I understand it’s very unlikely, but it would be very interesting to see him President in my opinion. How would the USA change during the time of his presidency? He wants to remove all U.S. foreign bases and stop being the world’s security guard. It seems like if this happens, the U.S. will have more money to spend back at home versus funding wars. Psilocybin and other psychedelics will likely become legal for therapeutic uses and the entire pharmaceutical industry might change.

Thoughts on this and any other input on what might happen? I understand it’s very very unlikely he’s elected as an independent, but I just wanted to hear everyone’s thoughts on it.

Every time there is a discussion regarding wars that's happening in this world, the people would always point out how useless the UN is when it comes to keeping the peace because there is no tangible or direct action in the things they do, other than humanitarian acts of course. Therefore, I wonder, would the world be a better place if the UN has more substantial power in these matters? A joint military power to stop any sort of offense defense matters in the battlefield or a grand international judicial right to directly persecute offending powers in a war or at least the power to directly impact the economy of countries that the UN is condemning due to their actions. In hindsight, knowing the nature of current international politics between countries suggests that this is a bad idea knowing how many bad actors are at play but perhaps more power to the UN means more restrictions, more oomph to the oath, and therefore means a more peaceful country, despite it under regulation. What do you guys think?

In the sense that misinformation was used to justify a war that was otherwise unjustifiable?

It seems to me that it is similar in many ways. If a country has to go to great lengths to convince its citizens that a war is necessary, then it probably isn't necessary at all right?

There’s several different historical wings of the Democratic Party.

There is the progressive / liberal wing. This wing gave us Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson. Bernie Sanders considers himself to be a descendant of this wing, albeit more left wing.

There is a more centrist wing of the party, from which Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton emerged.

There is within that wing the southern conservative Democratic tradition which gave us Carter (who was more conservative as President than as former President).

Theres the “New Democrat” DLC wing that gave us Bill Clinton, that Al Gore was part of, arguably that Obama was spiritually a successor of in some ways.

My question is, where does Biden come from in this sense?

What sort of Democrat is he?

U.S. said it abstained instead of voting for the resolution because language did not contain a provision condemning Hamas. Among other things State Department also noted:

This failure to condemn Hamas is particularly difficult to understand coming days after the world once again witnessed the horrific acts terrorist groups commit.

We reiterate the need to accelerate and sustain the provision of humanitarian assistance through all available routes – land, sea, and air. We continue to discuss with partners a pathway to the establishment of a Palestinian state with real security guarantees for Israel to establish long-term peace and security.

After the U.S. abstention, Netanyahu canceled his delegation which was to visit DC to discuss situation in Gaza. U.S. expressed disappointment that the trip was cancelled.

Is this a turning point in U.S. Israel relationship or just a reflection of Biden and Netanyahu tensions?

https://www.state.gov/u-s-abstention-from-un-security-council-resolution-on-gaza/

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/us-un-resolution-cease-fire-row-with-israel-00148813

It might not be the easiest thing to agree on what we could actually do about it, let alone how to classify animals for the purposes it will be necessary to do this in constitutional texts, but there might be a few options. Generally a statement that turns any decision to use an animal needs to be done based on not actually having practical alternatives might be an option, and if it is necessary, there be a legal obligation to do it the minimum amount to attain the objective. EG, no animal testing if practical alternatives are available. Perhaps specific text could ban it for when it is merely a convenience thing of humans (such as with skin creams) rather than a medical use.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am excluding cases of where policy is related to animals like any idea that a person who takes from the environment has to clean it up and restore it at their own expense, which would have an incidental effect, I have in mind where the animals are the direct subjects of the activity that someone might do.

The most interesting discussion prompts are often the most concise.

The thread title is self-explanatory, but for the avoidance of doubt, let's not focus on issues like "shared values" and "liberal democracy." Both are critically important to me from a personal perspective. But please talk to me like a hard-headed realist mainly focused on raw balance-of-power politics.

Yes, that last sentence gave the game away: I am approaching this question with a fairly strong view on the question. But I'm also 100% open to perspectives I haven't considered fully.

Let's have a thoughtful discussion on one of the most important security questions of our time

The Affordable Care Act mandated, in part, that employers had to offer healthcare and that people have to have some form of health insurance

Working on the same principle, what sort of effect would it have if a law was passed mandating that all employers take say 5% out of a salary regardless of income / net worth level and have it in a mandatory, portable pension.

This pension can be carried from employer to employer without penalty and can only be taken from at the employee’s discretion. It accrues interest slowly similar to a bank account. The longer one is consistently employed, the higher the interest rate over time.

Pair this with a mandatory cap on full time employment at age 65. A person can still be part time employed if they wish and the pension would continue.

Pair this with say a negative income tax or permanent tax credits for families falling at or below the poverty line so that the 5% doesn’t screw them monthly.

Would this work better both economically and socially than Social Security? Would it be more sustainable?

I am not from the US and can only base my assumptions on international news, opinions, and journals that are published online. I want to know what the feel on the ground is from average citizens. Is there a big possibility that extremists from the GOP would organize a more violent version of Jan 6 or is this highly unlikely?

There was just an another story about a measles outbreak in Florida. The governor’s own surgeon general encouraged parents to send unvaccinated kids to school.

While I realize that diseases are not political, here in the States the anti-vaccine crowd tends be more conservative in nature. Is it possible that the republicans could actually experience some election blowback as result of attrition in relation to the consequences of vaccine skepticism?

Putin recently talked about creating a “sanitary zone”, [demilitarized zone] which is something like a buffer, perhaps, a vague reference to expanding scope of the aims in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday [03/22/2024] said that for more than two years what had been a "special military operation" in Ukraine had "become a war" because of the involvement of the West. Mr. Peskov later went on to elaborate to reporters: “De jure [legally] it is a special military operation. But de facto [in reality] it has turned into a war.”

Some say this is a reaction to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent comments about the possibility of deploying Western troops to fight in Ukraine. Since then, some smaller EU countries particularly the Baltic states have expressed support for the idea.

Feeding into this narrative and complicating the situation and potential escalation was an attack on the concert hall in Russia yesterday [03/22/2024], where 4 gunmen opened fire and set off explosive devices and firebombs, shooting spectators at close range. So far, 133 have been confirmed dead and more than a 100 injured, many critically.

ISIS took responsibility and U.S. [Kirby] claimed shortly thereafter that ISIS was responsible. U.S. also declared Ukraine was not involved. His comments drew an immediate response from the Kremlin, with Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova demanding the U.S. hand over any information it had on the attack.
"On what basis do officials in Washington draw any conclusions in the midst of a tragedy about someone's innocence?" she said.

President Putin, in the meantime called it a "barbaric terrorist act" in a video statement released Saturday [03/23/2024]. He said the perpetrators "tried to hide and moved towards Ukraine, where, according to preliminary data, a window was prepared for them on the Ukrainian side to cross the border."
The 4 gunmen are in custody along with a dozen others. The 4 were detained near the Ukrainian border.

Given Putin's election win and the changing dynamics on the ground: Is this a signal from Russia that it is escalating its war against Ukraine or is it just Bravado?

Recently there was a story about a homeowner that was jailed for trying to evict a squatter themselves by changing locks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/news/nyc-homeowner-arrested-after-heated-disagreement-with-squatters-claiming-tenant-rights-in-1-million-home/amp/

A lot of people seem to be generally unhappy with how squatters are dealt with in the United States. I've even heard stories of people coming home from vacations and having squatters in their homes that they cannot get rid of and they end up temporarily homeless. I've also heard stories of people offering squatter removal services. One interesting story was a man in Nevada who you could pay to squat on top of squatters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2023/03/25/california-man-turns-the-tables-on-home-squatters/amp/

If the state is going to claim responsibility for squatters, should the state be expected to pay for the cost to the homeowners under just compensation?

Should squatters maintain the current set of squatters rights?

If we assume for this question that Trump loses, especially if Biden and democrats win with a certain degree of ease then will people look at the election as another condemnation of Trump specifically? To ask another way; do you think a future Trump loss would happen because independents, and center-right republicans simply can't fathom giving him another term whereas almost any other R candidate would sway more of those anti-Trump voters?

Marjorie Taylor Greene just filed a motion to oust speaker Mike Johnson.

Greene accused Johnson of betraying his promises to Republican lawmakers and criticized him for breaking a conference rule that gives lawmakers 72 hours to review legislation before voting. She said the 1.3 Trillion funding bill was a Democrat agenda, that Johnson was in the wrong for allowing it to go through.

Do you think the attempt to oust Mike Johnson will succeed? What do you think will happen next? Could Trump be behind this?

The current speaker said that there is a chance this may end in a Democrat speaker of the house. How true could this be?

Do you think this will impact Republican chances of winning any election, especially the house majority in the 2024 election?

In 2016, following the passing of Justice Scalia, Senate Majority Leader McConnell made it clear that he believed the nomination of Scalia's successor should be deferred to the next president. Despite this stance, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland. However, McConnell refused to schedule a hearing for Garland's nomination. Given the Republican Party's 54-46 majority in the Senate, why did McConnell choose not to swiftly schedule a vote and reject Garland's nomination?

Was McConnell's hesitation rooted in concerns that some Republican senators might break ranks and support Garland's confirmation? Or did he opt to delay the confirmation vote until after the 2016 presidential election to preempt the possibility of Hillary Clinton, who was likely to nominate a more liberal candidate than Garland, assuming the presidency?

Well elections are underway or scheduled in many nations for 2024 and almost 4 billion people would participate in these elections. Considering the many factors which may result in the shift of power to a different side of the political compass it's almost guaranteed that there would be some change in the nation's international polices which might result in a change for geopolitics.

Here are a few nations with elections scheduled for 2024 -

India Usa Uk Eu Mexico Pakistan Indonesia

With Lara Trump in place by her Father, rules have now been put in place to allow Trump to funnel donations directly to him for paying his legal fees. Beyond the possible illegality of this, supporters on r/Conservative are responding overwhelmingly negatively, to the point of being unlike a response to nearly any other Trump action in the past. Will this be the action by Trump that pushes his core supporters finally over the edge?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/21/trump-joint-fundraising-committee-rnc/

https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1bkigng/under_a_new_agreement_donations_to_the_rnc_will/

It is clear that for our two most recent presidents, Trump and Biden, their legacies are still under development. I’ve heard from some people that we need more time to assess Obama’s legacy, but some people say it’s already settled. I’m sure that our greatest presidents like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Eisenhower, their legacies are already settled. How long of a time do you think should pass in order to properly assess a president’s legacy and give a fair assessment of their presidency without recency bias? What about modern presidents like Carter, Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton? I look forward to your answers.

We all know that it takes time for a president’s legacy to develop. Since both presidents are currently their party’s nominees, their legacies are still developing and could change depending on who wins the 2024 election. It will be interesting to see how our two most recent presidents be viewed in the years and decades to come. These presidents are very polarizing with people having a negative opinion on both, a positive opinion on one of them, but never a positive opinion on both of them. One thing that will be considered is whether the pros of their presidencies will outweigh the cons and vice versa. What do you think?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

But wouldn't Section 1 of the 14th Amendment supersede Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I moved to the US in 2000, married an American woman in 2001, fathered two daughters in 2002 and 2004, and became a naturalized citizen in 2009. I took the oath of citizenship:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Why do we consider people who freely chose to up end their lives to become US citizens to be less loyal than someone who never made the conscious choice to become a citizen and only is a citizen by accident of birth?

Not necessarily in any particular direction, but at least with a stronger consensus on what direction that should be and with the legislation and court judgments fixed to about where they can stably remain. Doesn't matter for the purposes of the question premise if firearms become more or less restricted.

I am also assuming that this service extends to women due to the 14th amendment and other general liberalization of that. Let's also assume that Vietnam didn't make the draft lose popular support even if the use of it is restricted like not sending anyone in there other than by choice abroad like to Iraq both times in 1991 and 2003.

Edit: I should probably clarify what I meant by this kind of military service. In general, when people turn about 18 or so, they would serve a period of time, perhaps 6-12 months, in the military, and then leave for civilian activity, and then periodically, maybe every 4 years, come back for a couple of weeks for refresher training. You are not to be deployed overseas unless you ask to do so (perhaps countries with mutual defense alliances like Japan and NATO would be exempt), likely for more pay and benefits, perhaps on a mission to join peacekeeping coalitions on UN Security Council authorized projects. This is a model much like Finland has. Civilian service for objectors to war is permissible, perhaps planting a bunch of trees somewhere.

​

It was created and is endorsed by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest bloc of House Republicans that includes over 170 members including House Speaker Mike Johnson and his entire leadership team.

The Life at Conception Act is particularly notable because a state version of 'Life at Conception' is what led to the Alabama Supreme Court banning IVF a few weeks ago. Some analysts believe the Florida Supreme Court could try something similar soon. So it looks like Republicans could be using some of these states to sort of test run the perfect language they could then apply to a national ban.

Another interesting point is that Republicans are filing all these things under a 'budget' proposal. This could be because budgetary items can bypass the Senate Filibuster (the minority party veto that the GOP enjoy using when out of power). Special exemptions past it apply to budgets, so all they'd need to do is clear it with the Senate Parliamentarian and they could jam it home with 1-seat majorities in the House and Senate + Trump to sign. And if the parliamentarian says no, they can just fire and replace her with anyone they want. Republicans have a history of doing just this, most recently in 2001.

Link to article going in-depth on the major elements of the plan:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-budget-raise-age-retirement-social-security-medicare-rcna144341

And here's a link to the full plan:

• https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_budget_including_letter_web_version.pdf

What impact do you think these policies would have on the United States? And what impact could it have on the rest of the world to see America enacting such solutions?

It’s surprising to note the range of opinions about him. It’s common to hear varied views, from a lukewarm “he’s okay” to worse criticisms about his age and ability. His record, particularly given the circumstances he’s faced, seems to contradict these views. While there were other potential candidates in 2020, his performance has been noteworthy imo. His age is a factor to consider for future terms, but let’s focus on his achievements during his current term:

• The American Rescue Plan has had significant impacts. It has made insurance more affordable for many families, allocated funds for affordable housing, public safety, and crime reduction. It has supported small businesses, expanded food and child care programs, invested in mental health centers, and provided assistance to families with children. It has also set aside $40 billion for American workers. Thanks to this plan, child poverty is now half of what it was. These areas have seen increased funding after years of underinvestment.

• A $1 trillion infrastructure bill was passed to repair roads, waterways, bridges, and railroads, and to bring high-speed internet to rural areas. It includes funds for public transit and airports, electric vehicles and low emission public transportation, power infrastructure, and clean water. This aims to revamp the US infrastructure, a move not seen since the days of LBJ and FDR.

• The Inflation Reduction Act.

• Employment is at an all-time high. 2021 and 2022 saw the strongest years of job growth in history. Nearly 11 million jobs have been created since he took office – including 750,000 manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate is at a 50-year low. The American economy is performing surprisingly well compared to other major economies, showing a strong rebound from the pandemic. A record number of small businesses have started since he took office. However, inflation remains a concern.

• In terms of foreign policy: 1. He withdrew from Afghanistan. The execution had its challenges and the aftermath was complex, but many argue that the outcome was likely inevitable. This was a step that previous administrations had promised but never implemented. 2. He navigated a complex geopolitical conflict against a nuclear power that threatened the global order. This was the first time since World War II that a European state annexed the territory of another. At a time when allies were questioning their relationship with the US and when American influence seemed to be decreasing (France, Saudi, India, China, etc.), he managed to strengthen these alliances and coordinate a swift response against Russia, while providing support to Ukraine.

• His ability to pass legislation is notable and is likely due to his extensive experience and the respect he commands from both sides of the aisle. This respect is built on decades of bipartisanship and close relationships.

• Additional achievements include: climate change legislation, antitrust measures, the chips act, gun legislation, student debt relief, pardoning certain federal offenses, a diverse administration, increased health insurance coverage, and support for unions."

Given these achievements, why are his ratings so low? I had made a more "opinionated" post on r/thedaily but I cut down much of that to ask here.

The biggest legislature in the world is the Chinese National People's Congress, which has just under 3000 members, but it is not like that is usually listed among the bodies rated as excellent at promoting democracy.

Still, how big could they get?

Presumably the size of the country is big enough to make it actually a good idea to have that many people in the first place. A country of trillions of dollars of gross domestic product can certainly pay for all that if they wish.

The biggest democratic legislature was the European Parliament until the British left, at 751 MEPs. The EU had the additional difficulty of simultaneous translation which is annoying but is less important in most other places, at most just a couple other languages that might need simulcasting. A big hall to fit them all isn't too bad either. Electronic voting systems can mean that they get through counting votes very quickly. You can guarantee outcomes of critical events through things like a ranked ballot to coerce the election of a speaker if they drag their heels. You can have committees do a lot of of the work through things like a scheduling committee to decide what goes on the agenda. You can have the legislators vote on a ballot paper each day as to who gets to speak during the limited time for debate. And a standing committee can be used for quick action in the most dire of times like the initial days of the 2020 pandemic, natural disasters, and war.

​

IE in a legislature or local council or board or whatever, you divide up the place into districts each of which has approximately the same number of people (unless you really want to run afoul of Baker vs Carr or similar rules), and each one has one member of the legislative body or board or whatever to represent it.

In principle, they can be quite close to those constituents, especially if recall is used and some method is used to guarantee the winner has a majority in their own district at least with a means of preventing vote splitting like runoffs as in France or ranked ballots as in Australia. In a well designed legislature, it can also allow for quite local interests to remain relevant in case you need advocates for a particular location. And there are several ways to avoid gerrymandering, one way is to just algorithmically divide up the place using local borders with the most compactness or by an independent commission.

But this can be hard to square with multi party systems and proportional representation. There is a balance for those who want to have a more proportional system called mixed member proportional representation which Germany uses and versions of it are used in Thailand, Lesotho, Bolivia, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, London, and a few other places, and South Korea uses the drunk version of it. It can also have problems with parochialism and lack of focus on the bigger picture, especially if you don't direct elect the executive with a majority system to ensure a majority for whoever wins that vote.

Edit: Before this gets out of hand, please remember I expressly said that there are methods of proportional representation and ending gerrymandering if people want them. I suggest they read the description box.

Peter Navarro is now officially in prison, and is part of the small group of previous administration supporters including:

• Peter Navarro
• Paul Manafort
• Roger Stone
• Michael Flynn
• Steve Bannon
• Rudy Giuliani

All being floated as cabinet members in 2024, all convicted felons, with special emphasis on Paul Manafort, convicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States, colluding with Russia for 2016 election interference and lying to the FBI.

Nearly all of Trump's former Generals and high level officials, spokepersons, etc (with exception being his family members who served in his cabint) have claimed he's not mentally fit to serve as Commander in Chief. Will this overall fairly unique scenario in Presidential history, impact the election in the Fall?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/peter-navarro-jail-contempt-of-congress/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/05/kelly-mattis-mcmaster-trump-warning/

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/15/charted-trumps-web-of-indicted-allies

If campaigns didn’t have to think like “okay we need to focus on California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and other big states” would their campaign plans change? Would they pay attention to different states? Would they pay more attention to the states that they could certainly never win electorally, but focus on specific cities. Like a Democrat visiting parts of Kansas that are more blue despite Kansas being pretty deep red.

There is a lot of focus on the possibility of Trump winning the 2024 election, but what do you think will happen, and what will Trump do, if he loses the election? What actions will he take assuming that he disputes the election results?

Incorporating select individuals from the U.S. prison population into a military program could offer dual benefits: reducing prison overcrowding and addressing military recruitment challenges. A 'Prison ROTC' system would allow inmates to receive military training while serving their sentences. They would be essentially reservists. It could serve as a rehabilitative measure, providing discipline, skills, and a sense of purpose. Strict eligibility criteria, focusing on the nature of offenses and individual behavior, would be essential. If there are about 660K+ non-violent offenders in U.S. prisons, even half of them is a significant number in terms of manpower. This approach could offer a reintegration pathway, while also addressing recruitment shortfalls. And again, careful planning would be necessary. Thoughts?

context: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2024/03/14/double-haters-might-decide-the-2024-election-00147210

They might be the most important group in the 2024 election: Call them ‘the double haters.’

Double haters — voters who are unsatisfied with both Trump and Biden — make up roughly one-fifth of the electorate. Recent polls from the Marquette Law School, NYT-Siena College and Morning Consult all reported the same number: 19 percent. That’s a huge chunk in a race that’s likely to be tight. Demographically the group resembles the general electorate, although it leans slightly younger and more Hispanic; there are also an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

These double haters have been an important group for multiple election cycles — this year, with both candidates’ favorability ratings plummeting, the number of voters who dislike both major party candidates may surpass the previous high water mark in 2016.

Most importantly, double haters are a volatile group of people, willing to change their minds up until the last minute, pollsters say. In an era of staunch party loyalty, they are outliers who are capable of switching up their allegiance with every news cycle. Such volatility can present a golden opportunity — and also a real challenge.

and from the referenced Morning Consultant poll:

Like in 2020, More of 2024’s Double-Haters Really Dislike Trump

Voters with an unfavorable view of both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are 13 points more likely to view the latter very unfavorably

While the double-haters’ extreme antipathy has grown toward Biden — and decreased toward Trump — since 2020, more still have a very unfavorable view of Trump, which could aid the Biden campaign down the homestretch.

this is indeed a not-insignificant chunk of the electorate, and it also seems like a diverse bunch. the article has more context and data on this group. notably, they say it parallels the 2016 cycle.. i've pulled some snippets here, but i do suggest reading the article and polling to get a fuller picture.

i would like to ask y'all how do you think such voters will affect this-coming election, and how might they be swayed one way or another? do you think the current strategies of each major candidate is working w.r.t this group? if not, how would you message and do outreach to get them to vote for your candidate?

fwiw i am in this group. keen to hear y'alls thoughts, as i don't believe i've seen this topic discussed on this sub yet.