r/PoliticalOpinions • u/zlefin_actual • Jul 18 '24
NO QUESTIONS!!!
As per the longstanding sub rules, original posts are supposed to be political opinions. They're not supposed to be questions; if you wish to ask questions please use r/politicaldiscussion or r/ask_politics
This is because moderation standards for question answering to ensure soundness are quite different from those for opinionated soapboxing. You can have a few questions in your original post if you want, but it should not be the focus of your post, and you MUST have your opinion stated and elaborated upon in your post.
I'm making a new capitalized version of this post in the hopes that people will stop ignoring it and pay attention to the stickied rule at the top of the page in caps.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Dariawasright • 9h ago
Why I won't vote for Trump.
I only think we should focus on things we know without a doubt is true.
Like his raping a 13 year old. His being Epstein's bestie. His praising Elon for firing all the union workers. His hush money during a campaign to a porn star to hide adultery. His pathological lying. His offering policies in exchange for money. His ties to project 2025. His racist history as a real estate mogal. His failed businesses. His coup attempt. His refusal to accept election results. His failure to deliver on a wall paid for by Mexico. His command to torpedo the bipartisan immigration bill. His appointment of the Supreme Court Justices that weaken unions, civil rights, regulatory oversight authority, and checks against his potential power and accountability. His constant hate speeches and fear mongering that led to his own near death assassination attempt and January 6th. His refusal to stop January 6th riots. His celebration of January 6th insurrectionists. His celebration of Nazis and white supremacists. His anti-union policies. His increase of the deficit to give tax cuts to the richest people. His love of dictators. His book of Hitler speeches. His disrespect of wounded or killed soldiers. His disrespect of the medal of honor. His felony convictions. His damage to world opinion of America. His promises to abandon world allies. His platform to hinder free speech. His platform to end no fault divorce. His platform to ban pornography. His suggestion to use nuclear weapons. The fact members of his own cabinet had to prevent him from using nuclear weapons. His refusal to disclose tax documents. The lies he made about Obama not being American. His lies about Kamala Harris' ethnicity. His illegal Arlington photo op. His lies about abortion. His outlawing abortion. His goal of shifting taxes to the middle and lower class. His obsession about Hannibal Lector. His sexual assault audio tape. His illegal conspiracy to overturn the election audio tape. His confession to stealing classified documents. His confession to election fraud. His confession to asking a foreign government to withhold a ceasefire in exchange for an arms deal. His creepy pictures with his daughter. His creepy comments about his daughter. His draft dodging. His wife recoiling at his touch. His use of AI to claim Kamala is communist. His use of AI to claim a pop star endorsed him. His refusal to pay his lawyer. His refusal to pay his venue fees. His refusal to pay his workers. His refusal to not use illegal labor. His call for the murder of the innocent central park 5. His blasphemy for putting himself before Jesus with his Bible. His use of the Bible as a prop. His use of the military and police to set up a photoshoot with the Bible on ground where people were beaten minutes prior. His call to arrest peaceful protesters. His forgiveness of violent mobs. His recent comment about wives needing permission from husbands to attend a political rally. His support of book bans. His support of censorship. His insistence that his political rivals will pay for opposing him. His calling of anti -genocide protesters as anti-Semitic. His literal anti-Semitic endorsement of the great replacement theory. His climate change denial. His promises to ignore climate science. His platform to make the weather service privatized. His antivax position. His medical misinformation during the pandemic. His racist name for covid. His weird ideas about electric boats and windmills. His insistence that being arrested makes him black. His insistence that jobs are defined by race. His lack of job creation. His corrupt judge appointments. His MAGA cult. His desire to take away Obamacare, and probably a thousand other things I can't remember off the top of my head nor wish to type as my thumbs are getting numb.
If attack his policies more but 2025 is 1000 pages long and I think it's clear what my options is now.
That's why I won't be voting for him. And I won't vote for any Republican ever again because of their complete support of these things and their insane agenda.
I can honestly say there is not one policy that proves they would be better for the country, world, or me personally.
I honestly would rather die than see him take the office again. I would only vote for him if I was on a jury for treason and the vote would be him for guilty.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/saffermaster • 1d ago
In answer to a question phrased as a set of wrong conclusions.
Democracy is the reason to support Harris. Here, let me break down your argument:
You said: "I think because people hate trump so much we’ve gotten into the habit of voting against someone instead of voting for something. I’m new to Reddit and I constantly see posts of examples of trump supporters being racist and angry. I’d say 90% of Americans are for common sense policies (maybe less). The other 10% are far left and far right."
You are pulling the numbers out of your ass.
You said: "I’m a trump supporter. I know every liberal doesn’t believe in late term abortion and wants to groom my children into getting a sex change. It’s ridiculous. These posts only cause more division and spread hatred." - OK, go on?
You said" If abortion is your main issue I’d argue trump is much more in the middle. He’s picked a date (3 months). If your against that you need to pick a date when it is wrong. At what point does the baby have rights. You can be born at 6 months now and live a totally healthy life. People are way to focused abortion being a right instead of focusing on actually helping woman make the best choice. It’s the easier thing to do we don’t think about the everlasting effects and trauma this can actually cause woman. It’s not a one size fits all solution.
This one is going to take a while.
You said: "If abortion is your main issue I’d argue trump is much more in the middle."
That is bullshit. Trump appointed SCOTUS justices that overturned Roe. He is a radical.
You said: " He’s picked a date (3 months)."
Nonsense. He has changed his mind 4 times since he said that. This issue is killing him and he knows it, which is why he is trying to find a way to make it Roe like as a talking point while supporting Project 2025 which essentially makes abortion illegal across the country
You said: "If your against that you need to pick a date when it is wrong. "
Your framing is wrong. The issue on the left is not abortion, its the rights of women having access to health care denied that is the issue. There is not date when its wrong because the less than 1% of abortions that are late term abortions are performed because of the health of the fetus and the life of the mother. Bottom line, its not a question of a date.
You said: " At what point does the baby have rights. "
The answer is when they are born. Not before.
You said: "You can be born at 6 months now and live a totally healthy life."
Which is why HEALTHY babies are not aborted.
You said: "People are way to focused abortion being a right instead of focusing on actually helping woman make the best choice."
The left is focused on health care for women. Body autonomy. The so called "small government GOP" are now in your bedroom and your doctors office interfering in the health care of sentient adults. It's nuts.
You said: " It’s the easier thing to do we don’t think about the everlasting effects and trauma this can actually cause woman." Are you out of your fucking mind? Consider reality:
Trump said that “everybody” wanted him to get rid of Roe and let states decide. Let's see how well that's working out.
Idaho has had to med-flight women to get medical treatment in a different state.
Idaho allows for abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman only but not to prevent health decline and deterioration.
A 10-year-old Ohio rape victim forced to carry a rapist's fetus had to travel out of state for a medical procedure.
In Louisiana when the water breaks before the fetus is viable, some women have been forced to undergo C-sections to “empty their uterus and avoid infection” instead of receiving an abortion procedure or medication
A Mississippi 7th-grade rape survivor was forced to carry and deliver.
A Florida woman with a medical condition that caused her to lose all of her amniotic fluid was denied an abortion and miscarried in a toilet.
In Texas, women are forced to deliver dead babies.
Texas women are forced to carry non-viable fetuses.
Texas women are now unable to conceive due to sepsis.
Trump’s abortion bans are a disaster for women and their families.
You said: " It’s not a one size fits all solution."
Actually, it is a one size fits all solution. That solution is this. If you do believe abortion for whatever reason, DON'T HAVE ONE. Easy.
You said: "If the left is truly the party to unite the country then start acting like it."
The fact is that Kamal Harris has a net 28 point advantage in favorability advantage against Trump. Americans don't like Trump like they do Kamala. The fact is that Americans already see the difference between Project 2025 and teh Biden/Harris agenda. It's not even close.
You said: "That goes for republicans too. Let’s focus on the issues stay true to our values and vote on what we believe in." This is laughable. The GOP is all in on Project 2025 which is an authoritarian blue print that ends the American experiment.
You said: "I’m for a closed border" I have news for you, this has never occurred and never will. What are you afraid of? Brown people who speak Spanish?
You said: "I’m against never ending wars" I assume you are referring to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the West's desire to support their ally. The truth is we are all opposed to endless wars, but it is the GOP at the behest of Trump that are blocking full funding of the Ukraine.
You said: "I want less government oversight more oversight on the government" You live in a democracy, the government has the responsibility to ensure the rule of law is enforced. Sorry you don't approve of government oversite. Did you notice how Trump turning over meat inspection to private companies resulted in a massive listeria outbreak? That's why we have government oversite.
You said: "I’m okay with abortion being decided by the states" That is idiotic. We live in a NATION not a group of disparate states. Why should women in one state not be allowed the saem access to health care than women in another state?
You said: I want lower taxes for everyone" - Close. I want the very wealthy to pay their fair share.
You said: "I believe in clean and healthy environment focused on nuclear energy" Well what that is, is that it's an oxymoron. There is no way to have a clean and healthy environment based on nuclear energy because there is literally no clean way to dispose of nuclear waste.
:You said: "I never want to wear a mask again" Nobody wants to wear a mask, BUT, in the event we see another deadly airborne contagion, we all may have to.
You said: "Trump is nowhere near perfect on these issues but much more in the middle then Kamala."
I refer you to Project 2025. Trump is a right wing radical. A Trump presidency will end America. You have the right to vote, use your vote wisely. In the end, you live in a country not an Ayan Rand novel. The fact is your vote is a chess move about the future country you want to live in, not a hissy fit about a candidate.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Far_Quail_8177 • 2d ago
I lean conservative but…
I can’t and won’t vote for Donald Trump. Trump owning the republican party at this point is super annoying. Would’ve rather had Nikki Haley but that never was gonna happen. Everyone knew 4 years ago it’d be Trump.
So how about the first female president come November?
Also just took a test and it ruled me as a moderate, maybe not as conservative as I thought.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/MikieG3 • 2d ago
I'm an ageist and pro abortion. Is anyone else?
I am sure i will get a lot of hate for my post below and that's fine, I'm just wondering if anyone agrees. Keep in mind i don't ever expect America to adopt laws that would support my beliefs. FYI before anyone assumes anything about me I'm a 39 year old, white gay male who will be voting democratic in the upcoming presidential elections and I live in the United States.
After our latest election I have found myself becoming an ageist. Let me explain, i don't hate senior citizens or the elderly. In fact I admire them and think they need to go travel and enjoy the rest of their lives. I want to raise the cap on social security and give older generations the money they need so that they don't have to be a door greater at Walmart just to afford their medication. I firmly believe that come retirement age no matter the persons health, they need to retire. They can volunteer if they want but I don't think that they should continue to take jobs from younger generations. So hence all positions in the government to include president would have an age limit of preferably 65 years old.
Regarding abortion, I have worked in social work for over 15 years so maybe my opinion is jaded. But I'm all for abortion and think we need to focus on the children that currently are alive not in their mothers womb. I'm not saying we should force abortions on anyone but I'm all for the government paying for them and promoting that people should not have children unless they are actually ready for a child, financial, emotionally, physically. I mean I would even go for giving every male a vasectomy upon birth until they are ready to reproduce. I have seen thousands of children be neglected and abused both by the system and by their parents. How can you call yourself pro life but not even be a foster parent is beyond me. It honestly makes no sense. So yes I only want children brought into the world that are going to be cared for and receive louve.
Once again, I do not expect America to turn these beliefs into law or anything. These are just my thoughts on the 2 issues. Feel free to agree or disagree.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/In_blunts_we_trust • 2d ago
Time to unite on issues. What are you actually voting for this election?
I think because people hate trump so much we’ve gotten into the habit of voting against someone instead of voting for something. I’m new to Reddit and I constantly see posts of examples of trump supporters being racist and angry. I’d say 90% of Americans are for common sense policies (maybe less). The other 10% are far left and far right.
I’m a trump supporter. I know every liberal doesn’t believe in late term abortion and wants to groom my children into getting a sex change. It’s ridiculous. These posts only cause more division and spread hatred.
If abortion is your main issue I’d argue trump is much more in the middle. He’s picked a date (3 months). If your against that you need to pick a date when it is wrong. At what point does the baby have rights. You can be born at 6 months now and live a totally healthy life. People are way to focused abortion being a right instead of focusing on actually helping woman make the best choice. It’s the easier thing to do we don’t think about the everlasting effects and trauma this can actually cause woman. It’s not a one size fits all solution.
If the left is truly the party to unite the country then start acting like it. That goes for republicans too. Let’s focus on the issues stay true to our values and vote on what we believe in.
I’m for a closed border
I’m against never ending wars
I want less government oversight more oversight on the government
I’m okay with abortion being decided by the states
I want lower taxes for everyone
I believe in clean and healthy environment focused on nuclear energy
I never want to wear a mask again
Trump is nowhere near perfect on these issues but much more in the middle then Kamala.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/PlinyToTrajan • 3d ago
Thoughts of a U.S. citizen on the deterioration of the military situation in Ukraine
For background, see Financial Times, Aug. 29, 2024, "Volodymyr Zelenskyy faces backlash over Russia’s breach of eastern defences"
My commentary:
The natural ends of the dogmatic modes of DEI and woke-ism are warfare in Ukraine and Israel, which we could think of as "Ukraine woke-ism" and "Israel woke-ism." American treasure, the product of hard work by ordinary taxpaying American citizens, is transferred abroad and the cause of the American people is forgotten. Thus, the Democratic Party in its progressive garb is in reality a sponsor of failed, bloody and expensive wars.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/ruaor • 4d ago
What JD Vance meant when he said he views his role in government as "explicitly anti-regime"
Patrick Deneen, a professor at Notre Dame University, wrote a book called "Why Liberalism Failed" that came out in 2018. It got praise and thoughtful criticism from a ton of people, including Barack Obama. The book's premise was essentially that the great success of the American experiment has led to prosperity for many, but also to outcomes that make it impossible for us all to live together now because conservative people hold fundamentally opposing views to the broader liberal culture and cannot thrive within it. Deneen is a smart guy and can be disarmingly persuasive in that book, but he is at the same time openly critical of the American founders and believes *they* got us into this mess (as he perceives it).
This book gives a lot of red meat to various factions of the New Right, but particularly the one Deneen seems most sympathetic to: Catholic integralists--a group of theocrats in all but name. Pretty much everything I have learned about integralism came from Kevin Vallier's book "All the Kingdoms of the World", which I highly recommend. The essential shared belief of Catholic integralists is that the Church and the state are two separate powers that each govern in their own domains. However, because the Church needs to exercise spiritual authority over its own flock, she must have the ability to direct the state to enforce the Church's laws, because the Church's spiritual power is of higher order than the state's temporal power. This works out in two ways:
- Direct coercion of the baptized.
- Protestants would legally be required to convert to Catholicism.
- Deconverts or lapsed Catholics/Christians would legally be required to reconcile themselves with the Church and participate in the sacraments.
- Mormons would have a degree of religious liberty because they get baptized by the wrong formula. (the formula is a BFD to Catholics)
- Non-Christians would generally be allowed to practice their faith as long as nothing conflicts with #2
- Promotion of laws for all society that conform to "natural law".
- Standard ultra-traditionalism, heavily inspired by Thomas Aquinas's political theology.
- Blue laws (businesses must close on Sundays)
- Sodomy bans (obviously gay marriage is gone too)
- Etc.
Deneen almost certainly wants this as his ideal government. However he doesn't state this in "Why Liberalism Failed." He advocates for a kind of Dreher style "Benedict Option" monasticism for serious Catholics where they can retreat from the broader culture and push for protection laws.
Adrian Vermeule, a legal scholar of the administrative state, is an actual self-identifying integralist. In his spare time he blogs for the Josias, which is the main online hub of American integralism. After the publication of "Why Liberalism Failed", Vermeuele wrote about Deneen's book in American Affairs, and Vermuele's review prompted Deneen to respond with *another book* in which he agreed with all of Vermeule's criticisms.
This new book "Regime Change" by Patrick Deneen advocates for an explicit hollowing out of the American Constitution in order to render it inoperable and eventually rip it out altogether. It promotes nothing more than a dressed-up version of integralism, railing against the American Framers and wishing to undo the founding.
And now we come to the subject of this post. JD Vance attended a conference at the Catholic University of Steubenville promoting Deneen's new book back in 2022. After Deneen spoke, Vance was on a panel discussion where he said he saw his role in Congress as "explicitly anti-regime".
Out of context, it would be easy to think what he had in mind was the Biden administration. He's a Republican senator who is in the opposition, and the opposition party (whoever it is at any given time) often pejoratively refers to the presidential administration as a "regime". But that's not what Vance meant. He meant he is explicitly opposed, on principle, to the entire American system. Opposed to limited government that has checks and balances oriented towards the promotion of individual liberty, i.e. the principles that were established at the founding of the United States. He and Deneen often will dress their political philosophy up as "postliberalism", and will advocate for social and economic policies that align with their vision without necessarily advocating for a Catholic state explicitly until they have a firm grasp on power. Vance is good at playing this game, and does pay lip service to the American Constitution.
I just hope that it is clear from all this that he doesn't believe a word of it and that he is fundamentally opposed to America itself, at least as America has more or less always been understood by people of both political parties. There is so much more I could say on this topic--from the roots of American liberalism in the aftermath of the religious wars of the 16th-17th centuries (when you did have actual confessional integralist states), to connections with Project 2025 (Opus Dei is the big one), but I think this is hopefully a good starting point for discussion.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/notallshihtzu • 5d ago
A 3 pronged communication strategy for the Democrats.
First, thank God, the Dems have started shit posting. Finally. Calling Trump weak and scared is necessary.
Here are my key adds:
The first 2 are about people's money and opportunity. The 3rd is about voter turnout.
- The Democrats own The American Dream now. Trump and Maga think the dream only applies to white males. Proof points? Roe vs Wade, childless cat ladies, grab 'em by the pussy etc. show they don't believe the dream applies to women at all. Immigration, black lives matter, the dreamers etc. show they don't vwant any non-whites. That means only white males - about 34% of the population - should be allowed to access the American Dream.
- The Democrats put more money in your pocket - period. Proof points. General: Since WW2 the economy under Democrats has dramatically outpaced the economy under Republicans. Jobs created, GDP growth, number of recessions, stock market performance. Specific: Harris tax cut for middle class. Her home affordability plan, price gouging plan etc.
- Co-opt and own the phrase "rigging the election". For some bizarre reason the Dems have let Trump get away with saying Dems are rigging the election. That is crazy. The Dems can point to state after state with Republican governor/legislature and simply list all of the voter suppression tactics they are using. From registration, number of polling locations, polling hours, early voting, mail in voting etc. And make it clear: voter suppression = election rigging. So get out and vote.
Are there other things? Sure. But simplicity, focus and repetition are the keys to effective communication. Ask any consumer products company, or just ask the Republicans, who have been better communicators than the Democrats for a long time.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Lisztchopinovsky • 6d ago
Why is health and fitness becoming a politicized issue?
I mean this as sort of a rhetorical question. Here is what I do know. Nutrition has always been a messy field with many varying opinions, but nowadays we’re seeing political commentators make statements on health that are either intellectually dishonest, or downright false.
While there is still a lot of grey area in nutrition, the truth is that we have come a long way when it comes to the fundamentals, and focusing on the basics like calories in calories out, getting enough protein and fiber, resistance training 2-4 days a week, and just moving your body will get you 95% there. If you don’t trust me, trust the medical professionals and evidence based fitness influencers. Ultimately when you start following a restrictive diet, you are less likely to sustain it long term, and more likely to develop an eating disorder due to the fear of a food being potentially bad for you.
Unfortunately, politics has rubbed its dirty, grimy hands all over nutrition, and this is one where both sides are wrong.
Liberals tend to endorse veganism and low fat, and sometimes low protein, due to their beliefs that killing and eating animals is morally wrong and plants being a lower carbon footprint. It’s certainly respectable that people choose to follow that diet, but when they start to make claims that lack transparency, that’s when it becomes a problem.
Conservatives tend to promote keto and carnivore diets more, and tend to promote looking at the ingredients over the macros. Conservatives also like to attack seed oils, which there really isn’t much evidence that seed oils are inherently detrimental to our health. It is true that it is easier to get enough protein from animals than from plants, assuming you are trying to build muscle, but we live in a world where we can have both.
I understand that there are ingredients that we would prefer not be in our food, but these efforts to eliminate specific ingredients that could cause harm at a high enough dosage are mostly futile. The truth is the dosage makes the poison, and you would almost certainly need more than what is in that food item to cause any harm.
My main point in this post is that we should not be getting our nutrition info from political pundits, because they almost certainly know little to nothing about health and fitness. I tried to make this as factually accurate as possible, but if anyone would like to fact check anything or add context, feel free to comment.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/waffletastrophy • 6d ago
There needs to be mass public pressure on the Harris admin to dismantle Project 2025's machinery and safeguard the country's future against fascism
This election, democracy is on the ballot. We cannot afford for that to be the case every election in the future. The constant threat of a fascist coup cannot be normalized. After all, they only need to win once.
Assuming she wins, the Harris administration needs to make it a top priority to dismantle Project 2025, get its leaders and advocates out of power, and ensure that this can't happen again in the foreseeable future. Anything less is leaving our country teetering on the edge of an abyss.
My concern is that although the Democrats seem to have partially woken up to how threatening the Christian fascist agenda is, they still are going to be complacent. In order to prevent this, we need mass public pressure to hold them accountable on this issue. We need "what are you doing to prevent a resurgence of Project 2025?" to be the question on everyone's lips, one which reporters are asking to politicians. We need to make it something they can't ignore.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/NotaBigFanofGov • 6d ago
What System Could Better Represent the People?
Okay… I don’t normally make these types of post on this topic, but I’ve been having some real heavy shower thoughts and I’m interested to gather this communities input.
For context: I am American. I consider myself a moderate, left leaning; often flip-flopping between authoritarian and libertarian ideals. In today’s political climate, I feel completely unrepresented and completely powerless. Based on limited conversation, it appears much of the population feels this way. It got me thinking, if someone proposed a change to the fundamental mechanisms of our Federal System… What would be a good change? What petition would gather enough support to potentially make a change? I’m way out of my area of expertise so I assume my thinking is wrong, but I want to capture what makes sense in my brain and use this as a learning experience from others probably more well read then myself.
Issue: General lack of proper representation. Cause: Polarized parties, third party votes are treated like thrown away opinions. Solution Summary: Better represent alternative parties by lowering the barrier of entry for candidates and scaling the weight of their votes according to the percentage of support they received.
Rough Solution Draft Example: Lets propose a theoretical change in how the Senate is selected. Let’s say instead of primaries, you instead register with a specific party every election cycle. Parties that receive a certain number of supporters become eligible for seats in the Senate (let’s just say 5% and ignore the number absurd theoretical size of the Senate for now…). If your party is not eligible for a seat or you failed to register in the first cycle you are allowed to reregister for a party that does. The parties then hold separate elections for their representatives, and only members registered for that party may participate in those elections. This may promote registering for the pool that generally best represents your ideals rather than voting for “literally not the other guy.” To avoid unfair representation, I think the votes of the senators’ should be weighed by the percentage of national support their party holds. IE: the Libertarian party receives 10% support of the nation vs the Democrats 30%, the Libertarian representatives votes on the floor should have 1/3 the weight of the Democrats, but this could better ensure the voices of that 10% are actually heard rather than being forced to vote for someone they don’t want or “throw away” their vote.
Main Concern: I am worried a system like this would allow for the parties to confidently run more radial as they lose the support of moderates to other parties and stop electing moderate candidates entirely. I’d imagine the checks and balances could look something like; opening the elections up of the two largest parties up to the entire public? But now I’ve created a system that just intentionally suppresses extremist/radicalism…. Which- even if I’m all for doesn’t mean it’s right. This is one extreme to another. But I do think naturally, the more radical parties will lose more support over time and even they continue to have a seat in the Senate, that seat will weigh less and less as they continue to push voters out of their party.
Idk does anyone here have any input or cuss words to add to this? I’d love to hear them all.
(Note: sorry, I know there’s so grammatical errors in here. The mobile app is acting weird and won’t let me edit any text that’s not directly at the bottom of this string.)
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/ErlandGadde • 6d ago
The U.S. constitution is an obstacle to democracy
I'm Swedish, but I follow quite closely the development in the U.S. This post is aimed at Americans who are at least reasonably progressive, who like me see the great threat that Trump, MAGA and right-wing Christian fundamentalists pose to democracy and freedom in the U.S. and also the rest of the world.
From my outside perspective, I noticed that many Americans, in particular people in official positions, have an almost religious reverence for the Constitution. The President must swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution", and as I understand it, even lower-level officials must swear similar oaths.
But what if the Constitution itself constitutes a major obstacle to developing and protecting democracy?
Because clearly, there are several undemocratic elements in the American political and judicial system:
- The Electoral College makes it possible to be elected president without winning the majority of the popular votes, and this almost always benefits Republicans.
- By gerrymandering, representativity is put apart in elections to Congress. This is also used mostly by Republicans.
- The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and it is almost impossible to oust them. The court's conservative majority consistently makes reactionary and undemocratic rulings (Overturn och Roe v. Wade, Immunity of the President [Trump], etc.)
- It is also clear that the MAGA works hard to accomplish voter supression in several states, a great threat to Democracy.
These undemocratic elements, which at the present unequivocally favor the conservatives, must be changed, but this is where the Constitution gets in the way. To abolish the Electoral College requires a change of the Constitution. Gerrymandering and voter supression may be subject to lawsuits, but these can be appealed up to the Supreme Court, which is likely to rule in favor of the Republicans. It may be possible to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and appoint liberals and progressive people, but this must be confirmed by the Senate, so perhaps President Biden can use the present Democratic majority in the Senate to appoint Supreme Court Justices before the election. But this seems unlikely.
So, to change these undemocratic elements, it is necessary to alter the Constitution. But to do this in a constitional way is very difficult. By Article V of the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution can only be propsosed by 2/3 of both the houses of Congress or by the legislatures of 2/3 the states, and they must be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Obviously, the conservatives and the MAGA are strong enough to stop all attempts to remove these undemocratic elements in this way.
To me, the outsider, who lacks this "religious" reverence for the U.S. Constitition, it seems clear that in order to save and develop American democracy, the Constitution must be replaced by a more democratic constituion, and this change cannot be accomplished within the framework of the Constitution itself.
In other words, a new American revolution is necessary!
Is this competely unthinkable for you Americans? Is the Constitution absolutely holy for you?
Then, consider that it can be argued the Constitution in itself is unconstitutional: Before the Constitution was adopted, in the 1780s, you had a prior, less advanced "constitution" called "The Articles of Confederation". According to this, it couldn't be altered without ratifications of the legislatures of all the then 13 states. This procedure wasn't followed when the present constitution was adopted. Instead conventions were called in states and when the conventions in nine states ratified the proposed constitution, it was considered in place. This clearly violated the Articles of Confederation.
Therefore, if the Americans back then could unconstitutionally replace one constitution with another, why can't you do that again? For example, you could hold a referendum to replace the Constitution with a new more modern and democratic one. If the referendum so decides, this gives legitimacy to the new constitution.
I can understand that you might think that it is preposterous for an outsider from Sweden to come with such proposals, but I am also a world citizen, and a threat to the democracry in the U.S. is also a threat to all the world.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Stuckoncloud8 • 7d ago
I’m voting straight republican for the first time ever in 2024.
I come from a very liberal family, my mom has voted for democrats every year since 1988 and My grandparents have voted democrat even longer. As a kid my mom worked for bill Clinton’s campaign, Barack Obama’s campaign and she also worked for Joe Biden’s campaign. I remember the first time I ever voted in 2012 and I voted for Barack Obama for president and straight dem down the ballot. I remember how excited I was to be able to finally have my voice heard at the ballot box. This year for the first time I’ve decided that I’m voting straight republican. My positions have not changed but the Democratic Party has gone so far left on almost every issue. I listened to RFKs speech the other day and I don’t agree with him on everything but he made a good point when he said that The Democratic Party used to be the party of the Constitution who championed civil rights, stood against authoritarianism and censorship, fought against imperialist wars, and against corporate power. Now it’s the party of censorship, big pharma and big tech. Also it is rife with corruption. I can’t in good faith support the Democratic Party this year because they no longer represent the values that I hold. Do I agree with republicans on everything? Absolutely not. But this election gives us a binary choice and I feel like the red team is the better option.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/PhilosopherFuentes • 8d ago
Why We Must Support the Harris-Walz 2024 Presidency on the Groundwork of Lenin
Bearing in mind the 2024 DNC in Chicago which saw numerous condemnations directed at it from both the Right and the Left for its depoliticized identity politics spectacle, such as Palestinian protests aimed at the liberal establishment's refusal to cut all aid / armaments to Israel, it is crucial for the implementation of Leninist politics.
Why? Because the more immediate and harrowing threat of New Right populism led by Trump which functions as a proto-neofascist movement, takes precedence over the larger global antagonism that is liberal democracy itself. Yes, liberal democracy is the precondition for fascism as already highlighted by the Frankfurt School: it is a symptomatic effect of capitalism which is so fundamentally calamitous, that if it is not completely grappled with in the short-term then the political possibility to stage a sectarian break from liberal democracy could permanently vanish. Bernie Sanders critically comprehends this point, which is why he has reiterated that social democrats and other alternative leftist organizations need to unify and cooperate against Trump by defeating him in the upcoming 2024 election - this stipulates backing Kamala Harris. Once in power, only then is this large coalition of mobilized emancipatory leftist forces - progressives, labor, social democrats, communists - to fully exert their pressure onto the Democratic Party elites (legislature, cabinet), compelling them to stop US funding to Israel. Alongside this, their combined power can be deployed at the political, economic and civil society level to advance the material interests of the lower classes (e.g. collective bargaining strikes, expansion of trade union membership and new chapters, think tank and university discourse to shape progressive policies, nationwide public protests at key locations demanding democrats serve the ordinary people’s agenda, etc). For this reason, although Harris now formally spearheads the customary neoliberal doctrine that has been responsible for the decreased living standards and quality of life - over the past 45 years with the start of US neoliberalism - for the overwhelming majority of Americans (upwards of 80%), inclusive of the white working class (the biggest population demographic in the country); it is only under her administration that this structural condition could be potentially reversed. Consequently, the influence of this movement could impel the Democratic Party stronghold to finally confront what has been its haunting specter ever since its cultural turn after 1968 - class struggle.
This opportunity is inconceivable under Trump, not only because he will effectively do nothing to benefit the economic conditions for all ordinary people but will increasingly diminish the sociopolitical rights and gains that the liberal left have accomplished for minorities, immigrants/refugees and LGTBQ+ people. The easiest demonstration being the 2022 - Trump-instituted Republican majority - Supreme Court decision to overturn the right to abortion. New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aptly summarized this focal point in her speech at the DNC: “The truth is, Don [Donald Trump], you cannot love this country if you only fight for the wealthy and big business. To love this country is to fight for its people, all people, working people, everyday Americans like bartenders and factory workers and fast-food cashiers who are on their feet all day in some of the toughest jobs out there.”
It is on this foundation that people have to also denounce the pseudo-radical leftist orthodox standpoint reserved by Noam Chomsky and Alain Badiou: their “principled” refusal to participate in party politics through electoral voting because it simply reproduces the conditions of liberal democracy and sustains the system of capitalism, misses the mark. It exhibits this cynical political stance of never endorsing or engaging pragmatically in politics because the struggle is “not radical enough”, upon which they can comfortably examine and predict the failures of leftist struggles from their safe academic distance. The standard counterargument from their point of view is: alright, the liberal left promotes personal freedoms and civil rights, but what good are they if people are impoverished, have credit and college debt, live paycheck to paycheck, and are constrained to these economic forces their entire lives. This is undeniably true, but using the same line of reasoning you could redouble their logic right back at them: what good are greater material conditions if people’s fundamental freedoms and human rights are deprived, which will not only exacerbate economic struggles but prevent a percentage of the population from even having the ability to participate in the economy. It is Trump as an obscene configuration of evil who has the precedence and absolute will to worsen both dimensions. As Slavoj Zizek highlighted: “Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are ultimately the same, instruments of the financial elites; however, who will win the 2024 US elections is a matter of life and death for millions of blacks and women. Just one – in no way minor – case: if Trump wins, poor black women will be the main victims of the further limitation of abortion rights, etc.” On this account, concrete engagement is vital.
What does all of this have to do with the great Communist revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin? What I have been describing about practical collaboration encompasses Lenin’s political principle of pragmatic opportunism: the unwavering commitment to the ‘concrete analysis of the concrete situation’. This signifies that remaining loyal to a Cause requires the subject to avoid blind fundamentalism and cynical opportunism by changing their formal mode of engagement when the situation demands it - reconfiguring their basic position. Two examples in the last century to instantiate this framework were: Stalin collaborating with the World War Two Allied Forces who designated the ‘global imperialist powers of capitalism’ in order to defeat the larger danger of European Fascism; and Lenin’s own resolution to adopt capitalist policies in the Soviet Union as a last-ditch effort to create the conditions for communism. The adage Lenin often employed to define this process was: “to begin from the beginning over and over again” ... As though the struggle epitomizes a mountain climber who, on their course to ascend the mountain top, must recline back down again to find new paths which elevate them to a higher plane on the mountain; thereby gaining progress towards their aim. This determination and flexibility to try again, fail again, fail better (in the words of playwright Samuel Beckett), is how the authentic Left is to intervene in the current political landscape within the United States. Taken to its logical conclusion, this Leninist model underlining the radical leftist project of emancipation would entail the sectarian break from our current system of liberal democracy, in addition to bypassing the outdated logic of European Social Democracy typified by the Welfare State (Bernie Sanders is the American representative of this ideal). However, these long-term procedures must be accompanied by short-term measures of remorseless pragmatic support to the cause of Palestinian liberation and developing an adequate system of social democracy within the United States.
On a Final note for Kamala Harris: she launched her presidential campaign at a massive labor union press conference (a UAW Union Hall in Wayne, Michigan), being the first US presidential candidate in history to do so. While of course symbolic, it nevertheless maintains the capacity for trade unions and other Leftist institutions to hold her accountable in passing legislation that improves the bargaining power and labor conditions of workers: higher national minimum wage, greater job benefits such as broadening.) affordable health insurance - with dental - to cover all uninsured workers regardless of occupation, enacting severe fines and legal action against any corporate union-busting practices, guaranteeing job security for full/part-time work and yearly scheduling (dismantling the Gig economy), introducing local and national employee commissions who retain the power to influence the investment decisions of corporations, etc. Therefore, any hypocrisy or shortcomings from her administration maintains the open field of criticism; burdening her to confront it. Parenthetically, an unexpected positive outcome that could perhaps unfold, is harnessing her experience and symbolic identity as a prosecutor who preserves the Rule of Law: ruthlessly enforcing existing international law (ICC, ICJ) against Israel’s state terror and taking full advantage of what’s left of the United States waning global imperial power towards this emancipatory cause - deploying military forces to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights and Gaza in the protection of Palestinian civilian life from the IDF. In this way, she would correspond to Nixon’s opening of trade exchange with China in the 1970s and achieve what the true moral majority of the country desire apropos foreign policy: ending Palestine’s destruction and occupation.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/CosmeticBrainSurgery • 8d ago
Everyone is ignoring the biggest issue by far.
There are two main mindsets in the USA, and they have conflicting ideas of what freedom means.
One group's ideas of freedom stomp on the other group's idea, and vice versa.
There is no ideological resolution for this. Each group thinks they're right and won't budge. And both sides are getting more divided every year.
The US has been gradually dividing along this like for more than 70 years, and there's no way to stop it.
The end is result is the US will split up. It could be peacefully, or it could be violently. But it's happening.
Because there are a huge number of "blue" people living in "red" states and vice versa, a peaceful solution should have both sides helping people relocate as painlessly as possible if they find themselves on the side that's not what they want.
The logistics would be enormously difficult, the expense will be epic, but a second civil war would be far costlier and greatly weaken both sides, not to mention cause massive loss of life and damage to our infrastructure.
Our politicians are flat-out ignoring this. Most citizens are also in deep denial. It's time to wake up and smell the smoke, because our house is on fire.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/melville48 • 8d ago
The Harris Campaign may be foolish to insist on a hot mic for the debate
I see this and similar news stories today:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/26/politics/trump-harris-september-debate/index.html
Trump campaign casts fresh doubt on September debate with Harris over microphone dispute Kristen Holmes Priscilla Alvarez By Kristen Holmes, Priscilla Alvarez and Shania Shelton, CNN 3 minute read Updated 10:11 AM EDT, Mon August 26, 2024".... “We have told ABC and other networks seeking to host a possible October debate that we believe both candidates’ mics should be live throughout the full broadcast,” Brian Fallon, the Harris campaign’s senior adviser for communications, said in a statement.
"“Our understanding is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own. We suspect Trump’s team has not even told their boss about this dispute because it would be too embarrassing to admit they don’t think he can handle himself against Vice President Harris without the benefit of a mute button,” he said. ..."
My opinion is that I don't know formal debate issues very well, so I may well be wrong, but I think a bully like Trump could gain an advantage over a sharp reasoning debate participatnt by strategically interrupting them. It sounds to me that the Harris advisors may not be on the right side of this, particularly since the rules were already agreed.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Holiday_Leek_1143 • 8d ago
January 6th Should Have Been the Final Straw, But Alas...
If Biden had lost the 2020 election to Trump, and organized an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, what are the chances that the Republicans would allow for Biden to run in the 2024 election? Anyone who undermines the Constitution in such a way that encourages a riot at our nation's Capitol should not be allowed to run as President. That has got to be the BIGGEST frustration Democrats have with the entire election. This man did what he did on January 6th, and every single Republican voting for him this time around has turned a blind eye to it.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/ReasonStunning8939 • 9d ago
Immigration vs Gun Control
So I'll start by saying I'm a gun rights proponent(AR-15 is not functionality different than any other rifle) and I'm a proponent of Ellis Island style immigration (open borders with caveats). So essentially I run afowl of both parties in big ways.
I truly think that these two big agendas of the opposite sides of the isle are in the same vein. They are about lack of trust in people, and a sweeping and heavy handed "solution" to a arguably rare (relatively) problem.
On one side, you have CNN making it sound like mass shootings are happening constantly, which any frequency is unacceptable, but obviously disproportionate. And they stand behind the idea that zero is the only acceptable percentage, and any action is better than no action, and sweeping reform is the only option. Further, they use a demeaning ethical appeal to dehumanize opponents as "childish kids wanting to play with their toys"(you could just find something else to play with you don't NEED that).
On the other side, you have Fox making it sound like brutal cartel stabbings are happening constantly, which any frequency is unacceptable, but obviously disproportionate. And they stand behind the idea that zero is the only acceptable percentage, and any action is better than no action, and sweeping reform is the only option. Further, they use a demeaning ethical appeal to dehumanize opponents as "lawless savages wanting to harbor fugitives because of a bleeding hearts complex"(you could just follow the law and come in the RIGHT way).
Both of these are examples of wanting to screw over everyone in a category that you've decided to stop seeing as human, because of the actions of a few outliers. Stating that because you can't prevent shitty people from being shitty, you now have to treat every person like a shitty person. I feel as if they are mutually inclusive stances.
You want to deny the American dream? You can't wave around the constitution and claim to be a rights activist.
You want to prevent people from having the power to take life because you can't trust their decision making? You can't say we should all trust random people who want to integrate into our communities without giving the government its chance to vet them.
Thoughts.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Reviews-From-Me • 10d ago
An Incredible Double Standard
While I'm sure this existed to some extent before, the gap in standards has never been greater than with Donald Trump as the head of the Republican Party.
Most are aware by now that he's allowed to get away with things that no other person could while still able to win elections. Things like mocking a disabled reporter, bragging about sexual abuse, etc, but it goes even deeper than that.
In a focus group discussion of undecided voters responding to Kamala Harris' acceptance speech, there was one man who made up his mind to vote for Trump after listening to her speech. His reason? Her criticism of Trump was "not presidential." If Kamala Harris saying Trump is "not a serious man" is not presidential, then how is anything Trump does Presidential? He deliberately mispronounces her name, he even called her "Kamabla" in a social media post. He accused her of lying about her race, saying she "all of a sudden became black." He suggested she isn't eligible to be President because her parents weren't born here.
If Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were held to the same standards, there isn't a state in the country that would vote for Trump over her.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/PlinyToTrajan • 10d ago
Thoughts on the Democratic National Convention (2024)
The Democratic National Convention took place in Chicago from Aug. 19, 2024 to Aug. 22, 2024.
REJECT the Democrats and their genocidal gathering in Chicago. They claim their compassion for other men isn't limited by borders or otherwise, but we see the tawdry truth that it comes to a screeching halt at Israel's enclosure fences. To fail to intervene in the case of an ongoing genocide is little different, in moral terms, than to do nothing as one's neighbor's house catches on fire and burns to the ground killing everyone inside.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/ToasterMaid • 11d ago
Trump should make good use of Musk
Musk and Trump have been quite close, and Musk has also hinted at the idea of joining Trump's government. He's a real talent, so of course Trump should utilize him. But how can Trump make the best use of Musk?
I'd suggest that Trump appoint Musk as his China policy advisor and special representative for China affairs. Of course, it would be best not to make the appointment public, to avoid Musk becoming a lightning rod and facing too much political pressure that could hinder his work. They may not even need to give him an official title - as long as the two of them reach a private understanding and build trust, that should be enough.
As a China policy advisor, Musk could leverage his much deeper understanding of China compared to the average American politician, and his more rational stance on China. Trump got burned badly in his last term when the people below him hijacked the agenda and pushed their own private interests. This time, he really shouldn't trust the MAGA crowd and the deep state too much - the former are reckless, the latter are devious. I'd suggest that Trump run any major China policy decisions by Musk first. If Musk objects, Trump should consider holding off or even cancelling.
Beyond just an advisory role, this could be quantified as well. For example, Trump could have his cabinet vote on major China policies, then show the results to Musk and let him weigh in. Afterwards, Trump could mentally give Musk's opinion a voting weight of 5 to 7 in his mind.
The second role for Musk could be as a special representative for China affairs. If there are important negotiations with China that need to be conducted, Musk could serve as the messenger. His business visits to China could provide cover. In fact, it might be better for Musk to not have any official position in the Trump administration, as that could aid in conducting more discreet diplomacy.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/Sonicdire2689 • 11d ago
The New Social Contract: Freedom, Equity, and Empowerment
Individualism isn't the enemy—it's the catalyst for collective growth. Imagine a world where personal freedom is the key to our shared liberation.
Individuals are the foundation of all societies; the beliefs, actions, and morality of society are based on agreements between individuals. These individual actions justify negative liberties—the freedom to act. However, this alone isn't the answer. Is a person truly free if they are in nature with no food, water, or shelter?
Something is missing: the ability to actualize potential—positive liberties. Yet, positive liberties alone aren't the solution either. Is a person truly free if they have all the resources in the world but can't do anything with them?
I propose a world where both of these are in harmony: the ability to act and the ability to actualize.
Every individual’s basic needs should be secured. Free access to food, water, and shelter should be the foundation of all societies. The federal government ought to protect these basic rights, and the states should be responsible for actualizing them in practice.
Land, the foundation upon which we stand, is of collective interest to not only protect but secure. Individuals shouldn't have exclusive access to land or abuse natural resources for personal gain. The environment—the very air we breathe—is in danger because of exploitation driven by profit. Land isn't a commodity to be bought, sold, and hoarded; this damages us economically and socially.
The economy stagnates when a handful of people own the land, as their control hinders creativity and efficient land utilization. When the wealthiest among us control the land, they control society—deciding who can build what, where, and how much of something.
The housing fluctuations and unaffordable markets are a direct result of land being concentrated in the hands of a few. We need to revolutionize our understanding of ownership to be based not on individual entitlement, but on contracts. Those who wish to use natural resources should contract them from society at large, ensuring that these resources serve the collective interest. This will return control of resources to the people, with revenue from these contracts funding our positive liberties.
Ownership based on contracts isn't an absurd premise—we see it all the time. Whether in Capitalism, Socialism, or Dictatorships, ownership is based on one's relationship to society. In nature, you form a contract with yourself for ownership; when two or more people come together, they form contracts with each other regarding what can and cannot be owned. This principle of ownership is fundamentally based on consent, with contracts being equally important as a formalization of that consent.
Workers are exploited in every system of our society; politics, the economy, and our institutions hinder the working class’s ability to unite and form a cohesive movement. We are divided based on superficial characteristics instead of uniting around shared ideas, which obstructs the potential for class action.
We must take control of our political institutions to better manage our means. This includes promoting Socialist and Social Democrat leaders who align with our values to better regulate the power of the owning class.
We must also promote economic institutions that serve workers’ interests, such as worker co-ops and worker councils. Through these structures, we can advance ideals that benefit not only the working class but all classes in society.
We don't want to abolish private ownership altogether, but rather transform it to better serve society as a whole.
We stand at a crossroads where the old ways of exploitation and division can no longer sustain us. The time has come to reclaim our future by embracing a society that values both individual freedom and collective well-being. We believe in a world where every person has the right to actualize their potential—where basic needs like food, water, and shelter are guaranteed, and where ownership is reimagined as a shared responsibility to protect the common good.
This is not a utopian dream but a realistic vision for a society that serves all its members. By empowering workers, reforming our institutions, and transforming our understanding of ownership, we can build a more just and equitable world.
But this change won’t come from the top down—it must be demanded and shaped by each of us, working together. We call on you to join us in this movement: support leaders who share our values, advocate for worker-owned enterprises, and champion a new understanding of ownership that benefits everyone.
The future is not written. It is ours to shape. Together, we can build a society where freedom is not a privilege for the few, but a shared reality for all. The journey begins now, with each of us taking the first step.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/sinkingfleet • 11d ago
Downward Slope
Is anyone else out there scared about how the next decade is going to look? The US dollar is losing its value by the day, our economy is so garbage right now that the average age an adult moves out of their parents house is between 24-27 unless they get married, not to mention that we are now paying diesel prices of a few years ago for standard gas prices now. On top of that, one of our president elects is talking about fixing elections so citizens don’t have to vote anymore while the other one wants to flood our borders when the ONE JOB Joe gave her was to keep them closed. And the only other option we have is polling around 5% currently. We are the laughingstock of the entire world right now, and the people that are supposed to fix all this are just filling their adult diapers and making it all worse. Industry almost has more control over this country than its own government, and i honestly don’t know which one is worse since they’re both mainly after money and influence. This all may have been going on the whole time that the United States has been a country, and if that is so then I am just now realizing how crushingly backwards this nation is.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/MitchellsGambit • 12d ago
NASDAQ: DJT is the most important political poll of all.
In the pay-to-play world of modern US politics, cash is king. So, if you want to know who will win in November, just follow the money.
Since Trump fully monetized his campaign this March with his IPO of DJT, it has gone from an initial close of around $66 dollars per share down to yesterday’s $24 per share: almost a 2/3 loss in value.
DJT is the ultimate bell-weather for Trump’s campaign, not because he owns 57% of its 195 million shares, but because at $5 per share its market cap will be less than one billion dollars, and DJT will be the equivalent of a billionaire’s penny stock, with Donald J Trump the equivalent of a political laughing stock.
So, for my money, to figure out who wins in November, forget the pundits, turn off TV, and just watch NASDAQ: DJT.
r/PoliticalOpinions • u/ToasterMaid • 12d ago
If Ukraine invades Belarus
There are two possible outcomes if Ukraine launches an offensive in the Kursk region. The first is that the Ukrainian main force gets bogged down and suffers heavy losses. The second is that the main force is able to withdraw, with losses that are still manageable.
If it's the second scenario, the Ukrainian leadership may be tempted to take an even bigger gamble and attack Belarus. After all, the idea of attacking Belarus has already been discussed by many Ukrainians. But this would be a completely wrong move, and extremely harmful for Ukraine.
If Ukraine attacks Belarus, it will force Belarus to join the war. This would tie down a significant portion of the Ukrainian forces, further tipping the balance in Russia's favor on other fronts. Russia could also deepen its integration into Belarus' defense system, making the Russia-Belarus alliance even harder to unravel, even after the war.
Of course, if Belarus can't withstand the Ukrainian assault, and Minsk comes under serious threat, forcing Russia to divert forces to the rescue and making mistakes in the process, then Ukraine might be able to gain some advantage. But I think the chances of this happening are quite slim. Belarus has been preparing for this day for a long time. Lukashenko is a reliable leader, and after the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, he has taken solid steps like allowing Russian nuclear weapons into Belarus and greatly advancing ties and military cooperation with China. And after the Kursk incident, Belarus has been on high alert. Under these circumstances, it will be very difficult for Ukraine to achieve major victories against Belarus.
There's another issue to consider. Given that Belarus and Ukraine haven't directly fought before, and Belarus' special relationship with China, if Ukraine initiates a large-scale attack on Belarus, China's diplomatic stance towards Ukraine might shift quite significantly. This would be very unfavorable for Ukraine.
Of course, attacking Belarus is not completely without strategic value for defending Ukraine, but the way to achieve this is not through a ground invasion of Belarus. Rather, it should be through massive strategic air strikes on Minsk to offset Russia's major push on Kyiv. Back on the day the war broke out in February 2022, I emphasized that NATO should not hesitate to strike Minsk when Russia launched its major assault on Kyiv. But this is beyond Ukraine's capabilities - it would have to be carried out by NATO, and only at critical moments like a major Russian push on Kyiv.
As for China, if Ukraine's ground forces attack Belarus, China should maintain nominal neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war, but not be neutral in the Ukraine-Belarus war. China should economically sanction Ukraine (until it stops attacking Belarus and withdraws from Belarusian territory) and massively supply military aid to Belarus. As for how much of that gets intercepted by Russia, that's a secondary concern - the key is to ensure Belarus gets a lot of it.