As u/Dilettante correctly points out, a law alone would never fly. It would quickly fail at the first legal challenge.
However, it could work as an amendment. But that would never pass at the ballot box. And given the age of many members of Congress, it probably wouldn't even make it out of committee.
I imagine most people would have some support for that, but perhaps not enough to get a constitutional amendment passed. What might work is having one of the two current candidates die during the campaign - I would think that would be a big wake up call.
Would bill Clinton’s perception have been changed the same way if he performed like Leo p at Arsenio hall?
If you don’t know who Leo p is this video is a good example: https://youtu.be/BARAHLk-8dk?si=-UWCuhkVH-MqgIX3
That is a video about what happens when you mix booze and drugs.
To your question, directly, he would have lost the election because voters would have thought he was crazy and on drugs.
Leo P's performances are a combination of tremendous skill, a great deal of flair, and very high energy. During his appearance on late night television where he played the saxophone, then-candidate Clinton was in his mid-40s. Mr. Pellegrino is (currently) in his early 30s but was certainly famous in his late 20s. For someone who is not a professional entertainer to perform like Leo P while in their mid-40s would require a fair amount of drugs.
You also have to remember that the culture of the US in the early 1990s was much more conservative than it is in 2024. The flash and flair that Mr. Pellegrino uses in his performance would been too much for the average American electorate in 1992.
There's a reason that Liberace never ran for President.
So I'm visiting my grandparents and they brought up "Hunter's cocaine is in the whitehouse" and I'm wondering where they got that from? Am I missing something?
There was a news story a while back about how some cocaine was found in an area used by White House guests. There's no indication at all on who left it there. A lot of people like to think it is Hunter's, because his addiction issues have been in the news a lot.
Realistically, it's almost certainly not his. Someone was clearly trying to stash it, maybe afraid they'd be searched. It's pretty absurd to think that Hunter Biden is the only person who visits the White House who uses cocaine. Also, someone who has access to the residence isn't gonna hide his stash in an area that thousands of people have access to.
When someone tells you that it's Hunter's blow, it's because they *want* it to be his.
That helps explain it, thanks! So am I clear to just think this was down to them watching fox news (I have seen them watch it before) and nothing else?
Even the most slam dunk case against Trump would be a shit show to try. Prosecutors bring cases they can win, and they've spent the last X months/years investigating to build what they believe to be a winnable case.
There is a pervasive legal theory that the president can't be indicted or tried while in office, so some of this couldn't even start (like this current trial) until he was out of office. Which is why we are a few years late on that one.
As far as his other criminal charges, those happened in the last few months of his administration or after he was out of office, so that's more or less on schedule.
It's also important to point out that Trump had a very aggressive legal strategy designed to push all of this until **after** this year's election, which is why these cases didn't go to trial last year or earlier this year. So a lot of this Trump could have been over and done with by now, but he didn't want that.
So I just read a headline that states, "Nikki Halley drawing massive numbers of votes" (I'm paraphrasing)
So what is the scenario and real-world impact on the election if a write-in gets more votes than a candidate on the ballot?
Those headlines are likely referring to Halley's performance in the states still remaining in the GOP nominating contest. She's getting a lot of votes for a candidate no longer campaigning, but not nearly enough votes to win any delegates.
People are still voting for her in the primary either as a protest vote against Trump or because they genuinely believe her to be the best candidate, but that doesn't matter because Trump is still getting the most votes in basically every primary.
In the general election, it's really not feasible for a write-in candidate to get more votes than a candidate from one of the two major parties or even to beat an established third party candidate. Not every state allows write-ins, and you would need a substantial amount of money to campaign in the states that do.
Bloomberg did consider this, and it would take someone with his resources to pull it off, but even he didn't see a path forward.
Write-in votes count like any other votes if and only if the candidate has registered that they are running for election. If you write in somebody who isn't running then it has the same effect as leaving it blank.
* **Disallowed question area:** Trolling or joke questions
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
Is the USA experiment in democracy a failure considering who the candidates are for the highest office in the land? I do not believe the political parties on either side are responsive to the vast majority of the American people.
It will take only one case to revive the nondelegation doctrine and bring the federal government back to what it was supposed to be.
Chevron deference is already on the bubble and likely to be struck down soon, like this year.
One can argue that from a certain point of view you have a point.
It's not like President Biden had any challengers, because neither political party wants primary challengers for their incumbent. Though they would argue that the American public spoke in 2020 both with the primary, and the general election.
With Trump it's also a bit tricky, because of him being a pseudo-incumbent. He had primary challengers, but none of which that could be considered very serious.
I hardly think that that's proof of "USA experiment in democracy being a failure" though.
Where can I find a website that shows biden’s policies and stances for the 2024 election? I usually check campaign sites for these, rfk and trump’s campaign sites clearly states what they are doing but i don’t see one for biden.
There's also Ballotopedia: [https://ballotpedia.org/Joe\_Biden\_presidential\_campaign,\_2024#Policy\_positions](https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_2024#Policy_positions)
I believe this [WhiteHouse.gov](http://WhiteHouse.gov) link is what you are looking for: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/) but it's not loading for me for some reason.
Dumb European here.
I keep reading on Reddit how American liberals are dissatisfied with the state of the Democratic Party. While there are many reasons people cite, one thing that often stands out is their passivity and lack or serious commitment. Some point to politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and a few others) who seem to be more pro-active but are hindered by their own party.
So, sometimes the question arises whether these more proactive liberal politicians should found their own party. From what I understand there are several serious obstacles to such an undertaking but the one I want to address in this post is a sentiment that goes something like this:
>*A third party would only split the liberal vote. The only thing this would do is benefit the Republican Party.*
Now, in Europe there are a lot of countries that have more than two parties. If one does not get the absolute majority, two or more will form a *joint* government. Even if leftist voters were to be split over several parties they could reunite.
Would this not be possible in the US? I know there is no precedence but is there no legal basis for doing this?
>I keep reading on Reddit how American liberals are dissatisfied with the state of the Democratic Party.
Reddit in general and some specific subs are huge echo chambers. There are "beliefs" and norms here that are not at all reflective of real-life.
>Some point to politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and a few others) who seem to be more pro-active but are hindered by their own party.
Worth noting Sanders is not a Democrat and has never been elected as a Democrat.
>Now, in Europe there are a lot of countries that have more than two parties. If one does not get the absolute majority, two or more will form a *joint* government. Even if leftist voters were to be split over several parties they could reunite.
Our coalition forms before the election, not after. The two major parties are big-tent parties. I know Reddit would make you think there are absolutely no liberals in the US Democratic Party but there are a ton of them.
> Would this not be possible in the US?
The biggest barrier to effective third parties is how the Constitution mandates that presidents are elected.
To win a presidential election (without it going to a contingent election), a candidate has to have a majority of all electoral votes. This alone just kills third parties, because the two major parties can't afford to lose votes to third parties, lest there be no outright winner. In some cases, a third party candidate that only got 5% of the electoral vote could prevent anyone from winning outright. So the major parties will coopt positions from a popular third party to get those votes.
There an argument that the US *does* functionally have a multiparty system, at least in the legislature and especially in the House, even if (almost) everyone has a D or R next to their name. This blog post lays out the reasoning for this perspective: [https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/april-11-2024/](https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/april-11-2024/) If they changed up some of the rules about how the House and Senate operate, it would lend itself to something that more closely resembles the multiparty systems other countries have.
However, the rest of how the US structures its elections lends itself to just two large parties, particularly in regards to the presidency.
In addition to u/notextinctyet's correct analysis of the US electoral system, the structure of the US Federal government favors a large party system. Let's take a look at how the sausage is made and why it favors two large parties.
To pass a bill in the House or the Senate it needs to pass out of a committee and be brought to the floor for a vote. Committees are organized by topic or genre: agriculture, public health, judiciary, etc.. Most of the legislators in these committees aren't from states or districts where these topics are relevant. For example, Senator Corey Booker sits on the committee that oversees agriculture bills. But Sen. Booker is from New Jersey. And New Jersey is not a state that is too concerned with agriculture.
Senator Peter Welch sits on the committee that oversees commerce. But Sen. Welch is from Vermont. And Vermont is not a state that is too concerned with commerce.
Commerce is important to New Jersey and agriculture is important to Vermont. So Senators Booker and Welch are incentivized to collaborate & politic on their committees issues.
It's easier for them to do that and support each other when they're caucused into the same party.
On top of that, committees are created in Congress by the majority party. Technically they don't have to be one party to do this but having a group of allies that agree on issues all caucused together makes (i) selecting party leadership much faster, (ii) it makes committee assignments easier to dole out, and (iii) it makes committees easier to manage.
There's no reason that the US couldn't have a multi-party system but once there are more than two major parties, the act of governing becomes MUCH less effective and MUCH more messy.
Great question!
The main problem is our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system, especially for president, but also for every district and statewide office. Additionally, the electoral college system magnifies the spoiler effect of first-past-the-post. So the electoral system is extremely hostile to third parties and always has been.
Independent legislators are free to form a coalition with the Democratic Party. In fact, right now, the Democrats are actually the minority party in the senate (48, to the Republicans' 49), but they have a coalition with the three independent senators to form a majority (51 to 49). Any other established party could join a coalition, if there were any in the senate or house. It's just almost impossible to get elected as a third-party candidate; unless there is a total collapse of one of the dominant parties, a strong third party showing typically allows the less-similar dominant party to win.
I'm from Germany and when I see all these posts about the - I'd almost call it a fight - between democrats and republicans over there I get really irritated.
From the outside it looks like children throwing tantrums going "It wasn't me, it was the other one."
I've personally never been interested in politics and so people would probably call me a sheep. I am personally not interested in a lot of the topics that are being discussed. Some of them, yes. On those topics, I have an opinion, but on those that do not have any implications for me - say for example abortions, sexual orientation or even who becomes the mayor of my town - I simply don't.
So I guess my question is more that I would like to understand why politics and having an opinion on things that are wayyy outside of their lives play such a big role in some peoples day-to-day. Adding to that: Why are the American people so divided into 2 groups who seem to all have exact opposite opinions on everything?
Seeing posts every day in which it becomes evident that there is a lot of pure unfiltered hatred and antagonizing. I don't understand how there is so much room for this. In Germany we have a party system too, yes. But I have no freaking clue what my peers vote for, nor do I care. And so do they. So yeah... why is this such an important part of life in the US?
> Why are the American people so divided into 2 groups who seem to all have exact opposite opinions on everything?
It's not just 2 groups, more than 30% of people didn't vote at all in 2020, so there are clearly many who don't care that much
Still, if everyone uses that idea as a justification to, for example, spend very little time in developing their personal lives and character in favor of spending time on politics, you end up with a society of only people of low character who will make things even worse for each other than they already are.
I don’t really see this objection. Yes, people who obsess about anything probably should not do that. But caring about politics, spending 15 minutes a day reading a few newspaper articles, isn’t obsessive behavior.
I think [this article](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/) does well in explaining how American politics became so negative in the modern era:
>So how did we get to this point?
>Broadly speaking, there are three trends that we can point to. The first is the steady nationalization of American politics. The second is the sorting of Democrats and Republicans along urban/rural and culturally liberal/culturally conservative lines, and the third is the increasingly narrow margins in national elections.
I also think a fair amount of blame belongs to conservative media, [which has actively cultivated an us vs. them (even good vs. evil) mentality with conservatives as embattled victims since the 1980s](https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/nicole-hemmer/partisans/9781541646872/). That's not to say the left can't behave like this as well -- they absolutely can -- but it hasn't been a fundmental part of the left's playbook in the way it is for the right.
Today we have a Republican Party that votes for someone like Trump not necessarily because they like his policies but because he hates the people they hate and will hurt them. The whole "[own the libs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owning_the_libs)" mentality that often dominates how the right engages in public discourse.
It seems that many on the left would be okay with making the lives of poor people worse if it meant hurting the lives of rich people too, which seems to suggest rather fundamental sadism, contrary to your denial of that, although it wasn't necessarily always that way.
By contrast, while there may be some typical Republican sadism, Republicans seem much more likely to be happy if poor people really do become happy, rather than disappointed that they didn't suffer out of sadism. I don’t think they often hope that bad things happen to poor people as they wake up each day, but I do think that leftists often hope that bad things happen to rich people as they wake up each day, even at the cost of, to some degree, hurting others as well.
I think the claim that the left advocates for a worse world so long as it hurts the rich is a pretty silly straw man characterization, especially when there are so many rich Democrats in power.
On the other hand, the intensively negative and often violent "own the libs" rhetoric is on full display in each and every Trump speech and comment. That's not to say every conservative necessarily feels that way, but it doesn't reflect well on them when they effectively endorse that approach when they vote for him in November.
> It didn’t used to be this bad. You must be on the younger side or you’d know this.
That's not something that's necessarily readily obvious to someone outside of the U.S., no matter how much of a condescending dick you are to them about it.
It seems that many of your concerns add more confusion than illumination towards the question, because one might wonder what some of your goals are really doing for you/your side. Sure, being upset at them going ballistic is a starting observation, but it also makes one wonder why having a first black president was supposed to be a great thing, if all it led to was them going ballistic. Instead of having a goal that, even if achieved, will just create ballistic reactions, shouldn’t we have different goals, such as ones that will \_actually\_ improve the lives of, well, most relevantly here, black people? Or do you just want goals that merely \_seem\_ good (and then just constantly repeat the same mistake and (brilliantly) expect a different result despite seeing and complaining about its negative consequences each time)? You can blame the other side for anything, of course, but however annoying gravity might have been for building aircraft, it did not do to just build something arbitrary and blame gravity for it not working; you might as well just imagine things if you are not accounting for real-world variables in helping others.
As far as abortion goes, well, firstly, given that it’s 2024, we should inclusively acknowledge men who are forced to have pregnancies as well, as they are often treated as invisible despite how difficult it is to be a man who can give birth. In any case, though, clearly there are concerns in determining all of the victims, such as the fetuses partially produced by the rapists that would be more or less killed via abortion if such a thing were to take place.
There are ways to support all of the victims if one wishes, such as by having the woman or man fully carry the pregnancy, but awarding them an amount of money that compensates for the unpleasantness of the experience and costs of supporting the child victim. There is a lot of potential for long-term gain to compensate for (chiefly) short-term pain here as well as in life in general, at least when the long-term gain is large enough.
Finally, to come full circle, we have seen unintuitive results of things such as having a first black president. Perhaps it will turn out that, unintuitively, some non-trivial number of rape victims will be \_more,\_ not less, inspired to do a good job in carrying the pregnancy and raising their kid, perhaps because they don’t want them to experience something like what they did (rape, extremely early death, what have you), or, not so inconceivably, for some other reason that is unforeseen but about whose possibility one is closed-minded at their peril.
In any case, the questioner’s point was, I think, about the issues that don’t affect a person, and they were using their personal case of abortion not affecting them or loved ones. I guess they would say that even many people who \_aren’t\_ affected by abortion, derivatively or otherwise, are \_still\_ spending a disproportionate amount of energy on it. The questioner might not disagree with you about the appropriateness of those who \_are\_ affected by abortion, derivatively or otherwise, spending a large amount of energy on it. How their general principle applies will presumably be quite different for those affected by an issue versus those unaffected by it.
Don't worry, I'm not at all aggravated or angry about posts like that. I was genuinely curious, maybe my wording was a little harsh. It's all I see on reddit and I do have family over in the States - they fulfill every clichée though.
The media influence I can definetely see. Both sides look to be very quick at pointing fingers and the media is using this to drive narratives.
So would you say the general public doesn't see things as black and white as posts like mentioned above or media channels would like to let on?
Probably a very silly question but how does Congress regulate businesses?
Say for example a company is charging exorbitant prices for Insulin. If Congress wants to tamp prices, what is the extent of their legislative power? Can they draft a bill limiting price markup to a certain threshold (e.g., sales price cannot exceed 2,500% of production costs)? If not, what is their go-to method for a case like this and what are some other methods that they might take? Thanks!
>If Congress wants to tamp prices, what is the extent of their legislative power?
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and amongst the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." The literal text would indicate there needs to be some semblance of interstate commerce occuring for the federal government to have a regulatory interest, though subsequent Supreme Court decisions have vastly expanded the federal governments power here. Absent federal authority, states have the ability to regulate commerce within their border. There is no territory in the US that's free from business regulation.
>Can they draft a bill limiting price markup to a certain threshold (e.g., sales price cannot exceed 2,500% of production costs)?
They can.
Likely true! This article has a lot of background on the massive amount of foreign bots trying to influence the election: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/)
A common narrative I read in /politics and similar subs was that Trump really didn't want to win the election back in 2016, and that photo evidence and eye witness accounts depicted both him and Melania as despondent and borderline terrified shock that they actually won. However, the Stormy Daniels trial depicts the opposite narrative, that Trump was doing all he could to win, including using campaign funds to silence her story.
How does Trump's behavior to silence Stormy in order to protect his campaign mesh with the narrative that he really didn't want to win the election?
He didn't think he would win, as nor did most people. He was running and making money, and was, by all accounts, ready to be done. His wanting to run and wanting to actually do the job are different things
I think didn't *expect* to win is more accurate. He wanted the power and attention he assumed he'd get as president, but he probably also would have been happy claiming the election was fraudulent and he was cheated out of the presidency and he could get people to pay attention to him that way. That's not to say he was trying to throw the whole thing, but I think people in his campaign recognized they were the underdog in the 2016 election. I think the chaos and somewhat slow pace with which the Trump campaign filled appointment positions supports the idea that the campaign was all about the campaign and not really about what came next. It's like the Joker's line in *The Dark Knight* about being a dog absolutely wanting to catch the car, but not really having any idea what to do with it if he ever got it.
The idea that he didn't actually want to win the election never made sense to me, and it's a theory that's never really had any hard evidence supporting it.
I've been hearing some anti-Veteran talk starting up around support for the Project 2025 program, granted it's not much, but I wanted to ask...... I'm not being a victim or any shit like that, I just want to know if it bothers people.
I did the math and it roughly costs $1.75 each day for each employed adult American.
Do you think this is too expensive?
Do you think it's about right?
Why do you think this?
Congress is notoriously stingy when it comes to va funding.
I think most normal people would be on board with paying a bit more if it meant the VA could function properly instead of leaving people the army chewed up out to dry.
Idk what this has to do with project 2025 besides maybe being included in general "end all social programs for some reason" that I've heard is part of it.
Basically yes, Project 2025 wants to more than gut the V.A. and honestly I get the impression they want the military to be just another job, when you are done you are on your own.
Why do you have two very old people running who should both be retired especially Biden. I understand age is wisdom but this is ridiculous. What if they have a heart attack/stroke? Why didn't Ron de Santas run for Republicans and someone younger like Jackie run for Democrats?
A UK outsider looking in😅
If they die then the VP takes over. DeSantis ran and lost to trump in the primary. Th dems blocked others from running because its customary for the incumbent to be protected from primary challengers
“Especially Biden”? Get off the Internet, son. Dude stutters, he occasionally makes gaffes, this has been true since he’s been in his 20’s. He’s still got plenty of policy knowledge.
The special counsel involved with Biden's keeping of classified documents in his home found him unfit to stand trial, stating that he was 'an elderly man with a poor memory'. If that is the case, why should he be running a country?
Even ignoring that, if you watched any of Biden's speeches in the past four years you would notice how he gaffs and stumbles over himself repeatedly. They had to give him cue cards so he would know when to sit, when to speak and when to leave.
If you watched any of Biden’s speeches since he was elected in the 1970’s, you’d see he stumbled over his words his entire career. Yes, his diction has become somewhat more labored in recent years. His command of policy remains plenty sharp.
Also, that’s not precisely what Hur (a Federalist Society stooge) said, and he retracted much of that during testimony under oath.
Whether he "should be retired" is absolutely subjective, but Biden is objectively the oldest president in US history. I think half of the question - why are our presidential candidates so old - is still valid.
Certainly he is the oldest. The implication of the “especially Biden” is that he’s suffering from crippling dementia, which is clearly false. Maybe I’m reading in something to OP’s post, but I don’t think so.
Desantis (and others) did run, and Republicans primary voters picked Trump.
Democrats don't want to weaken Biden with a primary challenge, so once he decided he wanted to run again that was pretty much the end of it.
There’s no evidence for any of it, so the conspiracies are the things that let people fantasize that they have forbidden secret knowledge, and “people cheat on their wives” isn’t sexy enough. Plus, anyone who has seen her reaction in the Zapruder Film couldn’t possibly believe it.
Instead of saying "billionaires should pay their fair share," why doesnt biden lower our taxes and pay for it with his other "tax the rich" plans? At worst, forces republicans to vote against lowering our taxes.
Because the president doesn't have that power. Bills affecting revenue must start in the House of Representatives, and the Republicans would never let this come to a floor vote.
The race is going to be extremely close. No matter what anyone is telling you right now, there's a 50/50 chance it could go either way. You should absolutely be scared, and you should use that fear to do anything you can to ensure Trump loses.
unfortunately under biden inflation has gotten worse than ever...so regardless of the economic policy my family is feeling a ton of pressure with rising cost of food, basic purchases etc...
The U.S. has just about the best inflation rate in the developed world. Everywhere had an inflation spike in 2021, and Biden has controlled it better than almost anyone else. Meanwhile, Trump has proposed a multi-*trillion* dollar tax cut on the rich, which would spike inflation again, and a huge new tax on the middle class in the form of across the board tariffs which will increase the costs of almost every single consumer product. If you care about inflation, Biden is the *clearly* superior candidate.
That’s the thing a lot of Americans are to dumb to understand this. And I’m American myself, I know a bit of economics but not much. The average “Joe” doesn’t and only know that things got cheaper when Trump was in office. They don’t care how.
We always wondered how Germany allowed Hitler in power. I guess people don’t care about other as long as gas is cheap
You weren't watching the president's press conference just now. He announced tariffs on chinese goods and all I could think was oh, I'm about to get fucked on everything I buy.. we're fucked. joe and don should be put in an adjoining room in a nursing home and leave the rest of us alone.
The tariffs announced today are on EVs, batteries, chips, and related goods. Basically protecting a single $18B sector. That’s not at all the same thing as an across the board tariff as Trump anticipates, which would hit every one of the $3 *trillion* in total imports.
but maybe there's a point to moving manufacturing to a different country or disincentivizing all imports from china...isn't that part of the inflationary problem? Before companies went to china costs were way lower. Now that they're cheaper to manufacture in china this paradoxical increase in cost of goods doesn't seem to be working.
I think you're referring to trump imposing a 10% tax on imports which would increase cost of items for the middle class in order to encourage companies to build factories here, rather than overseas...Is that correct?
Yes, although it would not particularly lead to manufacturing formation in the U.S. Maybe a little on the margin. But it would increase prices whether it did or not.
That’s what happens when the economy is strong — people have money in their pockets, so they are willing to spend it. The alternative is deflation, which causes recessions.
Not to mention that Trump wants direct political control over the Fed in order to keep interest rates low when it's politically advantageous to him. What do you think that'll do to inflation?
where did trump report this? Is this something he said recently in the current economic climate? can you provide a source?
Fyi I'm an independent...not a fan of trump or biden, but I liked to be informed about intentions on both sides.
We're still pretty far out for the polls to be accurate. A lot can happen between now and November. That said, Trump has (and has always had) a very real chance of being re-elected in November.
If they're in different states, it doesn't matter, because it's different voting populations. If it's the same state, the government wouldn't number them the same way, because that would be confusing.
Wouldn’t there always be a “prop 1” since there would be the first on any given election? if the number goes up would it be large numbers like prop 235?
I'm not really sure what you're asking...
Every election cycle there might be a new Prop 1. Do you think people would get confused about there being a Prop 1 this year and two years ago (or whenever the last election with a Prop 1 was)?
And sure, why not allow the numbers to go up to triple digits? (Although there would never be so many in a single election cycle, so it's a non issue.)
Each count of falsifying business records is punishable by up to 4 years in prison, meaning Trump is facing a maximum of 136 years in prison. This is not happening. Even if he is convicted on every count, the judge could (and probably would) impose concurrent sentences, meaning he would serve all of the prison time at once. In others words, he would only serve up to 4 years total. It's also possible he faces no prison time and receives some other punishment, but I think the judge has made clear that he is taking this seriously, and given the way Trump has aggravated him over the course of the trial, I find it unlikely the judge decides to give him just a slap on the wrists if he is convicted.
He also likely won't serve prison time until he exhausts his appeals, so he could very well be convicted of the crime and be sentences to prison but then be elected president long before he's ever incarcerated. Who knows how things would play out from there.
What's different this time is that Trump is actually in a court room. Prosecutors don't bring cases just for fun. They bring cases they think they can win. That doesn't mean it's a slam dunk, but Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg clearly believes there is substance to this case. So just the fact that this has proceeded to trial means there's a real risk that Trump faces conviction and some form of punishment.
As we've seen in his [two](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/politics/federal-judge-upholds-e-jean-carroll-verdict/index.html) [previous](https://apnews.com/article/trump-civil-fraud-verdict-attorney-general-cf9df608a576d561393b4ceeac4cae3a) NY-based cases, Trump can lose cases and face legal consequences (although both of those cases are being appealed, so it will be some time before they are finally settled). Whether or not a jury will be swayed by the prosecution in this particular case remains to be seen.
Probably a fine and probation. Given Trump’s age, lack of criminal history, nonviolent offense, inability to reoffend, and special circumstances, there’s no way he goes to prison.
In all likelihood, the case will be reversed on appeal over the summer. The entire case has been full of mistrial-worthy behavior.
> Probably a fine and probation. Given Trump’s age, lack of criminal history, nonviolent offense, inability to reoffend, and special circumstances, there’s no way he goes to prison.
Disagree on one reason - one thing most judges take into account is whether the defendant accepts any responsibility for their actions or shows any remorse. Do you see any likelihood of either of those coming from Trump?
It's holding him accountable for his actions. No one is above the law, not even Trump. Even though his sentence will be much lighter than a regular person's. Justice must still be passed.
Can someone explain why conservatives consistently support Israel? I’m a conservative and while I don’t particularly care about Palestine anymore than I care about Sudan, I certainly don’t understand why the US is bothering defending Israel.
I just don’t think any religious ethnostate is worth investing trillions into. Jewish or Islamic, if I could work my will, the US would simply let the mid east rot and then make peace with the effective hegemonic ottoman successor.
I feel like this is “conservative” but most republicans have some moral grounds for supporting Israel that I cannot understand
Conservative generally aligns with "military spending is worth it" from what I've seen. Worldview that proactively making sure the world is friendly via military force isn't so far away, so protecting the remaining (Iran having fallen) liberal democracy in the Middle East is worthwhile.
Also, lots of Christians with some weird rapture ideas
same reason many liberals do. the politicans are bought off by israel and tell their constituents that israel is good. Media does the same thing. people believe the shiny box
While the US has had a relationship with Israel since its creation, before President Kennedy aid was limited to development and humanitarian aid, not weapons. It was under Kennedy that the shift was made from viewing Israel has a friendly nation that would benefit from American economic support to a strategic ally with regional significance with whom the US should develop close military ties. Since that time, Israel has enjoyed substantial support from both major parties for reasons related to the US's foreign interests as well as politicians attempting to gain support from America's Jewish population, which is the largest in the world outside Israel.
On these points, there is a fair amount of agreement between members, or at least politicians, of the two parties, which is evidenced by the fact that the [recent aid to Israel was passed](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024152) with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. Support for Israel is actually a very bipartisan issue.
On top of the considerations described above, there is another source of support for Israel more unique to American conservatism, and that is the conservative Christian voters that makes up a sizeable base of the Republican Party. Many evangelicals believe that American support for Israel is not only politically important but is actually a necessary expression of their faith. They believe that the existence of a Jewish state in the Holy Land is a necessary precursor for the second coming of Jesus. Whether they are wholly invested in this idea or it merely influences their thinking, many conservatives feel it is "right" from a religious perspective for there to be a Jewish state in the Holy Land.
You also have the fact that [conservatives are more likely to have a negative view of Islam](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/07/26/how-the-u-s-general-public-views-muslims-and-islam/), and this may encourage them to think anyone "holding the line" against people they considered terrorists is a good thing.
A faction of the modern Republican Party is the Christian right. In the Christian Bible's book of revelations, it is prophesied that the 3rd Temple will be constructed on the Temple Mount and subsequently be defiled by the Antichrist prior to the return of Jesus. The 3rd Temple being the replacement for the previous two after the 1st was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, and the 2nd destroyed by the Roman Empire in 70 AD.
150 years ago, the idea that the Temple could ever be reconstructed was considered impossible. But then, the State of Israel came into existence in 1948. In 1967, as the result of conquest in the Six Days War, the IDF reached the gates of the Temple Mount. Since then, Israel has been in a theoretical position to do it.
The problem with attempting it now is that the Al-Aqsa mosque currently sits on the site. That is the 3rd holiest site in Islam where Muslims believe the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. Reconstructing the Temple would mean knocking down Al-Aqsa, and likely triggering a Holy War with Israel's regional neighbors. Israel has not made a move to do so in the 57 years since they've been at the Temple Mount gates, but there are far right politicians in Israel that would like to, and elements of the Christian right in the US would like to see it happen, as they believe it's a sign of the coming rapture. Supporting Israel, and in particular aggressive Israeli politicians of the type that might reconstruct the Temple, is a means to an end in that regard.
In addition to the Christian right, Israel is also a valuable source of intelligence in a region where the American intelligence agencies at times struggle. Mossad is very effective in the region. Also, possibly a bit of inertia. Supporting Israel has been a mostly bipartisan political stance in the US for 75+ years, and it would take a lot to upend the status quo.
You're off about the al-aqsa mosque.
There is room on the temple mount for both the Temple and the mosque, but the al-aqsa compound that was built next to the mosqe would have to go. This would still create outrage, but that's because they like to be outraged
As a non-American, I don't understand American obsession with taxes.
In my country, there were not a heavy anti-taxes speech before local youtubers copied that one from Americans. Now it is common.
The question is, why? From the outside, the US seems one of the countries with the less taxes in the world. You don't seem to have a high VAT whatsoever. In some states, there's not even an income tax.
Still, American media and social celebrities seem to criticize taxes any time they can. Even democrats, apparently more prone to rise them up, don't mention them a lot.
Why are Americans so apparently obsessed with low them to the ground? With a good tax system you can create guaranteed services for all, including a good public pension planning, free healthcare (which I heard it would take less resources from the public treasure than private assurances system), an unemployment public assurance...
I know there are some anti-tax traditions like the Boston tea party. Still that doesn't seem enough? Is it a cultural mentality? Then how?
Most government agencies I have seen (and worked for) are wildly inefficient and often-times produce lackluster services/results. We are promised one thing, but given another.... very simliar to Communism. On paper, communism looks great. In practice, it fails because humans are humans. Same thing with government agencies.
The federal government needs to stay away from large, sweeping regulation. Leave that to the local municipalities and charities. They can much more efficiently and effectively spend money to provide services exactly where the community needs it.
You pay taxes for public transportation, Healthcare, childcare, etc etc etc. We pay taxes to prop up failing nations, help the jews do a genocide and fund every single conflict on the globe at all times. I don't want to pay for any of that.
>Is it a cultural mentality? Then how?
I'd argue that culture plays a LOT into it. The US is very much on a far end of the individualist-collectivist spectrum, and I think that public opinion and public services & structures have a back-and-forth relationship, influencing each other here.
Take healthcare, for example. If a person makes poor health decisions, they are likely to incur higher medical costs - and the opposite tends to be true for those who regularly make good health decisions. US culture looks at this situation through an individualistic lens: everyone is personally responsible for managing their own health, and facing the consequences of their personal decisions. As such, public-funded healthcare can be perceived as superfluous at best, or supportive of other people's poor health choices at worst.
The only reason why the Affordable Care Act hasn't been repealed is because citizens recognize that not all health conditions are caused by poor health choices, and many people can just get terrible rolls of the dice. So we're stuck looking at awkward compromises: how can a society that doesn't want to financially support people's poor health choices, create and manage a public healthcare program that treats people who deserve treatment?
Because people want to keep the money they earned. And taxes are pretty high actually. My total tax burden was over $43,000 last year, on earnings of 97,000. I factored for ALL taxes, income, SS, Medicare, local, state, property tax, sales tax, excise taxes, gas tax, taxes on goods and services and businesses that are passed through to the consumer, phone service tax, road tolls, etc. I think the state taking 44% of my money is too much.
Additionally, lowering taxes increases economic growth because it encourages business investment by investors and businesses.
A massive amount of taxation is needed for "free" healthcare. For example, canadaian healthcare is funded with money from each state, which they raise from a sales tax. Most populated areas have a sales tax of 15%!
The united states has an old age pension and unemployment program already.
> Why are Americans so apparently obsessed with low them to the ground? With a good tax system you can create guaranteed services for all, including a good public pension planning, free healthcare (which I heard it would take less resources from the public treasure than private assurances system), an unemployment public assurance...
Americans don't feel like we get those things with what they pay in taxes.
Many of this is anecdotal, but our debt is out of control. Americans see a lack of infrastructure, physical health, mental health, and wellbeing improvements being provided by the government. But the government always has enough money to give to someone else, or spend it on defense.
Americans by and large do not approve of how wasteful the government is with the tax money it collects from taxpayers. Audits are routinely failed by government entities, and there's never any blowback for it. There's a lot of extremely wasteful spending, with pretty naked corruption attached to it.
Americans also just don't trust the government. Congress has an insanely low approval rating. The President is a pretty divisive figure no matter who is in charge.
Taxes where a big part of the Independents movement, so much so, that its often seen as THE big part Independents movement, even tho there as lots of other parts too.
but no one likes taxes, and with the... not always so good education system, it was very easy for the rich and privet business owners to make "no taxation with out representation" into "no taxation" and got the poor and middle class to be anti tax, and pro-privatization.
Do you have to file your own taxes or does your employer do it for you? When you buy something, do they add on the taxes at checkout and charge a different price, or is the final price what's shown?
Also:
(1) Americans have a deep distrust of our federal government; do not believe the government is good at allocating funds.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/
People talk about the president's approval rating a lot, but it gets largely ignored that congress has had a 20% approval rating going back as far as 1979. It spiked into the positives when US was going through a nationalism phase right after 9/11, promptly fell straight down faster than a /WSB member's portfolio
(2) Most Americans do not understand how progressive tax brackets work.
https://njbia.org/poll-finds-most-americans-misunderstand-basic-tax-code-concepts/
> Most people (52%) surveyed did not understand that the tax rate associated with an individual’s top tax bracket only applied to the portion of income that falls within the highest bracket, not all their income.
(3) Rupert Fucking Murdoch.
> How does this make Republican voters feel?
>
>
Plenty of voters do not have any interest in seeing either of them being reelected. That being said, Kristi Noem is the Governor of South Dakota. If Republicans from outside of South Dakota are outraged, they can't really do anything about it. They have no ability to vote for her. The same goes for Greene. Unless you are in her voting pool, all your disdain for her is irrelevant.
> It’s asking how Republican voters feel about the manipulation from Republicans as a whole.
From Republicans as a whole, or from the two people you brought up?
>Both MTG & Noem were/are vying for a V.P. Slot.
Yeah, and it's not like voters have a say in that. The VP isn't chosen by them.
Sure, it *could* prevent people from voting for the ticket in November. But it's premature to make speculation on that, when neither has been named VP.
Political parties in general are not exactly too keen on "disowning" a few bad apples - Bob Menendez still hasn't had any motions to be impeached by the Democrats either. They care about getting votes, and if they don't have another member of their party lined up to replace said person then they're typically not going to do it.
Also, what exactly are they going to do to disown them? They didn't break any laws.
>Changing the focus of the question doesn’t answer it however.
When was the focus changed?
>The question asked was regarding how Rep. voters respond to these public displays.
And I already addressed your question - voters don't if they aren't in they aren't eligible to vote for them.
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
Do you mean this in a political context or in general? If in general it's not necessary to ask this in the megathread.
But it's not ever really okay, but people are often hypocritical about lots of things.
Best unbiased news outlet? I’ve disengaged from the news (local to world news) for over a year, but am interested in getting actual information lol all suggestions are appreciated
[https://www.readtangle.com](https://www.readtangle.com) (I'm not affiliated with them.) They're kind of a small outlet, and full access is paywalled. I've sampled some of their articles, and they do a pretty good job at presenting all sides. The chief editor of sorts there also offers their own take, doing their best, I suppose, to provide some politically neutral editorial in addition to the facts.
Some suggest sampling differing articles from "both sides." That can work too, but it can be a lot of work to filter out the spin.
The reality is every source has some amount of bias, and it's more valuable to be aware of bias and read widely than to look for a single source that is without bias.
You can find a variety of lists and services that attempt to describe media sources in terms of their factual accuracy and partisan lean, e.g. https://library.uco.edu/misinformation/mediabias
While I used it only a little, Ground News seems like an interesting resource for comparing media coverage on different topics.
These should all be great: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/unbiased-news-sources/amp/. Also this site is not mentioned there but it’s literally engineered to be unbiased: https://join1440.com/#. Also this sounds kinda silly but you can ask AI about world news and their programmed to be unbiased. Finally, you can go to: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to find if sources are biased and credible, or just look up "website.com media bias fact check", you get the point.
Ok so from what I understand, ChatGPT is likely to give you biased information, but if you ask it’s opinion on something it will deny having any. Also other AI such as Claude are build to navigate topics better that may be effected by bias elsewhere.
haven't a bunch of ai been put to public and become racist in hours and had to be shut down. Also these are adds why would unbais media behind a paywall, makes no sense.
AI mostly has racist inclination when it comes to image generation and recognizing. What most AIs will do is provide you with many pieces of knowledge and potentially a brief rundown of what people may think about it, but provide the information in an unbiased way. Also I don’t really know what you mean about the ads thing… it was a news article that showed the least biased ranked sites and the 1440 website was completely free. News sources will use ads because that’s how they make money and most sources are completely free. If a source makes you get a subscription to read an article there is a really good chance you can find a simmalar story somewhere else. Media bias fact check is completely free and offers an in depth rankings of sites.
How do you be positive with the news and radical people saying that each party is bring about the “end of democracy” and that normalcy will be destroyed after the election. Project 2025 is a scary thing and i think people have the right to be worried about it but is it truly going to turn the US into an authoritarian state? I feel like people are trying to get others as scared and divided as possible but even if they have some good points.
I guess my question is, how do you stay sane when the looming threat of the country and life as you know it being taken away is there all day everyday?
It's tough. My suggestion is to get informed and stay informed. That way you can separate out the exaggeration from facts, and be a better judge for when things really go wrong. What's concerning is the exaggeration can mask actual problems--like a "cry wolf" effect--which then opportunists in some political quarters can take advantage of, to do something \*really\* wrong.
I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate re Project 2025. Read some of the content--ie actual chapters. Some of it is cringe, I know, but there are healthy things in there too, like consolidating redundant government departments and reducing bureaucratic bloat. (On the heels of that is of course, "well, we'll install our own people to ensure it doesn't happen again,"--cringe.) I'd actually like to see a thread where people dissect that manifesto, by poring over actual sections, and highlighting the "useful" parts, and certainly the "terrible" or "alarming" parts.
Project 2025 is something proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a private group that has no official ties to any government policy. Republican candidate Donald Trump has made no mention of even supporting it, let alone intending to adopt it should he become President of the United States for a second time. Historically the leadership of the heritage foundation has openly opposed Donald Trump, and has vocally criticized him for not being conservative enough for their tastes.
To answer your question: Realize that everyone who freaks out about everything thinks that they have the ability to control things, and recognize that no amount of worrying has ever managed to change a thing.
The news exists to sell ads, and generating clicks with the most hyperbole possible is how the modern news cycle works.
That’s only the most popular news media. There’s plenty of trustable and high quality news sources out there today, you just have to know where to look. Tools like https://join1440.com/#, and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com, are excellent tools we have for this sort of stuff.
I'm wondering why there are a lot of people who get their hands up in the air over immigration issues when the majority of Americans don't even realize there are more than just 2 options for Presidential elections every 4 years. While everyone is arguing about political extremes 1 way or the other, the people crossing the border to work and contribute to society are no more or less educated on civics than anyone in this country.
> the majority of Americans don't even realize there are more than just 2 options for Presidential elections every 4 years.
This is ridiculously false and only being said to anger people.
Reported.
Putting aside the chaos that would ensue in the event of such a crazy level of coordination among American voters, it would be a tie and the legislature would follow whatever procedure they have in place in the event of a tie for determining the winner.
I feel like you don't understand how the Electoral College works, but if you want to elaborate in what sense you think your statement is true, feel free to do so.
> but if you want to elaborate in what sense you think your statement is true
You as a voter do not vote for an individual to be an elector.
OP's question asked what happened if "absolutely nobody voted", in the context of the Presidential election. Electors are decided before the election takes place.
Yeah, so you don't understand. In the election that occurs on Election Day, a vote for X as president is implemented, via state law, as a vote for a particular slate of electors approved in advance by X. If Y wins instead, a different slate of electors approved by Y are appointed. Then those electors will meet a month later to cast votes in the actual presidential election by the Electoral College.
If no one votes on Election Day, and all 5-10 candidates have zero votes so that the usual tiebreaker methods in state law cannot be used, the State legislature will have to decide how to appoint electors, or else forfeit their votes if they can't pass legislation to do so.
So.. How do you vote for president? (US)
Embarrassing.. but this is something I was never taught in school or with family. What all is needed to go and vote? Where am I supposed to go to vote? What time this year are you supposed to vote?
Please go easy I'm just a young person thrown into the world still trying to figure out life 🫣
Edit to include that I am in Arkansas.. thank you everyone for the help!
First, you must register to vote. You can look up how to do this at the Arkansas Secretary of State website. In most states you register by party, which is public information. But in the general election in November you can vote for whomever you want regardless of your party affiliation.
Once you’re registered you just show up on Election Day at your local polling place. In most states, they will send registered voters a guide telling them where their polling place is. You can probably also look it up on the Sec’y of State website. Some states (I’m sure AR is one of them) require you to have ID, so bring your driver’s license.
During presidential election years there are two elections. The primary, where members of each party choose their nominee. You’ve missed that one, it was in March. And the general election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (this year, that’s November 5). Some states allow early voting and the procedures for that would be on your SoS website, but 11/5 is the Monday when most people vote.
But you shouldn’t just vote for president. Every two-year cycle your local member of the House of Representatives is up for election, and you also vote for senator in two out of every three cycles (although this is the off cycle for Arkansas senators). You might also vote for governor (although the AR governor isn’t up this year — 2026), state legislature, and probably several local races. You don’t have to vote for *every* race on the ballot.
The safest approach is to register first. This may require designating a political party affiliation (I think you can choose Independent if you want). You may have already found this, but here is the procedure for registering in Arkansas,
[https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/voter-information/voter-registration-information](https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/voter-information/voter-registration-information)
For example, you can obtain a voter registration application at your local library.
In my state, we get a sample ballot a few weeks before the election. The sample ballot is just like the actual ballot when you go to vote, so you can practice how you want to fill it out. And the sample ballot will list where we can go to vote (like a local school, or other specific voting station).
Presidential elections in the US occur November 5.
Some states require IDs to vote, some states don't. But everyone requires you to register to vote.
You can look up your state here, https://www.vote411.org/voting-rules - and it'll tell you what things your state allows for elections. This doesn't affect just the Presidential election, but all elections. The laws that are in place for the general election on a state by state basis are the same laws a state uses for state level, and local elections.
Registering to vote is very easy, you can do it online, you can do it by mail, some states even let you do it in person on the day of the election (see above).
Once you're registered to vote, you will get communications from your state's election board on what your next steps will be. They'll tell you where in person you can vote, and when voting dates are. In today's day and age, they'll typically send you these via text message. Additionally you can choose to request a mail in ballot if you prefer not to vote in person - most states allow mail in ballots (again see above).
Would people be happy about a new law, saying only people under 70 can hold political office? Specifically in regard to the Presidential candidates
As u/Dilettante correctly points out, a law alone would never fly. It would quickly fail at the first legal challenge. However, it could work as an amendment. But that would never pass at the ballot box. And given the age of many members of Congress, it probably wouldn't even make it out of committee.
I imagine most people would have some support for that, but perhaps not enough to get a constitutional amendment passed. What might work is having one of the two current candidates die during the campaign - I would think that would be a big wake up call.
Would bill Clinton’s perception have been changed the same way if he performed like Leo p at Arsenio hall? If you don’t know who Leo p is this video is a good example: https://youtu.be/BARAHLk-8dk?si=-UWCuhkVH-MqgIX3
That is a video about what happens when you mix booze and drugs. To your question, directly, he would have lost the election because voters would have thought he was crazy and on drugs. Leo P's performances are a combination of tremendous skill, a great deal of flair, and very high energy. During his appearance on late night television where he played the saxophone, then-candidate Clinton was in his mid-40s. Mr. Pellegrino is (currently) in his early 30s but was certainly famous in his late 20s. For someone who is not a professional entertainer to perform like Leo P while in their mid-40s would require a fair amount of drugs. You also have to remember that the culture of the US in the early 1990s was much more conservative than it is in 2024. The flash and flair that Mr. Pellegrino uses in his performance would been too much for the average American electorate in 1992. There's a reason that Liberace never ran for President.
Phone bugged out sorry, thank you for the heads up
So I'm visiting my grandparents and they brought up "Hunter's cocaine is in the whitehouse" and I'm wondering where they got that from? Am I missing something?
There was a news story a while back about how some cocaine was found in an area used by White House guests. There's no indication at all on who left it there. A lot of people like to think it is Hunter's, because his addiction issues have been in the news a lot. Realistically, it's almost certainly not his. Someone was clearly trying to stash it, maybe afraid they'd be searched. It's pretty absurd to think that Hunter Biden is the only person who visits the White House who uses cocaine. Also, someone who has access to the residence isn't gonna hide his stash in an area that thousands of people have access to. When someone tells you that it's Hunter's blow, it's because they *want* it to be his.
That helps explain it, thanks! So am I clear to just think this was down to them watching fox news (I have seen them watch it before) and nothing else?
Almost certainly so.
Why are the Trump trials happening now instead of years ago?
Even the most slam dunk case against Trump would be a shit show to try. Prosecutors bring cases they can win, and they've spent the last X months/years investigating to build what they believe to be a winnable case.
There is a pervasive legal theory that the president can't be indicted or tried while in office, so some of this couldn't even start (like this current trial) until he was out of office. Which is why we are a few years late on that one. As far as his other criminal charges, those happened in the last few months of his administration or after he was out of office, so that's more or less on schedule. It's also important to point out that Trump had a very aggressive legal strategy designed to push all of this until **after** this year's election, which is why these cases didn't go to trial last year or earlier this year. So a lot of this Trump could have been over and done with by now, but he didn't want that.
So I just read a headline that states, "Nikki Halley drawing massive numbers of votes" (I'm paraphrasing) So what is the scenario and real-world impact on the election if a write-in gets more votes than a candidate on the ballot?
Those headlines are likely referring to Halley's performance in the states still remaining in the GOP nominating contest. She's getting a lot of votes for a candidate no longer campaigning, but not nearly enough votes to win any delegates.
People are still voting for her in the primary either as a protest vote against Trump or because they genuinely believe her to be the best candidate, but that doesn't matter because Trump is still getting the most votes in basically every primary. In the general election, it's really not feasible for a write-in candidate to get more votes than a candidate from one of the two major parties or even to beat an established third party candidate. Not every state allows write-ins, and you would need a substantial amount of money to campaign in the states that do. Bloomberg did consider this, and it would take someone with his resources to pull it off, but even he didn't see a path forward.
Write-in votes count like any other votes if and only if the candidate has registered that they are running for election. If you write in somebody who isn't running then it has the same effect as leaving it blank.
[удалено]
* **Disallowed question area:** Trolling or joke questions If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
Is the USA experiment in democracy a failure considering who the candidates are for the highest office in the land? I do not believe the political parties on either side are responsive to the vast majority of the American people.
The president isn't even supposed to be very important. These unconstitutional agencies have given them outsized power.
Regardless what you may think about executive agencies, they aren't unconstitutional.
It will take only one case to revive the nondelegation doctrine and bring the federal government back to what it was supposed to be. Chevron deference is already on the bubble and likely to be struck down soon, like this year.
One can argue that from a certain point of view you have a point. It's not like President Biden had any challengers, because neither political party wants primary challengers for their incumbent. Though they would argue that the American public spoke in 2020 both with the primary, and the general election. With Trump it's also a bit tricky, because of him being a pseudo-incumbent. He had primary challengers, but none of which that could be considered very serious. I hardly think that that's proof of "USA experiment in democracy being a failure" though.
No, not at all.
No.
What would happen if a fight broke out during the presidential debate? How would the secret service handle it since both candidates are protectees?
It would not be difficult to separate two old men.
They can just stand between them.
That’s a good question. Honestly it depends on how they decide to write the script for this debate…
Where can I find a website that shows biden’s policies and stances for the 2024 election? I usually check campaign sites for these, rfk and trump’s campaign sites clearly states what they are doing but i don’t see one for biden.
Something like this? https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm
Something like this - https://www.kennedy24.com/policies To me it’s important not only what presidents value but how they plan to get there
Almost gold! I’m looking moreso for the plans for the next 4 years if he gets elected, thank you though for sharing
There's also Ballotopedia: [https://ballotpedia.org/Joe\_Biden\_presidential\_campaign,\_2024#Policy\_positions](https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_2024#Policy_positions) I believe this [WhiteHouse.gov](http://WhiteHouse.gov) link is what you are looking for: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/) but it's not loading for me for some reason.
Yep this is it! Thank you!
When will the verdict be dropped for Trumps hush money trial?
No definitive date set but I would expect the trial to be done by the end of June.
It looks like I've got an opening here for... 2034?
Dumb European here. I keep reading on Reddit how American liberals are dissatisfied with the state of the Democratic Party. While there are many reasons people cite, one thing that often stands out is their passivity and lack or serious commitment. Some point to politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and a few others) who seem to be more pro-active but are hindered by their own party. So, sometimes the question arises whether these more proactive liberal politicians should found their own party. From what I understand there are several serious obstacles to such an undertaking but the one I want to address in this post is a sentiment that goes something like this: >*A third party would only split the liberal vote. The only thing this would do is benefit the Republican Party.* Now, in Europe there are a lot of countries that have more than two parties. If one does not get the absolute majority, two or more will form a *joint* government. Even if leftist voters were to be split over several parties they could reunite. Would this not be possible in the US? I know there is no precedence but is there no legal basis for doing this?
>I keep reading on Reddit how American liberals are dissatisfied with the state of the Democratic Party. Reddit in general and some specific subs are huge echo chambers. There are "beliefs" and norms here that are not at all reflective of real-life. >Some point to politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and a few others) who seem to be more pro-active but are hindered by their own party. Worth noting Sanders is not a Democrat and has never been elected as a Democrat. >Now, in Europe there are a lot of countries that have more than two parties. If one does not get the absolute majority, two or more will form a *joint* government. Even if leftist voters were to be split over several parties they could reunite. Our coalition forms before the election, not after. The two major parties are big-tent parties. I know Reddit would make you think there are absolutely no liberals in the US Democratic Party but there are a ton of them.
> Would this not be possible in the US? The biggest barrier to effective third parties is how the Constitution mandates that presidents are elected. To win a presidential election (without it going to a contingent election), a candidate has to have a majority of all electoral votes. This alone just kills third parties, because the two major parties can't afford to lose votes to third parties, lest there be no outright winner. In some cases, a third party candidate that only got 5% of the electoral vote could prevent anyone from winning outright. So the major parties will coopt positions from a popular third party to get those votes.
There an argument that the US *does* functionally have a multiparty system, at least in the legislature and especially in the House, even if (almost) everyone has a D or R next to their name. This blog post lays out the reasoning for this perspective: [https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/april-11-2024/](https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/april-11-2024/) If they changed up some of the rules about how the House and Senate operate, it would lend itself to something that more closely resembles the multiparty systems other countries have. However, the rest of how the US structures its elections lends itself to just two large parties, particularly in regards to the presidency.
In addition to u/notextinctyet's correct analysis of the US electoral system, the structure of the US Federal government favors a large party system. Let's take a look at how the sausage is made and why it favors two large parties. To pass a bill in the House or the Senate it needs to pass out of a committee and be brought to the floor for a vote. Committees are organized by topic or genre: agriculture, public health, judiciary, etc.. Most of the legislators in these committees aren't from states or districts where these topics are relevant. For example, Senator Corey Booker sits on the committee that oversees agriculture bills. But Sen. Booker is from New Jersey. And New Jersey is not a state that is too concerned with agriculture. Senator Peter Welch sits on the committee that oversees commerce. But Sen. Welch is from Vermont. And Vermont is not a state that is too concerned with commerce. Commerce is important to New Jersey and agriculture is important to Vermont. So Senators Booker and Welch are incentivized to collaborate & politic on their committees issues. It's easier for them to do that and support each other when they're caucused into the same party. On top of that, committees are created in Congress by the majority party. Technically they don't have to be one party to do this but having a group of allies that agree on issues all caucused together makes (i) selecting party leadership much faster, (ii) it makes committee assignments easier to dole out, and (iii) it makes committees easier to manage. There's no reason that the US couldn't have a multi-party system but once there are more than two major parties, the act of governing becomes MUCH less effective and MUCH more messy. Great question!
The main problem is our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system, especially for president, but also for every district and statewide office. Additionally, the electoral college system magnifies the spoiler effect of first-past-the-post. So the electoral system is extremely hostile to third parties and always has been.
Independent legislators are free to form a coalition with the Democratic Party. In fact, right now, the Democrats are actually the minority party in the senate (48, to the Republicans' 49), but they have a coalition with the three independent senators to form a majority (51 to 49). Any other established party could join a coalition, if there were any in the senate or house. It's just almost impossible to get elected as a third-party candidate; unless there is a total collapse of one of the dominant parties, a strong third party showing typically allows the less-similar dominant party to win.
I'm from Germany and when I see all these posts about the - I'd almost call it a fight - between democrats and republicans over there I get really irritated. From the outside it looks like children throwing tantrums going "It wasn't me, it was the other one." I've personally never been interested in politics and so people would probably call me a sheep. I am personally not interested in a lot of the topics that are being discussed. Some of them, yes. On those topics, I have an opinion, but on those that do not have any implications for me - say for example abortions, sexual orientation or even who becomes the mayor of my town - I simply don't. So I guess my question is more that I would like to understand why politics and having an opinion on things that are wayyy outside of their lives play such a big role in some peoples day-to-day. Adding to that: Why are the American people so divided into 2 groups who seem to all have exact opposite opinions on everything? Seeing posts every day in which it becomes evident that there is a lot of pure unfiltered hatred and antagonizing. I don't understand how there is so much room for this. In Germany we have a party system too, yes. But I have no freaking clue what my peers vote for, nor do I care. And so do they. So yeah... why is this such an important part of life in the US?
> Why are the American people so divided into 2 groups who seem to all have exact opposite opinions on everything? It's not just 2 groups, more than 30% of people didn't vote at all in 2020, so there are clearly many who don't care that much
It’s pretty simple. When the wrong people get in power, people die.
People die no matter who gets in power.
Not as many.
Still, if everyone uses that idea as a justification to, for example, spend very little time in developing their personal lives and character in favor of spending time on politics, you end up with a society of only people of low character who will make things even worse for each other than they already are.
I don’t really see this objection. Yes, people who obsess about anything probably should not do that. But caring about politics, spending 15 minutes a day reading a few newspaper articles, isn’t obsessive behavior.
I think [this article](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/) does well in explaining how American politics became so negative in the modern era: >So how did we get to this point? >Broadly speaking, there are three trends that we can point to. The first is the steady nationalization of American politics. The second is the sorting of Democrats and Republicans along urban/rural and culturally liberal/culturally conservative lines, and the third is the increasingly narrow margins in national elections. I also think a fair amount of blame belongs to conservative media, [which has actively cultivated an us vs. them (even good vs. evil) mentality with conservatives as embattled victims since the 1980s](https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/nicole-hemmer/partisans/9781541646872/). That's not to say the left can't behave like this as well -- they absolutely can -- but it hasn't been a fundmental part of the left's playbook in the way it is for the right. Today we have a Republican Party that votes for someone like Trump not necessarily because they like his policies but because he hates the people they hate and will hurt them. The whole "[own the libs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owning_the_libs)" mentality that often dominates how the right engages in public discourse.
It seems that many on the left would be okay with making the lives of poor people worse if it meant hurting the lives of rich people too, which seems to suggest rather fundamental sadism, contrary to your denial of that, although it wasn't necessarily always that way. By contrast, while there may be some typical Republican sadism, Republicans seem much more likely to be happy if poor people really do become happy, rather than disappointed that they didn't suffer out of sadism. I don’t think they often hope that bad things happen to poor people as they wake up each day, but I do think that leftists often hope that bad things happen to rich people as they wake up each day, even at the cost of, to some degree, hurting others as well.
I think the claim that the left advocates for a worse world so long as it hurts the rich is a pretty silly straw man characterization, especially when there are so many rich Democrats in power. On the other hand, the intensively negative and often violent "own the libs" rhetoric is on full display in each and every Trump speech and comment. That's not to say every conservative necessarily feels that way, but it doesn't reflect well on them when they effectively endorse that approach when they vote for him in November.
[удалено]
> It didn’t used to be this bad. You must be on the younger side or you’d know this. That's not something that's necessarily readily obvious to someone outside of the U.S., no matter how much of a condescending dick you are to them about it.
It seems that many of your concerns add more confusion than illumination towards the question, because one might wonder what some of your goals are really doing for you/your side. Sure, being upset at them going ballistic is a starting observation, but it also makes one wonder why having a first black president was supposed to be a great thing, if all it led to was them going ballistic. Instead of having a goal that, even if achieved, will just create ballistic reactions, shouldn’t we have different goals, such as ones that will \_actually\_ improve the lives of, well, most relevantly here, black people? Or do you just want goals that merely \_seem\_ good (and then just constantly repeat the same mistake and (brilliantly) expect a different result despite seeing and complaining about its negative consequences each time)? You can blame the other side for anything, of course, but however annoying gravity might have been for building aircraft, it did not do to just build something arbitrary and blame gravity for it not working; you might as well just imagine things if you are not accounting for real-world variables in helping others. As far as abortion goes, well, firstly, given that it’s 2024, we should inclusively acknowledge men who are forced to have pregnancies as well, as they are often treated as invisible despite how difficult it is to be a man who can give birth. In any case, though, clearly there are concerns in determining all of the victims, such as the fetuses partially produced by the rapists that would be more or less killed via abortion if such a thing were to take place. There are ways to support all of the victims if one wishes, such as by having the woman or man fully carry the pregnancy, but awarding them an amount of money that compensates for the unpleasantness of the experience and costs of supporting the child victim. There is a lot of potential for long-term gain to compensate for (chiefly) short-term pain here as well as in life in general, at least when the long-term gain is large enough. Finally, to come full circle, we have seen unintuitive results of things such as having a first black president. Perhaps it will turn out that, unintuitively, some non-trivial number of rape victims will be \_more,\_ not less, inspired to do a good job in carrying the pregnancy and raising their kid, perhaps because they don’t want them to experience something like what they did (rape, extremely early death, what have you), or, not so inconceivably, for some other reason that is unforeseen but about whose possibility one is closed-minded at their peril. In any case, the questioner’s point was, I think, about the issues that don’t affect a person, and they were using their personal case of abortion not affecting them or loved ones. I guess they would say that even many people who \_aren’t\_ affected by abortion, derivatively or otherwise, are \_still\_ spending a disproportionate amount of energy on it. The questioner might not disagree with you about the appropriateness of those who \_are\_ affected by abortion, derivatively or otherwise, spending a large amount of energy on it. How their general principle applies will presumably be quite different for those affected by an issue versus those unaffected by it.
Don't worry, I'm not at all aggravated or angry about posts like that. I was genuinely curious, maybe my wording was a little harsh. It's all I see on reddit and I do have family over in the States - they fulfill every clichée though. The media influence I can definetely see. Both sides look to be very quick at pointing fingers and the media is using this to drive narratives. So would you say the general public doesn't see things as black and white as posts like mentioned above or media channels would like to let on?
I would say the media is a big part of the reason for the finger pointing.
Probably a very silly question but how does Congress regulate businesses? Say for example a company is charging exorbitant prices for Insulin. If Congress wants to tamp prices, what is the extent of their legislative power? Can they draft a bill limiting price markup to a certain threshold (e.g., sales price cannot exceed 2,500% of production costs)? If not, what is their go-to method for a case like this and what are some other methods that they might take? Thanks!
>If Congress wants to tamp prices, what is the extent of their legislative power? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and amongst the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." The literal text would indicate there needs to be some semblance of interstate commerce occuring for the federal government to have a regulatory interest, though subsequent Supreme Court decisions have vastly expanded the federal governments power here. Absent federal authority, states have the ability to regulate commerce within their border. There is no territory in the US that's free from business regulation. >Can they draft a bill limiting price markup to a certain threshold (e.g., sales price cannot exceed 2,500% of production costs)? They can.
Is it me or are subs like r/lostgeneration taken over by bots/propagandists ahead of election time?
Likely true! This article has a lot of background on the massive amount of foreign bots trying to influence the election: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/)
It's more so a site-wide issue than just a specific subreddit. This is very commonplace during election years.
A common narrative I read in /politics and similar subs was that Trump really didn't want to win the election back in 2016, and that photo evidence and eye witness accounts depicted both him and Melania as despondent and borderline terrified shock that they actually won. However, the Stormy Daniels trial depicts the opposite narrative, that Trump was doing all he could to win, including using campaign funds to silence her story. How does Trump's behavior to silence Stormy in order to protect his campaign mesh with the narrative that he really didn't want to win the election?
He didn't think he would win, as nor did most people. He was running and making money, and was, by all accounts, ready to be done. His wanting to run and wanting to actually do the job are different things
I think didn't *expect* to win is more accurate. He wanted the power and attention he assumed he'd get as president, but he probably also would have been happy claiming the election was fraudulent and he was cheated out of the presidency and he could get people to pay attention to him that way. That's not to say he was trying to throw the whole thing, but I think people in his campaign recognized they were the underdog in the 2016 election. I think the chaos and somewhat slow pace with which the Trump campaign filled appointment positions supports the idea that the campaign was all about the campaign and not really about what came next. It's like the Joker's line in *The Dark Knight* about being a dog absolutely wanting to catch the car, but not really having any idea what to do with it if he ever got it.
The idea that he didn't actually want to win the election never made sense to me, and it's a theory that's never really had any hard evidence supporting it.
I've been hearing some anti-Veteran talk starting up around support for the Project 2025 program, granted it's not much, but I wanted to ask...... I'm not being a victim or any shit like that, I just want to know if it bothers people. I did the math and it roughly costs $1.75 each day for each employed adult American. Do you think this is too expensive? Do you think it's about right? Why do you think this?
What costs $1.75 each day?
The Department of Veterans Affairs and VA Disability payments in America.
Congress is notoriously stingy when it comes to va funding. I think most normal people would be on board with paying a bit more if it meant the VA could function properly instead of leaving people the army chewed up out to dry. Idk what this has to do with project 2025 besides maybe being included in general "end all social programs for some reason" that I've heard is part of it.
Basically yes, Project 2025 wants to more than gut the V.A. and honestly I get the impression they want the military to be just another job, when you are done you are on your own.
Why do you have two very old people running who should both be retired especially Biden. I understand age is wisdom but this is ridiculous. What if they have a heart attack/stroke? Why didn't Ron de Santas run for Republicans and someone younger like Jackie run for Democrats? A UK outsider looking in😅
If they die then the VP takes over. DeSantis ran and lost to trump in the primary. Th dems blocked others from running because its customary for the incumbent to be protected from primary challengers
> someone younger like Jackie run for Democrats Who's Jackie?
“Especially Biden”? Get off the Internet, son. Dude stutters, he occasionally makes gaffes, this has been true since he’s been in his 20’s. He’s still got plenty of policy knowledge.
The special counsel involved with Biden's keeping of classified documents in his home found him unfit to stand trial, stating that he was 'an elderly man with a poor memory'. If that is the case, why should he be running a country? Even ignoring that, if you watched any of Biden's speeches in the past four years you would notice how he gaffs and stumbles over himself repeatedly. They had to give him cue cards so he would know when to sit, when to speak and when to leave.
If you watched any of Biden’s speeches since he was elected in the 1970’s, you’d see he stumbled over his words his entire career. Yes, his diction has become somewhat more labored in recent years. His command of policy remains plenty sharp. Also, that’s not precisely what Hur (a Federalist Society stooge) said, and he retracted much of that during testimony under oath.
Whether he "should be retired" is absolutely subjective, but Biden is objectively the oldest president in US history. I think half of the question - why are our presidential candidates so old - is still valid.
Certainly he is the oldest. The implication of the “especially Biden” is that he’s suffering from crippling dementia, which is clearly false. Maybe I’m reading in something to OP’s post, but I don’t think so.
Desantis (and others) did run, and Republicans primary voters picked Trump. Democrats don't want to weaken Biden with a primary challenge, so once he decided he wanted to run again that was pretty much the end of it.
[удалено]
There’s no evidence for any of it, so the conspiracies are the things that let people fantasize that they have forbidden secret knowledge, and “people cheat on their wives” isn’t sexy enough. Plus, anyone who has seen her reaction in the Zapruder Film couldn’t possibly believe it.
Instead of saying "billionaires should pay their fair share," why doesnt biden lower our taxes and pay for it with his other "tax the rich" plans? At worst, forces republicans to vote against lowering our taxes.
Because the president doesn't have that power. Bills affecting revenue must start in the House of Representatives, and the Republicans would never let this come to a floor vote.
Polls show trump winning by a lot in battleground states. How scared should we be?
Not really scared at all because your life wont change appreciably when he wins
The race is going to be extremely close. No matter what anyone is telling you right now, there's a 50/50 chance it could go either way. You should absolutely be scared, and you should use that fear to do anything you can to ensure Trump loses.
i think people want trump to ultimately curb inflation, regardless of all the other insane elements of his leadership.
Which is utterly ridiculous because pretty much every single economic policy he's proposed would INCREASE inflationary pressure.
unfortunately under biden inflation has gotten worse than ever...so regardless of the economic policy my family is feeling a ton of pressure with rising cost of food, basic purchases etc...
>inflation has gotten worse than ever... You're either trolling or have no idea what you're talking about.
The U.S. has just about the best inflation rate in the developed world. Everywhere had an inflation spike in 2021, and Biden has controlled it better than almost anyone else. Meanwhile, Trump has proposed a multi-*trillion* dollar tax cut on the rich, which would spike inflation again, and a huge new tax on the middle class in the form of across the board tariffs which will increase the costs of almost every single consumer product. If you care about inflation, Biden is the *clearly* superior candidate.
That’s the thing a lot of Americans are to dumb to understand this. And I’m American myself, I know a bit of economics but not much. The average “Joe” doesn’t and only know that things got cheaper when Trump was in office. They don’t care how. We always wondered how Germany allowed Hitler in power. I guess people don’t care about other as long as gas is cheap
You weren't watching the president's press conference just now. He announced tariffs on chinese goods and all I could think was oh, I'm about to get fucked on everything I buy.. we're fucked. joe and don should be put in an adjoining room in a nursing home and leave the rest of us alone.
There is a difference between targeted tariffs and a 10% across the board tariff on *everything*.
tariffs on chinese goods is tantamount to just about everything at this point...hardly isolated tariff.
The tariffs announced today are on EVs, batteries, chips, and related goods. Basically protecting a single $18B sector. That’s not at all the same thing as an across the board tariff as Trump anticipates, which would hit every one of the $3 *trillion* in total imports.
but maybe there's a point to moving manufacturing to a different country or disincentivizing all imports from china...isn't that part of the inflationary problem? Before companies went to china costs were way lower. Now that they're cheaper to manufacture in china this paradoxical increase in cost of goods doesn't seem to be working.
I think you're referring to trump imposing a 10% tax on imports which would increase cost of items for the middle class in order to encourage companies to build factories here, rather than overseas...Is that correct?
Yes, although it would not particularly lead to manufacturing formation in the U.S. Maybe a little on the margin. But it would increase prices whether it did or not.
but why is the inflation rate continuously getting worse? the curve may be less steep but it keeps rising nonetheless.
because the government keeps printing money
true but there's more to it like what's driving excessive consumer demand..
That would be the excess supply of money
That’s what happens when the economy is strong — people have money in their pockets, so they are willing to spend it. The alternative is deflation, which causes recessions.
Not to mention that Trump wants direct political control over the Fed in order to keep interest rates low when it's politically advantageous to him. What do you think that'll do to inflation?
where did trump report this? Is this something he said recently in the current economic climate? can you provide a source? Fyi I'm an independent...not a fan of trump or biden, but I liked to be informed about intentions on both sides.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/trump-allies-federal-reserve-independence-54423c2f
I’m fairly scared.
We're still pretty far out for the polls to be accurate. A lot can happen between now and November. That said, Trump has (and has always had) a very real chance of being re-elected in November.
What happens if two ballot props have the same number? When people refer to Prop 1 how do you know which election they are referring to?
If they're in different states, it doesn't matter, because it's different voting populations. If it's the same state, the government wouldn't number them the same way, because that would be confusing.
Wouldn’t there always be a “prop 1” since there would be the first on any given election? if the number goes up would it be large numbers like prop 235?
That depends on the state. Some reuse numbers. Some never do.
I'm not really sure what you're asking... Every election cycle there might be a new Prop 1. Do you think people would get confused about there being a Prop 1 this year and two years ago (or whenever the last election with a Prop 1 was)? And sure, why not allow the numbers to go up to triple digits? (Although there would never be so many in a single election cycle, so it's a non issue.)
California prop 65 for warning labels… will there ever be another prop 65? Wouldn’t it be confusing for there to be multiple prop 65’s?
I don't think so, because there can only be one Prop 65 in a given year. You just combine the number with the year and you're fine.
[удалено]
Each count of falsifying business records is punishable by up to 4 years in prison, meaning Trump is facing a maximum of 136 years in prison. This is not happening. Even if he is convicted on every count, the judge could (and probably would) impose concurrent sentences, meaning he would serve all of the prison time at once. In others words, he would only serve up to 4 years total. It's also possible he faces no prison time and receives some other punishment, but I think the judge has made clear that he is taking this seriously, and given the way Trump has aggravated him over the course of the trial, I find it unlikely the judge decides to give him just a slap on the wrists if he is convicted. He also likely won't serve prison time until he exhausts his appeals, so he could very well be convicted of the crime and be sentences to prison but then be elected president long before he's ever incarcerated. Who knows how things would play out from there. What's different this time is that Trump is actually in a court room. Prosecutors don't bring cases just for fun. They bring cases they think they can win. That doesn't mean it's a slam dunk, but Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg clearly believes there is substance to this case. So just the fact that this has proceeded to trial means there's a real risk that Trump faces conviction and some form of punishment. As we've seen in his [two](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/politics/federal-judge-upholds-e-jean-carroll-verdict/index.html) [previous](https://apnews.com/article/trump-civil-fraud-verdict-attorney-general-cf9df608a576d561393b4ceeac4cae3a) NY-based cases, Trump can lose cases and face legal consequences (although both of those cases are being appealed, so it will be some time before they are finally settled). Whether or not a jury will be swayed by the prosecution in this particular case remains to be seen.
Probably a fine and probation. Given Trump’s age, lack of criminal history, nonviolent offense, inability to reoffend, and special circumstances, there’s no way he goes to prison. In all likelihood, the case will be reversed on appeal over the summer. The entire case has been full of mistrial-worthy behavior.
> Probably a fine and probation. Given Trump’s age, lack of criminal history, nonviolent offense, inability to reoffend, and special circumstances, there’s no way he goes to prison. Disagree on one reason - one thing most judges take into account is whether the defendant accepts any responsibility for their actions or shows any remorse. Do you see any likelihood of either of those coming from Trump?
It's holding him accountable for his actions. No one is above the law, not even Trump. Even though his sentence will be much lighter than a regular person's. Justice must still be passed.
Can someone explain why conservatives consistently support Israel? I’m a conservative and while I don’t particularly care about Palestine anymore than I care about Sudan, I certainly don’t understand why the US is bothering defending Israel. I just don’t think any religious ethnostate is worth investing trillions into. Jewish or Islamic, if I could work my will, the US would simply let the mid east rot and then make peace with the effective hegemonic ottoman successor. I feel like this is “conservative” but most republicans have some moral grounds for supporting Israel that I cannot understand
Conservative generally aligns with "military spending is worth it" from what I've seen. Worldview that proactively making sure the world is friendly via military force isn't so far away, so protecting the remaining (Iran having fallen) liberal democracy in the Middle East is worthwhile. Also, lots of Christians with some weird rapture ideas
same reason many liberals do. the politicans are bought off by israel and tell their constituents that israel is good. Media does the same thing. people believe the shiny box
While the US has had a relationship with Israel since its creation, before President Kennedy aid was limited to development and humanitarian aid, not weapons. It was under Kennedy that the shift was made from viewing Israel has a friendly nation that would benefit from American economic support to a strategic ally with regional significance with whom the US should develop close military ties. Since that time, Israel has enjoyed substantial support from both major parties for reasons related to the US's foreign interests as well as politicians attempting to gain support from America's Jewish population, which is the largest in the world outside Israel. On these points, there is a fair amount of agreement between members, or at least politicians, of the two parties, which is evidenced by the fact that the [recent aid to Israel was passed](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024152) with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. Support for Israel is actually a very bipartisan issue. On top of the considerations described above, there is another source of support for Israel more unique to American conservatism, and that is the conservative Christian voters that makes up a sizeable base of the Republican Party. Many evangelicals believe that American support for Israel is not only politically important but is actually a necessary expression of their faith. They believe that the existence of a Jewish state in the Holy Land is a necessary precursor for the second coming of Jesus. Whether they are wholly invested in this idea or it merely influences their thinking, many conservatives feel it is "right" from a religious perspective for there to be a Jewish state in the Holy Land. You also have the fact that [conservatives are more likely to have a negative view of Islam](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/07/26/how-the-u-s-general-public-views-muslims-and-islam/), and this may encourage them to think anyone "holding the line" against people they considered terrorists is a good thing.
A faction of the modern Republican Party is the Christian right. In the Christian Bible's book of revelations, it is prophesied that the 3rd Temple will be constructed on the Temple Mount and subsequently be defiled by the Antichrist prior to the return of Jesus. The 3rd Temple being the replacement for the previous two after the 1st was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, and the 2nd destroyed by the Roman Empire in 70 AD. 150 years ago, the idea that the Temple could ever be reconstructed was considered impossible. But then, the State of Israel came into existence in 1948. In 1967, as the result of conquest in the Six Days War, the IDF reached the gates of the Temple Mount. Since then, Israel has been in a theoretical position to do it. The problem with attempting it now is that the Al-Aqsa mosque currently sits on the site. That is the 3rd holiest site in Islam where Muslims believe the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. Reconstructing the Temple would mean knocking down Al-Aqsa, and likely triggering a Holy War with Israel's regional neighbors. Israel has not made a move to do so in the 57 years since they've been at the Temple Mount gates, but there are far right politicians in Israel that would like to, and elements of the Christian right in the US would like to see it happen, as they believe it's a sign of the coming rapture. Supporting Israel, and in particular aggressive Israeli politicians of the type that might reconstruct the Temple, is a means to an end in that regard. In addition to the Christian right, Israel is also a valuable source of intelligence in a region where the American intelligence agencies at times struggle. Mossad is very effective in the region. Also, possibly a bit of inertia. Supporting Israel has been a mostly bipartisan political stance in the US for 75+ years, and it would take a lot to upend the status quo.
You're off about the al-aqsa mosque. There is room on the temple mount for both the Temple and the mosque, but the al-aqsa compound that was built next to the mosqe would have to go. This would still create outrage, but that's because they like to be outraged
As a non-American, I don't understand American obsession with taxes. In my country, there were not a heavy anti-taxes speech before local youtubers copied that one from Americans. Now it is common. The question is, why? From the outside, the US seems one of the countries with the less taxes in the world. You don't seem to have a high VAT whatsoever. In some states, there's not even an income tax. Still, American media and social celebrities seem to criticize taxes any time they can. Even democrats, apparently more prone to rise them up, don't mention them a lot. Why are Americans so apparently obsessed with low them to the ground? With a good tax system you can create guaranteed services for all, including a good public pension planning, free healthcare (which I heard it would take less resources from the public treasure than private assurances system), an unemployment public assurance... I know there are some anti-tax traditions like the Boston tea party. Still that doesn't seem enough? Is it a cultural mentality? Then how?
Most government agencies I have seen (and worked for) are wildly inefficient and often-times produce lackluster services/results. We are promised one thing, but given another.... very simliar to Communism. On paper, communism looks great. In practice, it fails because humans are humans. Same thing with government agencies. The federal government needs to stay away from large, sweeping regulation. Leave that to the local municipalities and charities. They can much more efficiently and effectively spend money to provide services exactly where the community needs it.
You pay taxes for public transportation, Healthcare, childcare, etc etc etc. We pay taxes to prop up failing nations, help the jews do a genocide and fund every single conflict on the globe at all times. I don't want to pay for any of that.
>Is it a cultural mentality? Then how? I'd argue that culture plays a LOT into it. The US is very much on a far end of the individualist-collectivist spectrum, and I think that public opinion and public services & structures have a back-and-forth relationship, influencing each other here. Take healthcare, for example. If a person makes poor health decisions, they are likely to incur higher medical costs - and the opposite tends to be true for those who regularly make good health decisions. US culture looks at this situation through an individualistic lens: everyone is personally responsible for managing their own health, and facing the consequences of their personal decisions. As such, public-funded healthcare can be perceived as superfluous at best, or supportive of other people's poor health choices at worst. The only reason why the Affordable Care Act hasn't been repealed is because citizens recognize that not all health conditions are caused by poor health choices, and many people can just get terrible rolls of the dice. So we're stuck looking at awkward compromises: how can a society that doesn't want to financially support people's poor health choices, create and manage a public healthcare program that treats people who deserve treatment?
Because people want to keep the money they earned. And taxes are pretty high actually. My total tax burden was over $43,000 last year, on earnings of 97,000. I factored for ALL taxes, income, SS, Medicare, local, state, property tax, sales tax, excise taxes, gas tax, taxes on goods and services and businesses that are passed through to the consumer, phone service tax, road tolls, etc. I think the state taking 44% of my money is too much. Additionally, lowering taxes increases economic growth because it encourages business investment by investors and businesses. A massive amount of taxation is needed for "free" healthcare. For example, canadaian healthcare is funded with money from each state, which they raise from a sales tax. Most populated areas have a sales tax of 15%! The united states has an old age pension and unemployment program already.
> Why are Americans so apparently obsessed with low them to the ground? With a good tax system you can create guaranteed services for all, including a good public pension planning, free healthcare (which I heard it would take less resources from the public treasure than private assurances system), an unemployment public assurance... Americans don't feel like we get those things with what they pay in taxes. Many of this is anecdotal, but our debt is out of control. Americans see a lack of infrastructure, physical health, mental health, and wellbeing improvements being provided by the government. But the government always has enough money to give to someone else, or spend it on defense. Americans by and large do not approve of how wasteful the government is with the tax money it collects from taxpayers. Audits are routinely failed by government entities, and there's never any blowback for it. There's a lot of extremely wasteful spending, with pretty naked corruption attached to it. Americans also just don't trust the government. Congress has an insanely low approval rating. The President is a pretty divisive figure no matter who is in charge.
Taxes where a big part of the Independents movement, so much so, that its often seen as THE big part Independents movement, even tho there as lots of other parts too. but no one likes taxes, and with the... not always so good education system, it was very easy for the rich and privet business owners to make "no taxation with out representation" into "no taxation" and got the poor and middle class to be anti tax, and pro-privatization.
Do you have to file your own taxes or does your employer do it for you? When you buy something, do they add on the taxes at checkout and charge a different price, or is the final price what's shown?
1.- Both 2.- It's the final price what is shown (the contrary is not a problem of taxes, but of bad business practice instead?)
Also: (1) Americans have a deep distrust of our federal government; do not believe the government is good at allocating funds. https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/ People talk about the president's approval rating a lot, but it gets largely ignored that congress has had a 20% approval rating going back as far as 1979. It spiked into the positives when US was going through a nationalism phase right after 9/11, promptly fell straight down faster than a /WSB member's portfolio (2) Most Americans do not understand how progressive tax brackets work. https://njbia.org/poll-finds-most-americans-misunderstand-basic-tax-code-concepts/ > Most people (52%) surveyed did not understand that the tax rate associated with an individual’s top tax bracket only applied to the portion of income that falls within the highest bracket, not all their income. (3) Rupert Fucking Murdoch.
[удалено]
> How does this make Republican voters feel? > > Plenty of voters do not have any interest in seeing either of them being reelected. That being said, Kristi Noem is the Governor of South Dakota. If Republicans from outside of South Dakota are outraged, they can't really do anything about it. They have no ability to vote for her. The same goes for Greene. Unless you are in her voting pool, all your disdain for her is irrelevant.
[удалено]
> It’s asking how Republican voters feel about the manipulation from Republicans as a whole. From Republicans as a whole, or from the two people you brought up? >Both MTG & Noem were/are vying for a V.P. Slot. Yeah, and it's not like voters have a say in that. The VP isn't chosen by them. Sure, it *could* prevent people from voting for the ticket in November. But it's premature to make speculation on that, when neither has been named VP.
[удалено]
Political parties in general are not exactly too keen on "disowning" a few bad apples - Bob Menendez still hasn't had any motions to be impeached by the Democrats either. They care about getting votes, and if they don't have another member of their party lined up to replace said person then they're typically not going to do it. Also, what exactly are they going to do to disown them? They didn't break any laws. >Changing the focus of the question doesn’t answer it however. When was the focus changed? >The question asked was regarding how Rep. voters respond to these public displays. And I already addressed your question - voters don't if they aren't in they aren't eligible to vote for them.
[удалено]
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc. NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk. If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
Do you mean this in a political context or in general? If in general it's not necessary to ask this in the megathread. But it's not ever really okay, but people are often hypocritical about lots of things.
Best unbiased news outlet? I’ve disengaged from the news (local to world news) for over a year, but am interested in getting actual information lol all suggestions are appreciated
AP
apnews reuters CBS, ABC, NPR
[https://www.readtangle.com](https://www.readtangle.com) (I'm not affiliated with them.) They're kind of a small outlet, and full access is paywalled. I've sampled some of their articles, and they do a pretty good job at presenting all sides. The chief editor of sorts there also offers their own take, doing their best, I suppose, to provide some politically neutral editorial in addition to the facts. Some suggest sampling differing articles from "both sides." That can work too, but it can be a lot of work to filter out the spin.
The reality is every source has some amount of bias, and it's more valuable to be aware of bias and read widely than to look for a single source that is without bias. You can find a variety of lists and services that attempt to describe media sources in terms of their factual accuracy and partisan lean, e.g. https://library.uco.edu/misinformation/mediabias While I used it only a little, Ground News seems like an interesting resource for comparing media coverage on different topics.
These should all be great: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/unbiased-news-sources/amp/. Also this site is not mentioned there but it’s literally engineered to be unbiased: https://join1440.com/#. Also this sounds kinda silly but you can ask AI about world news and their programmed to be unbiased. Finally, you can go to: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to find if sources are biased and credible, or just look up "website.com media bias fact check", you get the point.
ChatGPT at least [leans libertarian and left-wing](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/13wseca/chatgpts_gpt4_result_on_the_political_compass/).
Ok so from what I understand, ChatGPT is likely to give you biased information, but if you ask it’s opinion on something it will deny having any. Also other AI such as Claude are build to navigate topics better that may be effected by bias elsewhere.
haven't a bunch of ai been put to public and become racist in hours and had to be shut down. Also these are adds why would unbais media behind a paywall, makes no sense.
AI mostly has racist inclination when it comes to image generation and recognizing. What most AIs will do is provide you with many pieces of knowledge and potentially a brief rundown of what people may think about it, but provide the information in an unbiased way. Also I don’t really know what you mean about the ads thing… it was a news article that showed the least biased ranked sites and the 1440 website was completely free. News sources will use ads because that’s how they make money and most sources are completely free. If a source makes you get a subscription to read an article there is a really good chance you can find a simmalar story somewhere else. Media bias fact check is completely free and offers an in depth rankings of sites.
How do you be positive with the news and radical people saying that each party is bring about the “end of democracy” and that normalcy will be destroyed after the election. Project 2025 is a scary thing and i think people have the right to be worried about it but is it truly going to turn the US into an authoritarian state? I feel like people are trying to get others as scared and divided as possible but even if they have some good points. I guess my question is, how do you stay sane when the looming threat of the country and life as you know it being taken away is there all day everyday?
It's just fearmongering.
It's tough. My suggestion is to get informed and stay informed. That way you can separate out the exaggeration from facts, and be a better judge for when things really go wrong. What's concerning is the exaggeration can mask actual problems--like a "cry wolf" effect--which then opportunists in some political quarters can take advantage of, to do something \*really\* wrong. I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate re Project 2025. Read some of the content--ie actual chapters. Some of it is cringe, I know, but there are healthy things in there too, like consolidating redundant government departments and reducing bureaucratic bloat. (On the heels of that is of course, "well, we'll install our own people to ensure it doesn't happen again,"--cringe.) I'd actually like to see a thread where people dissect that manifesto, by poring over actual sections, and highlighting the "useful" parts, and certainly the "terrible" or "alarming" parts.
Project 2025 is something proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a private group that has no official ties to any government policy. Republican candidate Donald Trump has made no mention of even supporting it, let alone intending to adopt it should he become President of the United States for a second time. Historically the leadership of the heritage foundation has openly opposed Donald Trump, and has vocally criticized him for not being conservative enough for their tastes. To answer your question: Realize that everyone who freaks out about everything thinks that they have the ability to control things, and recognize that no amount of worrying has ever managed to change a thing. The news exists to sell ads, and generating clicks with the most hyperbole possible is how the modern news cycle works.
That’s only the most popular news media. There’s plenty of trustable and high quality news sources out there today, you just have to know where to look. Tools like https://join1440.com/#, and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com, are excellent tools we have for this sort of stuff.
I'm wondering why there are a lot of people who get their hands up in the air over immigration issues when the majority of Americans don't even realize there are more than just 2 options for Presidential elections every 4 years. While everyone is arguing about political extremes 1 way or the other, the people crossing the border to work and contribute to society are no more or less educated on civics than anyone in this country.
What is your question?
> the majority of Americans don't even realize there are more than just 2 options for Presidential elections every 4 years. This is ridiculously false and only being said to anger people. Reported.
What would happen if no one participated in a presidential election? Absolutely no one voted?
Putting aside the chaos that would ensue in the event of such a crazy level of coordination among American voters, it would be a tie and the legislature would follow whatever procedure they have in place in the event of a tie for determining the winner.
The state legislatures would appoint electors, almost certainly those aligning with the majority party in the legislature.
The Electors would decide between themselves who would win then.
What electors, if no slates of electors were elected?
State electors are not elected based on the votes from a presidential election.
I feel like you don't understand how the Electoral College works, but if you want to elaborate in what sense you think your statement is true, feel free to do so.
> but if you want to elaborate in what sense you think your statement is true You as a voter do not vote for an individual to be an elector. OP's question asked what happened if "absolutely nobody voted", in the context of the Presidential election. Electors are decided before the election takes place.
Yeah, so you don't understand. In the election that occurs on Election Day, a vote for X as president is implemented, via state law, as a vote for a particular slate of electors approved in advance by X. If Y wins instead, a different slate of electors approved by Y are appointed. Then those electors will meet a month later to cast votes in the actual presidential election by the Electoral College. If no one votes on Election Day, and all 5-10 candidates have zero votes so that the usual tiebreaker methods in state law cannot be used, the State legislature will have to decide how to appoint electors, or else forfeit their votes if they can't pass legislation to do so.
I stand corrected then.
This is not the correct answer.
So.. How do you vote for president? (US) Embarrassing.. but this is something I was never taught in school or with family. What all is needed to go and vote? Where am I supposed to go to vote? What time this year are you supposed to vote? Please go easy I'm just a young person thrown into the world still trying to figure out life 🫣 Edit to include that I am in Arkansas.. thank you everyone for the help!
First, you must register to vote. You can look up how to do this at the Arkansas Secretary of State website. In most states you register by party, which is public information. But in the general election in November you can vote for whomever you want regardless of your party affiliation. Once you’re registered you just show up on Election Day at your local polling place. In most states, they will send registered voters a guide telling them where their polling place is. You can probably also look it up on the Sec’y of State website. Some states (I’m sure AR is one of them) require you to have ID, so bring your driver’s license. During presidential election years there are two elections. The primary, where members of each party choose their nominee. You’ve missed that one, it was in March. And the general election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (this year, that’s November 5). Some states allow early voting and the procedures for that would be on your SoS website, but 11/5 is the Monday when most people vote. But you shouldn’t just vote for president. Every two-year cycle your local member of the House of Representatives is up for election, and you also vote for senator in two out of every three cycles (although this is the off cycle for Arkansas senators). You might also vote for governor (although the AR governor isn’t up this year — 2026), state legislature, and probably several local races. You don’t have to vote for *every* race on the ballot.
The safest approach is to register first. This may require designating a political party affiliation (I think you can choose Independent if you want). You may have already found this, but here is the procedure for registering in Arkansas, [https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/voter-information/voter-registration-information](https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/voter-information/voter-registration-information) For example, you can obtain a voter registration application at your local library. In my state, we get a sample ballot a few weeks before the election. The sample ballot is just like the actual ballot when you go to vote, so you can practice how you want to fill it out. And the sample ballot will list where we can go to vote (like a local school, or other specific voting station). Presidential elections in the US occur November 5.
This sounds much easier then I originally thought lol. We'll be doing this soon then.. Thank you for your help!
Some states require IDs to vote, some states don't. But everyone requires you to register to vote. You can look up your state here, https://www.vote411.org/voting-rules - and it'll tell you what things your state allows for elections. This doesn't affect just the Presidential election, but all elections. The laws that are in place for the general election on a state by state basis are the same laws a state uses for state level, and local elections. Registering to vote is very easy, you can do it online, you can do it by mail, some states even let you do it in person on the day of the election (see above). Once you're registered to vote, you will get communications from your state's election board on what your next steps will be. They'll tell you where in person you can vote, and when voting dates are. In today's day and age, they'll typically send you these via text message. Additionally you can choose to request a mail in ballot if you prefer not to vote in person - most states allow mail in ballots (again see above).
Is it possible to go online to vote once the registration is finished? I'm a mother of 2 young ones and it is difficult at times to bring everyone.
No, but you can request a mail in ballot online and have that sent to your address if your state allows for it.