Edward Snowden has been in the new recently. The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting hearings to review the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence. In these hearings, there have been some intense exchanges regarding Edward Snowden.

Gabbard acknowledged that Snowden's actions were illegal, and she committed to preventing any such leaks in the future. However, she declined to call him a traitor after multiple Democratic senators demanded that she do so. Some Democratic senators seemed to feel that her sympathy for Snowden should disqualify her for the role.

In light of these hearings, it leads one to wonder, what are the Democratic views towards Edward Snowden and the mass surveillance program that he reviewed? Is there widespread agreement among Democrats that Snowden is a traitor? Does the Democratic Party broadly support the surveillance programs?

Edward Snowden says that he was inspired to leak the information after watching James Clapper deny the existence of these surveillance programs. How do Democrats feel about previous attempts to hide the existence of these programs?

The Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed to have strong negative feelings towards Snowden. Is this a bias of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Or, is this a feeling that Democrats hold generally?

What is the Democratic position on mass surveillance programs? Is this view consistent with their views in previous decades? Or, have the views of the party changed from what they were during the George W. Bush administration?

Athens is known for being a progenitor of democracy, but Athens did not elect most of its officials. The main ones who were would have been the strategoi, generals. Note that those who were voting were also its civil militia and they would have been soldiers too who knew what battle was like. The Boule had hundreds of members chosen by lot (having been elected in big batches, drawing some of those elected to the Boule) and this functioned as the governing senate of Athens. Juries of 201, 501, 1001, and 1501 people were also common, with the presiding magistrate also chosen by lot. They viewed elections as a risky way to govern a polity given that people could be bribed or intimidated to vote a certain way or otherwise to elect people who were risky people, but nobody could bribe the gods to choose one person over another in the drawing of lots, and an assembly of hundreds of people with time and ability to deliberate and seek information could make decisions likely to be representative of the whole people and not concerned over the short term political wish to be reelected or to otherwise climb in power.

In the modern era, we have juries, with jurors who are biased struck from the pool before the trial commences, but that isn't the only opportunity to use random chance. Some countries have turned to the idea of lottery to choose a large panel of people to deliberate on issues where it is seen that politicians might not be so good at, especially issues related to the rules of how politicians get put in office in the first place. In British Columbia, 19 years ago, a citizens assembly recommended a voting reform that was put to referendum and agreed to by 57% of voters, but the threshold had been set at 60% which was widely denounced as unconstitutional and illegitimate given that no such threshold was used to put the current system of voting into place and so why could it be legitimate to need 60% to change it?

Ireland used a citizens assembly to consider several issues, pertaining to whether snap elections can happen and if so how, how climate change reactions could occur, abortion laws, how pensions could be dealt with, and a few other things. They did divide over a few issues, but many votes actually had quite strong consensus. For months, they listened to people who presented their views, including experts, members of the public, affected people, members of the government, etc.

In principle, a citizens assembly could be given the power to compel information too from witnesses and to compel evidence too, or to demand a government official testify under oath on pain of perjury for lying or misleading them. Maybe they could do a budget analysis and plan and suggest that to the legislature or executive. They rarely have the power to make a binding decision of policy, but they may have their recommendation referred to a legislature or executive or the people for ratification. Maybe they could even be a third house of a legislature, even if it is more advisory or its decisions need approval by the people or the other houses to become policy or law.

Listening to the questioning is confusing because Holly keeps stating that the stances Ted is referencing were from Holly’s career as an advocate but would not state if those are her current personal opinions since she is now a judge.

I have two big questions. First, is it true that Holly cannot answer Ted’s questions since she is a judge and if yes then why is Ted not reprimanded for repeatedly asking questions Holly is not allowed to answer? They are paid by our tax dollars and it seems like they are just wasting time in political theater to rile up uninformed viewers like myself.

My second question is about Holly’s statements around her previous statements being those of a professional advocate. Are professional advocates required to tell the truth and is it supposed to be understood that an advocate is just acting as if they care about the subject matter they are advocating even if they don’t themselves believe in what they are saying? Are they paid to convince others of something they may not be convinced of themselves? Are there any legal protections for the statements or actions of an advocate where they can say in a court room that they lied or committed a crime before but it’s ok because they were acting as an advocate rather than being themselves?

Whether the idea of his impeachment scares, angers, elates or relieves you, would this be possible?

I do realize Congress would have to actually take the action. I know how unlikely that looks. It falls on them to take the action, no question, but if they did a thorough inquiry, is he putting himself at risk here?

There has been discussion about the constitutionality of several orders and I’m not actually trying to debate whether they’re constitutional, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened in the comments.

Would this be grounds for impeachment?

Edit: To those that said this is reason to just vote in two years: how about making our voices heard now? Getting petitions together, calling our reps? Did we just stop doing that? What if the other side is doing it?

Edit 2. I actually think blatant Constitutional violations obvious to everyone, piling up, could be the Republican red line, even for Trump-supporting citizens.

I’ve seen a few articles point to the fact that Baldwin gave a better answer than her opponent when asked about the farm bill. It makes sense that this helped her win, but was it the most important factor that led to her victory? Or were there other, equally important, things that helped?

“The Great Communicator” and “Slick Willy” were famously charismatic so I would hesitate to label either a greater authority on charisma. Both had political success and skill so it’s not like either had less of a grasp on campaigning?

What are your thoughts on one of trump's new executive orders? That being the order titled: Restoring America’s Fighting Force. Below is a brief summary I wrote so let me know if you dislike how I have written this summary.

What it does: Bans the armed forces and the nation’s service academies from promoting/agreeing with any of the following topics: race or sex stereotyping, race or sex scapegoating, that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist and gender ideology. Additionally it bans the promotion of divisive concepts as defined in Executive Order 13950 which includes: promoting one race or sex as superior to another, the USA is fundamentally racists/sexist, that you can be consciously or unconsciously discriminatory based upon your sex/race/etc, that a person should receive different treatment because of their race/sex, that someone should feel guilty because of their race/sex etc, meritocracy or traits such as hard work are racist/sexist or were created by one race to oppress another. The order also includes banning the promotion of:

“members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex”

And the bill disbands DEI offices within the armed forces and mandates color-blind & sex-blind hiring process.

Michigan Senator Gary Peters announced today that he won't be running for reelection in 2026, because he wants to do better things, like ride his Harley. Peters is 66 and led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the last two cycles, so his retirement was unexpected. Coming on the tail of a Trump victory in Michigan, this means we'll have yet another nominal battleground Senate race next year on top of Jon Ossoff's bid for reelection in Georgia. Peters was first elected in 2014 in a landslide, right in the middle of a massive Republican wave. He was reelected in 2020 by a little more than a point and a half, defeating now-Rep. John James, who was considered one of the best GOP recruits that cycle. Notably, this was half of Biden's 3-point margin in the state that year.

Democrats have a very deep bench in Michigan, and with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ruling out a bid, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson running for Governor, the field appears to be wide open. Some of the names floated for this seat include Reps. Haley Stevens and Hillary Scholten, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a recent Michigander who's "taking a serious look" at the race.

On the Republican side, the party is once again looking at Rep. James, although it's possible he may run for Governor or seek reelection to his House seat instead. State Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt has already announced his bid, and former GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon - who lost to Whitmer in a landslide in '22 - is also considering jumping in. Other names being floated include former Rep. Mike Rogers, who lost the race for the state's other Senate seat last year by less than half a point, and Tony Dungy, ex-head coach of the Buccaneers and Colts, a Michigan native.

Who's the strongest Democrat that could run for this seat, in your opinion? Do you think Trump's victory in November puts this seat in play, and if so, who would be the GOP's best recruit?

In the latest election Kamala Harris received over 90% of the vote while Trump received only 6.47% of the vote. I understand that it has a huge black population and it's has lot's of universities and all but I never understand why it's that progressive. Can someone explain why?

In California, conventional wisdom is that the present day post-Arnold California GOP is its own worst enemy. I've heard it said "they could win if they made like they were in Massachussetts, but instead they make like they're in Montana." Moderate northeastern style establishment Republican politics aren't what the California Republican base wants.

Then there's Florida. I've heard that the Democratic Party there could win more votes if they weren't so lackluster, underfunded, and incompetent. For example, they ran Charlie Crist against DeSantis in 2022, which wasn't the most inspiring or logical choice.

Which states could realistically be a bit more on the 'purplish' side if the minority party were to change its ways or get more money?

Starting later today, hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars earmarked for various programs throughout the country will be halted for review. Will Trump only turn the faucet back on for the programs that meet his approval? How is this even legal, since many of the grants have already been approved by congress?

Note that a ton of centrists generally glorify the political liberals who were politically resistant towards George W Bush’s administration, but look upon Anti-Trump liberal resistance with disdain.

This is the same with many Anti-Idpol leftists who argue that the Iraq War alone makes Bush worse than Trump, and also view his administration as pure evil while viewing both Trump and his political opposition with apathy.

If one sees the ascension of Reagan into power, we don’t see a general revile of Jimmy Carter for being too far left, but there is a general popular antipathy against Reagan for his victory and the policies he created.

How are we able to consistently view modern politics as some morally grey space,but refuse to see the voters for past politicians that are seen unfavorably today as people with legitimate concerns and goals?

Always fascinated about Communism as a theory and practice. need to know in about its core principles, and their practical outcomes. Also need more juice on socialist and capitalist approaches and which is best for the society?

While socialism is clearly stronger in Canada than in the United States, Canada never saw a socialist party become one of the 2 major parties. Yes it has the New Democratic Party but it’s in third place. What prevented a socialist party from being the major party in Canada?

With everything happening in the U.S.—increased polarization, threats to democracy, and concerning political trends—what practical steps can we take as individuals or communities to push back against authoritarianism and create positive change? I want to understand how we can work together to prevent history from repeating itself. What are your thoughts or ideas?

I’ve noticed online and in real life that Elon solidifying himself as a Nazi has caused issues among right leaning communities. Half of the individuals won’t support him now and want him out of Trump’s politics and policies, while the other half seems happy to support him. His Nazi salute got the hive buzzing, but now with even more evidence of him having been and continuing to display Nazi sympathy, I’m wondering what direction the party will go? Is there worry that the Conservative Party being pro-Nazi will derail the party? The left wants nothing to do with him and it seems the right is willing to tolerate him at the least. I’m curious how moving forward will look with Elon continuing in this direction.

Given the new American Regime's recent moves to remove troops from Europe, reduce funding to NATO, or exit altogether, cease support of Ukraine, more aggressive and subjugating relations with neighboring countries, and open state desire to gain territory belonging to friendly countries (Greenland), is it possible that there is space for an agreement between the USA, China, and Russia to tolerate expansions of these powers in their own local domains? The new regime in the USA seems to have a strong desire to tighten control of the broader Americas, Russia is actively engaged in a war of conquest over Ukraine, China wants Taiwan and expansion into southeast Asia. Is it possible we could see a period of expansion of these 3 superpowers and a consolidation of states over the next few decades?

Within the United States women have been pursuing higher education and careers centered around college education, how will this affect American culture/society in the future?

https://spartanshield.org/42176/feature/its-a-girls-world/

https://aibm.org/research/male-college-enrollment-and-completion/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/26/women-now-outnumber-men-in-the-u-s-college-educated-labor-force/

In your opinion how will this change society/culture, and what do you predict will result from this?

The United States is more divided than ever. And according to many sources, the United States is currently being ruled by someone who has great potential to turn the United States into a fascist regime.

With the separation of power, how likely is this to occur? Is Trump truly a fascist dictator in the making or is this fear mongering propaganda fueled by left-wing media?

Despite losing the election, Kamala Harris actually slightly improved upon Joe Biden's performance with white voters according to CNN's exit polls of those two years (R+17 in 2020 vs. R+15 in 2024). Compare that with Democrats' performance in 2016 and 2012 when they lost this group by 20 both years.*

This may not seem like a lot, but white voters are a majority of the electorate and disproportionately powerful in the electoral college, so even this small swing, if sustainable, could have very serious ramifications for future elections even if it wasn't enough to save Harris in 2024.

But is this sustainable? Or is it a peculiar product of the Trump era that will go away once he's no longer on the ballot?

It seems that it may be worth thinking about who these voters are. Are these well-off suburban whites who are socially progressive but economically more conservative ("Romney Republicans") who will "come home" to the GOP? Or is this a more long-term demographic change as more conservative older white voters are replaced by more progressive white voters from younger (but now becoming middle aged) generations?

Really one of the most interesting questions is why this shift only started showing up *after* 2016. That makes it seem like whatever is happening is more complex than just Trump himself being in the mix. What do you think is the explanation and what does it portend for the future?

*For the 2012 data, I'm relying on NYT's exit poll website, rather than CNN, but the data is part of a consortium that still included CNN at that time.

Speaker Tip O Niel is quoted as saying "All Politics Is Local.". While not true, the foundation of a strong democracy and trust in the system is often based on how well you can trust things at the more local level. How can the federal government be good if the states are governing uselessly?

By branches, I mean the traditional executive, legislative, and judicial powers, and if your state does not begin in N and end in Ebraska, how well the lower and upper houses in your state legislature are also balanced relative to the other two branches and each other.

Most have similar powers, or at least the same principal powers, though often done in different ways, like the power to override a veto with a supermajority in most states, the state senate confirms appointments by the governor, the governor or heads of departments and boards create regulations and executive rules subject to legislative consent or override, and the courts strike down unconstitutional laws and orders of the executive which violate the constitution or statutory law. The people however usually have some input into the judges selection and to decide on laws or the state constitution, to recall officials, and pardons are often done by the decision of an independent board and the judges in states without an election are rarely nominated by the governor without some input from an independent board.

I am hearing this is because of Trumps decision to roll back DEI programs for the federal government but I am wondering why?

Why are companies now rolling back DEI when they could have years ago? Or not implemented it at all? Is this due to changes in people’s opinion towards DEI

If you were to build a representation system in America from scratch how would you do it? How about just a union for the people? A way for the american people to concentrate and refine their voice so that they can better influence government?

I’m referring to the inter-war period where people started to doubt democracy and support grew for other forms of government with populist rhetoric by leaders/candidates encouraging intense nationalism be leaning into propaganda or disinformation like Stab-In-The Back myths that created a common “enemy” to blame and rally against.

There’s quite a few parallels between now and what happened roughly ~100 years ago in terms of what politicians are saying, promoting, doing in policy making as well as what ideologies and forms of government are reemerging despite historically being unsuccessful. There’s also less push for reform within the institutions, and instead pointing to different group(s) as the issue/problem and calls to burn down the institution to create something totally different. That belief in its current form is even being promoted from both “accelerationists” labeled as domestic terrorists and elected politicians within the institutions.

I’d like to hear if you agree or disagree if the parallels are enough to suggest we’re experiencing the same shift in forms of government or heading that direction and why. And if you agree, what do you think caused it? Is there a definitive primary catalyst/event that created the current political environment? Are we shifting from democracy into something more authoritarian or a consolidation of power or different leadership that represents the opposite of the current form of government?

Basically, say that nothing dissuades him. He's made multiple declarations of intent, asked Denmark multiple times, and they say no. He offers more and more money, and they keep saying no. He places punishing sanctions, and they still don't buckle. So he says he needs to take military action because there is a credible threat that Russia/China/Iran/whatever are using Greenland to attack the United States, and even frames it as an act of self-defence.

As commander-in-chief, he orders the military to invade Greenland. Officially, he needs approval in the Senate, but there are creative ways around that. Even if most politicians (and even most Americans) do not wish the war to happen, what happens then? Will resolutions passed in the House, or anything else that happens politically or judicially be able to stop him?

In theory, there a myriad of political issues that both sides of the spectrum should either agree on, on be close enough in perspective that a solution that appeals to both sides can be reached. However both sides of the political spectrum are rather translucent as to what their core values are that cannot be compromised. Thus making it difficult to perceive the root of the political division that makes the political landscape so polarized. What are the main blockades, policies, or issues that prevent Americans from being on the same page at a core level, with disagreements arising in secondary or tertiary concerns? Is it international policy, economics, immigration, NATO, etc?

Partisanship—the strong allegiance to a specific political party or ideology—has been one of the biggest challenges to progress in modern America. By its nature, partisanship often creates an “us vs. them” mentality, where people view opposing ideas not as opportunities for dialogue but as threats to their own beliefs. This mindset hinders collaboration and creates division, making it difficult to address the complex issues our nation faces today.

For a country as diverse and multifaceted as the United States, is it realistic—or even beneficial—to align strictly with one side of the political spectrum? Can we find ways to value compromise and shared goals without abandoning our principles?

In leadership, for example, it’s possible to respect someone’s achievements or policies even if we don’t agree with their rhetoric or personal values. This perspective challenges the idea that political affiliation defines the entirety of someone’s worth as a leader. When we judge based solely on party lines, we may miss opportunities to learn from or work with individuals who could otherwise contribute to progress.

The question then becomes: how do we, as individuals and as a nation, move beyond rigid partisanship? What steps can we take to create a more open-minded and collaborative political environment?

Let’s discuss the impact of partisanship on America’s future and explore potential solutions for building unity in these divided times.

It's technically a "problem" that birth rates are below replacement level in almost any country that's at least semi-developed. I want to know why exactly birth rates are below replacement level, not necessarily argue whether or not it's a bad thing.

When I see people argue why the birth rates are so low they often bring up policies thst benefits people with prospects of becoming parents, however this seemingly doesn't actually affect the birth rates at all. An example I'll use are the Nordic countries (which have some of the strongest policies when it comes to aiding people in parenthood) that still have below replacement level birth rates.

What's the real reason birth rates are so low?

I’m asking because calling it an invasion is a political position some take. I didn’t see a rule saying I can’t state my position in the post, but I definitely want to invite answers from people with different perspectives for a thorough discussion.

It is easy to assume one’s own perspective is the obvious one, and it’s an emotional issue for many.

The follow-up would be, should armed intervention be used?

However, I really am more wanting to focus on the question in the title. What characteristics of an invasion does the current or past US southern border immigration have of an invasion? What characteristics does it lack?

Edit: I don’t think the idea that it’s an invasion is mainstream yet, but I think Trump’s serious about calling it that.

From the whitehouse.gov:

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order entitled Declassification of Records Concerning the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

No other President has tried to declassify these documents. Is there a downside?