/r/PoliticalDiscussion
This is a subreddit for substantive and civil discussion on political topics. If you have a political prompt for discussion, ask it here!
This is a subreddit for substantive and civil discussion on political topics. If you have a political prompt for discussion, ask it here!
Questions or comments regarding subreddit rules or moderation? Please let us know via modmail!
Don't downvote content with which you disagree. Please report content that breaks the rules.
Accounts need to be 7 days old to participate.
Keep it civil - Do not personally insult other Redditors, or post discriminatory content. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
Do not submit low investment content - This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content includes memes, unexplained links, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions.
No meta discussion - Conversation should be focused on the topic at hand, not on the subreddit, other subreddits, redditors, moderators, or moderation.
Warnings. The rules are intended to maintain the high quality of the subreddit, and garden-variety violations will be met with a reminder from the moderators. If you would like to have your comment reinstated, please edit the rule-breaking content and let the moderators know via modmail. Bans are issued at moderator discretion on consideration of user history and severity.
New submissions will not appear until approved by a moderator.
Wiki Guide: Tips On Writing a Successful Political Discussion Post
Please observe the following rules:
1. Submissions should be an impartial discussion prompt + questions.
Keep it civil, no political name-calling.
Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.
No personal opinions/proposals or posts designed to support a certain conclusion. Either offer those as a comment or post them to r/PoliticalOpinions.
2. Provide some background and context. Offer substantive avenues for discussion.
Avoid highly speculative posts, all scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Do not request users help you with an argument, educate you, or perform research for you.
No posts that boil down to: DAE, ELI5, CMV, TIL, AskX, "Thoughts?", "Discuss!", or "How does this affect the election?"
3. Everything in the post should be directly related to a political issue.
No meta discussion about reddit, subreddits, or redditors.
Potentially non-politics: Law, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, etc.
We are not a link subreddit. Don't just post links to news, blogs, surveys, videos, etc.
4. Formatting and housekeeping things:
The title should match the post. Don't use tags like [Serious]
Check to make sure another recent post doesn't already cover that topic.
Don't use all-caps. Format for readability: paragraphs, punctuation, and link containers.
Discussion Topics
Choose a topic to search.
Similar Subs you might or might not enjoy:
Dedicated discussion subs:
News and discussion:
English language regional politics:
Political resources:
/r/PoliticalDiscussion
The XVIIth amendment famously made the senatorial elections direct. There were a myriad of reasons why people opposed and supported such a move, and the merits of those in general are up for a different discussion. But in particular, the Senators who would judge the impeachment of a person now had different bases of support, including the role of primary elections. Independently of your thoughts on the merits and demerits of direct elections in general, do you think that the effects of that amendment on senate impeachment trials was positive or negative?
I saw a quote from Kyla Scanlon that was profound. It read “The meme of the plan matters more than the plan itself”. For context, it was in relation to a post on Twitter regarding the betting odds for a Bitcoin national reserve.
Regardless, what a profound way to summarize what is one major proponent of the new U.S. political landscape. From your perspective, how much value does the “memeconomy” have in swaying public perception?
Hello friends,
Healthcare in the US is someting people always discuss about. We can all agree it is a major problem. The pass of ACA was one big move in the US Healthcare system. So, i am opening this topic to see all of your views.
Did ACA improved some aspects in US healthcare? Or did it not? What can be done to improve it more? And finally, what are the pros and cons of ACA?
Thanks all and have a nice day!
In 2010, Matt Yglesias coined the term "the Pundit's Fallacy" to describe "the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively".
Ever since the election, the Pundit's Fallacy seems to have entirely taken over the discourse as the Democrats as a party try to figure out what to do next. As the full extent of the data from the election has yet to be examined and given shape yet for the public to consider, many people are clinging to whatever incomplete data they have to make the argument that the Democrats lost because they failed to embrace... whatever said pundit's existing beliefs about politics were. Moderates have been pointing to the unpopular social positions the Democrats as a party are associated with and advocating for more strident repudiations of them. Liberals point to the wave of anti-incumbency that has swept the world this year, or to the role of voters' media diets influencing their perceptions of the economy and policy toward negativity, or to Harris only having around 100 days to take over the campaign after Biden stepped down. Leftists point to the party not taking a stronger stance on the war in Gaza, or the perception that the party moved to the Right by embracing the Cheneys as campaign surrogates, or not having more ambitious Left-wing policy plans all costing the campaign support. The thing is, there is some amount of evidence for all of these positions, some stronger and some weaker than others, and therefore the discourse is drowning in pundits with absolute confidence that that means their position is correct and that the key to success is to do what they already wanted us to do.
But what if it isn't? In politics there are very few definitive answers one way or another. We calibrate our beliefs based on our biases, our morality, our understanding of reality, our understanding of our communities, our experiences, but those are all subject to flaws in human psychology. Polls can be wrong, manipulated, gamed to produce a specific answer. Studies can be politically motivated, biased or the evidence could actually be much weaker than presented. Echo chambers can create the impression that a belief is more widespread than it actually is. Things we consider to be common sense can have blind spots from our own personal ignorance. It is easier to grapple with cognitive dissonance by rejecting evidence that we don't like than integrating it into our understanding.
Whatever your beliefs are- about the election, about the support for the UHC CEO assassination and the public's opinions on private vs public health insurance, about trans people in sports and trans healthcare, about whether your party needs to moderate their beliefs or become more extreme, about whatever issues you strongly care about- how sure are you that they are true? What if there was some kind of irrefutable evidence handed down from an omniscient divine source that could definitively refute it? How would that change your political strategy to learn that a political position you hold was just factually wrong, or that your political beliefs that you fight for are an extreme minority?
E.g., although 63% of Americans support additional government programs, only 36% support a single-payer national program, at least back in 2020.
Are there other types of reform which could have bipartisan public support in the USA?
It seems one of the reasons Democrats are struggling politically is the perception that they’re too lenient on the issue of “anti-social” behavior among homeless populations. This perception has been amplified by high-profile cases like the Daniel Penny trial, where debates about public safety, homelessness, and accountability took center stage.
Whether or not this perception is accurate, it appears to be a growing political liability. So, how can Democrats address this issue effectively—both in terms of policy and public messaging? How can they show they’re serious about public safety while still maintaining compassion and progressive values around homelessness and mental health?
What policies or strategies could they adopt to fix this perception and the underlying problems? Are there examples from other cities or countries that have struck the right balance?
The recent subway death in New York where a black homeless man was having what appeared to be a schizophrenic episode.
"He boarded a subway under Manhattan on May 1, 2023, hurled his jacket onto the floor, and declared that he was hungry and thirsty and didn’t care if he died or went to jail, witnesses said. Some told 911 operators that he tried to attack people or indicated he’d harm riders, and several testified that they were afraid." He later died in a hospital after being choked out by a marine who was on the subway.
In New York, threatening behavior is charged as "menacing" while physical contact or injury is necessary to establish assault. However menacing is considered "assaultive behavior" under ny law. There are other states where direct threats of violence is considered assault.
There was outrage from BLM supporters among much of the left accusing Penny, the marine who was aquitted for killing him with a chokehold, demanding justice for black people and homeless.
Legally, should the right to self defense not apply to cases involving mental illness?
Edit: I can totally spell defense'
I am wondering what post-liberal ideological group has the most adherents in America currently. I would guess this would fall broadly between socialist ideologies and reactionary/fascist ideologies, but if there are other significant groups I am not considering please bring them up. Two over all questions I suppose. First question is from a sectarian stance, as in which specific ideology has the most supporters? Looking for granularity on the level of Communists, Anarchists, Fascists, Nationalists, or deeper if a specific flavor has overwhelming support in one of those catagories. Second question, of the two major ideological sides, these in my opinion being Socialism and Capitalism, which has more ideologically driven supporters? For the second question, I am not wondering about people who nominally support these ideologies, but people who are knowledgeable about theory and have coherent belief systems(at least as coherent as is possible within a given ideology) which they act on to produce societal change.
To be clear, I'm not interested in if it's the right move for the US, either morally or strategically. Nor am I interested in how likely it is to happen.
The question is, if it did happen, what would be the consequences for the region. Would Israel fall as a nation? Would it just become a slightly weaker regional power? Would it hold as a nation but no longer be a regional power? Would something else entirely happen?
What led to the attitude towards migrants, and why is it so widespread across the UK and seemingly quite a bit of the EU?
Is it because of the war on terror, cultural issues or the housing crisis or something else?
Historicaly almost every president has had a senate confirmation on inauguration day. The difference this time around is the 20th falls on MLK day which is a federal holiday, so would this have any impact on the senate making a confirmation?
During the past year, there was a massive rise on Antisemitism, from riots in the streets, to harassing Jewish students and making them feel excluded and unwanted, and even some statements by congressmen. This became a very polarizing topic in the US and was a huge issue in the elections. What do you think led to that? Do you think the Left played a part in that? Do you think the results of the elections have something to do with the rise of the New-Wave Antisemitism?
"What are inclusive policies, and how can we implement them effectively? If you had the chance to shape or introduce one, what would it look like?
Also, with social media influencing much of what people advocate for today, do we really understand the policies being implemented? How can we teach younger generations to be more aware of what they’re voting for or pushing?
Any ideas would be appreciated 👏🏽
Ignoring for a moment the issues with the Electoral College and other structural elements of US democracy that don't represent the will of the people directly such as the US Senate:
Donald Trump's 2024 popular vote margin (1.48%) is fourth smallest of the last century of elections beaten only by Bush Jr 2000 (-.51%), Nixon 1968 (.70%), and Kennedy 1960 (.17%). This is contrary to statements by Trump and his supporters that this election was a landslide victory.
What made the 2024 election so close when talking about actual voters?
Should Trump and the Republicans factor those closeness of the election in when considering the sweeping changes they want to make of mass deportations and tariffs that could increase costs for poor/working class citizens?
Hypothetically speaking, would there be any ethical implications if the U.S. government were to help install a new government in Syria?
If half the population were receptive to that idea, but the other half adamantly opposed, should we act as if it is an ethical imperative? In other words, is it ethical to help instill (forcefully or peacefully) democratic values into a nation which has not had a sustained period of democracy in modern history?
This is not to say it wasn't rising before but it seems so much stronger before the pandemic (Trump didn't win the popular vote and parties like AfD and RN weren't doing so well). I wonder how much this is related to BLM. With BLM being so popular across the West, are we seeing a reaction to BLM especially with Trump targeting anything that was helping PoC in universities. Moreover, I wonder if this exacerbated the polarisation where now it seems many people on the right are wanting either a return to 1950s (in the case of the USA - before the Civil Rights Era) or before any immigration (in the case of Europe with parties like AfD and FPÖ espousing "remigration" becoming more popular and mass deportations becoming more popular in countries like other European countries like France).
Plus when you consider how long people spent on social media reading quite frankly many insane things with very few people to correct them irl. All in all, how did lockdown change things politically and did lockdown exacerbate the rise of populism?
The 2024 election showed a growing weakness among democratic support with the working class. Allowing Republicans to sweep the executive and legislative elections, although the house was close. Due to the changes in state populations, Republican controlled states will gain house districts, and therefore electoral college votes, while democrat states will lose them.
I did the math.
States that the dems usually win will lose a net 12 house districts/electoral college votes.
States that the GOP usually win will gain a net 11 seats.
And swing states will gain a net 1 seats.
If you make an election map with the 2030 projection, you will find that the states dems typically win in by more than 5% makes up only 182 electoral college votes. Leaving them 82 short.
If you compare that to states Republicans usually win by % or more, they can safely receive 229. This leaves them only 41 short.
That leaves 127 electoral votes left up for grabs, and to win, Republicans only need to win 1/3 of them.
On top of this, those additional districts in Republican states are going to be susceptible to gerrymandering, meaning the GOP is gonna be given a huge boost in the house.
Given the natural advantage the GOP has in the senate, this means that the 2030's are going to have the Republicans be the likely favorites in each presidential and midterm election that decade.
I ask you, how can democrats reform in a way that makes their future a little less bleak? And how do you think Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
War is not usually associated with the idea of a democracy. War usually has censorship, arrest of people for lesser grounds than might otherwise be the case, war is violent by definition where democracy should be at peace.
But places which were democracies of varying kinds have engaged in war, and it means that something has to deal with the two modes of operation. War is politics by other means as Clausewitz famously stated.
Athens in ancient times involved the popular assembly to decide what to do about issues, such as what should be done with a rebelling city the Athenian military had just captured. Roman assemblies punished generals they believed threatened the republic or exceeded their authority, like a time when a consul threw some chickens used for divine prophecy into the ocean, then lost a battle, then was very nearly executed for sacrilege by a vote of the citizens. The British parliament kept meeting during both world wars despite the threat of bombing raids, and the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, also does so. In fact, Ukraine cannot make any kind of concession involving a change of territory without a referendum involving all of Ukraine including the occupied Donbass and Crimea, nor can the constitution be changed during a time of war or martial law.
How much do you think popular opinion could be used in a democratic manner? It would be hard to involve public votes in operational decisions or tactical ones, but it might be more likely to use them to frame other important elements like whether a draft should be used, how to deal with prices and inflation, and many other issues.
As a left leaning, dem voter in the US, I'm intrigued by Trudeau's current struggles in Canada. He's held the reins for nearly a decade now, but likely won't see more time after the next election. From a far, Canada seems to have everything that I'd like America to have. But the closer I look, they seem to have their fair share of issues too.
So my question is if democrats controlled all three branches for multiple terms consecutively, would we prosper or struggle more as a country?
There are some obvious stages. Pay your soldiers decent compensation. Roman emperors found this out the hard way a lot. Make your army representative of the people, either through compulsory military service or else by distribution of recruitment across many sectors of society, something that Nicolo Machiavelli encouraged. Germany brought the military under the close supervision of Parliament, not wanting to repeat the experiences of the Weimar Republic and questionable loyalty of the Reichswehr which more than once tried to overthrow the government.
We are in relatively fortunate times by world historical standards, very few countries today actually have coups, but they are threats to be taken seriously if your government has degraded popularity. What ideas have you got?
democratic processes have effectively been rendered futile because of how little knowledge or awareness voters seem to have on policy ideas and this ignorance is having a tangible impact on politics and electoral outcomes (Achen and Bartels, 2016). the most common/'obvious' solution is an epistocratic system, in which voters have to pass some sort of test to prove they have enough political knowledge before they vote, and either making it so that the votes of those who dont 'pass' this test have less weight or not have any weight at all. there are obviously a billion and one reasons why this is a potentially dangerous solution (as it will effectively disenfranchise the working class and relies on an objective test to determine a subjective trait ie how educated someone is. you could try and implement sweeping education reforms to mitigate the correlation between lower education quality and deprived environment/working class background, but again this is an overly idealistic solution that will never be truly realised. what do you all think is the most feasible solution to combat voters' inability and/or unwillingness to engage with politics?
In 1964, a year after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, his effigy was placed on the half dollar, where it remains today. Kennedy is the most recent president depicted on our currency.
Just a question- if any recent president (Obama, Trump, or Biden) was assassinated or died in office, do you think they would be memorialized on our currency? Could you see any future president (or current political figure) placed on our currency in the next 50-100 years?
Since October 7th Biden's foreign policy became very controversial drawing criticism from nearly..well, everyone. But looking back, it seems that especially during the past year everything is falling apart. They failed to achieve Ceasefires between Israel and Hamas and were completely ignored by Israel when Israel decided to attack the Iranian Proxy Hezbollah (which the admin wanted a ceasefire with), the Ukraine war is not going to end soon probably, during the past 4 years and until very recently Iran also became stronger heading towards the bomb, what do you think is going to be the legacy of the Biden admin foreign policy?
Obviously it's nothing short of a disaster. I can only imagine what the Geopolitical and internal fallout is going to be for the Kremlin. Putins war in Ukraine has cost almost every it of influence he's had in the middle east and I don't think Syrian are keen on him keeping his air or naval base in the region. What do you guys think?
A lot of modern-day populist right-wing parties, such as RN, the GOP, Italy's LN, AfD, Reform, and others with anti-immigrant messaging seem to treat modern-day ethnic tensions and cultural collisions as if they are something completely new. There is this idea that quite a few politicians on those parties that argue they are saving Europe and protecting Western civilization.
But from having looked into European history as well, I can't help but feel like it ignores a ton of the ethnic and cultural issues of the past.
Like why does Reform ignore that by far the greatest cause of ethnic violence and destruction in the 20th century UK was the Troubles, or how RN seems to act as if there aren't any major ethnic minorities in France that have had significant cultural friction with the French government such as the Basque.
In addition, the overwhelming majority of ethnic violence between groups was in places like the Balkans, and the amount of violence there dwarfs pretty much anything in the Netherlands, Italy, or even France.
Finally, why do they treat Western civilization as if it's some completely cohesive force, like everyone just worked together perfectly towards a perfect society. Ignoring the countless ideological differences between philosophers, Capitalism & Socialism duking it out across Europe, the countless wars between Catholics & Protestants, etc. Why is this?
With health insurance back in the news, how would a single payer system increase the number of healthcare providers? Especially since there is going to be a severe shortage of workers from nursing techs to doctors.
One of the most mainstream sentiments I have observed here on Reddit and on other liberal platforms is that Trump voters will regret voting for him in 2024 because they will suffer the bad consequences of his policies. This sentiment is expressed in many different forms, such as:
"I hope Trump supporters get everything they voted for"
But what if the bad consequences of Trump's policies *do* come to pass and the GOP *still* wins the 2028 election anyway? Let's not forget Trump won 11 million additional votes between the 2016 and 2020 elections, and an additional 3 million in 2024.
One plausible thesis is that the Democrats will fail to learn from their defeat in 2024 and nominate a candidate who enjoys popular support among progressives but who can't appeal to anyone else, especially white men, the core of the Republican base.
Another is that Republican policies will be successful enough to give the GOP another victory.
If the GOP wins again in 2028, what would be the most likely reason or combination of reasons why?
I was wondering if a conventional war between the U.S. and Russia (or the U.S. and China) could be fought without either side using their nuclear arsenal.
I was thinking about this question because the U.S. (well, just Biden really) has said that if China were to invade Taiwan, we would defend them. If this scenario were to happen, or if the U.S. and Russia went to war, would a nuclear exchange be inevitable. Or would both sides — understanding the implications of the use of nuclear weapons — just fight it out with regular bombs, armies, etc?
I've been diving into the historical context of the Golden Age of Capitalism, particularly the period following World War II, and I've noticed an interesting trend: many of the governments that oversaw this era were socialist or had strong socialist influences.
Welfare States: Countries like the UK, France, and the Nordic nations implemented extensive welfare programs and nationalized industries, yet they experienced significant economic growth during this time.
Economic Policies: Many governments adopted Keynesian economics, focusing on state intervention to manage economic cycles while still promoting capitalist markets.
Social Stability: The post-war consensus prioritized social equity, which seemed to foster a more stable environment for capitalism to thrive.
Why do you think socialist policies were prevalent during this period of capitalist growth? Was it a necessity born of the war, or do you think it was a strategic choice that ultimately benefited capitalist economies?
Looking forward to your insights!
Tim Walz has said he won't run for president, but I don't think we should rule it out just yet. Will Tim Walz run for president, and if he did would you consider voting for him?
What would Walz's strenght be as a candidate and what would his weaknesses be? There's a lot to think about for such an unexpected candidate.