My question breakes down in whether or not prigozhin is alive, let's say somewhere between the invasion and the plane accident Ukraine contracted the Wagner group, the Wagner group has some sense of independence from the Russian goverment,specially in the regions they are contracted in so before it became another arm of the Russian army, what would the Wagner group have done, go for the highest bid between loyalties? Russia paying for them to betray and for battlefield information vs being paid to be loyal yo Ukraine.

Why don't Conservatives want to

Fund Mental Health and use the returns to build schools and hospitals and a free therapist for every American.

Legalize and tax mariajuana, use the money to do astroid mining and bring gold down to earth, use the gold to give everyone free college and medical care.

Give gay and trans people their civil rights back.

Stop funding the military, start funding projects that advance medical technology so we can cure cancer.

Tax the rich, give it to the poor who are struggling and need jobs.

Ban corporations, they are just there to make profit, no matter what they say, big corpoations don't give a damn about you and me they just want to make money.

Stop allowing our jobs to pay us so low and make us have a living wage.

Stop racism against black Americans.

Treat women like people again.

He supports Israel, border security for the US, and once pulled a gun on an unarmed Black jogger. It seems like if he had any other letter after his name, he'd be labeled as a racist.

Are there any republicans speaking against Project 2025, or is this really the organizing principle of the next republican presidency no matter what?

Seems like a unique situation where the American people will already know exactly what to expect out of a potential Presidency from each candidate vying for their 2nd term. That’s never been the case in any US Presidential election I can find on Wikipedia.

I am referring to presidential elections. So we all know that electoral vote superceedes popular vote, meaning it is entirely dependent on the representatives and not what the people actually support. The issue is these representatives have no incentive, legal or otherwise, to vote in accordance with the popular vote (except in 2 states where it is potentially punished with jail time). And only 29 states have a 'law' against faithless electors which is usually punished with a fine of 500 to 1000 usd. Chump change to anyone taking bribes. The rest of the states have no laws against voting how they see fit. So my question is: what presidential voting power do we have at all if our vote can get overruled by representatives who have no real reason to represent us? The analogy I always use is if mom is taking me and my older sibling for dinner, and asks us where we want to go- I say burgers but sibling says tacos, and mom says "well they are older so their vote overrules yours- tacos it is". If my facts are wrong or I am misinformed please enlighten me. I have asked many people this over the years and have yet to get a answer. Thanks for the information, all.

Both sides make sense.

Like lowering taxes seems good for business and good for spending and good for freedom.

Also income inequality seems out of control and corporations are too powerful?

What do we do and how do I learn more?

Judges have been giving him a lot of leeway, and I'm wondering if the judge will end up suspending the sentence. If not, can the appeal court?

Let’s face it, the United Nations is incompetent as a global state. Not that it ever was one or begin with, but it’s the closest that our species has gotten. Usually in media depicting a near-future, humanity is united under a global state.

I simply cannot plausibly imagine the U.N. as this effective global state.

Yet other effective global states are often totalitarian, reflecting the practical fear authors have regarding what a truly powerful global state would look like.

Humans in 21st century will flirt with this topic as we have global crises requiring collective actions. Global governance is necessary to survive, the question is whether a global state is necessary and what such a state might look like.

I'm talking the genuine neo-nazi fascist types. Where do they stand on this? I can't image them supporting Palestine considering they're not white and that they're muslim, and i also can't imagine them supporting Israel since they hate jews and Israel.

Where do they stand on this?

Geert Wilders of the Netherlands is not going to be prime minister because he lacks coalition support even though he is in the leading party by vote count. How then is the prime minister chosen? Isn't this a flaw in their electoral system?

Can two US states merge into one? If yes, would that put them outside of the Union and therefore if they wanted to join the Union an entire ascention process would take place?

Can the federal government or Congress create a new state, or just federal territories?

On the other hand, can a US state divide itself in two or more states? How would that operate, from a state and federal perspective?

The above questions came into my mind last night and couldn't get them out of my head, hence this post. I was aiming to post on /AskAnAmerican but their bot is ruthless.

4 years ago we were struggling to find toilet paper…

All I know is that I’m currently making more money today than 4 years ago, I just received a nice tax refund after buying an electric car. The economy is strong imo but obviously what’s hurting us is inflation. Cost of living is really high in California but it’s always been like that. Take that out and I feel like Biden has been doing an okay job. Tbh I’d be shocked if he loses the election while maintaining a strong economy…idk who was the last president to lose reelection while having a strong economy.

Do I like Biden? (It’s debatable) I think he’s too old, just like Trump…he wasn’t my first, second or third choice in the 2020 primaries. Pretty much voted him to vote Trump out, doing the same thing again.

How much time has to pass before a war is considered museum worthy?

I really want to see what is in it, but really all I can find are sensationalist sites that are cherry picking out relatively small line items rather than breaking down the full bill. 400k from a 1.2T bill is nothing, I want to understand the overall bill.

"Hypothetical" situation.

If it was proven tomorrow beyond the shadow of a doubt that Trump was directly working for Russian intelligence during his time as president, what actions would the US government have to undertake to address the fallout?

Fire all Trump appointees?
Assume all US intelligence officers, cybersecurity and nuclear secrets are compromised?

Like how big of an issue would that be to correct?

I know you think "oh well the answer is obvious" but i am serious. Every time i go on a right wing subreddit, twitter page and discord and some negative news story about black people is posted, 9 times out of 10 i will see the following comments:

"Something is in the water..."

"Noticing..."

"Despite making up only 13% of the population..." or "Despite"

"I'm noticing a pattern here"

Why the fuck is every right wing space racist? These spaces aren't even alt-right or anything, just standard conservative.

Maybe the host of "Deal or No Deal Island", or "The Amazing Race Season 36"? Which host do you think conservative voters might latch on to as their next nominee to become Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military?

I explain ,
let's say a nomad Caucasian tribe came to a village in western Europe in a certain period of history ,
or an Arabic tribe conquered some village in MENA ,

what law makes them the OWNERS of that portion of land ?
why will they refuse that another group of people push them away from there and call it invasion/occupation ?

why is universal immigration legal and invading countries illegal ?

For context, I am socially very liberal. I support feminism, advocate for lgbtq+ rights, believe in separation of church and state, and believe that the government has no right to impede on personal freedoms.

However, on the other hand, I don't necessarily believe In excessive spending to ensure that all individual freedoms are protected. Meaning establishing institutions and programs to protect these freedoms should be considered thoroughly.

I believe that gender affirming care and access to abortion should be granted to everyone who needs it.

But for instance, excessive spending on social welfare programs should have stricter guidelines; or pushing for equality should take an approach of raising social awareness, rather than directly pouring money into outreach programs or intervention programs for certain demographics.

In other words, I believe in the pursuit of equality, and believe In establishing laws that prevent people from encroaching on the rights of others, but generally think that inequality is an issue of ignorance and outdated views, or a failure of society to adapt to a changing world, rather than lack of opportunity. So advocating for marginalized individuals is up to the people, and the governments only role in this process is to ensure that freedoms are protected, and that individuals have equal access to resources that would help them ensure they have equal rights.

Don't fund programs to ensure that there is more "equality" unless there is a clear disparity in lack of resources to these groups.

Social perception of inequality is a problem of ignorance, and refusal of people to advocate and protect the rights of others is a sociological issue, not exclusively an issue of lack of opportunity.

Obviously it's not that black and white, but generally I believe things like racism, homophobia/ trans phobia, misogyny, and most issues of a similar nature are primarily a social issue, except in instances where individual freedoms are actively limited through certain government policies (e.g. limited or no access to abortion, restricting access to gender affirming care of trans individuals).

I've asked people who are more versed in politics, and some say I seem like a libertarian, but other people just say I seem like a liberal with more moderate fiscal beliefs.

I'd appreciate any insight, and just to be clear.

I'm not here to argue politics, just wanting to have some insight into what groups I need to look into.

Thanks in advance.

Could Biden send troops to Ukraine without congressional approval? He could say US forces were invited to assist in fighting illegal armed persons. Biden could specifically say the US was NOT going to war, and would only be helping Ukraine defend itself from forces illegally within Ukraine territory, including Crimea.

Does Biden require an act of Congress to do this?

We are all complex creatures with contradictions. But many things on the left and right annoy me or I agree with. But anyway, here's a list of my thoughts on the major things. Can anyone help define where I sit in the political spectrum?

Racism/sexism: Yes to humorous/No to hate

Religion: Very Anti Islamic + Catholic crimes (abuse). Also strong dislike conservative religious law. I'm athiest.

LGBTQ+ - Yes to equal rights ofc. But no to trans women competing in female sports (trans women can compete in mens).

Very pro Israel.

Don't like Russia

No longer like Trump because of Putin links

Don't like Biden because of illegal immigration

Don't like CCP/Russian interference anywhere.

Don't like fat acceptance

Believe in social service to help unemployed

Believe in free market

Believe in a UBI to stop homelessness

Believe in taxing businesses slightly more

Believe in subsidies in education & food for disadvantages children

Feel free to ask more questions that'd help identify.

Other than Trump of course. I'm talking about the case where Trump was found to have committed fraud and ordered to pay 454 million. I have heard people say, its a mostly victimless crime, only the banks suffered (and who cares about that) etc. Is that truly the case?

As title says. Does Trump has to back the bonds with his collaterals? What happens if his bond providers fail to pay court money?

The 770 devreee was all about reducing abortion and contraception in order to push population growth and it caused a crisis about parents sending kids to orphanages because they couldn't afford to raise them,now forcing woman to delivery and have the babies amd being very harsh on miscarragies while having the police to oversee pregnant woman would be very harsh it could work in chona since its much wealther than ceachescus romania and could use it as leverage to trick conservatives into thinking they are alike society wise