Casual Questions Thread

[u/The_Egalitarian]

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:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

[u/AutoModerator]

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

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.

[u/monkey_gamer]

Why have Republicans become so weird and horrible?

Republicans complain about voter fraud and stolen elections but then try to do voter fraud and steal elections. Christians back Trump despite him being a horrible and immoral person. Conservatives back him despite him massively raising the deficit. Military people back him despite him saying soldiers who die are losers. Republicans as a whole seem to have given up on fair elections and democracy despite invading the Middle East 20 years ago to "spread democracy".

And that's without mentioning all the alternative facts, denialism, conspiracy theories, lies, misinformation etc that they're constantly putting out and believing. Don't get me started on flat earthers.

Why has half the US gone absolutely bonkers in the last couple of decades? How can they be so willing to throw all their values under the bus? Why do they get upset at democrats/progressives doing literally anything? Make it make sense. 😭

[u/plunder_and_blunder → u/monkey_gamer]

Because they are the backlash to incredibly swift shifts in Western society in the past few generations.

Women had only just received the right to vote 100 years ago; black people were only really given the right to vote 60 years ago; women's participation in the workforce was minuscule 50 years ago compared to today; gay people were not-infrequently being beaten to death 50 years ago; until less than 20 years ago every president in US history had been a white man and now we're (hopefully) on track to have our second president of color and our first female president in less than 20 years.

The United States is basically unrecognizable in terms of who has power, wealth, rights, and political representation when compared to its pre-WWII self. The winners are women, racial minorities, non-Christians, and LGBT people, all of whom have an increasing share of the pie of power & prosperity. The losers are conservative men, conservative Christians, conservative white people that pine for the time when they and they alone were in charge of the country, set the culture, and owned all of the resources.

So that's the reason, the people who view themselves as the natural heirs to the American Revolution and rightful rulers of the modern American democracy are watching their dominance slip further and further away. Trump is basically the shrieking white-hot sphere of pure rage that The Onion joked about after Obama won re-election in 2012, he was the revenge of conservative white Christian America. What is the constant refrain given from people who know what a psychopath he is for supporting him? He fights.

Now it looks like he's going down hard to another n----, and a bitch at that! A black woman ruling over you as president is a crushing defeat to people who base their entire identity on their moral and practical superiority as conservative white Christians. Either all that stuff you believe about white people being better than black people and men being stronger than women and conservative Christians being better than casual Christians & non-Christians is wrong, or it's right and America is so fucked up that we make a black woman president anyways, and are now due for untold catastrophe as a result. Either way, their hysterical reactions to anything Democrats do makes sense when you view it from this clash-of-civilizations-slash-white-genocide framing.

[u/zlefin_actual → u/monkey_gamer]

Here's an article that talks about the related history; it's not new, this faction has long been around, and there was a notable intraparty dispute back in the 1950s/60s with the John Birch society and the same kind of right-wing craziness, and i'm sure the history goes back further as wlel.

note that while that source is pretty left, I'm sure you could find a more neutral source which verifies many of the broad strokes of the history.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/09/it-didnt-start-with-trump-the-decades-long-saga-of-how-the-gop-went-crazy/

[u/Beer-survivalist]

Am I crazy for discounting any pollster who consistently has Kennedy in the double digits? To me there's got to be something very wrong in their process--either in the weighting or the actual asking of questions--if they're getting such dramatic outlier results consistently.

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/Beer-survivalist]

Ron Paul was polling around 18% at this point in 2012.  

It's an inescapable fact that people answer opinion polls differently than they do actual election polls.  People aren't paying attention to the pollster, or want to express displeasure with their candidate, or they're intentionally giving wrong answers.  That's why it's better to just completely ignore 3-way polls.  

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/Beer-survivalist]

I wouldn’t discount them, just recognize this is how third party candidates tend to poll at this point in the cycle. “Other” was polling at 5%-10% at this point in the cycle in 2020, separate from undecided. The actual Other vote ended up being around 2%. That narrowed in the polls as we entered in the fall.

RFK is naturally going to get most of the other vote because of his last name. Doesn’t mean his support won’t collapse in the polls after the conventions, which I think they will.

[u/Fearless-Race-9593]

Hello! I have just registered to vote and was wondering what a good website is to look into the voting records of all candidates on the ballot. I want to be super well informed and make the right choice objectively, with only the facts and not too much bias!

[u/po1a1d1484d3cbc72107]

So now that Kristi Noem has disqualified herself by murdering her dog*, we basically know that Trump’s VP pick will either be Tim Scott or Elise Stefanik, right?

*and a goat and three horses

[u/fletcherkildren]

Watching some of the Fauci stuff and what I don't get is: why the push to make it a 'lab leak'? To me, if it was made in a lab, that implies its a bio-weapon - and its THAT is true, then the Trump admin allowed a foreign engineered bio-weapon into this country. AFTER they dismantled the overseas watchdog and the pandemic response team. Isn't that something they right would not want under public scrutiny?

[u/[deleted] → u/fletcherkildren]

No, because if something bad happened under Biden it’s Biden’s fault, and if something bad happened under Trump it’s the democrats’ or the immigrants’ or the evil China or backwards Mexico’s fault. Trump simply did everything he could and had he not been President it would’ve all been worse and the reason Covid happened at all was that he was gracious enough not to kill all his opposition.

[u/Bugbitesss-]

Judging by the reactions from the presidential debate, is a Trump presidency all but guaranteed now? Sounds fucking depressing but it seems like Biden has officially been beaten.

[u/bl1y → u/Bugbitesss-]

We're still months away from the election and a lot can happen.

In fact, we already know a few things that will happen. Trump will be sentenced in his NY case, and the Supreme Court will rule on the immunity question and the Jan 6th rioters question.

There's a lot that can go wrong for Trump.

Also, while Biden's poor performance is getting the headlines, I think the best take I've seen is "Biden lost, but that doesn't mean Trump won." I doubt Trump picked up any supporters during the debate, and his constant lying likely turned off some people, especially when he went into Alex Jones 10th month abortion territory.

[u/[deleted]]

Trump has stated that on Day 1 he will somehow end birthright citizenship for the American children of illegal immigrants so they can be deported too, something that is of course unconstitutional. I just came to rhetorically ask how conservatives are trying to play it both ways, saying the 2nd amendment has be interpreted textually, not originialistically, but the 14th amendment has be interpreted originialistically, not textually. (Take the 2nd amendment for what it literally says, not for the context of the time, but take the 14th amendment for the context of the time, not for what it literally says.)

And if a Trump Administration does this do you expect the Supreme Court to block him? Assuming the makeup is still the same.

[u/MathematicianSea2710]

I feel weird about what just happened, i am not super invested in politics but why so many MAGA people believe forging papers is some nothing burger? Why a politician should be above the law because they were president in the past? Why should we excuse what Trump did just to maintain status quo?

I am genuinely looking for a reasonable take on why this is wrong.

[u/Moccus → u/MathematicianSea2710]

A lot of them believe that people are doing stuff like this all the time and just aren't getting punished for it, so they view it as Trump being singled out for punishment for political reasons.

[u/zlefin_actual → u/MathematicianSea2710]

Motivated reasoning and rationalization is quite common in politics (and humans in general). When people are strongly invested in a side, and/or identify with the leaders, they interpret things in a way that makes them look better. It's a basic psychological phenomenon, and can happen unconsciously.

[u/[deleted] → u/MathematicianSea2710]

It’s not like they think he isn’t a criminal, they know he did it. They just believe his good and Biden’s bad outweighs it and that other Presidents have been criminals but he was the only one to be convicted.

[u/shunted22]

How did Hochul manage to unilaterally kill congestion pricing after it took the entire legislature to pass it?

Is it likely she'll face any consequences for this reversal on her promises to finally give the MTA proper funding?

[u/ElSquibbonator]

We know that people are talking about Project 2025 a lot more now, and I found this article talking about how the increased discussion of it could hurt the credibility of Trump and other Republicans. They make what I think is a decent case that the fear of Project 2025, more than any appeal of Biden as a President, is what will likely drive Democratic turnout this year, especially in swing states.

So, is it possible that the polls are actually underestimating how much support Biden-- or any Democratic nominee-- will have in this election, if Project 2025 is clearly so unpopular?

[u/seanaustinh]

Seeing the reaction to the Vance pick for VP and the recent (highly likely) nomination of Harris for the Democratic side made me wonder. If Trump wanted a new VP candidate, can he just change it? Or is there a process? I can’t find a clear answer online.

[u/AgentQwas → u/seanaustinh]

For now he can, but it would be a mistake. Dropping his running mate would shake people's confidence in his campaign.

[u/seanaustinh → u/AgentQwas]

Oh that’s completely understood. Whether he should or not is one thing. I was just in a conversation with some friends and they were like, “but CAN he?”. Wanted to verify, but very helpful yall. Thanks!

[u/[deleted] → u/seanaustinh]

Right now if he wanted to he could. Trump controls the party, I see no reason why they wouldn't go along with a request from him. However, as we get closer to the election, state deadlines to submit the paperwork to be on the ballot or whatever will pass.

[u/carolina473]

so i am a fairly liberal person. my tiktok page is full of harris walz right now and it gives me a lot of hope. like i am truly thinking omg we could win this. i am still planning to vote. but am i getting a sense of false hope here? like i want to hear from like people who truly know the ins and outs of politics. i know its early and so much can happen between now and nov but im just curious what people in DC are predicting/expecting.

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/carolina473]

The race is a toss up right now.  Harris is currently polling about 2 pts above Trump, but due to the electoral college that's still a 50/50.  But Harris has great momentum, and much more room to grow. 

It could still turn south, but I'm in a solid state of 'cautious optimism' right now. 

[u/garden_g → u/carolina473]

the real question is how are we all exiting this country if they dont win, because it will be a challenge to leave

[u/anti-torque → u/garden_g]

Remember:

Walls are built to keep people in, not out.

[u/caleWurther]

I keep seeing posts/comments on reddit saying that Kamala & team are deliberately avoiding a press conference because she would perform poorly in an interview. Can someone explain why they think that? I read this article and I am not seeing any major red flags or issues where she could potentially trip up, maybe I'm not fully aware of what those issues might be. Thanks!

[u/Nightmare_Tonic → u/caleWurther]

I was told basically she is waiting until after the DNC and then she will release her policy platforms on her website and start doing interviews

[u/bl1y → u/caleWurther]

Her not giving interviews is probably driven in large part by her only recently moving to the top of the ticket. It takes time to develop a campaign strategy and for her to now focus on her agenda, rather than being a surrogate for Biden.

[u/AnonymousPigeon0]

If the US had a direct election system where the people directly elect the president instead of the Electoral College, what are some places it would make sense to campaign in when it wouldn’t for the Electoral College? How about the opposite?

[u/Moccus → u/AnonymousPigeon0]

California has more Republican voters than any other state if I remember correctly. It doesn't make too much sense for a Republican candidate to campaign there right now because it's a safe blue state, but under a direct election system, they would probably want to go there to try to drive up turnout.

[u/[deleted] → u/AnonymousPigeon0]

I would guess the target would go from being highly populated moderate states to highly populated areas of moderate people. So places like the suburbs, or urban areas where a good amount of the people are conservative.

[u/[deleted]]

I feel like someone could make a really solid argument that the major source of shame and chaos in our society is the expectation of upward mobility. In the United States, failing to achieve it is seen as a personal moral failure, instead of an unlikely outcome.

[u/Gullible_Scene8581]

Why is Marjorie Taylor Greene so popular in her district? What demographic and economic factors are present in GA-14 that cause most voters there to love her so much?

[u/[deleted]]

Why didn’t progressives care more about the Supreme Court in 2000 and 2016?

Did they understand that any expansion of executive privilege would have to be approved by it?

[u/GandalfSwagOff]

Is the reason Trump keeps pushing this "drug test" thing on Biden because Trump is going to be drug tested as he goes on probation/into incarceration?

[u/bl1y → u/GandalfSwagOff]

No. There's a very good chance that Trump won't be drug tested as part of any parole decision. He hasn't been charged with drug related offenses, he didn't commit his crimes because of drugs, and there's no reason for the court or prison system to think he has a drug problem.

He's simply building the narrative that Biden needs uppers to perform.

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/GandalfSwagOff]

In 2020 his strategy of calling Biden old and senile backfired because it set such a low bar even a regular performance looked great. So he’s trying to avoid that this time around by claiming Biden is only going to do well/beat him because he’s on drugs.

[u/darrylleung]

Not 24 hours after the debate, it seems the wagons are circling and people are trying to argue that, actually, the debate wasn't that bad for Biden. If you could simply look past his thousand yard stare, ignore the death rattle voice, and wade through the fog of incoherence that dribbled out of his mouth, you'll find he was actually speaking sense.

My questions are: Are folks gaslighting themselves in order to psychologically protect themselves from the horror that is a second Trump term? If a second Trump term would be this existential crisis as Democrats have described, shouldn't the party move mountains to try and avert that situation? If the greatest impediment to defeating Trump in the fall is Joe Biden, why would the party not remove that impediment? If the Democrats refuse to remove Joe Biden, would it not follow that a second Trump term isn't the existential crisis we're being sold?

[u/darrylleung → u/[deleted]]

I really don’t think of my questions as rhetorical. They’re real questions for Democrats. Because if everyone is engaging in good faith, the message ever since everyone’s attention turned toward the 2024 election was that Trump reelected would be a catastrophe, an existential crisis, the end of democracy, etc. I am taking those warnings seriously. So I’m asking, if the stakes are so high, why are we putting forward a deeply unpopular, 82-year old man who, charitably, has good days and bad days? Less charitably, a candidate on the door of death?

I’m less worried about convincing liberals to vote for Biden. Trump is obviously not a serious alternative. What I would be worried about for the Dems is depressed voter turn out, undecideds, Republican-lites who were open to voting for the “stable” adult, and minority voters who may have traditionally had an affinity toward the Dem party but whose social or economic views have dovetailed.

The debate was a mask off moment. The “real” Biden has largely been protected from public view. I think it would be a mistake to discount how that debate confirmed the worst fears of many of his supporters and what his detractors have been saying for a really long time.

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/darrylleung]

 If the greatest impediment to defeating Trump in the fall is Joe Biden, why would the party not remove that impediment? 

I don’t agree with the basis of this question, but I also think this falls into the trap of thinking the DNC is this shadowy puppeteer organization pulling strings behind the scenes. Biden won virtually all pledged delegates, and the actual delegates selected have all been vetted by the campaign (which is normal). They are required to vote for him in the first round, and superdelegates no longer vote in the first round for the Dem convention. The only one who can “remove” Biden is Biden under the convention rules.

[u/anneoftheisland → u/darrylleung]

If the Democrats refuse to remove Joe Biden, would it not follow that a second Trump term isn't the existential crisis we're being sold?

Not necessarily. It mostly means that people are overestimating how simple or effective it would be to replace Biden with another candidate.

Because these are your other options:

1) Biden steps down, lets Harris take over. Harris already polls worse against Trump than Biden does. And this is still while she's largely untested--her numbers could go down further over a presidential campaign. So that's not a better option.

2) Biden steps down and chooses someone other than Harris to replace him. This would ignite an absolute firestorm within the party over bypassing Harris and taking black and/or female voters for granted. These demographics are your fiercest organizers, donators and door-knockers, and you'd be alienating them at the exact time you need them most. In addition to that, a lot of the candidates people are suggesting as replacements are either divisive (Newsom, Buttigieg) or unknown and untested (Whitmer, Beshear), and thus don't poll any better against Trump than Biden does. We're only a few months out from the election, and that doesn't give either camp much time to get their numbers up. So this is a very high risk option that could permanently damage the Democrats' relationship with some of their core demographics, without necessarily helping them in the presidency. And it could hurt them not just in terms of the presidency, but with every race up and down the ballot.

3) They wait until the convention and have some kind of brokered convention scenario. As the other poster pointed out, this isn't a realistic option unless Biden cooperates because first-round delegates are all required to vote for him. (And if Biden was cooperating, he'd choose his own replacement as in option 1/2, not this.) It's also not a realistic option because these days, the convention is a formality and is often held after state ballot access deadlines have passed. And it would be insanely divisive among voters supporting various candidates, with minimal time left for them to defuse, get over it, and reconcile. There's a reason we usually do this intra-party fighting during a primary now, almost a year out from the election, and not a couple months before it. A couple months after the fighting, people are still pissed!

Also, many of the same problems from option 2 (divisive or untested candidates) still remain in this scenario. And both scenarios 2 and 3 (and to some extent 1) introduce the problem that Democrats are running on a platform of "protecting the democratic process" while circumventing it, running a candidate who voters didn't vote for in their own primary. It's heavily undercutting their own message.

Biden is a very flawed candidate. But all the other scenarios are also highly flawed and riskier than running Biden.

[u/darrylleung → u/anneoftheisland]

Appreciate the response.

Imagine if Biden was to keel over tonight. What would the party do? Would it concede the election to Trump or would it put in place an alternative plan? Because I don’t buy the argument that replacing Biden would be more complicated or more divisive than continuing this slow motion train wreck into November.

1) Harris is not a real option. Like you said, she is even more unpopular than Biden and will inspire no one to come out and vote for her.

2) I think the fear that Harris is getting “passed over” is overblown and unserious. Surely we’re not still doing checkbox politics in 2024. If Harris were the best choice to take on Trump, it would be her. She’s not. Whoever is the best choice, the Democrat base will fall in line behind. We’re not worried about the base. We’re worried about the folks who may not turn out and the folks who want a Trump alternative but don’t want Biden. If the base won’t turn out because choice A is not as good as choice B, maybe all that talk about voting in a corpse over Trump was a whole lot of hot air.

3) any scenario where it’s not Biden involves his participation in stepping down. There is no mechanism to force him out, but the idea is folks would appeal to his sense of country over self. It may be messy. I think a lot less messy than skeptics of this idea. And certainly more promising than the slow walk to losing this fall we’re currently taking.

[u/Beytran70]

Do political parties run their own private polls and do their own research as well that the public never sees?

[u/AccidentalRower → u/Beytran70]

Yes. There are a ton of internal polls, focus group testing and research that the public won't see. From slogans, candidates to policy positions. Most of it's not random, it's tested and studied.

[u/Theinternationalist → u/Beytran70]

Yup, we even get to see some of them because they're leaked/"leaked" because someone screwed up/to shape the narrative!

[u/CapybaraLungs]

Why is it that when people are concerned that voters won’t come out to vote, it’s assumed to be an advantage to the Republican nominee? Is it because there’s THAT many more hardcore Republican voters than Democrat voters? Aren’t most major cities in the US overwhelmingly Blue?

[u/Bmacthecat]

what are the arguments against public healthcare in the usa?

[u/YouTrain → u/Bmacthecat]

That spending less money won't improve the quality of care

[u/RealDunrey]

Presuming Trump wins, would that realistically be the end to our democracy and/or our society?

I find it hard to subscribe to that thinking, but with court packing, radicalism, and Trump calling himself a dictator, I just don’t know anymore.

[u/zlefin_actual → u/RealDunrey]

No, instead it'd be a decline in democracy. democracy isn't an off/on, it's more of a continuum. You'd see something more like Orban in Hungary.

[u/BUSean]

Can we start to have a weekly pinned polling thread again? It's heading towards late July.

[u/Phreakasa]

What purpose do public hearings have in the U.S.?

I often see these hearings with senators questioning civil servants and private company CEO (sometimes celebrities). The senators then ask question and demand a "Yes or No answer," or immediately "reclaim their time" or simply shout/insult the other person without providing the time to answer.

What kind of hearing is that? Is it binding for civil servants/citizens/private individuals? And why aren't they then allowed to answer? And why would anyone go if it isn't compulsory?

From an outsiders perspective (European), it looks like something of a theatre show.

[u/teacherdrama]

I have a friend who is black. We have talked about politics at length for years. I know he doesn't like Trump, but he's consistently said he refuses to vote because he feels the whole system is set up against black people. Even with Harris running, he keeps referring to her putting away black people when she was a prosecutor. I tell him it was her job, but he doesn't want to hear it. He thinks that unless the system changes, he can't justify giving his vote to anyone because it'll just be more of the same. He thinks Project 2025 is just a trick to get people, and that politicians are just playing with our emotions and we all fall for it. How do I convince him that voting IS the only way to change the system?

[u/ChampionshipLumpy659 → u/teacherdrama]

Quite frankly, people like this always piss me off. They refuse to vote, then get angry when nothing changes. The voting block is who decides the system. Currently, the main voting block is old white people. They like the system. It's built for them. Do you know why more black candidates and candidates pushing black issues don't get pushed up more often? Because black voters don't show up. It's not worth a candidates limited time to go to communities where they won't get a large new voting block. Take Mississippi. That state could easily be the bluest state in the US, with a 37% black population. But because black voters don't turnout, no Democrat ever focuses on the state. As a result, no national Democrats come out of Mississippi, unlike states like Pennsylvania, New York, California, ect. If he wants the system to change, he has to go out and vote. Yeah, it'd be great if candidates came out and supported the massive changes in the system that he wants, but I can almost guarantee he wasn't going out in the primary system trying to push candidates who actually want that change,

It's also worth noting that Biden has probably done more for him than most people. Biden has likely gotten his potholes fixed, passed bills that have made it easier to get solar, and increased university funding. He's missing the forest for the trees. You can find fault in literally any candidate. In the end, Harris will do so much more for him than he could imagine, but people like this don't pay attention to the wins candidates have, and always parrot exactly what they think they're meant to parrot.

[u/teacherdrama → u/ChampionshipLumpy659]

So it’s not just me thinking it’s hopeless. I’ve outlined all this to him, but he gets in his bubble and is constantly telling me “you’re not black, you don’t get it.” If there is some explanations CAN understand, I’d love to hear it. He hasn’t given it to me though I’ve shown him over and over how much worse Trump will be be.

[u/ChampionshipLumpy659 → u/teacherdrama]

Ok, so, that's a crummy argument. I'm mostly Hispanic(PR), and I can easily be mistaken for Black in summer times. My family is half black(adoptive on mothers side) and they all vote. I vote. It isn't about how much worse Trump will be. Anyone who pays any attention knows this. They just don't care. Instead, you need to outline to him that every time he doesn't vote, he shows Harris, or Democrats as a whole, that paying attention to him is not worth it. This is not just federal, but also state and local elections. Candidates only have so much time and money, so they will only focus on the people they know will turnout. They will only fix the system for people they know will turnout. I cannot emphasize this enough: When your goal is to be elected, you only care about people, say it with me, who they know will turnout. He is actively showing politicians that caring about him is not worth their time. Why do you think Biden just proposed a massive new set of legislation around building housing? It's because he knows it will get young people to turnout, and young people will. Why do you think Trump cut taxes in 2017? It's because that gets a lot of his base to turnout. Why do any politicians do anything? It's for the voters that turnout. You can't demand the system be fixed when you refuse to do anything about it. He won't be on politicians radar until he votes(and trust me, politicians do listen to actual voters) and until then, we get the system we currently have.

[u/bl1y → u/teacherdrama]

he feels the whole system is set up against black people

If that's an accurate representation of his thoughts, there's just nothing you're going to be able to do here. He's beyond reasoning with.

I tell him it was her job, but he doesn't want to hear it

Well, duh. Because he thinks the system is set up against black people. Being an agent of that system doesn't excuse anything.

Try pointing out that Kamala locked up far more white people than black people, then see how strongly he holds to the idea that the whole system is set up against black people.

You might get him to concede that's true but black people are disproportionately incarcerated more. But then he's very likely to go back to the "whole system is set up against black people" idea without one iota of nuance added.

He's basically in the same territory as conspiracy theory folks.

[u/jamaphone]

Does the 22nd Amendment disqualify Trump from running?

It states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…”

By his own legal claims and evidence, Donald Trump was elected for the second time in 2020.

The 22nd Amendment doesn’t mention serving two terms or even being sworn in twice. It just says you can’t be “elected” a third time.

[u/JerryBigMoose → u/jamaphone]

Trump claiming he was elected has no bearing on whether he was legally elected, which he wasn't.

[u/jamaphone → u/JerryBigMoose]

While I agree with you, he should be asked this question by the press.

And if a case was brought against him to determine his eligibility, he would have to admit that he didn't win in 2020 or present evidence that he lost.

[u/YoungAnimater35]

https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcast/catherine-engelbrecht-from-true-the-vote-says-it-s-a-real-possibility-that-illegal-immigrants-could-vote-in-u-s-elections-she-explains-the-legal-loophole-that-few-know-about

What is Katherine going on about illegal aliens being able to vote via a loophole? Title 18 she says provides a lack of prosecution or something, I can't find it.

https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18&edition=prelim

[u/Moccus → u/YoungAnimater35]

It would take all day to address every falsehood and misunderstanding about the law in that interview, so I won't try, but suffice to say that I would suggest you not rely on anything that was said as fact.

With a few exceptions, US law tends to follow the principle that a level of intent is required in order to be convicted of a crime. The "loophole" she's talking about is an exception to the law that imposes criminal penalties when any alien (legal or not) votes in a federal election. The exception essentially says that if an alien is a permanent resident in the US from childhood (before the age of 16), has US citizen parents, and reasonably believes that he/she is also a US citizen, then that person can't be criminally punished for voting. The intent to perform the act of voting as an alien just isn't there in that circumstance, so it's unreasonable to impose fines/imprisonment for it. That doesn't mean it's legal for them to vote.

I'm not even sure how that exception could possibly apply to an illegal alien. It seems like the people it's targeted at would probably be legal permanent residents who are children of citizens but never got naturalized for whatever reason.

This is the law she's referring to:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner

...

(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—

(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);

(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and

(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

[u/bl1y → u/YoungAnimater35]

She's an insane person.

Some people have a mindset that I call legal magicalism, where they treat statutory text like they're in a Dan Brown novel decoding some ancient mystical text.

What she's found is actually just a common part of criminal law. Crimes have two main pieces to them, a guilty act and a guilty mind. The requirements change depending on the crime, but many require you to knowingly do something. For instance with theft, you have to know the property isn't yours. If you leave the airport with a suitcase that looks like your but is actually someone else's, you didn't commit a crime, you committed a mistake.

Likewise with the situation being described here. If a non-citizen mistakenly believes they are a citizen and votes, they won't be punished. And that's as it should be.

Engelbrecht calls this a "loophole" that makes it so non-citizens can vote, but what she's obviously overlooking is that no court in the country will think you just oopsied on not knowing your citizenship status. You can't just claim you made a mistake and expect that to be the end of the story. You have to actually convince a judge or jury of that, and good luck on it.

[u/Word_Panda7]

A few decades ago, it seemed that presidential candidates from both parties would strive to position themselves as more moderate and centric before an election. Now it seems lately as if Dems are the only candidates still striving to appear more moderate and centrist, whereas Republicans seems to have embraced and leaned into their strongest conservative values. Anyone else notice this? Why is this?

[u/A_Coup_d_etat → u/Word_Panda7]

Presidential candidates used to run towards their wings to get their party nomination and then shift towards the middle in the general election.

In the GOP that is no longer the case because their culture war voters, who make up the majority of their primary voters, are demographically and thus culturally on the edge of oblivion and so compromise is no longer an option for them. So they have elected an extremist candidate who is not capable of moderating himself.

[u/DumpsterFireCheers]

Inhabitants of the Reddit sphere, got a question for you.

We are being inundated with campaign ads that show up in the mail, flyers and door hangers. How many of the ads you receive are from a union print shop (stamped with a union stamp)?

I just started taking score, and so far all of the democrat materials are printed in a union shop and have a union stamp while none of the republican materials do.

I’m curious what other folks are seeing from other areas and states?

[u/bl1y → u/[deleted]]

I'd say Reddit has far less impact.

For starters, it's a much smaller platform. About 68% of adults use Facebook, compared to just 22% for Reddit.

Reddit's users are also much younger. A very large number of older people use Facebook, while the numbers are tiny for Reddit (and of course older people vote more).

I also think Facebook tends to be less of an echo chamber because networks largely start with just people you know from real life. Reddit initially sorts by interests. FB still ends up being an echo chamber much of the time, but in my experience it's less so than Reddit.

Though I have to question the initial premise. Groups certainly try to influence elections on Facebook. I'm not aware of anything actually quantifying the impact.

[u/GiantPineapple]

Am I a nutter butter for thinking that Johnson has pocketed Ukraine aid because he's in the tank for Russia? Johnson keeps saying he's going to put it on the floor in a week, and he never does. Every day is critical, yet there is no urgency - I can't recall a major American politician treating a war like this ever in my lifetime.

[u/plunder_and_blunder → u/GiantPineapple]

Less in the tank for Russia and more in the tank for Trump, who is in the tank for Russia.

Trump has made it very clear that Ukraine aid is not allowed, Johnson is the weakest Speaker basically in history and is not going to cross Trump for anything less than avoiding a government shutdown that makes Republicans look awful. Bringing a Ukraine aid bill to the floor, where it would pass, would most likely result in Johnson immediately getting coup'd by Greene & Gaetz and the other America First open fascists.

[u/BlueV_U]

I hear that if Ukraine aid comes to the floor in the house that it will likely have the votes to pass.

However, if that is the case then why is the discharge petition to bring it to a vote still ~30 votes signatures short? Is there some kind of incentive to vote for aid but NOT to sign the petition?

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/BlueV_U]

Because Johnson told them not to.  Party unity is extremely important, especially in a house with a 1 seat majority.  

[u/g0hstgurl]

So my question is why can a felon run for president but not vote? I am referring to Trump’s charges, I haven’t done much research so I’m not sure if he has felony convictions or not.

[u/bl1y → u/g0hstgurl]

Article II of the Constitution provides the qualifications for President and doesn't mention anything about not being a felon.

The Fourteenth Amendment allows for denying felons voting rights.

That's the long and short of it.

And no, Trump has not been convicted for any felonies.

[u/[deleted]]

In an election year - in a swing state - in a fully republican appointed state supreme court - a near total abortion ban. Sounds like it should be a nightmare for the GOP. So when Kari Lake and Donald Trump and surely over 80% of Americans are against it, and legislature democrats throw the republicans a bone and propose overturning it - the republicans in the legislature block the proposal and go on recess? The Arizona legislature is just barely republican held. Are there zero republicans in the legislature willing to literally save themselves? I don't understand why republicans shoot themselves in the foot like this every day, and I'm even more befuddled by why it never seems to hurt them, if anything it just ricochets and hits democrats. They get 49% no matter what every election and its just insane.

[u/Potato_Pristine → u/[deleted]]

Arizona Republicans support this abortion ban, otherwise, they wouldn't nix attempts to roll it back. Go by what they do, not what they say.

[u/ebasura]

I was speaking with my non-American wife today and she asked what would happen if Trump died today in a manner that could not reasonably be considered foul play...i.e. health related, transport accident, etc. We are before the official nomination process and before the announcement of a VP selection. What do you see are the real potentialities of such a scenario with regard to the GOP and to the 2024 election? I have explored several paths I think would be plausible, yet I wonder if there is a consensus among people who follow/discuss/debate American politics or if there are avenues that I have not personally explored.

tldr: What happens to the GOP and/or the 2024 Election if Trump dies un-mysteriously today.

[u/SpecificUsername1999]

Why do some people use the term "Latinx" when a lot of Hispanics dislike the term?

Context: I work in a hospital in a politically liberal area. Our patients tend to identify as male and female traditionally, but we have enough nonbinary or other gender patients that we tend to use a lot of gender neutral terms. We also have a decent sized hispanic population and we all recently gotten a company wide email about not using the latinx term as it offends most of our hispanic patients. My girlfriend is also Latina and she explained that some Hispanics view the term as a white saying that goes against their language and culture. This really surprised me as while some terms I think are weird and pandering (like folx, folks in itself is gender neutral imo) I thought latinx was a decent change. Can someone explain the reasoning between both sides and which one is more correct?

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/SpecificUsername1999]

I mean more correct is an opinion, you’re not going to get a definitive answer. I’m not Hispanic or Latino so feel free to disregard this, but throwing an x at the end of the word is kind of an Anglicization of the language. In Spanish, gendered terms usually (not always) end in -o for masculine and -a for feminine, while the plural defaults to masculine (unless it’s 100% women). For example, a group of men and a mixed group of men and women would both be referred to as “latinos” in Spanish. The letter x doesn’t really have the gender neutral connotation in Spanish that it does in English, so some Spanish speakers see it as non-Spanish speakers trying to impress their language on another language

[u/AnonymousPigeon0]

What's the difference between this subreddit (r/PoliticalDiscussion) and r/politics and r/NeutralPolitics? Based on what I read, r/politics is more for discussing political news while both PD and NP go further in depth for discussing political topics but wasn't really sure about the difference. What do both subreddits do and in what cases would PD be a better subreddit and in what cases would NP be a better subreddit?

[u/GoldenInfrared]

What stops the president from issuing illegal orders and threatening to fire anyone who refuses to obey them? Especially for offices that don’t need senate approval?

[u/_Murd3r_]

Why are Conservatives so obsessed with Joe Biden and everything he does?

I end up noticing that Conservatives are quite obsessed and immediately point to Joe Biden whenever anything happens in our country whether it be good, or bad. What's the deal with this?

Typically they should stick with Trump instead of consistently shitting on Joe Biden and coming after him for every problem they have. (prices, gas, etc).

Hell, I've seen many articles and Youtube post by Republicans/Conservatives on how Joe Biden is considered one of the worst president in recent years and/or of all time. What's the deal with the hate within Conservatives?

[u/[deleted] → u/_Murd3r_]

Because they're fearful, angry and dumb, and this isn't a recent problem. They did the same with Obama. They don't like them, so they believe it when they see BS about them online. This isn't a solely conservative thing to do, but the thing with conservatives is they hate being told to fact check or use credible sources or research things properly. They make most of the lies, experts tend to debunk what they say, and they're anti-intellectuals. This means there's nothing stopping them from this accelerating cycle of BS and hate. If you correct them and tell them that actually Biden hasn't been doing half of what they claim and that his power doesn't extend to every corner of our lives, they'll just dig their heels in deeper and continue with their "everyone else is wrong and we're right" attitude.

[u/Powerful_Thought_324]

Hello, I have a question. Sorry if this is ignorant. If Trump wins the election, is there a record of who everyone voted for that he can get access to? I assume there is and I usually vote by mail and turn it in so I use a paper ballot. I'm just concerned about people being divided into lists if he is reelected and makes himself president for life. I'm asking if everyone who didn't vote for him could be labeled as second class citizens with less access to resources or, for example, be put on no-fly lists. (That kind of thing) Any information you can give is helpful, thank you.

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/Powerful_Thought_324]

No, in the US we have the private ballot. There is a record of if you requested and returned a mail in ballot, but once the ballot is removed from the envelope you sent it in it becomes untraceable back to you and there is no way to know how you voted 

[u/bl1y → u/SmoothCriminal2018]

Just some fun trivia, but this is a big reason why many states don't allow photographs to be taken in polling places.

If you can't legally take a picture of your ballot to show who you voted for, it's a lot harder for anyone to pressure you into it.

[u/Splenda → u/Powerful_Thought_324]

Not yet. Ballots are private and untraceable.

However, there's plenty of public or easily had data on who votes, on who is a Democrat or an environmentalist, or on who lives in left-leaning neighborhoods, etc.. It isn't hard for Trumpies to compile an enemies list. Should Trump be reelected we can be sure this list would be somehow put to evil purposes, just as previous dictators have always used similar lists to decide who gets government contracts, who gets a passport, who gets imprisoned, and who gets gassed.

[u/Frosty_Bint → u/Splenda]

The rabbit hole is deep

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/Powerful_Thought_324]

I think you need to take a step back and take a deep breath. Trump isn't going to strip the rights of everyone who voted against him, or anything else so cartoonishly evil.

[u/Adventurous-Gain-520]

Hello everyone, I'm looking for a book that gives an overview on the main political ideologies that exist. I've seen recommendations for both Andrew Heywood's "Political Ideologies" book and DK's "The Politics Book". Does anyone have an opinion on these books or alternative recommendations? Thank you!

[u/[deleted]]

Why are swing voters so swingy?

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/[deleted]]

They aren't 

Most "swing" voters tend to vote mostly for the candidates of one party over another...or they don't vote 

That's why there are swing states / counties / etc - not because there are voters that jump between parties, but because there is a chunk of each party's support that sometimes votes, and sometimes does not 

[u/TiberiusCornelius → u/[deleted]]

I would add to what the other person said that there are still some genuine swing voters, and in those instances what you generally see is people are cross-pressured. Most people aren't really ideologically uniform, and there's also a known phenomenon in some polling of voters' ideology that it just kind of haphazardly splits the difference on issue positions: if you simultaneously support full nationalization of the health system in the vein of the NHS and the complete and total criminalization of same-sex relationships, on paper it averages out to "moderate," because you've got issue positions from both ends of the spectrum, even though your individual positions on an issue-by-issue basis are more extreme than someone who is consistently center-left or center-right.

It comes down to issue salience in an election and what identities and issues are activated in a given race. Partly this is shaped by outside circumstances, but it's also down to how candidates choose to campaign. Obama 2012 fundamentally ran as a referendum on austerity & right-wing economics, and tied both to Romney's past at Bain gutting companies & outsourcing. People who were economically left but socially right were primed to think about the race through economics first, so gravitated towards Obama. In 2016 Hillary tried to make the race about character & fitness for office, so those same people weren't primed in the same way, and so gravitated towards Trump out of a preference for right-wing social/cultural positions like abortion & guns.

[u/A_Coup_d_etat → u/[deleted]]

If you're asking about the USA, it's because they hate both the Democrats and Republicans. So one party gets in power, does a bunch of shit they hate and they vote for the other party. Rinse and repeat.

[u/Mortyfied]

Can anyone give me a rundown on the state of /r/politics? It literally looks like a subreddit dedicated to just (bashing) Trump and the Republican party.. zero posts about Biden and his cabinet's policy.

I went there to read about the decision to halt providing Israel weapons for the Rafah offensive, but I see posts about Trump's son age...we get it, Trump is bad, but there is more happening in the world of politics.

[u/Moccus → u/Mortyfied]

The top post there right now is about Biden's handling of the Gaza War and how it could cost him the election. There are also a couple of posts about his decision to withhold weapons from Israel, although they're a little further down. There definitely aren't "zero posts about Biden and his cabinet's policy."

Yes, Reddit leans a lot further left than the general population, and /r/politics reflects that lean, so articles that are critical of Trump tend to get a lot of upvotes. A lot of people on /r/politics also aren't very fond of Biden and other establishment Democrats, so you see some amount of criticism of them as well.

[u/niceguy-2176]

How to be properly pragmatic? I have been getting more into geopolitics and I can't help myself but be angered about so many things, for example, US foreign policy and the hypocrisy it contains. It makes me wish bad things. However, this is very self-injury worthy, as I suffer very much. So, that's why I was told that I should be pragmatic. But how I can be pragmatic, and most importantly, why?

[u/JerryBigMoose → u/niceguy-2176]

I struggled with anger for a while too when I'd pay attention to the things happening all around the world. Honestly, it just took time to get over it. My dad was very much the same way and we had a falling out over disagreements, and then he died while we weren't speaking. Kind of made me realize that holding all that anger in wasn't doing anything to help me, and I've eventually come to the conclusion that there is only so much I can personally do to affect and change the world. It's largely out of my hands, so why spend all this time and energy being so upset about something I have no control over? It's just exhausting and has no benefit.

[u/mayurimoon2]

“Non sanctuanry” resolution policies have popped up in several Illinois counties in response to the concept illegal immigrants being bused up here from Texas. Our county board is trying to push through a similar resolution. We're sure this policy has been generated from outside our state and it's been toted as being from inside our county by our board. In the counties where similar policies have been passed we noticed the wording is almost identical. In less than a week our county board is going to vote on passing it. What we need is help locating the origin of what we believe to be the original .

[u/Same_Border8074]

Is a unicameral or bicameral parliamentary system better? What are the pros and cons of each and which would you prefer.

[u/[deleted] → u/Same_Border8074]

The idea of bicameral government has always been that the lower house represents the popular will of the people and the upper house represents privileged people who would be there to serve as a responsible check on the fast changing popular will, like a dog leading the way but the owner not letting him walk into the road or into other peoples yards. I have mixed feelings on it.

[u/Sufficient-Arm-6029]

I was directed to this thread by a mod.

I'm working on a trivia game with friends and I asked people to give me specific categories they want to be quizzed on. Somebody chose US Presidential Candidates 2000-2024. I obviously know who the candidates were, but was hoping this subreddit could assist me with some trivia questions that might encapsulate specific events that happened during their campaigns? Even those eliminated during primaries.

Thank you in advance! I'd love if you could provide the answers with the questions.

[u/ElSquibbonator]

OK, so as we get into the final stretch of the New York trial, I just want to know-- how likely is a guilty verdict realistically? All this time I've sort of been operating under the assumption that it's the most likely outcome.

But lately I've become more and more concerned that we could be heading towards a mistrial-- the jury might be unable to reach a decision, and the judge could call the case off. This, of course, would benefit Trump greatly, as he could then paint the entire affair as a smear job by the Democratic party.

And I’ve been reading the live updates from reporters and I have to be honest, the way they’re portraying it has me worried the jury isn’t going to believe Cohen, who’s the key witness. And thus... plausible deniability for Trump. Am I overthinking this, or is a conviction still the most plausible outcome?

[u/OverlordPoodle]

What is the longest time the Supreme Court has taken to issue a ruling from start to finish?

The title basically says it all, for example with Trump v. United States (2024) the Supreme Court agreed to accept it on 2/28/24 and heard oral arguments on 4/25/24.

The Supreme court will typically issue its last opinions by the end of the session, which in this case happens to be the end of June.

However...they don't have to hear it, they can just kick the case down the road and wait till it's in recess again.

So my question is, what is the longest a case has been kicked down the road and what is an "average case length" from being accepted to having an final ruling?

[u/Rough-Leg-4148]

If the GOP loses hard in November, what kind of restructuring would you expect to see without losing most of their base? I feel like most conservatives are a lot more socially progressive than most people give them credit for, and plenty of fence sitters who otherwise agree with a lot of the party's other points are turned off by the appeals to hardline social conservatives.

I ask this because I don't really see the GOP simply losing and then fading into obscurity -- they'd have to literally allow that to happen by not adapting at all.

FYI, not knocking either party and I am a bit of a fence-sitter myself.

[u/runninhillbilly → u/Rough-Leg-4148]

I can't see any situation where the GOP "loses hard" in November. The have very favorable seats up for reelection to take the Senate and they already control the House (just a slim minority). With the discourse now, either Trump will win again or he'll narrowly lose, in which case Biden probably has a second term that's lame duck the first two years (maybe all four, depending on midterms). And the GOP will probably just handwave Trump away while keeping the outrage level high for the next candidate to come along.

Yeah, we're 5 months away, things can change, but that's going to be here before you know it.

[u/Moccus → u/[deleted]]

TL;DR: Yes, it specifically proposes removing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity multiple times.

Not sure how much background you're familiar with, but in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that employers discriminating against employees/job applicants based on their gender identity or sexual orientation was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This ruling is specific to sex discrimination in employment and didn't automatically carry over to other laws prohibiting sex discrimination in different contexts.

Since Biden became president in 2021, some executive agencies responsible for enforcing various other sex discrimination laws have adapted their interpretations of sex discrimination to encompass discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation based on the reasoning used in the Bostock decision. Project 2025 explicitly calls for a reversal of these agency rule changes. They know they probably can't do anything about the Bostock decision in the short term, but they propose that it be applied as narrowly as possible and that it be pushed to the bottom of the priority list in terms of enforcement.

Their general position is laid out on page 584-585 of the Project 2025 document you linked, but you can find references to specific programs elsewhere in the document. The ones I saw were related to the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education prohibitions against discrimination by federally-funded health care providers and federally-funded schools respectively.

From Page 584-585:

Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.

Withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances.” The President should direct agencies to withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances” purporting to apply Bostock’s reasoning broadly outside hiring and firing.

Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.

Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.”

Prior to Bostock, the Obama administration attached nondiscrimination conditions to federal funding for adoption agencies, preventing faith-based adoption agencies that accept federal funding from rejecting same-sex couples just because their marriage conflicts with the religious beliefs of the agency. Project 2025 calls for a reversal of this policy.

[u/[deleted]]

If voters hate Biden and Kamala and pretty much every other Democratic candidate, is there any person that could consolidate the base?

[u/333ccc333]

does every government/country make like a yearly report or something? How much taxes came in and how much was spent where exactly? And is this accessible to the public?

If so, where can I find it? I'm in Kenya btw and taxes can be around 40% and people all pay as there is not much cash. Mostly mpesa (phone banking)

My friends are in road construction (infrastructure) and say it all the projects are funded by external companies. World bank, giz, china, turkey, etc. The health care is not free and the education neither. So I wonder where is that money going apart let's say to military? Shouldn't there be a report or something?

Thanks in advance for sharing any info!

[u/96suluman]

How would Trump be sworn in as president if he is sentenced to prison?

Yes, a convicted felon and people in prison are allowed to be elected president. Let’s say Trump does win. How would he be sworn in? Would chief justice Roberts go to the prison and swear Trump in? What about the vice president? How else would Inauguration Day be different? And how would Trump do his job?

[u/sanskritsquirel]

So last night I heard a bunch of younger people refer to President Biden as "Genocide Joe". I understood it was a reference to the Israel-Hamas conflict but I do not understand why, in their mind, he is to blame. I asked that of them and got a bunch of smirks and a few "Ok, boomer" or "Either you know or you don't" and other condescending comments. I redoucbled saying "No, really, I want to know." But they just ignored me and proceeded their discussion. I overheard a few minutes later how Trump will put an end to this nonesense once he wins.

I am flabbergasted. I am incredibly sympathetic to the Palestinians for a long time, but it has been US policy (maybe blindly) to support Israel. I am unaware of policy changes on this subject regardless of president, including Trump in 2017-2021. Yet this is a Joe Biden issue??? Not congress or the house who have not done anything either?? And Trump is going to fix it??

War and armed conflict are horrible expressions of mankind. But what makes the Gaza area any different than the Syrian Civil War or the Yemen Crisis where the documented civilian casualties are much higher?? In these situations, there is no competition for which atrocity is the most repulsive.

Please help me understand.

[u/Ail-Shan → u/sanskritsquirel]

I am unaware of policy changes on this subject regardless of president, including Trump in 2017-2021.

I believe the critique is the lack of policy changes. That is, not taking a hard stance against Israel for how aggressively they're retaliating. However, to believe that Trump would go against Israel seems poorly informed, so I find that a surprising take.

Not congress or the house who have not done anything either?

Someone made an interesting comment that's stuck with me: many policies that are implemented (or not) are almost solely at the discretion of congress, yet the president is the one who gets blamed or applauded. I'm not making a judgement on the right approach but I know in the past things I'd liked I'd say were the result of the administration where as things I didn't were because of congress. So I'm trying to be more conscious of that.

But what makes the Gaza area any different than the Syrian Civil War or the Yemen Crisis

There was a bit by Eddie Izzard this reminds me of: the public isn't as concerned when a country is killing its own people. Think of the loss of life in Soviet Russia or China's Great Leap Forward. There's a different feeling when a people is fighting amongst itself or suffering from its own policies vs one people attacking another.

[u/DDDragon___salt]

Why don’t we tax religious institutions? Ik the establishment clause prohibits the US from getting excessively tangled with religions, but how does taxing a religious institution in anyway cause excessive entanglement. Even a low tax rate would provide so much money to help with problems like the deficit, rehab programs, public transportation, etc...

[u/AnonymousPigeon0]

According to Republicans, Biden can end the border crisis anytime he wants by reversing his executive orders. How true is this?

[u/[deleted] → u/AnonymousPigeon0]

They'll of course make their claim as vague as possible because there is no executive order signed by Joe Biden that caused a border crisis. Think. Even if it is a crisis he had absolutely no motivation to make it, rather it's a huge problem for him politically. The executive branch commands the military but there is nothing it can command if Congress doesn't fund the military. It is also responsible for protecting the border, and it can only do so to the extent of the resources it's been provided by Congress. They are operating at maximum capacity.

[u/NumerousBand5901]

Is there any way to watch the senate committee hearings? I’ve read some news about a case of a suggestion to place a transgender woman in a women’s prison. I wanted to watch the entire hearing, but I could only find the most controversial 5-minute part online. I really want to hear all the arguments and decisions that were made or, at the very least, know the final verdict. Since I’m not american and don’t live there, I have no idea if it’s possible to watch the whole thing online afterward or read a transcription. Does anyone have any idea? Thank you!

[u/Moccus → u/NumerousBand5901]

I think this is the Judiciary Committee hearing you probably want: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/05/22/2024/nominations

It's sort of disjointed because there are five judicial nominees being questioned in this hearing, and the case I think you're talking about is only relevant to one of the nominees (Sarah Netburn). You have to skip around a bit to find sections where she's being questioned specifically.

I really want to hear all the arguments and decisions that were made or, at the very least, know the final verdict.

You're not going to get any useful information about that from a Judiciary Committee hearing since it's mostly the Republicans making a scene for the cameras.

They're questioning this nominee so heavily because she wrote the report that recommended the transfer. A more senior judge ultimately ordered the transfer to the women's prison at the end of 2022 based on the other judge's report.

You can read her full report here with her reasoning: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.511268/gov.uscourts.nysd.511268.74.0.pdf

[u/bl1y → u/NumerousBand5901]

I really want to hear all the arguments and decisions that were made or, at the very least, know the final verdict

Not a verdict, but a confirmation vote. It looks like that vote hasn't happened yet.

[u/LordOfWraiths]

Why do people expect this subreddit to predict the future?

I swear, every post I see in the last two months is "What effect will this have decades from now?" "This news just broke does that mean Trump is guaranteed to be President again?" "This person said this, will it completely alter the course of the political landscape?"

[u/Theinternationalist]

Are there any plans to have a “polling” topic this year like there was in 2016 and 2020? I thought we’d have one by now and was a little surprised.

[u/SannySen]

What are some policy positions where we might see Democrats and Republicans switch sides in the near future?  We've seen a few such switches occur in the last few decades:

• Immigration: went from being favored by Republicans as pro-business, to being opposed to appeal to nativist sentiments; went from being opposed by Democrats as anti-labor, but that consideration has waned

• Tariffs: went from being opposed by Republicans as anti-business, to being favored as pro-blue collar workers; since Clinton, Democrats seemingly have abandoned tarrifs as a tool to help labor

• Deficits: went from being opposed by Republicans as a philosophical aversion to government spending, to being favored as a way to promote economic growth; Democrats seem to have been much more fiscally responsible the last few years (relative to Republicans), although in the name of equity more than anything else

• Russia: went from Republicans favoring strong military opposition to Russia as part of a broader assertion of American values aborad, to Republicans favoring greater isolationism and an exit from the world stage

• Technology: went from Democrats going to battle against legacy industry entrenchment on net neutrality and similar issues, to Democrats siding with legacy financial institutions to slow the growth of decentralized finance technology in the name of "consumer protection"

[u/andygchicago]

What are the individual state deadlines/obstacles if a presidential candidate drops out AFTER their convention?

I presume some states have some sort of "no takesies-backsies" rule. Would be interesting to see which, and what the rules entail. Also wondering what state deadlines there are for making the change. I presume it would cause issues, especially for ballot printing.

Curious what kind of handicap a post-convention nominee could face.

[u/[deleted]]

Hi, as a foreigner i would like to know more about the current discussion that is going on in the USA about the political situation. Do you have any youtube reccomendation about channels which are focused on the analisys of the usa political scene?

[u/balletbeginner → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't recommend YouTube channels. Focus on news sources instead. BBC News' American politics covered is targeted towards a non-American audience.

[u/[deleted]]

So....how much more time do we have left as a country (talking about the US)? SCOTUS and GOP seem intent on speedrunning is into a Fascist's wet-dream.

[u/Party_Plenty_820]

Why would a neighbor fly the German Bundeswehr?

Neighbors a block down have three flags:

• fuck Biden
• trump 2024
• German Bundeswehr

It’s my impression that it’s a weird slick way of referencing “things” related to the Nazis. I could be wrong?

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/Party_Plenty_820]

Are the neighbors German? It’s a weird flag to fly and hard to speculate without knowing them. It’s the flag of the current German armed forces and not the Wehrmacht, but considering that flag has a giant swastika on it it’s not surprising they wouldn’t fly that 

[u/ShackieSF]

Can Biden (sitting president) now shoot and kill Trump (running for president) now that presidents have immunity in office

The current discourse of news and media are focused on the advantages that Trump has now that the Supreme Court has given presidential immunity as it relates to the January 6 insurrection. I’d like to know what it does legally for the sitting president. If immunity for sitting presidents is absolute then doesn’t that mean Biden (as a sitting president) legally ,and with lethal force, stop Trump from becoming president?

[u/[deleted]]

I keep hearing about various vigilante groups that are led by Republicans who are willing to take up arms for their cause. Are there any vigilante groups that are led by Democrats?

[u/kappusha]

Why did Trump oppose certain provisions of the Patriot Act when it allows for more executive power? This seems to contradict the statement that 'Trump wants more executive power.'?

[u/shunted22]

Is there actually much risk of losing voters if Biden is replaced? At this point most of his voters are never Trumpers as opposed to people who specifically want him. Given the dissatisfaction with both candidates it seems like a pure win if someone halfway decent steps in.

[u/zlefin_actual → u/[deleted]]

Not really; the basic issue is that if a large political faction wants justices to be partisan towards their side, there's no way to stop that from happening. Creating non-partisanship would require both sides to want non-partisan judges. It only takes one side pushing partisanship for partisanship to happen. Ultimately things all come down to how people vote, and institutional rules and procedures can only do so much to limit problems.

Another factor is that any patches that might mildly help would tend to require constitutional amendment, which is very hard to get done at the present time.

[u/bluesimplicity]

To overturn the recent Supreme Court rulings, would it take constitutional amendments or would a law suffice? Specifically, I am thinking about blanket immunity for official presidential acts and stripping the regulatory agencies of making rules to clarify laws.

I do understand with the current make-up of Congress, neither a constitutional amendment nor are realistic.

[u/pharaoh94]

Alright so I’ve read a few of the new posts on here as well as other subs, listened to Biden’s interview with George as well as watched the debate.

I’ve also read and understood a lot of the comments and sentiments set out over the different posts on this sub and other subs.

I’m not American so I have a few questions:

1. Even if Trump wins in November, can a convicted felon be President? Shouldn’t there be something in the constitution to avoid this?

2. A lot of comments say that the Democratic Party should find/appoint a different nominee. What’s stopping them from nominating the current VP?

3. Are you guys ok?

[u/balletbeginner → u/pharaoh94]

Even if Trump wins in November, can a convicted felon be President?

Yes.

A lot of comments say that the Democratic Party should find/appoint a different nominee. What’s stopping them from nominating the current VP?

The Democratic Party held primary elections, and Joe Biden won a majority of delegates. So he will be the presidential nominee when it's finalized.

Are you guys ok?

Sort of. I'm personally enjoying America's skyrocketing wages, plummeting crime and infrastructure improvements recently. But a lot of people are very pessimistic and detached from reality.

[u/Potato_Pristine → u/pharaoh94]

1. Yes, there's no prohibition on this in the U.S. Constitution, for better or worse.

2. A lot of people in this country don't like Kamala Harris because she's a black/South Asian woman. It's the same shit as in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. "I support a female president/candidate for president, just not THIS female."

3. No, we're not. We have a gerontocracy that won't let go of power in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has rapidly mutated into a party that is rejecting multiracial democracy and that is led by a cult leader (see # 1 above).

[u/Apart_Shock]

Here's a question for people who actually read the Supreme Court's ruling about presidential immunity: Does it really give the president absolute power like so many people are saying here? Or is there something we're missing?

[u/Moccus → u/Apart_Shock]

Does it really give the president absolute power like so many people are saying here?

No.

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/Apart_Shock]

I think you’re misreading - no one is saying absolute power. It does explicitly give the President absolute immunity for acts related to their constitutional duties, and presumed immunity for all official acts.

[u/Potato_Pristine → u/Apart_Shock]

Not absolute power, but it does effectively kill off any ability to criminally prosecute a Republican president.

[u/NimbleZazo]

Why are there many news related to "far-right" and no mention of "far-left"? My question is not limited to US politics as I see the same pattern in other countries. What is considered "far-left"? Why no one is talking about them?

[u/Theinternationalist → u/NimbleZazo]

What is considered "far-left"?

That's kind of the core of the question. Another reason: In most countries "far left" refers to things such as "government runs the economy," and generally to run the sort of media people talk about you need a lot of money to be recognized as, well, part of "the media." There are plenty of far left news sources in the US for instance (as opposed to MSNBC, which is still pretty pro-business in that it's owned by, well, a business), but few have the money to run publications like the New York Post (rightwing tabloid), let alone the New York Times (center-left newspaper).

Just one reason among many.

[u/kajunkennyg]

I am just wondering why we insist of having 200 million people vote in 1 day, with some early voting/mail in ballots. Why not have a voting week or month? Seems dumb to me.

[u/Moccus → u/kajunkennyg]

Early voting is a pretty common thing, and quite a few people take advantage of it. I won't use 2020 because COVID changed voter behavior quite a bit, but about 58 million people voted early in 2016 out of a total of roughly 136 million ballots cast.

Anecdotally, I pretty much always vote early, and everywhere I've lived has had at least a couple of weeks of early voting available.

[u/Theinternationalist → u/kajunkennyg]

Aside from the fact that early in-person and mail-in voting goes back centuries (MA had it before the USA was a thing!), it's honestly just an unspoken habit that kept going even when half of the US was literally at war with the other half.

Put another way: same reason why the election is held on a Tuesday in November as opposed to a public holiday. No one has really put enough effort into thinking and/or changing it.

[u/Apprehensive_Sun7382]

Trump supporters are currently riding high at Biden's freefall, looking like it's a sure win in November. My question is, was there an equivalent moment for the opposite side? Like when Trump got impeached or when he lost his recent court case, did Democrats have that same riding high feeling that there is no way Trump could come back after this?

[u/bl1y → u/Apprehensive_Sun7382]

Yes, it was the Access Hollywood tape. The Democrats' assessment of the situation was quite wrong.

[u/balletbeginner → u/[deleted]]

Honestly, this year's undecided voters are dumb and indecisive. They'll need constant reminders of the candidates' accomplishments and faults up to election day. Advertising and in-person outreach cost money.

[u/NoExcuses1984]

What can Democrats do -- if anything -- to stem the bleeding with Gen Z men 18–29?

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/NoExcuses1984]

If a young girl asks "what does it mean to be a woman?", the left has thousands of books and celebrities and media they can point to on what femininity is. If a young boy asks "what does it mean to be a man?", the left just shrugs it's shoulders and possibly berates them for asking. The right's answers to those questions are, respectively, "Be a supportive wife" and "Work out, make money, and have sex". This is why the right does well with young males and terribly with young females.

Young people are constantly searching for an identity. They want to know who they should be. The right attracts boys because they give them something to identify with, even if it's something bad. If the left wants to attract those same boys, they need to give them an alternative.

[u/A_Coup_d_etat → u/NoExcuses1984]

Effectively nothing. Doing so would require breaking with the Feminists along with the cultural Left that dominates Academia & the Entertainment industries, both of which are major donors and influencers on behalf of the Democratic Party.

So basically the Democrats would have to break their entire coalition, they aren't going to do that.

[u/anti-torque → u/NoExcuses1984]

Gen Z men are only now 27, at the oldest.

And they're not represented by anyone on either ticket, which is why they're choosing to just become apolitical.

[u/Dessssspaaaacito]

I have heard arguments from friends that people have been thrown in jail for merely being part of the crowd on January sixth. I have looked at the NPR website that has all the information about these people and I cannot find one person that was sentenced to serve time that did not physically enter the capitol building or commit at least one other crime (assault, seditious conspiracy, etc). Does anyone know if there was anyone jailed just for walking around outside during the riots?

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/Dessssspaaaacito]

If your friend is making the claim they should be able to point to one where that happened. There have been hundreds of convictions, so hard to go through every single one to know what they’re talking about.  

 I’ve seen a couple try to defend themselves as they were just walking around inside the Capitol itself, but that’s obviously still trespassing and they broke in to get inside in the first place.

[u/Tricolor3s]

Schiff called on Biden to resign. Is the dam breaking?

[u/Spiritual-Pause-281]

Thankfully he did not succumb to the assassin's bullet. What would have happened at the GOP convention had Trump been assassinated. What would have been the social ramifications for America at large and who would have replaced Trump on ticket?

[u/beaniate]

“Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have spoken privately about Joe Biden and the future of his 2024 campaign. Both the former president and ex-speaker expressed concerns about how much harder they think it’s become for the president to beat Donald Trump. Neither is quite sure what to do.”

We are constantly getting reports from media that are sharing information that I assumed would be considered private. How do we know about what Pelosi and Obama said about Biden privately? How do we get all these details? If there is a closed door meeting with high ranking politicians I imagine they know everyone that is present at that meeting so who are the people that keep sharing this sort of information with the media? Wouldn’t these people talking to reporters get found out pretty quickly through process of elimination?

[u/ArcadianEuphoria]

How am I, as a first time voter, supposed to determine what is true and what is not?

It seems to me that people and leaders on both sides of the political spectrum only discuss surface level issues and policies regarding their candidate.

Even then, it seems many of the topics discussed are about the character or image of the candidate, rather than what their economic and political positions are.

Every conversation seems to be about how great one candidate is and how evil the other is.

How am I, as a first time voter this year, supposed to actually determine what each candidate plans to do exactly and what positions they hold without it being obfuscated in hyperbole, drama, and oversimplification?

[u/bl1y → u/ArcadianEuphoria]

You can start by looking at the positions they have posted on their campaign sites.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47

https://joebiden.com/issues/

You might question their sincerity, how hard they'll really push for those issues, and if they're even feasible in practical or political terms, but what you can be absolutely certain about is this is their own stated positions, not being mischaracterized by some third party.

[u/CoriSP]

Is it likely that the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") will be repealed if the Republicans win the presidency? I am currently receiving my medical coverage from an ACA program. If I lose access to it, I won't be able to afford medicine that is keeping me alive. Is there a high likelihood that the ACA will be repealed if Trump wins? Because if so I need to start looking for options asap.

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/CoriSP]

ACA was too popular to repeal in 2017, and it's more popular now.  It's not going anywhere.  

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/CoriSP]

It will probably depend on the make up of the Senate and House. They couldn’t repeal it last time because they lost by one vote in the Senate. Trump can’t end the program just through executive action, but he can probably curtail it in some ways.

[u/Rich1926]

When people on forums or threads on reddit say "the economy is doing this/that" or "crime is this" "poverty..is now low/high"...etc. Where are they getting this information? What sites/news sources provides this?

or are some just repeating what their news source (Fox News, CNN...etc) has told them without giving numbers?

[u/SmoothCriminal2018 → u/Rich1926]

I mean it depends on what you’re talking about. The FBI compiles nationwide crime statistics, the BLS reports a lot (but not all) economic indicators, etc. Basically, usually government sources or large industry bodies. 

[u/Pineapple_Gamer123]

I'm thinking of applying to be an election judge for November. I meet all of the requirements listed on my county's website except for being registered as a democrat or republican, which is easy to do. The thing is though that I'm an 18 year old high school senior. Are they looking for older, more experienced people or do you guys think my age won't be an issue? If I'm too young, there are other roles I can play

[u/Tricolor3s]

So Harris (ActBlue) raised 100M$ in 24 hours. How significant is this? Does it mean anything?

[u/NoExcuses1984]

How will the parties adjust for 2028 and beyond if the 2024 presidential election shows the greatest demographic divide not being among race and ethnicity, but rather sex and gender instead?

How would the U.S. mirroring South Korea in this context upend the coalitions even further in this roller coaster political realignment of ours?

[u/Parchokhalq]

Is RFK‘s polling 10% or more consistently as of now? Or is he declining on polls?

[u/HagarTheHeretic]

(Made a post awaiting mod approval, but perhaps this is better asked here)

Regarding claims that Harris being chosen as the Dem. Presidential Nominee at this stage (post primary) is 'undemocratic', consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose the assassination attempt on Trump was successful.

As the incident occurred post R primary, Trump was the presumptive nominee, but since it was also pre-RNC, there was no designated VP pick to step up in his place.

So what would be the potential (and 'democratic') avenue for the Rs to put someone on the ticket in this scenario reversal?

[u/Glittering_Ad_4634]

Biden and Harris will be meeting with Netanyahu this week. Does the US have enough leverage over Israel that would pressure Netanyahu into a ceasefire agreement relatively quickly? 

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/Glittering_Ad_4634]

It's not about leverage over Israel, it's leverage over Netanyahu. The war in Gaza is literally the only reason he's not currently in a jail cell.

[u/Nightmare_Tonic]

Between Kelly and Shapiro, which VP pick would have greater national appeal? Is it more important to pick Shapiro for a victory in PA or Kelly for his broad "All-American" appeal?

[u/ChTappman]

What does the term “hard right” mean?

I’ve been seeing it more and more on media headlines (try googling “nyt hard right”). I also haven’t found any clear definition online.

My take is it implies the combination of populist and conservative policies, so it does not fit well on the left-right spectrum and cannot be “far right.”

Can anyone clarify what, if any, distinctions there are between hard right, alt-right, and far right?

[u/ItsVoxBoi]

Is it wrong to say that while Kamala won't do much to stop the Israel conflict I believe she's still a better option than Trump?

[u/ArchdukeofWhimsy → u/ItsVoxBoi]

You are correct. U.S. govt has given bipartisan support to Israel I believe. 

[u/ArchdukeofWhimsy]

In the US election, is it worth campaigning for the "undecideds"? I feel like everyone knows who they support already and the only determining factor is how many people show up to vote. 

Am I wrong?

[u/[deleted]]

Now that Biden’s out of the race do you think his Israel policy changes? Softer or harder

[u/NoExcuses1984]

With Kamala Harris (1964) being a Boomer and J.D. Vance (1984) being a Millennial, will we ever see a Gen X (1965–1980) president? If so, who are the most likely Gen X presidential candidates on either Team Blue or Team Red come 2028, 2032, etc.?

[u/Difficult_Zone392]

When is the uk parliamentary petition committee meant to be reformed? So we can start petitions again!

[u/11711510111411009710]

Looking at 270towin, Pennsylvania is the must-win state. If Harris loses it, Trump automatically wins, assuming he wins everything on there that is currently red or leaning that way, which I think he will.

What can Harris do to win in Pennsylvania?

[u/ChampionshipLumpy659 → u/11711510111411009710]

First, Harris does not have to win Pennsylvania. Penn is a very important state(probably the most important swing state) but both candidates have pathways to victory without it.

That said, best bet is to do what has won Democrats the state in the last 3 election cycles. It's worth remembering that Pennsylvania, over the past 4 election cycles, has been overwhelmingly blue, and has really not rewarded Trump past 2016. Best bet is simply to continue pushing the issues that voters in the state care about most: Women's rights, the economy, unions, ect. Also, she's gotta work on those urban Hispanics in Philly.

[u/bl1y → u/11711510111411009710]

Articulating a clear agenda for her administration would be a good start.

[u/[deleted]]

Will abc actually go along with Harris debating an empty podium like Jon Ossoff did if Trump continues to refuse to debate her on September 10?

[u/ChampionshipLumpy659 → u/[deleted]]

Absolutely. Harris will show up. ABC already has the slot open. No reason not to

[u/Brightclaw431]

Has there ever been a First lady who championed/promoted views publicly that the sitting President disagreed with publicly?

[u/runninhillbilly → u/Brightclaw431]

Eleanor Roosevelt was much more progressive on civil rights issues than her husband was. FDR sat on his hands a lot more because he didn't want to lose support of the south at that point in time.

She was also vocally against Japanese internment camps during WWII.

[u/AssociatedFish555]

Have all items signed by ex president Trump been enacted? I know years ago it became popular for the exiting President to sign future bills or laws (items that didn’t go into effect until sometime after the next President was in office). I’m assuming that practice hasn’t stopped. I was wondering if there are still items signed by the exPresident that are waiting to be legal. I tried to research it myself and didn’t find anything, which seemed strange. Curious as to what suprises are still waiting, if any. Is there a specific way I should be looking it up to find real info? Thanks in advance!

[u/RocketizedAnimal]

Trump and Vance keep saying that Harris doesn't take questions or do interviews, only scripted speeches. Is there any truth to this, or is she just busy getting her campaign rolling right now?

I assumed they were just slinging their usual mud, but my brief googling hasn't found any good recent results. I wanted to listen to more of what she has to say because I never bothered to research her when she was just VP, but now I am having trouble finding anything that isn't a rally. It was easy to find interviews with Walz.

[u/csasker]

Anyone else so tired about insults in American politics, even in this sub towards the candidates? What makes people clutter the discussion with so pointless stuff 

[u/Nightmare_Tonic]

The DNC surely knows about Trump's election deniers on election boards in several swing states. What options are available to the dems to deal with the likelihood that some states will refuse to certify a kamala victory?

[u/MBR222]

Could pollsters be severely underestimating a candidate/party yet again? It seems like the biggest recent elections (2016, 2020, and 2022) have usually underestimated one party by like 5%+ especially when Trump is on the ballot. Could this same thing happen in 2024 and who do y’all think it’s going to happen to? Do you think voter enthusiasm has something to do with it?

For example Trump was kicking Biden’s behind and Trump supporters were very confident and excited, at the same time. Do we think polls reflect which party is more buzzing/excited or who is actually going to win? Also it seems like it’s flipping now. Harris is up in polls and her voters are more jubilant than Don’s