Yesterday, a lawyer for one of the defendants in the Georgia rico case leaked the proffer videos of Trumps lawyers who plead guilty in return for info. onathan R. Miller III is the lawyer who leaked them. I have 3 questions.

Question 1: will this cause the case to move to federal court since a jury pool will now be tainted?

Question 2: what are proffers?

Question 3: is there anywhere where we can watch the full tapes?

I am trying it grow my info on international politics.

Ohio made the news for protecting abortion rights, but has the opposite happened since Dobbs?

I’m only looking for popular vote outcomes, not an act by the state legislature

I’m not super well-versed in the political system but it seems like censuring a lawmaker is kind of like a slap on the wrist that says “you’ve been bad.” What privileges does a politician lose from being censured? Can it harm a political career if supporters just see it as discrimination?

Specifically standing committees. What’s stopping the speaker from just firing one they don’t like?

I don't care what team they're on, I'm just curious if this is a topic any of the candidates have been talking about. I feel like a candidate with a good plan to fix housing affordability could win a lot of votes.

I've been wanting to ask this for a long time, but a news publication made me finally do it. Sorry if it's obvious, but I don't know the answer.

Russia and North Korea are negotiating guns and ammo, which could substantially help Russia in the Ukraine War.

Why make it public though? If Russia just did it in silence and maybe next month just surprised the whole world with a succession of well-succeeded offensives in the Ukraine War, that should be a smarter move, right?

Is there any sort of global agreement to make such meetings public to the world? I know it's not all of the meetings and negotiations, but I can't help but think how (in my fantasy world at least) that's not a good strategy.

In my home country Finland there's parties such as, The Coalition party, Social Democrats, The Center, Basic Finns, The Leftside, Pirate party, Liberal party, Christian democrats and then some 1-man spinoffs that gather 1 seat in the parliament every term or so.

It's like there is a clear distinction. Is there a historical reason why (in my eyes) everybody in US belongs to a democratic republic but has to vote either the Democrats or the Republicans?

The US gets a lot of flak for its high healthcare costs in comparison to the rest of the world. Yet, America spends more money per capita than any other country in the world on healthcare. In 2020, the US government spent over $11,000 on healthcare for each person on average. And yet, the US has the lowest life expectancy by far in the OECD. For Japan, the nation with the highest life expectancy in the world, the healthcare expenditure figure is just over $4,000. Why do we have such a low life expectancy for the amount we spend on healthcare?

I've always been curious why so many countries use the English reference name? Espana, Deutschland, Nippon to name a few. When Turkiye changed it's UN name in 2021, it made me think about it more often.

Doesn't it seem strange that so many countries use the label that was improperly put upon them hundreds of years ago?

As a POC who loves European culture, I feel bad when people view assimilation in a negative light. I genuinely have a passion for European culture, and my home-culture Is bland and bleak.

Is there anything wrong with willing assimilation?

Google tells me that a president can only pardon federal crimes & governors have the power to pardon state crimes, but I'm also reading some previous presidential pardons that seem to fall on the state crime level, so now I'm super confused. Thanks in advance.

Got it from this clip here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1686199526670151681

If you campaign in New Hampshire, any votes that you get in Georgia wont count either. His name won't appear in Georgia either.

This just seems insanely corrupt, how is this allowed what is the legal basis?

Just got through the newest trump indictment. Damn wild. I noticed a lot of quotes from various conversations that took place (between trump, pence, co-conspirators, counsels, etc). How were these obtained? Do all parties testify thoroughly prior?

​

​

For example, the opposite phenomenon is found in Latin America, where socialist leaders like Daniel Ortega, Pedro Castillo and Evo Morales gained a lot of support from rural folk.

In Australia, our rural folk is split between the right-wing National Party and the centre-left Australian Labor Party (which to be fair, in the past supported reactionary policies like the Stolen Generations and the White Australia Policy). Meanwhile, in Europe, "agrarian" parties tend to be centrist, or focused solely on farmers' issues.

But in the USA, rural areas vote overwhelmingly for the right-wing Republican Party. While one can say this is due to a history of rural conservatism, there are some counterpoints to that:

• Rural Americans don't just consist of the disgruntled descendants of Confederates, they also include substantial Hispanic and African American demographics, plus there are rural areas in Union states too.
• Like the USA, Australia also has a history of indigenous people and genocide against them - so why aren't Australian rural folk overwhelmingly right-wing?
• Rural poverty is a major issue in the USA - so why doesn't it drive rural Americans to the left (or even to socialism/communism) like it does in Latin America?

My question is, if the USA has an immigration policy, why is that so many migrants are being admitted and transported from state to state in the USA? What is the legal justification for this in the context of our immigration laws?

I made several calculations and observed that the results of elections in many parts of the world changed in an impressively significant way.

Let me give you a scenario:

Politician A got 60% of the voters in the district

Politician B got 40% of the voters in that same district.

My question is do I say “Politician A beat them by 20%” or do I say “Politician A won by 10%”. (This is because they only require 10% of voters to defect to come to a 50/50 situation)

What sentence would be the best way to describe the results of this election? Thanks.

In the UK the Liberals became much smaller as universal male suffrage allowed Labour to get a huge urban base. Because Canada's parliamentary system is modelled off of Britain's why didn't a similarly union-supported Labour Party become the primary opposition to the Conservatives? Universal male suffrage was also passed around the same era too.

Are there any "beliefs" or "politics" that play a real part in these or has the violence gotten so bad that there's really no other reason than revenge or anger?

Can we compare gang violence in America to Tribal violence in Afghanistan? Obviously there are inherent differences between the two.

The Dutch government just collapsed due to the country being flooded with too many Muslim immigrants. Is the Netherlands going to reform under an Islamic government? Will it still be a democracy? What about its NATO and the EU membership? What about the royal family?

Are the police at their posts? If there's no government, who's paying them? If there's no police, shouldn't there be a lot of violence, looting, etc.? (The Dutch are a pretty chill low-crime society but it seems a lot to ask for millions of people not to commit opportunistic crimes during anarchy. Plus, there are enormous numbers of immigrants from less chill, less low-crime places.)

Shouldn't the neighbors or the EU or the UN or somebody be sending in troops or peacekeepers or something to restore order? Shouldn't this be higher in the news?

In the recent SCOTUS case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476) the court ruled 6-3 that the web designer in the case has the right to refuse to work on a wedding website for a same-sex couple on the basis that it violates for religious beliefs as a Christian.

Here's my question...

Would this ruling allow this web designer to also refuse to work on the wedding website for a couple that is a different religion than her?

My dad (who is very conservative) complains that democrats make these huge bills (1000s of pages long) and only give congress a few days to read through it in an attempt to push their agenda and sneak things into the law.

I am very liberal but I so I don’t agree with his politics. Is he right though? Are these bills impossible to fully be read and comprehended in such a short amount of time?

It may sound loaded but this is a genuine question because I legitimately don't know if it's this easy. The "housing crisis problem" as in the rising cost, and "easy" as in being simple to fix not easy to implement. The solution is to just build more homes (private or public) and remove regulations that prevents homes from being built such as some of the restrictions in zoning laws.

My understanding is that most developed countries don't do this because people in real estate holds an immense amount power and they will lose a lot of money. Based on my train of thought homes crisises happens when they all want more money individually at the same time. If I'm right which I don't think I am, then they're spellcasters making this reality feel like it's just nature. What am I missing?

For example does possession of magazines with 15 round capacities become illegal if a state law is passed prohibiting possession up to 7 round capacity magazines? Would this be unconstitutional? Please serious answers only I want an answer to the legality not opinions of either side. Thanks

I am very confused and new to this. Missouri decided to make the decision to move to caucuses rather than primaries. My questions is how does one participate in a caucus? I understand it may be different by state, but how does it usually work at least. Essentially, how would an average citizen be able to get themselves into participating in a caucus?

You occasional hear these issues flair up occasionally but why isn't there a consistent push and advocacy from the government to make these places as states, especially if the citizens of such want to be states?

I was listening to a talk about authoritarian personality and the speaker did bring this topic up, and how studies have borne out that it is, in fact, a thing. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is what that would actually look like. From my very (left-leaning) biased, American perspective, how can you be "authoritarian" about freedom?

The term alone brings up images of right-wingers thinking that, say, a trans person asking to be called by their chosen name and appropriate pronouns is some kind of controlling, authoritarian demand. Or that the left demands lockstep conformity and obedience, as evidenced by how much they'll cancel you for saying that something demonstrated by science doesn't exist, or generally treating some group or another as subhuman. Basically calling the left "authoritarian" because they don't approve of calling people slurs

On a more reasonable level, I could see stuff like socialist revolutions, violent protests, or just hyper-PC SJW types (the kind of split hairs over minor nonsense that benefits no one) as actual examples. Could a rigidly environmentally-conscious society be a left-wing dystopia, for example? Strict controls on what you can and can't do or have, but rooted in presumed "safety" rather than morality? Or maybe the WEF's infamous "you will have nothing and be happy", as left-wing authoritarian?

The studies I skimmed as I'm not smart enough to read them, suggest that LWA applies when a person scores high on authoritarian traits for left-aligned positions only. So, what, supporting legislation to mitigate climate change makes you authoritarian? If so, now what?

Sorry for the ramble. I feel like when we talk about RWA, many people have an image or two in their mind of the type of person, their beliefs and behavior, and how it's problematic. I'm trying to understand how that genuinely works from the left wing side.

I don’t want to hear any Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Serious answers only.

It appears that of all the issues in the United States, being pro-Israel is the only issue on which there is unanimous agreement. Even candidates like AOC and Maxwell Frost, who were previously pro-Palestine, were forced to moderate their positions. Why? On everything else, you hear dissenters- plenty of Republicans have made it clear they don’t support Ukraine for example, even though being pro-Ukraine is in America’s self-interest. What makes Israel untouchable?

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Poland and Hungary were seen as brother nations united by social conservatism and soft euroskepticism. Then the Ukraine war revealed a deep divide between the two, in which Poland became incredibly pro-Ukraine and pro-West, while Hungary became more anti-West and cynical. What is the cause of this gap? Why does Hungary’s social conservatism supercede their support for Ukraine while Poland’s anti-Russia stance takes priority?