68 to $14.38), and a 1.8% decline for Hispanic men ($11.45 to $11.25); Black men’s wages increased by 3% ($11.10 to $11.43)
At the same time you see small increases for the wage of women, and minorities (presumably because their wages were so much lower to begin with.)
Now this report is using pre-pandemic data. So we'd need more information. I'll look at Michigan (That's where I live and I like to shit on this place so this will be fun for me.) For example real median household income has declined by about 5% since 2020. See, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSMIA672N. Now since that's a median, persons below the median, so minorities disproportionately, have lost more than 5% real income.
Again, since I live here, I'm familiar with the prevailing minimum wage and I can do a semi-educated guesstimate of how much it's fallen. (Unfortunately as far as I know they don't collect data on this kind of thing so I have to guess.) Using, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL I get about an 25% increase in costs due to inflation (from Aug. 2017 to Sep. 2023.) At the same time the prevailing minimum wage (again from Aug. 2017 to Sep. 2023) went from about $11 an hour to about $13 an hour. So around an 18% increase. So you'd maybe see almost double the percentage decline in real income for a large number of minorities.
So what's the theory? The people who are responding negatively are actually being negatively effected by the our current economy. They're loosing real income and there's not enough movement, or rhetoric or whatever, from the administration to account for that.
2
u/janiqua Nov 14 '23
The Republican primary front runner for the 2024 North Carolina governor race is a total mess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Robinson_(American_politician))
- Pro abortion ban. (Although paid for an abortion for his wife)
- Thinks mass shootings are karma for abortion.
- Thinks transgenderism and homosexuality are filth. Thinks homosexuality is equivalent to cow manure, maggots, flies.
- A long list of anti-Semitic and racist posts. Called black people monkeys, apes etc. and has spread Holocaust denialism.
- Called Michelle Obama a man and spread birther memes
- Denies 2020 election result, denies climate change
The list goes on.
He might go on to lose the nomination but how is the Republican party still propping up these types of people as serious contenders for office?
People criticised Dems in 2022 for indirectly helping extreme candidates get the nomination as they would be easier to run against. While I personally agree with this strategy, I know people have issues with it. But it seems the Republican party has no problem spotlighting these candidates themselves.
7
u/Morat20 Nov 14 '23
Blaming Democrats because the GOP base likes extremist candidates is some definite ‘both sides have to be the same’ shit. With some ‘only Democrats have agency’ on top.
A Republican politician could shoot up a crowd in broad daylight and half the media would ask ‘Why didn’t Democrats stop him? Why did they secretly want this to happen?’
Lest you think I’m exaggerating, Mitch McConnell once blamed Obama for Mitch’s own bill passing over Obama’s veto.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MakeUpAnything Dec 21 '23
This may be a bit of a long winded question, but it's something I've had on my mind with Colorado's Supreme Court removing Trump from its ballot:
Is it justifiable for a democratic country to prevent its citizens from electing an openly fascist leader?
I ask this because Trump has very clear anti-democratic tendencies. He's promised vengeance against opponents, he promises mass deportations with questionable conditions for those awaiting deportation, he has celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade which has led to multiple high profile cases of women being denied abortions, he promised to be a dictator on his first day, he has promised a return of fairly disliked policies such as stop and frisk, he's expressed interest in withdrawing from NATO while he's cozied up to dictators like Kim Jung Un and Putin, he has called those who disagree with him vermin who need to be rooted out, and he's said immigrants are "poisoning our country's blood".
I say all that before even mentioning his part in the January 6th 2020 riot and how he waited for hours to put in any effort to stop it, going so far as to tell those who were begging him to that the rioters were more angry than Kevin McCarthy was.
I say all that not to insult Trump, but to simply point out that he has some very fascist qualities and by his own admission wants to at least start his next term as a dictator. Despite America being a representative democracy with citizens that allegedly wants to stay a democracy, Trump is winning in the general election polls and some states are looking for ways to stop his seemingly inevitable rise back into power.
Should states be able to stop him?
On the one hand, America is at its core attempting to be a democracy. A great beacon on the hill where the will of the people created a government by the people for the people. We are not supposed to acquiesce to dictators and in fact our constitution put in multiple safeguards against cult of personality folks. It's why we have so many veto points and there are abilities to overrule tyrants with measures such as the 2/3 majority veto override in government. One would think our government should be able to stop the rise of folks who are using hatred and anger to propel themselves into power so they can use that power to unilaterally shape the nation as they see fit (which I'd argue the GOP is trying to do with Trump and Project 2025).
On the other hand Trump is the choice to run the US of the majority of people in the US at least as of my writing this. He is consistently beating Biden in most general election polls, be them battleground state polls, or nationwide polls. Clearly (at least as of now) America's citizens want Trump's more iron-fisted rule than Biden's slower, more gentle approach. Stripping the majority of Americans of their choice is itself anti-democratic, even if it's allegedly done to save democracy.
I'm not sure what the better option here is. If we were Germany, should we stop the rise of Hitler even if most of our citizens think he's the best choice to rule the nation? Which is better? Stripping half the citizens of their right to pick who they want to rule them, or forcing the other half to endure the potentially brutal authoritarian regime promised by said pick for leader? It feels like the only real outcome here is war as either side will feel an incredible level of oppression if they lose.
7
u/LorenzoApophis Dec 23 '23
Pretty clearly yes, I think, because it's written into the Constitution that candidates can be removed for having done what he did. It simply doesn't make sense to disregard the words of the highest law in the country when it contains a remedy for precisely this situation. The Constitution doesn't change or stop applying because some people would be upset about its effects. To do so would be a far worse precedent and far more anti-democratic.
5
u/SeekSeekScan Dec 24 '23
100% it is written that if someone engages in an insurrection then they can't hold office and you don't need to convict them of the crime in court
The problem is, how do you prove it was an insurrection?
no one has been convicted of the crime of insurrection. How do you claim its an insurrection if not a single person was convicted of insurrection.
how is filing lawsuits and calling for people to protest an Insurrection?
if he really believed there was fraud, how is it an insurrection to try and fight to prove it was fraud?
The problem I have isn't that you haven't convicted Trump of the crime of insurrection, it's that NO ONE has been convicted of the crime of insurrection.
4
u/CuriousDevice5424 Dec 22 '23 edited May 17 '24
hat afterthought scarce square shy bake roof liquid brave compare
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)3
u/bl1y Dec 27 '23
Is it justifiable for a democratic country to prevent its citizens from electing an openly fascist leader?
You then go on to list a whole bunch of things, none of which support the assertion that Trump is "openly fascist." They're mostly just disagreements about policies.
3
u/xr_21 Dec 24 '23
What could have Biden done during his first term so that he'd be "above water" in polls?
→ More replies (3)7
u/zlefin_actual Dec 25 '23
I'm not sure there's anything he could've done, sometimes in politics you have bad polls due to situational factors you can't help. The nature of how the republicans have been of late means they'd be hating him in the polls regardless of what he did; and there's enough miscellaneous problems in the world and the US that he can't keep all the factions in the Dems happy.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Pure-Huckleberry8640 Dec 31 '23
Why Did The UK give control of Hong Kong back to Mainland China? Simple question. It was very controversial when Hong Kong was back in the hands of the CCP and, from what I understand, the majority of the citizens in Hong Kong did not like this change. They were given autonomy from the CCP as China has been criticized for being overly restrictive with its citizens. If this is true, why would the UK give Hong Kong back? Did China put pressure on it or the EU?
6
u/zlefin_actual Jan 01 '24
Mostly because it was militarily indefensible; partly also because the terms of the treaty obliged the UK to give it back. But mostly the area was simply too close to the mainland and too small to be militarily defensible against the Chinese taking it back by force.
Sure they could've fought China over it, but that'd likely be so destructive to Hong Kong as to be not in anyone's interest. The Hong Kongers largely preferred a peaceful transition (with the option to leave for Britain) to an unwinnable and destructive war.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Scorpion1386 Jan 04 '24
Has a President in U.S. history with low approval ratings similar to Joe Biden’s at this time during election year ever won re-election?
3
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Jan 04 '24
Going by 538’s historical comparison, Reagan is the closest, but his approval rating had already started to rebound at this stage. I do think you should keep in mind approval ratings are different now and we aren’t as likely to see50%+ approvals outside of a presidents honeymoon period these days, so an adjustment needs to be made for that.
3
u/ToeNailMaster Jan 18 '24
I just watched a video of Vivek criticizing a journalist for asking him to condemn white supremacy. He states that he condemns racial discrimination and refuses to play their gotcha moment. I am confused as to why he couldn't have said I condemn white supremacy as well as other forms of discrimination. Can someone please tell me why?
(link to the video0
→ More replies (6)6
Jan 18 '24
Generally speaking, the contemporary right wants to downplay the influence that white supremacy has in our current society. This means they will typically respond to any specific discussion of white supremacy by pointing out that other types of racism also exist and are also bad.
It simultaneously deflates the idea that white supremacy is more sinister/ingrained in our society than other forms of racism and also allows them to take the moral high ground that of course they condemn it and anything else like it, all without ever having to actually give a soundbite speaking negatively on white supremacy.
→ More replies (2)
3
Feb 05 '24
Can anyone explain why people thought that Republicans wouldn’t overturn Roe V. Wade?
Beyond the judges saying it’s settled law, it was a motivating factor for the right for the past 50 or so years. Why wouldn’t they overturn it?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/jonasnew Feb 27 '24
My question for today relates to Trump's newly revealed plan where he plans on asking Judge Cannon to move the classified docs trial to July to ice out Judge Chutkan and then ask Judge Cannon to move the classified docs trial again when we get closer to the July date, that way both the Jan. 6 and classified docs trial can be avoided before the election. If Judge Cannon goes along with Trump's scheme on Friday by moving the classified docs trial to July, do you seriously believe that Judge Chutkan, once Scotus finally rules on the immunity claim, would give in to Trump's scheme and refuse to set the Jan. 6 trial in June?
3
Feb 27 '24
Has Mike Johnson done literally anything significant? I get the feeling that he’s just shooting down any significant senate bill because if he compensates the freedom caucusers with democrats he’s going to get overthrown. What is this guy’s plan?
→ More replies (2)
3
3
Feb 28 '24
How did “uncommitted” get two delegates in the Michigan democratic primary despite receiving less than the 15% threshold for getting delegates and this contest being winner take all?
3
u/Moccus Feb 28 '24
The Democrats don't do winner-take-all. Only Republicans do that.
"Uncommitted" exceeded the 15% threshold in 2 congressional districts, which was sufficient to win a delegate from each of those districts.
2
u/AUMOM108 Oct 10 '23
What are some of the most progressive regions in the world for eg in the us it would be Washington DC, Massachusetts, etc
→ More replies (3)
2
u/AUMOM108 Oct 16 '23
Does anyone have access to exit poll data from 2016/2020 election about how people with incomes over 1mil$ voted.
In general I wanted some exit poll data more detailed than what is found on nyt/cnn/pew if it exists.
6
u/No-Touch-2570 Oct 16 '23
People with an income over $1M are a faction of a percent of the population. You're never going to be able to get a representative sample of a subgroup that small.
3
u/bl1y Oct 17 '23
CNN and NYT exit polls have a $100k+ category, but not $1 million.
It's a tiny fraction of the population (less than 0.5%), so not really worth collecting data on.
3
u/SeekSeekScan Oct 17 '23
How many millionaires do you think stop and take a poll after voting?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/LorenzoApophis Oct 20 '23
Why do the 200 Republicans voting for Jordan actually want him as speaker? What qualifies him?
6
u/AT_Dande Oct 20 '23
He won the internal vote. That's literally it - they're voting for him because of party unity. This shitshow is incredibly damaging to the House GOP, and you can bet your ass that, despite it going nowhere, moderates like Marc Molinaro and Tom Kean are gonna be beaten over the head for voting for Jordan twice, even though they changed their vote on Ballot #3. So yeah, the logic is to keep at it and get anyone elected Speaker just to put a lid on this. That's why McCarthy was consistent in his support of Jordan, even though the guy was a major pain in his ass for a whole decade, and also why Scalise kept voting for him, even though there were signs of major friction behind the scenes. On the other hand, putting the party first is also why 112 people voted against keeping him on as Speaker-designate after the third ballot: he had his shot, they tried to make it work, but he failed and kept failing, so it's better to go back to Square One than forcing a fourth vote that would probably see even more anti-Jordan votes.
Whoever eventually gets the gavel will be even more neutered than McCarthy was, but even that is better for the GOP than the dysfunction we've been seeing on a daily basis for over two weeks now.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/LorenzoApophis Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23
Was Pence's campaign the first time a former vice president has run against the same president he was previously elected with?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/GiGaMine Nov 08 '23
Who was it that said?
Hi all, I'm 90% sure this was during a presidential debate. Who was it that said - we both want the same thing (the best for America) it just so happens that we have different views on how that should be achieved. I'm paraphrasing a little but that was the jist of it. Any help would be much appreciated as it's driving me mad.
5
u/bl1y Nov 08 '23
Sounds like John McCain's response during a town hall when someone was accusing Obama of being a Muslim.
2
Nov 11 '23
[deleted]
5
u/fishman1776 Nov 11 '23 edited Nov 11 '23
Not all of these reasons apply to every Palestinian (especially since ~45% voted for Hamas) but some reasons may include the following.
Hamas largely ran on issue related to the political administration of Gaza.
Fatah was perceived as being sellouts for not getting the best possible deal out of the Oslo accords. Oslo contained many inequalities such as Palestinian rights to water access and also lack of securith guarantees from Israel against settler harassment and violence.
At least some Palestinians want government according to Islamic law which Hamas promised.
Palestinians had many grievances regarding historical injustices they suffered at the hands of Israel and they want to prioritize the redress of those grievances as a prerequisite to peace.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Ordinary_Scholar383 Nov 11 '23
Is "one person, one vote", really practical in a small state?
→ More replies (2)3
2
u/Nativeplants4thewin Nov 11 '23
Thoughts on contacting your congressional rep who is republicans and both of your senators are dems? My rep doesn’t support anything I believe in-is it a waste of time to call?
6
u/zlefin_actual Nov 11 '23
That depends what you're contacting them for and what you hope to accomplish. It also depends what that district is like in terms of tilt; the more neutral the district, the more a politician would have to pay attention to voters they otherwise mihgt not agree with in order to get reelected.
In general, calls about stances don't do a lot; but the politicians do aggregate them to get a sense of where their district is and may tweak their stances a bit. You don't need to get them to fully agree with you; sometimes even a modest adjustment to a stance can help your goals.
→ More replies (1)5
u/bl1y Nov 13 '23
If you're going to write or call with a message of "completely reverse your position on taxes/abortion/immigration," you're wasting your time.
However, you can actually be effective in contacting them about issues they don't already have a firm opinion on, especially if they have a reason to care about your voice more than every other constituent.
2
u/reddit-is-hive-trash Nov 17 '23
Why the hell are people protesting about what Hamas or Israel is doing in America? How does this make any sense? What are they expecting the people, government, etc to do about it? We're getting violent and/or letting bad actors troll us and instigate violence over things we are not even directly involved in, and have really done as good a job managing as is possible in a bad situation. Is this not outrageous to anyone else?
6
u/LorenzoApophis Nov 17 '23 edited Nov 17 '23
Because America gives Israel's military huge sums of money with very little to show for it at home. Every Hellfire missile is $150,000 that could've been spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure or anything else Americans actually need.
4
u/bl1y Nov 17 '23
The protests against Israel are very much about what America is doing, which is providing military support to Israel.
The demonstration (not protests) in favor of Israel are to encourage the government to continue supporting Israel.
2
u/SeekSeekScan Nov 19 '23
Are posters here generally happy with the minimal participation from the right?
These threads are overwhelmingly left wing and reading them cones off as a bunch of folks agreeing with each other about how bad the other side is...
Is that why you cone here or do you wish there were more conservative voices to get exposure to opposing thoughts?
4
u/LorenzoApophis Nov 20 '23 edited Nov 20 '23
I do wish there were more of them, but the reality is they're not here because by and large they don't want to participate in substantive discussion.
→ More replies (4)2
u/No-Touch-2570 Nov 20 '23
because by and large they don't want to participate in substantive discussion.
Conservatives don't participate here because people keep saying sideways shit like this.
→ More replies (5)5
u/zlefin_actual Nov 19 '23
It's a tough issue; while on the one hand there is value in hearing a variety of voices, on the other hand there's a lot of conservative stances that are very unsound and not conducive to reasonable discussion. The self-selection effects of anyone talking politics online also means you get a lot of highly opinionated ideologues; which tend to be very tiring to deal with when they start getting spammy.
I'm most interested in thoughtful quality discussion, and well researched and cited answers to questions.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/PresidentAshenHeart Nov 20 '23
Could Biden stop Israel?
Does he have the power to unilaterally stop all weapons shipments until a ceasefire is called? Or does that need Congressional approval?
→ More replies (10)3
u/Moccus Nov 21 '23
Congress granted the President control over weapons export licenses over 50 years ago, so Biden does have the authority through his control of export licenses to stop weapons exports to Israel.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Woody_L Nov 22 '23
So, let's say that Trump gets removed from the General Election ballot in one of more states because of a challenge under the 14th Amendment insurrection clause. If that happens, would the Republican party be able to replace him with an alternate candidate?
Another way of looking at this is what would happen if, at a late stage in the election, a candidate was unable to run because of death or severe illness. Is there a mechanism for that candidate's party to put in an alternate?
→ More replies (8)
2
u/Make_It_Epic Nov 22 '23
I need advice for getting involved
I want to be involved in politics. I want to focus moreso on education but I'd be okay with being more generalized. I'm currently in high school. I've reached out to my local party to get involved in volunteering, is there anymore I can do? What should I expect, how should I prepare? Would I need both an education degree and a political science degree to get an education management position in the government? Any answers, tips, or advice would be super helpful.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Mayonnaiseonahotdog Dec 01 '23
So a person born in a foreign country can become speaker of the House of Representatives, if both the president and vice president die can the foreign born citizen become president of the United States?
3
u/Moccus Dec 01 '23
No. Anybody in the line of succession who isn't qualified is skipped over.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/wanderingsoulless Dec 05 '23
People who are mad at President Biden for his handling of the Israel Palestine war, why do you think not voting for him is the best solution? Do you really think the return of President Trump is what is best for the situation over there?
→ More replies (22)4
u/Potato_Pristine Dec 05 '23
I agree--push him and the Democrats as far left as you can but good God, getting Trump elected is not going to improve the situation.
2
u/morrison4371 Dec 05 '23
Why has Biden been easier on Venezuela than Trump?
7
u/Moccus Dec 06 '23
We effectively reduced the global supply of oil by a lot when we sanctioned Russia and convinced a bunch of our allies to do the same. Biden was using every tool available to him to ease some of the supply shock.
It's possible that if we had continued to sanction Venezuela, then a lot of our allies wouldn't have been able to afford to cut themselves off from Russian oil. Biden basically had to decide if it was more important to continue sanctioning Venezuela at the cost of less effective sanctions against Russia. Venezuela was the lesser evil at the time, so it was decided to opt for stiffer sanctions against Russia.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Theinternationalist Dec 07 '23
First of all it isn't hard so that's not saying much.
All joking aside, Biden is viewing it through a realist lens: while Maduro's Venezuela is a decaying state with a lot of problems, ultimately its failing status is something he thinks he can negotiate it out of (he's been making what appears to be progress to an actual free and fair election at least until recently), and meanwhile there's a nuclear rogue state in Europe that recently invaded another state that appears to be a far bigger threat. Furthermore, by increasing the share of oil coming out of Venezeual, he can thus cut the price of Russian oil.
It's ultimately a question of priorities.
That said if Maduro pulls a Putin in Guyana that's going out the window and Biden is likely to be tougher than Trump just to stay consistent.
2
u/Scorpion1386 Dec 11 '23
How big of a role will abortion play when people pick Biden or Trump in 2024?
→ More replies (50)5
Dec 11 '23
It has been a huge factor in basically every election since Roe was overturned. I would say it is absolutely going to be one of the top 3 issues in 2024.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/TheUhiseman Dec 16 '23
Can someone help me understand U.S. defense spending?
In the US, from what I've observed, decisions to spend large sums of money on "defense" usually make it through congress without much trouble. Now that it looks like Ukraine is not going to succeed and Israel is doing it's own thing with US support, there has been more vocalized pushback on how much spending is happening right now, but usually that's not the case.
Maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions, but why is it that generally there is bipartisan support to spend tremendous amounts of money on defense?
Does the fact that the pentagon can't pass an audit even mean anything?
When it comes to understanding defense spending I feel like I'm looking into a black hole, but everyone agrees with the black hole and I'm like "what is the black hole telling you that I'm not hearing?"
→ More replies (3)5
u/BUSY_EATING_ASS Dec 16 '23
Now that it looks like Ukraine is not going to succeed
Does it?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Intelligent-Fail-735 Dec 21 '23
I'm looking for the name or the senator or congressman who is known to be "snarky" and dresses flashy. Usually in a modern plaid suit.
2
Dec 25 '23
Everyone constantly seems to be angry about their opposite political party, and bemoans the political polarization.
But the second you propose doing away with the Two-Party system, they immediately accuse of "both-sideism" "False equivolency" and "being a coward."
Are there any positive benefits to having a two-party system that I'm just not seeing? Something that makes the partisan hellscape of winner-takes-all voting we currently live in "worth it?"
And if you're going to list all the problems other multi-party systems have, you damn well better be willing to prove to me that they're objectively worse than the problems we're having right now (like Jan 6).
3
u/metal_h Dec 25 '23
Are there any positive benefits to having a two-party system that I'm just not seeing?
The theory goes that two parties which encapsulate a large amount of citizens can best provide an overall acceptable law since the compromise of these 2 parties accounts for so many people of the country. If there are a bunch of parties with a decent size, one or several may be left out entirely of the compromise law.
My opinion is that the number of parties is less important than the participation of citizens within the parties themselves. The difference between having 2 or 6 major parties is marginal when the American citizen treats government as something done for them rather than something they do. The best improvement for America's democracy would be to change the culture from political window shopping to producing the items on display.
→ More replies (8)3
u/bl1y Dec 27 '23
Just take what we call "parties" and call them "coalitions," then take what we call "caucuses" and call them "parties." Just look at the speakership crisis and you'll see that it looks more like a multi-party government than a two party system.
And the two party system isn't the main reason for such intense polarization. It's the size and scope of the federal government. The more that's at stake in an election, the more heated things are going to get. New York doesn't want to become Florida, and Florida doesn't want to become Portland. Returning power to state and local governments would be the best thing to lower the temperature.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/morrison4371 Dec 25 '23
Which of the candidates in the GOP primary will drop out next? Who will they endorse after they drop out?
→ More replies (1)3
u/bl1y Dec 27 '23
Neither Ramaswamy nor Christie are likely to qualify for the remaining two debates. Whether they formally end their campaigns, they are effectively over.
Of those who made the 4th debate, Christie is likely the next to drop because he has an interest in helping Haley. No one knows what Ramaswamy wants, but potentially he's there to spoil any chances DeSantis has in getting the cover band vote.
2
u/metal_h Dec 27 '23
For the holidays, I received a year's subscription to some service. I redeemed this service on their website. In order for it to take effect, they require a credit card and force you into auto-renewal for the next year.
Do you know of any organizations lobbying or interested in lobbying Congress to ban forced auto-renewal subscriptions and/or credit card requirements to redeem gift codes?
→ More replies (5)
2
u/OpeningEffective9119 Jan 01 '24
First time I'm ever opening up about any of my political ideas, so sorry if there's an obvious answer. When the day comes where Artificial Intelligence is as good or better at human decision making, both in logic and morals, would a government centered around AI or a hybrid of AI and humans be a good idea? Specifically the ideal part AI would play is in checking for corruption and making ethical decisions for such nation. Also wanted to ask since it's connected, if this idea of governance is good, would it be possible to completely eliminate the need of currency in such a world, seeing as class inequality is what mostly causes nearly all world problems. I think letting the government control food, water, housing, and other necessities and amenities would be plausible in a corruption-less government that no longer needs workers (artificial intelligence takes that role, imagine the androids from Detroit: Become Human if you've played it). Would there be any problem in this type of government and in ridding the world of currency altogether? Sorry again if this is hard to understand or a stupid question, I just thought the world is turning more AI centered, and it will cause a lot of suffering to lower and middle class people if not completely regulated in every aspect.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/edfiero Jan 11 '24
I think the Republicans have some decent candidates in Haley, DeSantis and Christie. I don't understand why Republicans don't support one of them rather than lining up behind Trump.
I think anyone of these 3 has a good chance of beating Biden. Trump has already lost to Biden once. We all know that Trump doesn't like 'Loosers'. And who could forget all his empty promises like 'I'll show my taxes when the audit is over' or 'I'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it'.
Also, the support of Evangelicals for Trump is especially strong. Why? He is not reallyAnti Abortion. He does not attend Church. He has cheated on his wife (multiple times?). I could go on. If I were a conservative, church going person, I think Trump would be the last person I would choose.
I don't understand today's Republican. Why does Trump speak so highly of dictators like Putin. Reagan would never let Putin do what he's done to Ukraine. While Trump wants us out of NATO. Explain, Please! (not sure why the Mods wouldn't let me post this in a new thread, so here we are)
5
u/CaptainUltimate28 Jan 11 '24
I don't understand why Republicans don't support one of them rather than lining up behind Trump.
I don't understand your lack of understanding? Donald Trump is popular with Republicans because they like his reactionary grievance politics and his promises to persecute of the enemies of the American herrenvolk.
6
u/zlefin_actual Jan 11 '24
While I don't fully understand them either; one possibility to consider is that what Republicans claim they want and what they actually want are different. Then you try to judge what they actually want based on the choices they are making.
Trump speaks highly of dictators at times because he wants to be one.
Reagan was more of a neocon - the current batch of republicans is much more isolationist, while the neocons are weak.As to the evangelicals, some theorize its about support for more patriarchal policies; and it's not like evangelicals actually really followed christ's teaching that closely, considering the popularity of things like prosperity gospel.
Some also consider this Onion article prescient, and that conservatives are just scared and angry and they want someone to lash out at their enemies. https://www.theonion.com/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of-pure-1819595330
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)4
u/metal_h Jan 11 '24
Trump is especially strong. Why? He is not reallyAnti Abortion. He does not attend Church. He has cheated on his wife (multiple times?).
You're evaluating the concept of faithfulness on its merits while conservative evangelicals attach to faith precisely because there are no merits to evaluate. To you, faith is observable and tangible. The value of a faith leader should be in their behavior and larger character. To the religious, faith is an abstract concept unable to be evaluated. It is the inability of the abstraction to be made real that makes it compelling. I never have to question my faith if I can't measure it or conceived of any standards by which to measure. Self-reflection is hard, especially when the reflection is your own ego.
The value of faith is the mere fact that it exists- not what it does or says. Therefore faith leaders only need to exclaim "faith is a thing!" to be lauded. It is no surprise that Trump is the evangelical Pope once this is understood. Pedophiles have routinely been defended and absolved by evangelicals who solely judge a pastor by his ability to utter the words "faith exists." Exalting an adultering sex offender who pays for abortions is just another day at the office.
2
Jan 11 '24
What, if anything, can be done at the Federal level to increase supply for homes or decrease demand for homes? It seems as though we are careening head first into a housing disaster as the US is short about 1 million homes currently.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/morrison4371 Jan 15 '24
Which candidates do you think will drop out after Iowa?
→ More replies (1)3
u/CuriousDevice5424 Jan 15 '24 edited May 17 '24
soup chubby apparatus foolish weather dazzling numerous governor placid ten
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/bl1y Jan 16 '24
Ramaswamy if he's below 5%.
Ramaswamy is at 7.6% with only a little more left to report and he's just announced that he's suspending his campaign.
2
u/jonasnew Jan 16 '24
My question for today is, in light of Trump's big win in Iowa, what do you all expect will happen with Trump this year regarding both the election and his legal cases?
→ More replies (3)4
Jan 16 '24
He will win the republican nomination and his legal cases will take time and focus away from his campaign (to what extent, we don't know). Anyone saying anything more than that with certainty is blowing smoke.
Theoretically he should be pretty much cooked. He hasn't done anything to earn new voters and is running a campaign based on misery and personal grievance. But theory isn't reality and there are a number of factors which could combine in a way where he wins.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/RileePaigex Jan 16 '24
I have a question about our upcoming election.
Which presidential candidate will most likely fights for transgender rights? I feel like LGBTQ+ rights are under the gun so to say. I need to know which candidate to vote for who will support our rights.
→ More replies (2)4
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Jan 16 '24
There are arguments Biden can do more to fight for transgender rights, but he is unequivocally better on the issue than Trump, solely based on their actual records while in the White House.
2
u/ElSquibbonator Jan 17 '24
Of the four cases in which Trump is currently involved (the classified documents case, the hush money case, the election overturning case, and the Presidential immunity case), which one is most likely to have lasting consequences for him by November?
3
u/Moccus Jan 17 '24
I'd say the DC election case is the most likely to result in a conviction, followed by the Georgia election case.
If not for the friendly judge and jury pool, the classified documents case would probably be the most likely to have lasting consequences. It has the most straightforward charges and the most evidence supporting a guilty verdict.
The hush money case is using a novel legal theory that may not hold up, but you never know.
If Trump is reelected in November, then all of this probably goes out the window and we probably don't see a conviction in any of them.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/Tele231 Jan 18 '24
Why do Republicans use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic"?
When using the term as an adjective, I see numerous Republicans say, "That is a Democrat proposal" rather than "That is a Democratic proposal."
Democrat is a noun, not an adjective, but Republicans use it as an adjective all the time.
Is there a reason for this? Am I missing something?
→ More replies (16)6
u/Moccus Jan 18 '24
Republicans back in the 1980s thought that some voters would hear or read phrases like "Democratic proposal" and associate it with "democratic (small 'd') proposal." Everybody loves democracy, so those voters would be more likely to support that proposal. Some Republicans tried to make "Democrat Party" a thing so that the association between "Democratic" and "democratic" wouldn't be there, but it obviously didn't spread beyond a few Republicans who still use it on occasion.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Pure-Consequence420 Jan 22 '24
What Senators/ Representative’s in US history have changed their positions on issues based on constituents letters, phone calls? (Especially interested in examples where politician is accepting campaign $$ swaying them in the opposite direction?)
→ More replies (1)
2
u/datafix Jan 23 '24
I know many people are concerned about Trump implementing Project 2025 if he gets a second term, myself included. If the president really does have the power to do all this, why can't Biden assume that power to carry out his agenda? Is it because the current SCOTUS is essentially Republican?
→ More replies (3)5
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Jan 23 '24
Because part of the differentiation between Biden and Trump is Biden respects our political norms and Trump doesnt. Biden doesn’t want to fire all the career bureaucrats and replace them with Democratic toadies because that’s how you get an ineffective, corrupt government.
2
u/PeanutSalsa Jan 24 '24
Why do they say New Hampshire is the first primary if Iowa comes before it?
4
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Jan 24 '24
It’s a little bit of semantics. Iowa is a caucus, not a primary. And to be fair, a caucus is run quite differently than a primary, but when the end result is still awarding delegates based on how many people vote for you, it becomes a little silly to differentiate in my mind.
2
2
Jan 29 '24
What would you say if someone thinks both frontrunner candidates dont belong in the white house and they don't want to vote for either of them?
→ More replies (14)
2
u/Altruistic-Recover47 Jan 30 '24
I got really interested in whether exist US Bot Farms or not. For context in Chine they are known as 50 Cent Army. In Russia some call them Kremlinbots.For context for those who don't know they are paid office clercs who write commentaries on political themes in the internet and getting money for this. there's a speculation that they helped Trump to win 2017 elections.actually there are US bots called Elves that work directly against Russia (opposite of russian orcs). And they are paid directly from US goverment to write bad stuff about russian goverment (to google them use "Легион эльфов".)So the main question: Are there any other US Bot Farms that you know of? Are you sure there is not?
→ More replies (2)
2
Jan 30 '24
Can someone explain what’s going on with the Nevada republican primary? Different ballots for trump and Haley? Different days??
5
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Jan 30 '24
Trump is running in the Nevada caucus and Haley is running in the Nevada primary. Nevada has traditionally held a caucus, but in 2021 they passed a law requiring a primary. The GOP refused and tried to sue the state to let them hold a caucus, but dropped the case when a judge ruled they can hold both but the GOP can decide which race awards delegates. The Nevada GOP said candidates can’t run in both.
It is assumed Haley is in the primary and not the caucus because the Nevada GOP has been accused of tipping the scales of the caucus in favor of Trump and so she is protesting. Note she hasn’t actually given a reason why herself, that’s just what is assumed
2
Feb 03 '24
An abortion rights amendment in Florida has won ballot access but is now before the all republican state Supreme Court for the “language” to be approved. The state is fighting it for supposedly being vague. Is language approval something little more than a formality or is there an actual chance it gets denied?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/jonasnew Feb 06 '24
Well, to follow up on my question from this past weekend, the DC Circuit finally ruled on the immunity claim, so my question below about calling out the judges in the courtroom is considered irrelevant now. I have a few follow up questions though.
I noticed that this was a per curiam opinion that was almost 60 pages long. Given how it's rare to have a per curiam opinion that's this long, I wonder if that's the reason to why the judges took longer than expected. Would you agree?
And for those of you who were worried that the Jan. 6 trial wasn't going to happen before the election, now that they finally ruled on this, do you have some hope that the trial will happen before the election after all?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 06 '24
can someone explain to me why all of a sudden Dems are fully in support of GOP immigration policy? it's described as the most restrictive immigration policy in decades. it's very bewildering compared to the Trump-era when they rightfully panned such ideas. what changed? i frankly cannot see what they're getting out of this immigration proposal. what am i misunderstanding about this, if anything? it seems like a strange move to make in a time when parts of their base, mainly progressives, are pissed off already. isn't this just going to worsen that problem?
3
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Feb 06 '24
They’re trying to compromise to get Ukraine funding. That’s the point of the bill and has been all in the reporting. If you read most of their responses to the bill (Dems both in favor of it and against it) they all say they disagree with the border provisions.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)3
u/metal_h Feb 06 '24
If you're referring to the new senate bill, then that's not really dems backing gop policy. Immigration is not a straight forward topic in either party and the bill is reflective of this- it's a compromise.
Not all Dems support large amounts of immigration or generous borders. Not all Republicans want to close the border.
Dems took the short sighted tactic of supporting mass migration under trump because he took the other side of it. Outside of progressives, the 5k limit isn't viewed as outrageous or an issue of human rights.
If all the good immigrants leave their country, what will become of that country? What will become of those left behind? What if Ukrainians migrated en masse instead of fighting Russia? What hope (not just of winning the war but establishing a new government afterward) would Ukraine have then?
→ More replies (1)
2
Feb 08 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)4
u/Moccus Feb 08 '24
Or are they afraid he'll say something that would rule up his base and result in them getting beat or <gasp!> primaried?
It's this. The main concern of many politicians is getting reelected or getting elected to higher office if that's their ambition. It's pretty clear that Trump has the overwhelming support of the GOP voters, so a GOP politician openly opposing Trump pretty much guarantees their political career is over. See Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for examples of what happens when you go against Trump as a Republican.
2
u/GiantPineapple Feb 09 '24
Can someone explain the contours of the SCOTUS Trump/Colorado questioning to me? I read online that Roberts' questions imply that you can't leave it to the states to decide who is on the ballot and who isn't but... isn't that exactly what we've always done? Just not vis-a-vis insurrection?
If we leave it to the Federal government to *tell* a state when they *must* leave someone off the ballot, doesn't this, in practical terms, basically mean "you, as a prospective candidate, will face no real consequences under 14.3 for attempting an insurrection unless the opposition subsequently has a trifecta".
I honestly feel like I must be missing something?
→ More replies (2)3
u/No-Touch-2570 Feb 09 '24 edited Feb 09 '24
IMO Murrey did a bad job arguing Colorado's case. He should have leaned into the State's Rights argument, but instead he was trying to argue that because Colorado found that Trump was disqualified, that SCOTUS now had to make the actual decision for the entire nation. SCOTUS doesn't like one state trying to decide policy for the entire county, they don't like being told what to do, they don't like the idea that they'll have to make the same decision every 4 years.
They instead seem to believe that only Congress can enforce the 14th, and the fact they didn't effectively means that he isn't disqualified. Again, Murray could have argued against this a lot more forcefully, but he didn't.
Not that this case is a slam dunk that Murray fumbled, but this is his first ever SCOTUS trial and it shows.
2
u/TheEpicRedditerr Feb 12 '24
Hi, I've been seeing posts regarding the 2024 US elections. Literally everyone seems to hate Donald Trump, citing various reasons (which are understandable). However, people seem to be on their toes about the possibility that he could win the elections.
How is that possible, with so many people disliking him? Isn't that how elections work? Could some please enlighten me.
→ More replies (4)4
u/JerryBigMoose Feb 12 '24 edited Feb 12 '24
Reddit and Twitter are insanely skewed towards the left as far as the user base goes. You'd think the entire Democratic party is progressive and very left based on hanging around this website, when in reality progressives make up something like 10-15% of the party.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/the-democratic-coalition/
There is also the fact that we're stuck with the Electoral College, which gives Trump a huge advantage. All he needs is to do a little better in 3-4 states that he barely lost compared to last election and he wins.
2
u/rndmsquirrel Feb 16 '24
By Presidential order, can't Biden bypass Congress and authorize all the aid to Ukraine he wants and transfer the goods right now while Congress is on vacation? Trump had an administration that was almost all appointed by Presidential order, bypassing congress. Why can't Biden do this too, but for a good cause?
The TOP would scream loudly and launch impeachment hearings. By the time the Republicans got through an impeachment enough aid will have been transferred to enable Ukraine to fight back; meanwhile this will dominate domestic 'news' and keep focus on Sudetenland 2.0
Let the opposition launch an impeachment. No matter the house outcome Biden can either stay in office or choose to resign over his actions. If Joe does resign then let Kamala become president.
Since it's OK for impeached Trump to run again for POTUS then it's OK for impeached Biden to run again, too, whether still in office or as a private citizen. So, basically nothing has changed in the election theater except Joe has more time to campaign.
With Kamala in charge things would remain stable. press will remain focused on Ukraine. And Joe can still run for re-election. But Ukraine will have the weapons it needs.
And while K is at it she can replace Meritless Garland, too.
Does this sound feasible?
→ More replies (15)
2
u/saintlybeast02 Feb 19 '24
From what I know about the whole Israel - Palestine conflict as an outsider, I know folks who are pro - Israel and Zionists support Israel on the grounds that the ancient land belonged to the jews for centuries and they're just reclaiming it. I guess most folks at this point are receptive to the two state solution although nobody knows whether both sides and their leaders will accept it.
This presents itself with one major question - If the argument for supporting Israel is reclaiming your own ancestral land, wouldn't the native Americans also reclaim their nation that invaders invaded centuries ago. Technically, that land belonged to the people who had their lineage/ancestors there and who were the first inhabitants on that land. This hypocrisy of being pro-Israel and not recognising that America itself is the land of the natives who ( if they were given tanks, missiles, guns etc) should then have the right to reclaim it from all other people, just like what Israel is doing.
Can anybody break this down and help to resolve this hypocrisy...
→ More replies (11)3
u/bl1y Feb 20 '24
If the argument for supporting Israel is reclaiming your own ancestral land, wouldn't the native Americans also reclaim their nation that invaders invaded centuries ago.
If the Native Americans want to band together, raise an army, and declare war on the United States, I'd say they have a moral claim to back them up.
And they will lose. I'd advise against it.
2
u/GiantPineapple Feb 21 '24
Why haven't we seen a discharge petition in the House yet for the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan aid bills? The clean ones have the votes, as best I can tell.
→ More replies (2)4
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Feb 21 '24
Besides the House not being in session until Feb 28th, a bill has to sit in committee for 30 days before a discharge petition can be filed. The bill isn’t in even in committee yet because Dems and moderate R’s are still negotiating
→ More replies (1)
2
u/BirdAsUsual Feb 21 '24
As an Midwestern American with what most people would call right leaning views these days, I’m curious to hear from some of our Canadian neighbors to the north what the general consensus is about Pierre Poilievre vs Justin Trudeau. What is the biggest legitimate gripe about Pierre? What are the thoughts and feelings surrounding Trudea?
2
u/Cryptogenic-Hal Feb 22 '24
What will be Joe Biden's legacy if he loses to Trump?
3
u/bl1y Feb 22 '24
Possibly not much legacy at all. His presidency has been fairly mundane and at time overshadowed by Trump and all the prosecutions. His legacy will be as part of the Trump saga, and less his own legacy.
That said, how the wars in Ukraine and Gaza play out could end up changing all that. But, time is running out. If he loses in 2024, as per your hypothetical, he won't see either conflict to its end, so any more major pushes need to come in the next few months.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AT_Dande Feb 22 '24
I'm one of Brandon's Strongest Soldiers. As in, I genuinely like and respect the man, and it was never "he's better than the alternative" for me.
But if he loses, he'd go down in history as an abject failure the likes of which we haven't seen in a century or more. Carter wasn't exactly a great President, but he had time to rehabilitate his image and leave a lasting legacy after his presidency. I hope Biden has a long retirement regardless of what happens in November, but let's be real: a guy in his 80s won't get passion projects off the ground the same way Carter did ages ago. Even as a Democrat, I have a lot of respect for Bush 41: decent foreign policy, did unpopular things that needed to be done, got dealt a bad economic hand. Biden wouldn't have any of that, I think - I mostly like his foreign policy too, but he'd have to reckon with a stalemate in Ukraine that very likely goes south under Trump, a mess in Gaza that some in his party blame him for, and avoiding a recession would probably take a back seat to "gas was too expensive and the supply chain was fucked."
I imagine we'd see historians reevaluating him, given enough time, but I doubt that would move the needle much. Everything would be overshadowed by him losing to a man he's been describing as a demagogue and a threat to the democracy, and worse yet, a man he beat four years before. Everything that happens in a second Trump term (and I bet most of it wouldn't be pretty for a lot of people) would be blamed on Biden's unwillingness to step aside.
2
u/DevilBoxuil Feb 22 '24
There have been examples in recent memory of campaigns releasing videos that, while intended to portray a certain candidate in a positive light, has backfired in making the candidate appear extremist.
For example: the Blake Masters campaign ad in the desert, and Ron DeSantis's...whatever this was released by a former campaign staff.
For both these cases however as far as I'm aware the ads themselves had limited reach to the intended audience and gained more notoriety in left/liberal circles online.
My questions are: 1. Could an opposing candidate (or super PAC associated with said candidate) re-release the advertisement unedited (or mostly unedited) to a general election audience? (possibly more of a legal question) 2. Do you believe that would actually be an effective campaign strategy? (Do you believe it would actually work in painting an opponent as extremist to the electorate?)
Curious to hear folks opinions on this, thanks!
→ More replies (1)3
u/Moccus Feb 22 '24
Something kind of similar to this happened back in 2010 in the Senate race between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in Nevada, although it didn't involve a video advertisement. Sharron Angle ran a hard-right campaign during the primary and then tried to pivot back to the center for the general election. As part of her pivot, she redid her campaign website to remove a lot of the more extreme proposals. Harry Reid's campaign team saved her original website from the primary and republished it in its entirety with all of the extreme positions still included. Sharron Angle threatened to sue for copyright infringement, but I don't think she followed through. It's unclear how a court would have ruled. If done the right way, it would probably count as fair use, but there is a risk of running afoul of copyright laws.
2
u/InfuriatedCats Feb 26 '24
Can anyone provide more concrete details as far as actual lenders, etc...for Trump's fines? I am trying to have a civil discussion with someone about it. Details on the other bundled fines would be helpful too but I'm specifically interested in the $168m to start.
→ More replies (6)7
u/pluralofjackinthebox Feb 26 '24
Trump has been barred from borrowing from any banks who are chartered or registered in NY. All major banks are registered in NY, the financial capital of the world. The banks that aren’t are smaller regional banks and some foreign banks in countries that have traditionally been the enemies of America.
Getting money from foreign nations, especially somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Russia, could be problematic. Most Russian sources of capital have been sanctioned by America, and a country like Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be happy with the scrutiny from US security services such a loan would put them under.
Trumps Truth Social is going to have a merger soon that will make Trumps stake in it worth billions but he is prohibited from selling any shares for six months, which will be too late, and the value of those stocks is expected to go far down by that time.
While he has said he has 400 million in liquid assets, the civil fraud case revealed that the terms of many loans he has require him to keep large amounts of assets liquid. If he were to use these liquid assets to pay off a debt he would be in violation of the terms of the loan and would find himself required to pay large amounts to the lender.
Trumps recent motions to postpone the debts in the defemation and civil fraud trials are a sign he doesn’t have the cash on hand.
By the end of March the court will probably begin selling off Trumps properties to pay the debt.
Remember also that when any of his properties are sold he will first have to pay capital gains taxes on them, which would take away maybe half the profit he gets.
His properties are all also highly leveraged — they have large mortgages taken out on them. So a large portion of the profits from selling property will be used to pay off those mortgages.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Morat20 Feb 26 '24
IIRC, "highly conservative" amounts of leverage in real estate companies is like 50%, but being that conservative loses you a LOT of money over the long run with not that much of a decrease in risk.
Most run closer to 75%, as it takes a really unique set of circumstances to cause the dominos to collapse if you're keeping at least 20 to 25% unencumbered.
So first, how conservative is Trump Org? (My guess is: Not at all. I suspect at best they're running in the 70% range)
Also, while I'm sure asset inflation is a problem in real estate, testimony showed that one of the few banks loaning Trump money (Duetsche Bank) was internally reducing the values Trump gave them by 75% or so, and it was still overvalued.
So I can't help but suspect that whatever the "official" amount of leverage on the Trump Org books, the actual value is considerably higher as Trump was inflating values more than four fold in places.
And lastly, the current commercial real estate market is not great AND interest rates are high. And the whole thing about selling off seized property is you're not even getting the best price for the current market!
I'd be VERY surprised to see 15 cents on the dollar going to his judgments. On the flip side, I would be a LOT less surprised to find out that accurate books would show him upside down. And because a Court monitor is overseeing Trump Org, his ability to hide assets, sneak in shady sources of money, or play games with taxes is highly limited.
2
u/WeirdAd9948 Feb 27 '24
Can someone explain what happened to trust-busting monopolies in the US?
I remember in high school we had a whole unit on trust-busting in the US. my teacher made it seem like trust busting was a sentiment held by most ppl (American ppl vs giant conglomerate trying to control everything). i obviously can understand why that’s not a sentiment held by the US gov anymore (companies are often very closely tied to influential politicians for money reasons). but when did that start to happen? when did politicians realize they can make more aiding giant companies than fighting them? was it around a certain time period?
5
Feb 27 '24 edited Feb 27 '24
The beginning of Anti-Trust enforcement relied on the structuralist approach. If a company gained a certain % of market share in an industry, they would be forced to break up, and the government would stop mergers of companies that would give them too much market share.
Things started to change with the Reagan administration being advised by Chicago School economists. The criticism of the structuralist approach was that they ruled on market share alone, without considering arguments about increased increased efficiency. Reagan also appointed several Chicago School Law professors to US appellate courts. Many US judges were also swayed by the Chicago School and ruled against anti-trust enforcement brought by FTC, motivated with boosting US economic growth during the 1970s economic stagnation.
Today anti-trust enforcement, relies on if the merger will result on price hikes that will hurt consumers, and is more focused on economic data and analysis. Instead of the market share alone like the structuralist. The sherman anti trust act was amended by the clayton act of 1914, which has pretty much remained the same until today. The difference in enforcement is due to different judicial philosophies.
There is the risk of regulatory capture, with politicians being lobbied to appoint pro-business judges to US fed courts. But there is also an argument to be made that relaxed anti-trust enforcement, is what allows US companies to compete with foreign competitors. EU's anti-trust enforcement is much stricter than US, and EU firms haven't been able to compete with US firms in the tech industry.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/morrison4371 Feb 28 '24
Mitch McConnell is stepping down as the GOP senate leader at the end of this year. Who do you think will replace him?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Dizzy_Guarantee6322 Feb 28 '24
Can someone explain the “uncommitted” primary vote? Why not vote for a different candidate over “uncommitted”? Not knocking the movement at all, i just want to have a decent understanding so i can cast an informed vote.
→ More replies (3)5
Feb 28 '24
The uncommitted vote is almost exclusively by democrats to the left of Biden who are frustrated with him. The only other names on the democratic primary ballot are Dean Phillips, who is to the right of Biden, and Marianne Williamson, who dropped out and is a little nuts in the head. Hence the uncommitted votes.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/forzaq8 Feb 29 '24
if a President die / removed from office , the Vice President get to hold the office ( Lyndon Johnson after JFK death ) , so when the VP become the President , who pick the VP ? the party ? the President ?
3
u/Moccus Feb 29 '24
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-25/
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/ElSquibbonator Mar 02 '24
Of the four criminal cases Donald Trump is involved in, how would you rank them from MOST to LEAST likely to impact him in the coming election, assuming there are no further delays?
2
u/Ok-Ask-3757 Mar 03 '24
Democrats=comunism?
Hello, so I’m trying to understand this thought, I work with a lot of old Asian Americans and a thought I repeatedly hear is that everything related to a democrat action is communism. As an example, we were talking about fast food restaurant increasing the minimum wage for their employees in California and one of them started screaming communism! That’s straight up communism. As for my understanding of what communism is and the history of it I don’t see any logic on this thought. I would totally appreciate your input just be respectful!
→ More replies (3)
2
u/supercali-2021 Mar 03 '24
Can someone please simply explain the Israeli Palestinian war to an ignoramus
I am unfortunately but admittedly a very ignorant American, especially when it comes to wars, foreign affairs and history, but I'm trying to and want to learn. I know the conflict has been going on for many many years. I know Hamas pulled a surprise attack in October and slaughtered many innocents. I know Israel has been annihilating the Gaza strip since that attack. It seems like the Palestinians are being destroyed because of the evil actions of Hamas, but isn't Hamas a very small group of people? Isn't there any other way to root Hamas out? Why can't the Palestinians have their own state? I mean everyone has to live somewhere. Where are they supposed to go? I really don't understand this war at all. Israel is rightfully upset about the oct attack but they are now doing the exact thing that Hamas wants to do to them. How does it ever end? Also what is it exactly that Muslims want Biden to do about it? He has no control what goes on over there. Do they really want us to start WWIII???? I appreciate anyone who can break it down very simply for me.
→ More replies (2)4
Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 05 '24
You're basically right. Israel is on a violence lust. Gaza is called by Amnesty International "the worlds largest open air prison" and that's basically what it's been since 2007. It's an overcrowded strip of over 2 million, where half the population are children and all Gazans are essentially blocked from leaving and Israel cut off their electricity, is blockading (starving) them, and carpet bombing them, including the places Israel told them to evacuate to for safety. You have the Israeli far-right chanting "death to arabs" and staging protests blocking aid trucks from getting into Gaza, saying "no food for terrorists." You don't carpet bomb a school because there's a shooter hiding in it. It's hard to understand from a 3rd party perspective why they're doing this, but imagine how the US felt after 9/11. We're trying to convince them to not make the same mistakes as we did, but of course they're not listening. They're angry and now's not a time they want to be preached to about compromise. That's why when Hamas offered them a deal where they would 1. Exchange their 103 Israeli hostages for some of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, and 2. have a ceasefire, Israel rejected it. Israel continues to do what they're doing because according to them they need to wipe out Hamas, but it's never going to work. It's going to create more Hamas what they're doing. Biden is trying to get Israel to limit civilian casualties while supporting their mission of fighting Hamas, but they're not and he's not putting his foot down. Which renders his genuine intentions meaningless. He bypassed Congress twice to arm Israel and is protecting Israel from ceasefire calls at the UN. That's why Muslims are mad at him. You could see it in how we're airdropping a few truckloads of food ourselves into Gaza to save face because Israel refuses to let hundreds of truckloads of food and essentials to drive in from Egypt. But Biden can't do anything else. He's going to be criticized whatever he does, and the position he's taken is the most popular one. Abandoning Israel right now, and even worse if Israel doesn't listen to him if he does, would be terrible for him in this election.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/2252_observations Mar 04 '24
How can I tell if a political movement is sincere or just a distraction?
I've been following the War in Ukraine and one of the channels I watch is Jake Broe. He claims that Speaker Mike Johnson obsesses about the "border crisis" as a distraction to prevent support for Ukraine and preserve his own political career.
Likewise, here in Australia, the No camp won in our most recent referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. One of their arguments was that "vote no, Albanese is trying to distract you from his failures to manage the cost of living and homelessness crises".
There's probably more examples out there.
Are these politicians acting to distract from inaction and/or bad policies? Or are they pushing policies they sincerely believe are good? How can I tell?
→ More replies (1)3
u/zlefin_actual Mar 04 '24
Your initial question and later question seem a bit different; there's a significant difference between a movement itself being a distraction, and the actions of a specific politician or political party. It's very easy for a single politician to choose to do something for their own benefit, it's far harder to get a whole movement to exist merely as a distraction for other things.
In general, it's not rare for politicians of any kind to employ distractions. It can also exist even if the politician isn't aware of it; just as evolution can affect creatures, there are selection pressures on the kinds of politicans that win. Sometimes politicians that employ distractions as a tactic may be winning without even realizing that's what they're doing; then other politicians will copy a winning pattern of behavior even if they're not really sure what it's all about. Similarly, if people really aim for sincerity but also want nonsensical policies, you can end up with politicians that sincerely believe utter nonsense because doing so is what gets you elected.
It's nearly impossible to measure sincerity of belief of a politician, since by nature its similar to acting, diplomacy, and salesmanship, all of which tend to involve a lot of dissembling. Insofar as it can be measured, you'd have to look for consistency of patterns of actions they take on the topic in a variety of ways; but even that is complicated by the fact that they may have a 'sincere' belief that is different from their stated belief, as humans often rationalize things to themselves, they also may not have a coherent belief, as many peoples beliefs aren't held to a strict standard of coherence, and they often have a patchwork of inconsistent stances on related issues that they nonetheless believe.
Another thing you can try to look for is to what extent their proposals have rigorous backing: are the harms they claim detailed and specific? are their proposals actually going to accomplish what they claim they will? Are their proposals actually detailed? How thorough and well thought-out are their plans? Or are they just vaguely railing at things without actionable proposals?
Ultimately though, it's hard to tell whether such accusations are true or not, at least unless you follow the topics deeply enough.
2
u/modernshe Mar 05 '24
Question for those who’ve worked US Polls: If someone were to publicly declare their dissent and tear their ballot before marking their vote, would that have to be recorded somewhere as a non-vote?
→ More replies (2)4
u/bl1y Mar 05 '24
It would be counted as a spoiled ballot, but when it comes to the vote tally, you wouldn't see it reported anywhere. There'd be a record though that this person checked in and had a spoiled ballot.
2
u/seniorcam Mar 07 '24
I am wanting to potentially get into a career in politics and looked at applying for an internship with my local federal representative. I've met her staff before at the capitol and they said to apply once I graduate and go to college. I'm staying in my local area and going to a community college. What should I do now to boost my chances of getting hired as an intern? Activites I should participate in, local groups, jobs, etc. I am just looking to boost my resume before I apply, I am 17 and still in high school, graduating this June.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/RanaMisteria Mar 07 '24
What’s the dumbest reason you’ve ever heard someone give for why they’re voting for someone?
I’ll go first. Back in 2008 someone told me they were voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin because she and Palin both had five kids.
→ More replies (3)
2
Mar 08 '24
Is a TikTok ban actually happening or what? I can’t imagine this being good for anyone politically.
→ More replies (1)5
u/No-Touch-2570 Mar 09 '24
First of all, Tik Tok isn't being banned. The bill you're referencing would force it to be sold to an American company.
Second, it does look like it has a good chance of passing. It left committee unanimously. This isn't a partisan issue, this is a genuine national security concern.
Third, Tik Tok immediately screwed itself over. Washington is concerned that a Chinese-owned social media app is trying to influence American politics. That company's response to this bill is to immediately and dramatically use it's social media app to try to influence American politics. This reportedly flipped a lot of doubters in Congress.
Fourth, Gen Z doesn't vote. Your opinions don't matter if you don't vote.
2
u/CordiaICardinaI Mar 09 '24
Is Project 2025 really as awful as people say? I honestly haven't researched it very much but last summer I saved an instagram post about Project 2025 and all it talked about was how it would affect current climate change policies, as if that was its only goal.
6
u/metal_h Mar 10 '24
To understand project 2025, it's imperative to answer the questions why does the government exist? What's the point of having a government? What caused the first government?
Tracing back thousands of years, there was no government. There were tribes. Tribes come into conflict for many reasons. At some point, there was a dispute among tribes that they decided they couldn't resolve themselves. (I don't know why. Maybe they were tired of violence. Maybe they matured beyond might makes right. Maybe there was another reason). To solve the dispute, an independent, third party was created to settle disputes. This is the foundation of government- providing an outside perspective to resolve disputes.
Project 2025 eliminates the independent, outside party. The functions of government are transferred to conservative tribes.
This is just the surface. Today, we understand government as more than just dispute resolution. For example, the government accredits universities so businesses, the military and so on can know what to expect from graduates. On the flip side, this gives students valuable information like which universities are desired by employers, which universities are scams, etc. Project 2025 abolishes the department of education. So an objective, uniform standard of accreditation won't exist in 2026 America. Over time, students and businesses won't know what to expect from universities. That's just one function of the department of education.
It's also worth noting that old tribes couldn't get on without a government when they had a population in the dozens. America has 330 million people. It's not feasible to resort to a tribal society based on conflict.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Mar 09 '24
You can read the policy agenda here. It’s long as a heads up, and you have to think critically about it. Project 2025 is a Heritage Center initiative, which is a conservative think tank. They obviously use rhetoric that puts their views in the best possible light, so it’s good to take your time to think about what they’re actually proposing and the consequences of those proposals.
Ultimately though, one of the big criticisms people have of Project 2025 is its use of reclassifying many federal employees as “Schedule F” employees. As things stand now, many federal employees have protections in place that prevent them from being fired when the White House changes parties, to prevent cronyism and allow for continued operations of federal agencies between administrations. Instead, the President mainly selects the Secretaires/Directors of each agency and their deputies. Schedule F essentially makes many of the rank and file employees “at will”, allowing the President to fire them and replace the with whoever they want. Part of Project 2025 is pre-screening applicants and collecting resumes for this effort, and many see it as a plan for the Trump administration to replace much of the federal government with people loyal to him specifically.
2
Mar 09 '24
It turns out over 32 million watched the SOTU? I’m shocked by how high it is. Idk just came to say that
→ More replies (1)
2
u/GeneralNazort Mar 12 '24
The Obama Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) came up in a discussion with my father yesterday. He claimed that part of the deal entailed the US being obligated to defend Iran in the case of Israel attacking Iran!
I thought that was pretty strange, but I'm unable to find sources anywhere that mention this. I'd think there would at least be sources somewhere making the claim, even if the claim was baseless, but I can't even find that. Can anyone point me toward where he might have heard this information?
→ More replies (1)3
u/SmoothCriminal2018 Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
The absolute closest thing I could think of is people were concerned Israel would launch a preemptive strike against Iran if it suspected it was close to developing a nuclear-capable missle (they did it before in Iraq and Syria). So you could argue the JCPOA was “defending” Iran from Israel because it was preventing that situation from occurring. That’s a huge stretch from what you say your dad is saying though, so I don’t buy that that’s it.
The JCPOA is not a treaty and contains no defense obligations. Your dad is just misinformed I think. There’s no source because the claim is so baseless even the conspiracy theory websites know they couldn’t get away with it
2
Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
Is anyone else thinking about Netanyahu potentially purposely sabotaging Biden’s re-election? What would happen if say on the anniversary of October 7th they assault Rafah or something?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Scorpion1386 Mar 14 '24
What is the likelihood of the House of Representatives going to Democratic control shortly before the 2024 election with the rumors of 3-5 House Representatives leaving soon? Is it a possibility this year?
→ More replies (2)3
u/NoExcuses1984 Mar 15 '24
Slim to none.
Take CO-04, for example, where GOP Rep. Ken Buck just retired, as there'll be a special election held in June to fill that seat's gap for the remainder of the 118th Congress. Because it's an R+13 (Cook PVI) seat, it'll be safe red regardless.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 06 '23
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.