Photograph via snooOG

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!

Chat on our Discord server

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.

Comment Rules

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.

Observe Reddiquette

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.

Submission Rules

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:


2,182,170 Subscribers


If Biden were to step down, and hand the presidency and ticket to Harris, how would the public react to her choosing a Republican VP and running mate? Who would her best options be?

There's been a lot of talk about Biden recusing himself from the race in light of his recent debate performance. In such discussions, a frequent stumbling block has been that for various practical reasons, it would be difficult to replace him with anyone other than the relatively unpopular Kamala Harris.

With that in mind, two ideas occur to me:

  1. Making Kamala not only the top of the ticket but also the sitting president would at least give her some small incumbency advantage. People would see that to sky at least didn't fall after four months of her tenure.

  2. A unity ticket could be an interesting way to blunt Kamala's unpopularity and counterbalance her progressive image.

Presumably it would have to be a moderate Republican who doesn't actively repel the majority of Democratic voters, while also being someone respected enough among Republicans to not be seen as a meaningless gesture.

How would the public react? Would you support this decision? Even if you wouldn't support it, which pick would you be most okay with and why?

Edit: If you're going to comment, please attempt to answer the question. Otherwise you're just adding noise.

19:29 UTC


Jason Chafetz on FoxNews said due to state laws, Biden wouldn't be able to get swapped out in most states. Is this accurate?

I was watching this clip: https://youtu.be/1BqXR-Xbz70?si=X3KRVkb1u8d_VNMF&t=88 and I was curious if he is factually correct?

Given the concern many have over Biden's performance and appearance during the last debate, and the rumored panic the Democratic party is in over their 2024 candidate, are they really in a spot where they are unable to actually get a new candidate on the ballot that would apply to all 50 states?

He notes that 7 days after a caucus, citing California as an example, you could die and your name would remain on the ballot. In many states, it would have to be proven you are unfit to run in order to get swapped out.

I don't care about Jason's politicial views or party affiliation, I want to know if he is factually correct with the statements he has made per how it works with the Democratic convention.

17:18 UTC


If numbers and statistics are so easy to skew to your favor or against your opponents, how can you realistically fact check during a debate like everyone wants?

Any “fact checking” done will heavily favor whatever bias the outlet has, so it’s almost pointless to offer any fact checking. Because then you get to a point where the fact checking needs to be fact checked.

Anyone familiar with numbers knows how easy they can be to make work in your favor if you want them to.

The only thing I could think of would be to hold the candidates responsible for fact checking eachother and knowing the information. This way it’s a natural back and forth of information, rather than allowing a biased media outlet to get the final word in through “fact checking”

17:59 UTC


How detrimental is this debate for Joe Biden 4 months before Election Day?

Joe Biden had a bad debate. Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, independent or don’t even consider yourself political, everyone with eyes and ears has witnessed the implosion of Biden during the first presidential debate.

Whats less clear is, what is the impact of this debate? We’re out four months before Election Day. Neither Biden nor Trump will get as big of a stage with as many eyeballs as this presidential debate. There could be a second presedential debate but that’s up in the air, unless both of them (more realistically Trump) agrees to it. Without that, everything either of them does will dwarf in comparison and only attract a smaller group of partisans.

How much of what happened during this first debate will stay in voter’s minds after four months? What lasting effect will this debate have?

It’s clearly in people’s minds right now but how clear will people remember months from now? Is this a trip up Biden could recover from and still have a competitive race, or should he resign and support a Democratic successor?

17:37 UTC


How does the Chevron ruling impact the Comstock Laws in particular? Does it make them more or less likely to be enforced?

The Comstock Laws are a series of “anti-obscenity” federal statutes on the books from the 1870s. They prevent the mailing of anything considered ‘obscene’ or ‘inciting’ and have a whole section against abortion that experts say could result in a nationwide ban on abortion pills or any materials used in a surgical abortion to be sent through the post office. The law was rendered an unenforceable zombie law in that respect when Roe v. Wade was enacted, but with Roe’s fall it is now back in play.

Yesterday I was privy to a discussion on it from a professor that stated the only reason the Comstock Laws are not being enforced today is because various relevant agency heads under President Biden have interpreted its verbiage to not directly impede abortion access, effectively not enforcing it. However, with the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron yesterday that has allowed federal courts to challenge any agency interpretation without giving said agency preference anymore, is a right wing federal judge now more likely to interpret Comstock as presently in effect based on a different reading of the law and issue a nationwide ban on abortion materials of any kind being distributed through the post office? It could be done now or after the election. If Trump wins, a friendly judge in say Texas could do so to circumvent his need to pass a nationwide abortion ban through a gridlocked Congress.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

17:33 UTC


On the issue of illegal immigration, Donald Trump's campaign website states: "He will again end catch-and-release, restore Remain in Mexico, and eliminate asylum fraud". Why do Democrats disagree with those policies?

The standard mantra around these parts is that Trump is a racist, sexist bigot, a fascist, a criminal (yes, he is a convicted felon), and a dictator in waiting. I went on Trump's campaign website to learn a little more about his actual policy stances. On the issue of illegal immigration, his website states (emphasis mine):

President Donald J. Trump created the most secure border in U.S. history. He ended catch-and-release, took down human traffickers, deported record numbers of illegal alien gang members, and built 450 miles of powerful new wall. Joe Biden turned our country into one giant sanctuary for dangerous criminal aliens when he suspended all immigration enforcement in the middle of a global pandemic and reversed landmark agreements that safely returned asylum-seekers to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The onslaught of illegal aliens invading our wide-open borders threatens public safety, drains the treasury, undermines U.S. workers, and burdens schools and hospitals. President Trump will shut down Biden’s border disaster. He will again end catch-and-release, restore Remain in Mexico, and eliminate asylum fraud. In cooperative states, President Trump will deputize the National Guard and local law enforcement to assist with rapidly removing illegal alien gang members and criminals. He will also deliver a merit-based immigration system that protects American labor and promotes American values.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_release_(immigration\)?useskin=vector) defines catch-and-release as:

In United States immigration enforcement, "catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing a migrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention. The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

And Remain in Mexico as:

Remain in Mexico (officially Migrant Protection Protocols) is a United States immigration policy originally implemented in January 2019 under the administration of President Donald Trump, affecting immigration across the border with Mexico. Administered by the Department of Homeland Security, it requires migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico until their US immigration court date.

The policy was initially ended by the Biden administration, and after some legal battles, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on June 30, 2022, in Biden v. Texas, that the administration had the authority to end the policy. In December 2022, however, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from ending the program. Remain in Mexico has been widely criticized by human rights organizations for exposing migrants to attacks while they awaited processing.

What is the Democrats' issues with these policies and why are we not hearing more about them?

01:53 UTC


Has the Democratic mainstream/establishment ever been this alarmed and panicked over the Democratic candidate before?

After one of the worst presidential debate performances in modern times, where even some who would still vote for Biden looked at bewilderment over Biden's performance, there seems to be an effort to get the DNC to reconsider its plans for its current presidential candidate. What's shocking is the amount of mainstream and establishment voices in Democratic circles pushing for Biden to reconsider his plans or to outright step down. When in the history of media, both publication and tv media, have all the major news outlets been releasing articles and stories that flat out call on one of the candidates to reconsider or to even drop out right this moment, like major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) are doing with Joe Biden? If this is the reaction from those within the establishment and mainstream Democratic circles, just imagine how average low-engagement voters, which make up the majority of voters on both sides and on independents, are reacting to the presidential debate. This moment seems to be quite unprecedented in American politics, and is especially concerning when the opposing candidate is Donald Trump. There were moments in the debate where Trump, even with a majority of his responses being full of it and outright lies at times, managed to appear like he was responding craftily to Biden and gaining the upper hand over responses Biden made, and only because Biden continued to have gaff over gaff and give Trump layups, to which Trump promptly responded to such missteps. There were plenty of moments, especially in the first half of the debate, where Biden outright misspoke on what he meant to say, like the "beating Medicare" remarks, or Trump managed to get a one-liner out that didn't seem like an obvious lie, like the "I didn't understand what he said" remark. Biden's debate performance was widely criticized across the isle, and even Kamala had to admit it was a "slow start." What can democrats do in the face of the inevitable drop in the polls and renewed calls for Biden to step down that this moment will bring, as this response seems to be the majority opinion of most Americans, *including the Democratic mainstream and establishment themselves*?

04:22 UTC


What Happens to the Cult of Trump if he suddenly dies of Old Age / Bad Health?

Like both Candidates as we saw were geriatric old men who both should be disqualified on that alone.

However in the case of Trump there’s such a cult like following of people who otherwise gave no shits about politics previously.

If Trump were to kick the bucket would these people dissipate? Would they move to a more average lukewarm candidate that was less mean?

Genuinely curious what this would do to the MAGA movement.

17:06 UTC


Any possibility that Biden's poor debate performance results in more support for him?

Along the logic of gun sales go up when there's a mass shooting (for fear of impending gun legislation) or even a former president getting convicted of a felony taking in record financial contributions, is it possible that due to Biden's reported poor performance at last night's debate, anti-Trump voters become afraid that Trump may gain an edge and thus throw increased support behind Biden?

13:00 UTC


Do you think Biden will win the popular vote after the debate?

I think we can all agree that last night was Biden's worst case scenario, and some Democrats are reportedly taking about replacing him. It certainly won't help him in a close race.

Despite that, do you think Biden will win the popular vote (despite possibly losing electorally)?

13:23 UTC


What were the biggest impacts of Donald Trump entering politics, and how far will these effects go into the future?

Obviously, since entering politics, Donald Trump has completely changed US politics. We can see it in the rise of populism as well as the rise of once fringe political ideologies and figures such as Alex jokes or Nick Fuentes, but what other effects has Donald Trump had, and how far will these changes continue to affect politics in the United States?

21:12 UTC


How much influence does debates really have nowadays?

In the trump era of US politics, polls have become extremely unreliable in determining election outcomes. This could be because he is a polarizing figure. After this terrible debate, do you think many people will switch their vote to him after Biden's performance? Or do people already have there minds made up?

Do debates really swing peoples opinions anymore?

09:12 UTC


How do you think US gun culture will change in future political climates?

Gun Culture in the US has been viewed as an inherently right-wing subject for a while originating in the 90s with non-racial gun control measures. However, gun culture in recent years has shown itself as potentially surviving outside of the right circle like with more progressive sectors adopting them for their own interests and self defense.

This has been noted in LGBT circles https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/02/29/lgbtq-gun-owners-are-breaching-the-right-wing-arms-bubble/

And Minorities https://www.axios.com/2022/04/23/guns-firearms-people-of-color

Is it possible the US gun culture will outlast its current right wing ties? If so, do you have any theories on what this could look like in future political eras?

01:43 UTC


Supreme Court allows cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside

“ The Supreme Court decided on Friday that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

The case is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.”

However, this begs the question where would these home-seekers go? Will they be jailed? Will they be sent to detention centers? Will the cities ensure shelters for the’. Do you believe this will help curb homelessness?

14:36 UTC


How do you propose we improve the presidential debate arrangement s?

To be very very clear, I'm asking about how the debate is run. Please refrain from turning this into yet another discussion of the two 2024 candidates.

What changes to the format worked?

What problems need to be fixed and how?

What further changes and tweaks could be made to have more productive, informative, and fair debates?

Who should host them and who shouldn't?

What should the moderators be doing to moderate?

What rules or guidelines should be in place?

How long should they be?

There are numerous factors to consider.

15:17 UTC


What do you think the actual impacts of the end of Chevron deference will be?

As you may have heard, today the Supreme Court handed down a 6-2 (with Justice Jackson having recused herself due to prior involvement) decision along the usual lines that essentially overturns the 40-year old Chevron deference principle.

The particular case involved a fishery that was being mandated to pay the cost of federal observers on boats, a decision made by the National Marine Fisheries Service to deal with budgetary constraints.

The Chevron deference principle, as I understand it, allows federal agencies some leeway in how they create and apply rules, where congress has provided no guidance or ambiguous guidance. Even with the Chevron principles, if the law is clear, agencies cannot overrule it. It only matters when there is a gap in congressional directive. The name comes from a case in 1984 where the court at the time established the rules for interpreting agency scope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

Proponents of the Chevron deference principle claim that it allows agencies to function smoothly and use their expertise -- that neither congress nor the courts is likely to have -- to do their jobs effectively. They believe that the end of Chevron will significantly limit the federal government's ability to do its job as a regulator, threatening all sorts of things, like consumer safety.

Critics say that it gives agencies broad power that is neither constitutional, nor provided by congress. This overreach cannot be checked by the courts and thus emboldens federal agencies to do things that may be beyond the intent of congress and thus of the electorate at large.

Here is the SCOTUS blog summary of the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

I would like to see what people think we can expect after today's ruling. Are the pro-Chevron concerns overblown? Or is this a massive change that might usher in a new era of federal government ineffectiveness? What can congress or the president do at this point to resolve the issue? How might this effect the 2024 election?

19:41 UTC


What are some examples of specific states that have experienced democratic backsliding in recent years?

For example, I know Wisconsin had severe gerrymandering up until this year. It has completely swayed people voted into office in the state of Wisconsin in support of the republican party, even though the state is very close to being 50/50 democratic and republican. Not entirely sure if it’s completely fixed now, but just naming that one. Any other examples?

20:22 UTC


From the debate last night, what do you think was truly "the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country"?

Was it really the Afghanistan situation? For reference, this question is asking about post-1900 (modern) American history, since the sentiment towards patriotism/embarrassment have shifted in the recent years.

19:12 UTC


How does last night’s presidential debate change the odds for RFK?

If you’re a Biden supporter, does this change the calculus for you? Or is one bad debate inconsequential to your views on Biden and a second Biden term?

If you’re a Trump voter, how did his debate last night change your views on Trump? Or was Trump last night what you thought and expected?

Is this a net plus for RFK following last night’s debate? And if it is, is it a large enough increase in his support to possibly win the nomination? Or will he always be a spoiler for either Trump or Biden?

13:15 UTC


In 2019, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen admitted to paying a technology company to weigh polling in Trump's favor in online polls. Why isn't this being discussed more, and is this a concern or accounted for in current polling methodologies?

From PBS


Technology company owner John Gauger told The Wall Street Journal that Cohen promised him $50,000 for work including using computers to enter fake votes for Trump in a 2014 CNBC poll asking people to identify top business leaders and a 2015 poll of potential presidential candidates. Gauger says Cohen paid him about a quarter of the money in cash, then stiffed him on the rest.The Trump Organization later paid a $50,000 reimbursement to Cohen. It didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

From CNN


WashingtonCNN — 

President Donald Trump’s former “fixer” Michael Cohen said Thursday that he paid the head of a small technology company thousands in 2015 to rig online polls at “the direction of and for the sole benefit of” Trump.

Cohen was responding to a report in The Wall Street Journal that he paid John Gauger, the owner of RedFinch Solutions LLC, between $12,000 and $13,000 for activities related to Trump’s campaign, including “trying unsuccessfully to manipulate two online polls in Mr. Trump’s favor” and creating a Twitter account called “@WomenForCohen” that “praised (Cohen’s) looks and character, and promoted his appearances and statements boosting” Trump’s candidacy.

From Politico;


Jeff McConney testified that the Trump Organization’s reimbursements to Michael Cohen included $50,000 for “RedFinch” IT services.

That testimony appears to be a reference to a payment Cohen reportedly paid to a firm that help rig pre-election online polls in Trump’s favor.

That detail may be significant as prosecutors seek to convince the jury that Trump’s hush money payments were meant to influence the 2016 election — and therefore ran afoul of campaign finance laws. It shows that the polling payment — intended to influence public perception of Trump ahead of the election — was lumped together with the hush money reimbursement.

I recently learned about this happening, and I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more in the context of polling methodology, even just to acknowledge and account for it to reassure that such poll weighing has been corrected for since. Honestly, I didn't even know it was possible.

Is this sort of 'poll rigging' (by either party/candidate/actor/surrogate, to be fair and impartial as I can) a scenario that polling has acknowledged and corrected for since, and why isn't it being discussed more as a possible factor for polling irregularities (real or percieved) in general?

20:34 UTC


What would it take for you to vote opposite direction currently?

After reading so many comments and articles, I see so many people shouting something along the lines:

“I don’t like my candidate, but I’d rather vote for him than live in a world where the other is president”

If this is you and your POV, what would the other guy need to say or do to currently to win you over?

(Not looking for comic relief or satire comments here)

05:19 UTC


If Biden were to drop out after tonight’s debate, which political duo would have the best chance of beating Trump in November

By most pollster accounts, the US presidential election was a toss-up going into tonight’s debate. In the immediate aftermath it seems widely accepted that Biden underperformed.

If you’ll indulge this hypothetical where Biden drops out, what is the ticket that gives Democrats the best chance at winning, and why?

04:06 UTC


Is Alternative Media like Dr. Phil Becoming a Bigger Political Stage for Candidates Than CNN?

Hello all!

The WIRED politics team here and we wanted to start a discussion on the how alternative medias, like Dr. Phil, may becoming mainstream ahead of this 2024 US Election. In a recent piece by our writer Makena Kelly, data showed how more people are turning into Dr. Phil than CNN ahead of tonight's Biden-Trump debate.

In the last election cycle, CNN hit record viewership during prime time, with nearly 2 million viewers on average in 2020; that number sank to nearly 500,000 this week. Compare that with Trump’s recent appearance on Impaulsive, a podcast hosted by influencer turned professional wrestler Logan Paul: On YouTube, that conversation has received nearly 5 million views, and Trump’s video announcing that interview has over 120 million views on TikTok. Earlier this month, Trump sat for an interview with Dr. Phil that reached more than 5 million viewers on X. (Those are X’s numbers, though, so take them with a grain of salt.)

The most-watched presidential debate in history was between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Around that time, 76 percent of Americans watched television via cable or satellite. When Biden and Trump faced off for the last time in 2020, that debate reached around 63 million viewers, according to Nielsen, and the total number of cable and satellite viewers in the US had dropped 56 percent, according to a Pew Research Center study. I’d bet it hasn’t risen since then.

What do you think? If you want to read more, we have the story here: https://www.wired.com/story/dr-phil-cnn-presidential-debates/

13:15 UTC


After the whole debacle that was the 1st 2024 Presidential Debate and now that Democrats are starting to become alarmed that they would lose, do you think that Biden will step down and decide not to run for re-election to make way for a new face, if he is advised to do so?

Thing is, Biden is not as stubborn or as power hungry as Trump is, so if he is told that it would be best for him to not run anymore, he will listen, because he does take constructive feedback seriously.

03:31 UTC


US Debate aftermath: Trump dodges, Biden struggles

The first Presidential debate of the 2024 campaign has concluded. Trump evaded answers on many questions, but Biden did not show the energy he had at the State of the Union

While Biden apparently has a cold, will that matter, or will his debate performance reinforce age concerns?

03:04 UTC


Perceptions of the ages of politicians. When is too old too old?

I've heard the narrative that "Biden is too old" throughout this electoral cycle, but Trump seems to escape the same standard. Yet, both candidates are relatively old in terms of human lifespan. Here's my math:

  • Joe Biden, born November 20, 1942. Age: 29,805 days (Nov. 20, 1942 - Jun. 27, 2024)
  • Donald Trump, born June 14, 1946. Age: 28,503 days (Jun. 14, 1946 – Jun. 27, 2024)
  • Age difference in days: 29,805 - 28,503 = 1,302
  • Trump's percentage of Biden's age: 28,503 / 29,805 = 0.95632 or 95.6%
  • Percent of difference in age: 1 - 0.95632 = . 04368 or 4.37%

The difference between the two men is less than four and a half percent.

I'd like to hear opinions, particularly those of Trump supporters, about what constitutes "too old" and why.

What is your personal cutoff? Is it at 29,000 days? If Trump wins, he will actually be older than Biden is now during his presidency. So at what point in Trump's second term would you deem him too old, assuming you adhere to the same standard? If you won't do so, why not?

Dick Van Dyke recently said he's old enough to be Biden's father, and he still hasn't lost his marbles: Dick Van Dyke on Ageist Biden Knocks. Are other factors worthy of consideration besides age, like evidence of capability, health transparency, and so on? Basically, is this all just political angling and spin? If people consider it mathematically, aren't all men born in the 1940's roughly the same "oldness"?**

EDIT: fixed a typo and... WELL... the debate is over and my take is that Biden clearly struggled and failed. It was painful to watch. Clearly he's got some age-related or other issues. That said, all I can say is Dick Van Dyke. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this.

00:44 UTC


1st US Presidential Debate

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump square off in the first presidential debate tonight.


Use this thread for all discussions of the debate.

01:02 UTC


Does NATO have much incentive to stick together if the US cuts off support the way that Trump keeps insinuating?

I've been thinking about the long-term strategy of NATO and Russia with regards to Ukraine. If Trump wins (god forbid), he's made it very clear that he'd basically force Ukraine to settle, and has openly stated he would pull support for our NATO allies. This makes me wonder just how much unity there'd be amongst the EU, without the US putting pressure on everyone to work together.

Even with some diplomatic pressure over decades, our EU allies in NATO have only recently started working towards hitting their 2% defense spending requirement. Despite that there is still a huge amount of disagreement over the level of commitment to protecting Ukraine. Poland has done the most to increase its defense spending, is possibly reinstating conscription, and is all but ready to mobilize on a moments notice. Similar seriousness is being given to the war amongst the Baltic countries.

However, in Western Europe, there is internal dissent w/i the parliament of the respective nations, as well as between various nations. People like Boris Pistorius in Germany are ready to start conscription if needed and recognized the importance of jacking up defense spending, while there seems to be a lot of flip-flopping from France. Macron is basically ready to send troops if needed, but other French politicians are quite opposed, and there is far more dissent internally.

TL;DR At the end of the day, is there enough of a unified European identity, that the EU would unite strongly enough to fight Russia if Putin were to attack a NATO member? Would a French person be willing to sacrifice their life to protect a Latvian person? Would someone in Spain be willing to go to war to fight for Estonia?

03:15 UTC


How seriously should we be taking the 538 Model? Is Trump actually favored to win?

So, this is an interesting article.

I'm pretty sure most of us have been operating under the assumption that the Presidential election is a toss-up, and both Biden and Trump have equal chances of winning at this point. But here, Nate Silver makes what I believe is a rather convincing case that Trump is actually the one the model currently favors, for a number of key reasons.

  • For Biden to win without the states of Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona-- all three of which Trump leads in, he would need to take all three of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where his lead over Trump is razor-thin and certainly not secure
  • For the above scenario to work, Biden would also need to take New Hampshire and Minnesota, neither of which are guaranteed Democratic strongholds the way they were eight or even four years ago.
  • If both of the above scenarios fail, Biden would need to win in the Sun Belt, where he is consistently trailing behind Trump far more than he did in 2020, to the extent that a polling error cannot account for it.

In short, Biden has no "backup plan" if the Rust Belt states go for Trump, and that's a dangerous position for him to be in. Trump has more options.

17:54 UTC


True democracy or false democracy (republics)

It's late and I'm a little loose on the subject, but voting for a councillor (or senator) is surely a republic not a democracy right?

it's just a late night thought but, a democracy is where almost all citizens of a nation decides on a law to pass (you might have to vote at a local polling booth for your vote kind of thing for every law (i know this would be very time consuming.)) , but a republic, is when citizens vote on a representative to voice your concerns and push a specific group of agendas and laws? But isn't that what the "western" countries do?

I'm just confused on the whole democracy to republic thing if; for example in the UK has to vote an elective person to voice their opinions and potential new laws? surely this means they would be a republic and not democratic? as they never "really" stick to any manifesto's they release.

And if I am partially right does that mean that all countries that have "Democracy" aren't "TRUE" democracies?

Could someone with a clearer mind and attitude, clear this up for me please? I'm a little confused is all.

Thanks :)

00:56 UTC

Back To Top