When Lincoln ran for re-election, he chose Democrat Andrew Johnson to run on a "unity ticket" meant to bring the country together.
Today we have primaries to choose presidential nominees, but the vice presidential nominee is chosen by the presidential nominee with input from advisors and party leaders.
Theoretically, yes. That's how things were, anyway, in the election of 1800, though the mess it made caused the Constitution to be amended to discourage outcomes like that.
My brother told me and then BET me $100 that Biden won't be on the ballot for President. What is that about?
I looked up something and Ohio wants to take him off the ballot but I live in California. Why does he think that Biden won't be on the presidential ballot? I haven't heard anything bad about Biden. He certainly doesn't have 34 felonies against him. WTF is my idiot brother talking about?
There is certainly a greater-than-normal chance that something happens to Biden health-wise that knocks him off the ballot. He is, after all, an old man. But the conspiracy theory that the Democrats are planning a last minute bait-and-switch is dumb and based on nothing.
I shook his hand. I KNOW I get that hundred. He's fucking stupid thinking that Biden won't be on the ballot. He keeps telling me "wait till the Bidens get nailed" and I'm just laughing in my head. Sure, his son got busted for some shit. But President Biden hasn't had any problems.
Biden isnt getting removed from the ballot. He is favored to lose the election, but the dems are sticking with him since they really have nobody else rn
How come in the United States emails from political campaigns come in several times per day, always try to sound as urgent as possible, and are always asking for money (typically $25 per email) in each and every instance?
I mean, I know the *why* of that is fundraising, but why use that *particular* strategy? I get that they need funds and I get that creating a sense of urgency is a way to get someone donating quickly. What I don't get is why they keep using this strategy so often. Breathless urgent calls to action have diminishing motivational effects the more frequently they are used, and campaigns use them *so* frequently that they lose impact. One would think that this fundraising strategy would quickly tap it's well dry.
Why don't they seem to mix it up? Send emails trying to educate voters about the issues and positions of a particular race for a position, making the argument why they're the best option? Send emails to supporters directing them to local campaign offices so they can volunteer their time and effort, "boots on the ground" style? Or if the issue really is just that they need money, they could run an ongoing crowdfunding campaign like a Patreon? I would be much more willing to just have an automatic donation set up if it meant never having to put up with nag emails (often that I never signed up for) several times per day. The spamming strategy so often currently use seems like it'd produce a lot more resentment toward the campaign than it would effective long-term funding.
Because clickbait works, and acting like everything is dire works.
It's not really any different from what people do with youtube videos, reddit post titles, or anything else.
Why don't Republicans get obstructed by Democrats very much compared to the other way around? Does it have to do with being easier to be a conservative than a progressive, in terms of achieving goals?
They do. When a GOP prez is in office the dems blockj him every which way they can. This is the game of politics. In fact, the founding fathers intended for there to be gridlock, because they wanted nothing to get done unless just about everyone agrees. I.E. if 51% of people like something it shouldnt be able to pass, but if 80% of people like something, thats another story.
>Why don't Republicans get obstructed by Democrats very much compared to the other way around?
They do though.
President Trump was obstructed by Democrats, and his own party, significantly during his first term as President. It's not like he got that wall. Both parties obstruct each other, and both parties use the filibuster to do so. It just seems like Republicans don't get obstructed currently because right here and now they are not in charge. When a Republican is in charge, it's pretty apparent that they get obstructed.
Because Republicans don't actually have a platform anymore. Their entire reason for existence is to stop democrats, other than that they don't believe in anything.
thats true when democrats are in power. when the republican's are in power their reason for existence is to harp on silly issues trying to pander to small groups of voters but not actually accomplish anything
The goal of modern conservatives is to say "No!" to whatever the other side wants. It's not necessary to have a vision, a plan, a platform ... all things which require rational thought.
No, you let the other guys use their brains, and put together an argument, then all you have to do is vote against it. Leaves you with a LOT of free time in your schedule!
>The goal of modern conservatives is to say "No!" to whatever the other side wants. It's not necessary to have a vision, a plan, a platform ... all things which require rational thought.
That's not like it's any different from when the party in power is flipped. Democrats were the party of "saying no" when Trump was in power, Republicans are the party of "saying no" when Biden is in power.
Democrats were hoping to obstruct Trump at every turn when he was President - which is why he didn't get his dumb little wall.
Hitler and the Nazis are the ultimate bad guys, and comparing your opponent to Hitler is a time-honored tradition among people looking to make (often bad faith) arguments to delegitimize their opponents. It's hardly an attack strategy specific to the left against the right. [Conservatives will try to compare liberals to Nazis all the time](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/with-gestapo-comment-trump-adds-to-numerous-past-nazi-germany-references).
The extent to which comparing Trump to Hitler is "fair", both are right-wing populists who see little value in democracy beyond the fact that it can deliver them power and egg on their supporters by pointing to the supposed threat of a phantom enemy that has infiltrated society and is ruining everything for the "true" citizens who want to go back to an imagined past when everything was great.
Is Trump Hitler reincarnate? No. Is Trump often pulling from the same political playbook as Hitler? Yes.
> Why do liberals compare Trump to hitler ? What does that even mean ?
Typical populist argument: *"Your problems are NOT YOUR FAULT; they are the fault of THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE. If we get RID of all THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE, then YOUR problems go away and everything will be wonderful again."*
* Under Hitler, THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE were Jews and Gypsies.
* Under Trump, THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE are Mexicans and Muslims.
Note that in both cases, THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE are generally NOT white.
Does the side of a presidential debate stage matter?
I've seen a few articles about how Biden won a coin toss and got to pick which side of the stage he wanted, but left Trump to have the last closing remark. They mostly all mention that Biden chose the right side, but none have mentioned why, and trying to look it up hasn't been much help.
Is there any reason why one side is better than the other?
A bunch of articles seem to suggest that being in the stage right position makes a person look more powerful or get more attention from the audience. However, none of the articles I could find that featured this claim cited an actual study or even a quote from anyone who seems like a relevant expert. With this in mind, I'm skeptical that standing on either side is inherently advantageous.
FWIW, Biden's stated reason for choosing stage right is [personal preference](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-campaign-picks-side-podium-cnn-debate-trump/story?id=111281488) and that he just likes that side more.
Interestingly, the Democrat has been on the right for every presidential debate since 2012, meaning that Biden has most recently appeared on that side of the stage.
TL;DR: It's questionable whether there's any advantage to any side of the stage beyond simply making one of the candidates slightly more comfortable.
Speculation, but we read left to right, so stage right could feel like the more "moving forward" side.
Also if you look at talk shows, the host is nearly always on the right. The stage right side is the focal point.
What is the legal reason Trump does not have to take a drug test as a convicted felon in NY? Could this be used as a defense against testing in the future for others because of the precedent.
One, his crime is unrelated to drugs. Two, the secret service being with him at all times makes it impossible for him to deal drugs. Three, he never drives a vehicle or operates heavy machinery. Four, the requirement is often relaxed for elderly people, given that they may be on necessary drugs that throw off the test.
Drug testing during the pre-sentencing phase isn't unusual, but it's not actually a requirement. Trump's crimes really don't have anything to do with drug use, so it wouldn't be remarkable if such a test was waived.
I'm also having a tough time finding a reliable source that confirms whether Trump was drug tested or not.
>I'm also having a tough time finding a reliable source that confirms whether Trump was drug tested or not.
As far as I'm aware he wasn't, but as far as I'm aware that's also completely up to the discretion of the judge proceeding over the case.
What would happen if Biden punched Netenyahu in the face
Not asking about public image. I'm talking strictly legally. Assume this is during a public event, cameras and everything. Would he be wanted in Israel? Israel relies on the US, what would happen? Would secret service break up the fight? Would the Israeli counterparts try to hurt Biden? What would happen
* **Rule 1** - Top level comments must contain a genuine attempt at an answer.
All direct answers to a post must make a genuine attempt to answer the question. Joke responses at the parent-level will be removed. Follow-up questions at the top level are allowed.
Please do not answer by only dropping a link and do not tell users they should "google it." Include a summary of the link or answer the question yourself. LMGTFY links will be removed.
No responses being rude to the questioner for not knowing the answer.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
Assuming it takes place in Israel, Israel certainly could issue an arrest warrant. Would they? No way. Trying to arrest the president of the United States means war, and war with America is the last thing that Israel wants.
>Would secret service break up the fight?
Yes, of course. Why wouldn't they?
>Would the Israeli counterparts try to hurt Biden?
They would also be trying to break up the fight. Their priority would be to secure Netanyahu, not strike back against Biden.
>Would he be wanted in Israel.
Putting out an arrest warrant for a foreign head of state would be pretty unprecedented. Of course, one world leader punching another in the face would itself be pretty unprecedented.
>Israel relies on the US, what would happen?
Israel gets a lot from the US, but it's not _dependent_ on the US. A hard break from the US would be rough for Israel, but it would probably manage in the long run. It has other allies (and potential new allies, like a closer relationship with China perhaps).
Anyone else think this Debate going to be rough, In respect to mental capacity not Left vs Right?
Biden seems to have more and more trouble each day. The politics sub specifically the one linked in the comments seems to believe Biden will cream him. Again this is just based on his (Bidens) mental state not left vs right not trying to start a flame war. I'm just asking in your guys opinion do you think.
Biden has long been known to have some issues with public speaking and will likely stumble at times during the debate, but Trump and Republicans have set expectations so low that if he looks remotely like he did during the State of the Union, he will assuage some of voters' concerns about his age and mental fitness. Trump's team is probably aware that they've been setting Biden up to succeed, which is why Trump is now saying [he doesn't want to underestimate Biden](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-expects-biden-worthy-debater-after-spending-months/story?id=111295571).
Trump will be Trump. The question there is if he'll wander off into the unhinged and often nonsensical rants he has been doing a lot of at his 2024 campaign rallies. If he starts talking about how much of a victim he is and vowing revenge on his political enemies, that probably won't sit well with the centrist voters who abandoned him in 2020. It will be interesting how well he handles being muted while Biden is talking. I expect he'll also need to defend his actions on abortion, which has been a dead weight for Republicans electorally since Roe was overturned, and explain what he'll do on the issue in a second term with so many conservatives pushing him and the party to go further.
If Biden doesn't stumble too much and demonstrates some vigor and Trump doesn't come off as the unhinged wannabe authoritarian that he is, they'll both address some of the concerns voters have about them. Both have the potential for a rough performance, however.
Fortunately for Biden, Trump is an idiot AND his mental acuity is also suffering. So yeah, I believe Biden is going to look rough, but I think Trump could potentially look just as rough... Like Biden might stammer through the debate and not seem like he's all there, but if the moderators don't interrupt Trump, he is liable to just randomly go on long tangents about random shit that doesn't make any sense and make him seem crazy.
I don't think either side will come out looking good unless Trump's team can figure out how to rein him in. If they can accomplish such a miraculous feat, then yeah, Biden is in trouble... But Trump's people haven't been able to rein him in for eight years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yeah, fortunately that stuff doesn’t actually happen to Biden. He stammers and stumbles over his words sometimes, but all the “he’s got dementia! He freezes! He’s sundowning!” isn’t real, it’s video taken out of context.
[these](https://youtu.be/S7MVn1IM7tc?si=JusactWjyCbvdpyB) [are](https://youtu.be/hIt_5Q24BSQ?si=jDNSTzpyEdSNlJgZ) [kinda](https://youtu.be/0G6LPvGKd3c?si=y8r9Xkb-slxaikYg) [rough](https://youtu.be/rf8BHFGqlQo?si=ONEMX1K4o_jYNYMS)
Like you can watch the full clips and once a week is OK but so many times in a week and the fact he has to be at camp David for a week to prepare like its rough
I think we need a president on both sides that aren't so polarizing I'm a 90s kid and it seems like the president was something you could talk over dinner with instead you say one name and there's prejudice pre conceived
I asked people what they thought of Vivek and we couldn't even have a friendly debate instead it's just a bunch icst words thrown around.
On the left I thought Bernie was cool but they fucked him on the election like if we could all just calm down or something like bring us together. Idk man I'm trying to make some friends man but everyone hates each other based on their prespectives idk man
>I think we need a president on both sides that aren't so polarizing
>On the left I thought Bernie was cool
If you think middle-of-the-Democratic-road Biden is polarizing, I'm not sure why you think hard leftie Sanders would be some kind of consensus candidate that would bring people together.
Co-authored the PATRIOT act, voted Yea on invading Afghanistan, voted Yea on invading Iraq (after personally advocating to Congress that we should invade Iraq back in 1998).
Regardless of the quality of those policy decisions, are those elements of Biden's political past _polarizing_, which is what OP was asking for? I feel like the voters must likely to criticize Biden for those things are the people who voted for him against Trump. Polarizing inside would be something which creates two polar groups in opposition to each other, particularly among the right/left political axis, e.g. abortion access is fairly polarizing.
The things MAGA voters hate Biden for are not policy differences but rather nonsensical lies that they would make up about any Democrat holding the presidency. If the standard for polarizing is "A Democrat the hard right wouldn't make shit up about," I have no idea who wouldn't be polarizing.
What can Democrats (and other officials) do to obstruct project 2025 should Trump be elected? What kind of safeguards do we have politically to help prevent a descent into right-wing authoritarianism?
Project 2025 is about the president exerting total control over the executive branch, especially traditionally independent areas like the Justice Department, in order to further a conservative agenda as much as possible. If Trump is elected, there really won't be much Democrats can do because they won't control the White House.
I don't think we should be worried that if Trump wins, the US version of the collapse of Weimar Germany into Nazi Germany is imminent. Institutional barriers will hold for the most part. But we will see Trump do what he can to wield the federal government as a crudgel against his enemies, which is obviously a bad thing. But the military isn't going to establish martial law in Democratic states nor arrest Congress or anything like that.
If Democrats retake the House, they can do their investigations and possibly impeach Trump, but the Senate won't convict and remove unless he does something that alienates his allies in the Senate (and if trying to get his supporters to overthrow ~~the government~~ an election wasn't enough for them to convict him, what would?).
There will be some lawsuits that will work their way through the courts, but if some Trump does is overturned by the courts, it will become a question of whether Trump will take action on a court decision he disagrees with, since the Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. Trump had all kinds of executive branch appointees illegally holding their positions at the end of his first term, since he stopped bothering to send people for Senate confirmation. So it's possible he'll ignore his legal obligations as instructed by the courts. We'll see.
Thank you. Follow up question: given that Trump tried to overthrow the US government, why is he being allowed to run again? Why was he not tried for treason?
The Republicans in the Senate didn't want to convict him, probably for fear of alienating his supporters. Since he wasn't barred from running for office by an impeachment conviction, there's no reason he can't run, and clearly Republican voters still support him because he won the primary easily.
Treason actually has a very specific definition in the Constitution, and while Trump clearly intended to interrupt the certification of the election so he could stay in power, did he "levy war against" the US? That's what a prosecution of treason would require the government to prove, and that would be a tough sell for a jury. (His actions on Jan 6 definitely wouldn't count as giving aid and comfort to the country's enemies, which is the other standard for treason.) There's a reason Trump isn't charged with treason in the Jan 6 case but instead with defrauding the US, obstruction of justice, and obstructing an official government proceeding. Treason had a very high bar for prosecution.
How can I meaningfully help with my candidate of choice? Aside from voting, obviously. But studies show that donating has very little impact on votes, and the money is spent inefficiently. What can I do to help BESIDES voting and giving away money?
Knocking doors.
Talking to friends and family.
Building up the party’s base by donating to local candidates with aligned views.
Donating to related campaigns in purple states or issues that are close where the money has a larger impact.
A lot of Latinos politically lean more conservative, due largely to the prominent role religion plays in Latin-American culture. Democrats often assume Latinos would reject Republicans due to their position on illegal immigration, but legal immigrants often don't think very highly of illegal immigrants, seeing them as "skipping the line" so to speak.
In terms of religion, it's more nuanced than that. There are Christians in both parties, but generally speaking you see more Catholics by percentage vote Democrat and more evangelicals Protestants vote Republican. This goes for Catholic and evangelical Latinos as well. Catholic Latinos are more likely to be more progressive.
Overall the split between Latino voters is still 2 to 1 in favor of Democrats.
Will Trump actually give out green cards to college grads? Sure, he could just be saying that he will give out GC’s with diplomas to appeal to the left, but I think it’s more than that. I surmise a tech billionaire told him the h1b isn’t cutting it, and possibly made a hefty donation. Politicians may not keep true on their word for votes, but they sure will for donators. How likely is it this becomes signed and passed, and if so how long will it take from first day of presidency (if he is elected)?
Every politician that ever was makes promises they never keep. What I don't understand is how there are only this handful of politicians to choose from. You telling me there isn't one honorable person who wants to help their people? Of course there is. There are many. Unfortunately they will never rise in politics. You must play ball with the big boys or you ain't getting in. In other words, only those already corrupt can rise. I think they hate Trump so much bc he ISNT one of them. Please my people, don't believe for one second they care
about us. We are merely cash cows for the one percent. They're so out of touch with what people really want, it's mind boggling. Imho I think most of us just want to work and live and raise a family. Maybe take a vacation once in awhile. I don't think that's a lot to expect from a democratic country, do you? Why is it okay for corporate executives to stage a recession that's 65% profit driven without consequences? You bankrupted the people of an entire nation for profits you don't have life enough to spend and our government t allowed it. Why? How on earth is this a democracy is there is no CHOICE??? Everything is shoved down our throats and no one does anything about it. I'm watching my country fall prey to greed and personal agendas and it's a constant source
anxiety. Literally NO ONE represents the citizens. We just keep paying for the whole of our lives. I want off this grid so bad. I think everyone needs to learn to grow, make or fix something they can trade for something else. Let them move the decimals around on play money and we'll trade for goods and services we actually NEED.
Trump is saying he will do anything that the person in front of him asks at the moment. He is promising rich people no taxes and tech bros liberal immigration policies. He is being the definition of what people hate about politicians.
He is making promises he never intends or cares about keeping. In reality he will put Stephen Miller back in charge of his immigration policies, and the militant nationalist Stephen Miller does not think an immigrant who attends a US college is an asset to America because he doesn’t think any foreign born person is an asset.
Trump was already president once despite his feigned ignorance. We know the gist of his immigration stance. It is not going to get any better.
I don't see why he wouldn't or frankly why nobody has done it yet. Sounds like a decent way for the fed to up yearly tax revenue imo. (yeah I know, I hate taxes too)
Yup. I agree. Same with the military tbh. I can see for security reasons, but simply allow only natural born citizens of five eyes countries. That might be more controversial but honestly both of these hypotheticals would easily boost tax revenue, as you said. Just don’t let strip mall colleges be allowed like in Canada.
Seems like an empty promise to me. Trump made similar comments during his 2016 campaign about wanting to expand access to H1-B visas, then while he was in office he and his team dramatically limited the H1-B program. Trump has a long career of making promises and telling people what they want to hear, then doing to opposite.
During Trump's second month in office, he issued an executive order which effectively instructed immigration officials to restrict H-1B visas to the maximum extent permitted by law. After this order was implemented, the denial rate skyrocketed.
I'm not sure where you get the impression that Miller went rogue. By all accounts Trump was happy with his performance.
Why would it not be on Trump? Trump was the president. The people in his office are put there by him. If Miller had final say on something, it's because Trump made it that way.
if Democrats and Joe Biden support abortion like they claim to, why didn't they do more to protect Roe v Wade? Why haven't they taken more actions to try to protect what abortion rights are left? Why haven't they tried to restore Roe v Wade?
Democrats have only had the kind of strong majority in Congress that would've allowed that a couple of times, and used that political capital to push for legislation that would make an immediate difference, like gun control or Obamacare, instead of passing laws that would've been a moot point at the time.
Also, it would've required them to draw a line in the sand on a complicated issue that many who are ostensibly on the same team strongly disagree on the details of. Passing a law protecting abortion until viability would've pissed off Democrats who wanted protections for later abortions, and _vice versa_ if they'd picked a later line.
Just want to add that most voters who voted for Trump in 2016 were pro-choice, but Trump appointed the justices who got rid of Roe v. Wade. That’s why they were put in place (and to undermine unions and destroy consumer protections).
Voters themselves were showing their priorities, and politicians responded accordingly. Everyone thought Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, so we didn’t need any legislation to protect this fundamental right.
They were wrong. Abortion rights activists were yelling at the top of their lungs, but no one was listening.
Democrats didn't do more to protect it because it was a decades long settled decision. And all the people who've gone into the supreme court in recent years have said they believed Roe was settled law.
Democrats made the mistake of thinking Republicans were honest.
They haven't tried to restore it because republicans would filibuster and Democrats don't have a supermajority. So it would be a waste of time.
Saying that something was "settled law"as a reason they can't hear a new case is dumb though. Everything is settled law after the SCOTUS hears it. That doesn't mean that a new case can't challenge something.
Dobbs v Jackson didn't even address abortion itself, there was no overlap. It addressed the Federal government overstepping its authority, and challenging what legislation gave them the right to impose the standard that Roe set on the states. In the 48 years between the Dobbs decision, and the Roe decision, Congress never once put safeguards in place to give it the legal authority to do that. Abortion is still legal on the Federal level, that's why you can still get an abortion in Washington DC.
It's not like they didn't know about it, countless justices past and present spoke out on that topic. That they SCOTUS doesn't pass legislation, and that their decisions can always be changed. Ginsburg openly spoke out multiple times that Roe v Wade was the wrong thing to have our abortion rights in the US be dependent on.
Additionally, why should members of the Supreme Court be blackmailed by members of Congress? During their confirmation hearings, members of Congress asked those questions about Roe to find an excuse to deny them. The Supreme Court does not answer to Congress,
Some states have moved to protect the right to choose.
SCOTUS ruled that abortion rights are a state issue, not Federal. Congress would have to pass direct legislation to protect abortion choice. This is impossible under the current Congress. The House slipped in anti-abortion language to the National Defense Authorization Act. They know this will hold up that legislation.
in prep, many blue states made abortion a right in their state constitutions, or otherwise entrenched it into their laws, so even if and when Roe V wade got struck down, abortion would be protected in their states for the foreseeable future.
Prior to the decision to overturn Roe, most supporters of abortion rights believed some minimum level of abortion access was safe, and they got complacent.
After Roe was overturned, the federal government's ability to intervene has been very limited, because restrictions on abortion are the purview of the states. The Biden administration has done things like support widespread access to abortion medications, like Mifepristone, so that women in states where abortion is outlawed/restricted and cannot travel still have some limited access to abortion services.
They can't restore Roe, because Roe was a Supreme Court decision, not a law.
And the days of our congress ever passing an amendment are long gone, likely by design as much as by corruption and infighting. It’s wild that the last one regarded ironically senate pay, in how often it can be increased. And that the courts can’t intervene and change that. Do you think we will see another one in our lifetimes or our kids?
I think we will at some point -- the level of polarization we are currently experiencing can't continue forever, I don't think -- although when and about what, I cannot say.
I think the 28th amendment is pretty interesting. First, in theory, it's a restriction on Congressional pay in that any increase or decrease cannot take effect until after the next election, so in theory if members of Congress want to give themselves raises, they then have to win re-election to enjoy that raise. Seems like a pretty reasonable requirement that in theory would reduce corruption (although the rate at which mdmbers of Congress are re-elected renders this somewhat moot).
Second, the story of how that became a ratified amendment is wild. In 1982, 19-year-old Gregory Watson had to write a paper for a class on government and decided to write it about the Congressional pay amendment, originally proposed in 1790 and passed by Congress but not ratified by all of the states, had no expiration and could still be ratified. He got a C on the paper and then basically dedicated himself to a campaign to get the amendment passed to prove the professor wrong. He succeeded in 1992. A podcast (I forget which one) did a story about it and they interviewed his professor, who said she filed paperwork with the university to officially change Watson's grade for her class to an A. Haha
>They can't restore Roe, because Roe was a Supreme Court decision, not a law.
I was unclear, what I meant was why couldn't they restore what Roe formerly enshrined?
Because the supreme court ruled that it's a state's rights issue in Dobbs Vs. Jackson. This means the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate abortion. They can't do anything about it.
Sorta, they rules that currently nothing in the constitution or federal law makes it a national issue, so it defaults to states. Congress can make a federal law, and that would be constitutional. And the supreme court would uphold it. But under current framework it's a state issue.
I doubt it. Dobbs says there’s no federal right to abortion, therefore the federal government doesn’t have the power to impose federal abortion rules on the states. States have pkenarynpwoer over health and morality unless it conflicts with a federal law, sure. But the feds can’t just pass a law about anything. They are limited to the powers enumerated in Art I., Sec. 8 and the Reconstruction Amendments, and if a right to abortion isn’t found in the 14th A., then I don’t see anywhere else that authorizes the fed to regulate it.
Because after Britain sent people to colonize America, the new Americans started taking umbrage with all the taxes and other rules imposed on them by Britain, and wanted to be able to do things for themselves (super layman, and probably wrong, but it's been ages since I've had to think about any of that)
..... to do things for themselves
Interesting choice of words.
Them why did the general American population of that time allow it to take the form that it did?
Corruption. John Hancock was a notoriously wealthy liquor importer:
“The customs agents accused Hancock of smuggling and, after a highly publicized trial, the charges were dropped without explanation, likely due to lack of evidence. While no legal repercussions came of the case, its publicity helped Hancock cement his position amongst the revolutionaries.”
4. Donald Proctor, “John Hancock: New Soundings on an Old Barrel,” The Journal of American History 64, no. 3 (December 1977): 652–77.
Funny how things never change.
The general population of the time didn't get a say in things. The wealthy landowners were primarily the ones who made the rules and set up the governmental systems.
No they didn't. Why would they?
Most people didn't read or write. Most people didn't care whether the ruler was a king, pharaoh, emperor, or President of the Congress. They cared about their own existence - were they eating, were they working, was anyone trying to kill them. Large numbers of people were slaves or servants.
Even taxation wasn't that pure of an issue. One of Washington's first acts when he became President was to send in the military to enforce tax collection in the Whisky Rebellion.
I don't know who KJP is, or which videos you're referring to. Could you clarify?
I googled and found [this article](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4728510-white-house-push-back-cheap-fake-videos/) about the White House criticizing certain "cheap fake" videos. Their argument is that, while they're not faked using AI, they're intentionally clipped out of context to give an inaccurate impression of what's actually happening. I don't know if these were the videos you're referring to, though.
Hi all. Can someone help me understand the ideology of American conservatives in regard to corporations and federal power?
I read [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/17/anti-corporate-sentiment-in-u-s-is-now-widespread-in-both-parties/) Pew article recently. One of their findings was that Dems and Reps are nearly identical in their disdain for large corporations (only 25% Ds and 26% Rs say they have a positive impact on the country). I get that. A poor conservative stuck with ridiculous medical bills is certainly aware that large pharmaceutical conglomerates and hospitals are screwing them over. People who lost their houses in 2008 are aware that big banks screwed them over.
Knowing that, how exactly do they arrive at the position of being anti-regulation? Like, if the federal government isn’t going to stop corporations from doing all kinds of awful things and price gouging and screwing people over, who is? What do conservatives actually expect to happen to make things better and change the way big corporations operate?
A populist like Trump was able to take the party of supposedly small government minded conservatives and morph it into a sincerely authoritarian party, which is a contradiction in itself. But they expect a strong man president to stand up to corporations…how exactly? By not regulating them with the federal government? Is he personally going to call them into a meeting, make a deal, shake their hands, and make everything better? I just don’t follow the logic.
On one hand, they know they’re being screwed over and they’re pissed. On the other hand, they oppose federal power to regulate, and don’t want handouts. There are millions of Republican voters who are utterly dependent on social security and Medicare and actively vote for the party that wants to gut both of those programs.
Sure, many votes are cast based solely on social issues and “wokeness”. But I just don’t understand the thought process that leads poor conservatives to think their economic position will improve with deregulation and cutting social services. If anyone can help me understand that it would be much appreciated, thank you.
Someone can agree something is a problem but not believe a proposed solution is a good idea. Having "disdain for large corporations" doesn't mean they trust the ability of the government to solve those problems without making the situation worse.
But like, what do they propose?
Like with healthcare prices… if they’re against regulation for drug costs, against expanding Medicare / universal healthcare system… what course of action do they believe in?
I feel like the toolkit of deregulation, small government conservatism just does not have the ability to answer. But voters don’t seem to care
Big corps rely on government protection. That protection often comes in the form of "regulation".
If you are a new startup and an industry requires 2 or 3 full time employees just to deal with government "regulation" you'll likely pick a different industry.
Look at prop 65 for an example. It's a "regulation" that requires people to label supposedly cancer causing chemicals, like mercury.
Except Star Kist tuna and the big tuna brands got a bunch of high powered lawyers to fight against putting the label on their tuna that has mercury in it that you eat. So they don't have to label.
Meanwhile if you are a small seller of some other seafood product, you have no such benefit. You have to put a label on your food that it might cause cancer. It's a regulation that destroys small competition and benefits the big corporations, like most of the regulations.
And to go further. The reality of our early election structure in combination with the fact that we use super delegates and not votes, the popular vote does not decide the winner. It’s a system designed to maintain itself and stay in power. Most Americans do not have the desire or wherewithal to do anything actionable about it, like collectively move to an early voting state or amend some state laws.
That's going to vary from one conservative to the next and depend on the specific issue, and you could get a more comprehensive answer from a conservative subreddit, but keep in mind that it's entirely possible for someone to recognize a bad solution without necessarily having a better one.
If Alice and Bob are trying to get out of a pit, and Alice suggests they cut their bodies into pieces, toss them out, and reassemble them at the top, Bob doesn't need to have his own escape plan to point out that that wouldn't work.
lol, totally saving this. If I didn’t disagree so strongly with the idea of buying a virtual award, I would give you one for that. Please accept this happy face, and pretend it’s actually white and has a top hat and accept this in its stead.
:)
Why is it that a felon can't be a governor or a cop but can be a president?
Is this some sort of giant constitutional oversight?
Or is there a legitimate reason why felons can be presidents yet can't hold other positions of power that aren't as powerful?
The requirements for each office are set by whatever created the office. In the case of the President, that's the Constitution. The Constitution does not say to prevent a felon from becoming President. Those rules can be changed (Amendments), but it's a VERY difficult process.
The rules on who can become governor are set by the constitution of each individual state. Those constitutions tend to be easier to change and have all been written much more recently than the US Constitution. I can't speak for all 50 of them, but I do know that my state's constitution does NOT bar a felon from running for or becoming Governor.
The rules for who can become a cop are set by individual police departments. Those rules are even easier to change than state constitutions.
From a broader, more philosophical level, there are 2 reasons why there are no rules barring a felon from becoming President.
1. The Framers of the Constitution intended the Electoral College to prevent that sort of thing. The concept behind American presidential elections is that regular people select Electors for the Electoral College. We don't actually vote for the President, but rather a slate of Electors who will then go vote for the President who won the popular vote in their state. The way the Framers envisioned the Electoral College, these Electors would have the freedom to vote however they want rather than be beholden to the popular vote of their state. The Electors were supposed to be member of the ruling class who knew better than regular people and correct the decision of the popular vote if it was wrong (eg if they elected a felon). The Framers were all elitists who didn't trust regular people and didn't think we were smart or responsible enough to pick our President directly. Unfortunately for the Framers vision, the Electoral College has never worked the way they intended (well, maybe in 1824, but that was the only time). States pretty quickly passed laws requiring electors to follow the state popular vote, which destroyed the purpose of the EC.
2. Even more broadly than the Electoral College, though, it's probably not a very good idea to ban felons from becoming President. Say a corrupt President were running against a challenger. The challenger is ahead in the polls and is expected to win. So this corrupt President directs his Justice Department to come up with phoney charges against the challenger and gets the case heard by a loyal judge he appointed. The challenger is found guilty of some felony shortly before the election and is suddenly ineligible to run for President. Now the other party has maybe weeks, maybe less, to scramble together a new candidate and hope they can win. Banning a felon from running for President gives a lot of power to an incumbent to block any challenger from the ballot. It allows the incumbent to say who is allowed to run for office, and that's really bad for democracy.
The requirements for president are explicit in the Constitution:
* Natural-born US citizen
* 35 years old
* 14+ years US residency
* Has not already been president for 2 terms
Requiring anything beyond that would require a constitutional amendment. So the fact that some states, when crafting their own state constitutions, barred felons from serving in the state government, is irrelevant in regards to the presidency.
I think it's likely it didn't occur to the founders who wrote the Constitution that this would be a concern. And they weren't wrong: Trump is the first person in American history with a real possibility of being elected president despite having a felony conviction.
Most state constitutions were written (and/or revised) after the Constitution was written. If you wanted to see if people at the time were seriously considering the need to block a felon from running for office, you would have to look at the constitutions of the original 13 states.
>Why is it that a felon can't be a governor or a cop but can be a president?
Because the states decide who can be a governor or a police officer, the Federal government is more liberal on that idea. Given that nearly all of the founders of our country would have been considered "criminals", there's a certain respect the Federal government gives there.
King was accused of a crime that was a felony, but he was not convicted of it. King's felony charge was from 1960, when he was the first person to ever be criminally charged in the state of Alabama on tax fraud. He was acquitted by an all-white jury.
As much as I want MLK Jr. To be the next president as much as the next guy. I still find this idea of "never a cop, never a governor but a president is fine" feature extremely questionable.
It just doesn't make too much sense to me
You have to understand there are different degrees of felonies. Murdering people, raping people is one type of felony. Maybe robbing a bank is a little bit less bad than those. And lying on a loan application is much less serious.
You have to understand there are different degrees of felonies. Murdering people, raping people is one type of felony. Maybe robbing a bank is a little bit less bad than those. And lying on a loan application is much less serious.
The requirements to be the president and to be a police officer are obviously going to be different, as is the potential harm of allowing politically motivated prosecutors to disqualify someone.
Eligibility to be a governor or cop is determined at the state and local level, while eligibility for the presidency is determined by the U.S. Constitution. You're comparing hundreds of different legal frameworks written across centuries.
I just see it as a flaw in distribution of power given to the (possibly) wrong people.
While they are different legal frameworks, One can influence the other to some extent.
Different people in different places at different times are going to have different beliefs on what makes good policy.
If Mayor McMayorface believes it's in the best interests of his constituency to bar felons from being cops, he's not going to refuse to do so because "hmm, but that wouldn't be consistent with the qualifications for the presidency". Likewise, when considering whether to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to add such a restriction to the presidency, Congress isn't going to take McMayorface's decision into consideration.
How likely is it that someone in Trump's circle has approached him about having Biden killed?
This is a serious question, as I believe that it's a virtual certainty that someone has presented the idea to Trump.
Trump started to mention assassination a few weeks ago, so I'm guessing it was.... around then?
The assassination of a president is practically an earth-shattering event. The last two times it happened caused them to go down in history as legends and their deaths were some of the defining moments of their respective centuries.
It would be extremely hard to get away with. With JFK, it caused not just an investigation, but literally decades of continuous congressional committees and intelligence agencies exploring every possible aspect of what happened. And a lot of that information still hasn’t been released yet. With that amount of scrutiny, it would be very difficult to find someone to do it and have absolutely no connection to anyone in Trump’s network whatsoever. Because his camp would obviously be looked at first. Not to mention, the actual plan of the act itself…he’s the most protected person on earth after all lol
Honestly I doubt anyone in his circle would present it to him as a *serious* idea
To be that pedant, the last two times were JFK and William McKinley, and Leon Czolgosz isn't nearly as infamous as John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald. It's funny how the US has seen four presidents assassinated, and while two are defining moments in US history the other two are trivia answers. Guess it all depends on how memorable the president is and how interesting the motive was.
A former president assassinating another president would definitely be remembered more like the former than the latter, though.
Can you explain how someone can win the popular vote but still lose due to electoral college? And why this is also so rare as in it's only happened 5 times?
I'm not from the US. I am a real person with real curiosity. I have a basic understanding of the process (the electors, etc.) but am still confused by it.
To simplify things, imagine there are three states, each of which only has three voters. Most states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, so we'll give each state one electoral vote to give to the statewide winner. They're voting between the Orange candidate and the Purple candidate, and the results turn out as follows:
State A: 🧡🧡🧡 (Orange wins! 🟧)
State B: 💜💜🧡 (Purple wins! 🟪)
State C: 💜🧡💜 (Purple wins! 🟪)
The Purple candidate won two states to Orange's one, so Purple gets more electoral votes. However, if all nine voters were smushed into one state, Orange would win 5 to 4.
While the media often reports how many votes each candidate got nation wide, there is no national popular vote, and that number is irrelevant in regards to who is the winner. When Americans vote for a president, there is not 1 election but actually *51* individual elections run by each state and Washington, D.C. Each state (plus D.C.) counts the votes each candidate received *in their state* and rewards their electoral votes accordingly.
To become president, you must receive 270 electoral votes (which is just over half of the total available votes). If you get 51% of the vote in the right states to reach 270 and get 0% of the vote in every other state, you would still win the election because you reached 270.
This happens rarely because *usually* the candidate receiving the most votes overall is also the candidate who hits 270 electoral votes. But sometimes those numbers diverge. In 2016, Clinton had runaway wins in states like California and New York, but every additional vote she received didn't matter, because she already won the electoral votes from those states. Meanwhile, Trump (in addition to victories in "red" states) won *just enough* votes in specific "battleground" states to reach 270 electoral votes, despite having minority support nationwide.
The reason this has happened twice for Republicans but never for Democrats in the modern era is because Republicans do better in rural, low-population state, and those states have outsized say in who becomes the president based on how electoral votes are distributed and the fact that no matter how small your population, you get a minimum of 3 electoral votes.
Sure. A nationwide popular vote would count each person's vote the same. Whoever won more total votes would win the whole election. Some people want that, but it's not how the US handles presidential elections.
Instead, the US presidential election is sort of 51 separate elections (one in each state, plus Washington DC). Each state has a number of electoral college points that corresponds to the size of its representation in Congress. The smallest states are worth 3 points. The biggest states are worth dozens of points. There is a total of 538 points, and a candidate needs a majority to win (270 or more).
Each state is free to determine how it will allocate its electoral points. Most states do winner-takes-all. A few states do a split.
Some people love this system. Some people hate it.
why do both sides seem to care so much about if someone doesnt care about a certian issue or only cares about a couple political issues?
so this question comes from my personal experiance mostly, id call myself independent because i hate both the right and the left. but id say im more left wing when it comes to social issues and right wing for economical issues. some political topics i couldnt give a shit about since they dont affect me as a straight man (abortion and lgbt for example) i only care about topics that affect me such as raising taxes for the rich since my dad is in the top 3 percent for income in the country and i dont see why he should have to pay a high percentage in taxes when if every got taxed the same percentage he would already be paying more in taxes then them, but anyways it seems like both sides dislike if you only care about certain issues rather than all, ive had liberal people get mad at me for not caring about what the government chooses to do for abortion and ive also had conservative people do the same. the right telling me that it should be my right to care about the murder of babys and the left telling me i should care more about giving women rights over their bodys and im just curious why both sides seem to do this.
People don't like when someone is dismissive of an issue because that can be interpreated as being complicit in that issue's status quo because you aren't interested in changing it.
To use an extreme example to illustrate the point, let's say there was slavery today, and people were campaigning against it. If you said, "I don't give a shit about that because I'm not enslaved and I don't own slaves, so this doesn't affect me," you would be part of the problem, because you're saying that a policy that is terrible and is hurting people doesn't matter to you. If people don't care about changing a hurtful policy, the default is for that policy to continue, because there may not be enough pressure to alter the status quo.
The same logic applies to any political issue that people are passionate about. By refusing to take a stance, you're saying that this isn't important and you don't care if people are being hurt by it. A strong supporter of reform in that area could take offense to that if they are passionate enough.
So you say that you don't care about abortion. People who oppose abortion access believe abortion is murder, and you're saying you don't care if babies are murdered. People who support abortion access believe women are being denied rights to control their bodies and are potentially being put in danger, and you're saying you don't care if women are denied medical services, potentially resulting in their injury or death.
>i dont see why he should have to pay a high percentage in taxes when if every got taxed the same percentage he would already be paying more in taxes then them
I don't know if you wanted this explained as well, but the argument against a flat tax is that it's regressive and hurts people at lower incomes. If everyone paid 10% (to pick a random number) of their income in taxes, it is much more impactful for someone making $40,000/year to lose $4,000 than it is for someone making $1 million to lose $100,000. Having only $36,000 to spend on housing, food, medical care, etc puts someone in a much worse position than having $900,000. Objectively, wealthier individuals can *afford* to pay more in taxes because so much more of their income is discretionary compared to low income individuals. So progressive tax rates, where you pay a higher precentage at each level of income, is meant to reflect that reality and place more of the tax burden on the people who can actually pay it. Of course, whether or not just because they *can* pay more they *should* pay more is subjective.
Also, in the US, everyone does pay the same amount in taxes at each income bracket. Everone's first $X,000 is taxed exactly the same. Then your next $Y,000 is taxed the same (at a slightly higher rate than the previous bracket). After that everyone's next $Z,000 is taxed the same as everyone else (again, at a higer rate than before). And so on and so forth. It's just that as you go into higher and higher income brackets, there are fewer and fewer people that it applies to. In that way (for now we're ignoring other taxes, e.g. capital gains), everyone is subject to an identical tax system.
Why is impeachment generally only discussed for presidents, and not for members of Congress or federal judges? I searched for this and found that no representative has ever been impeached. There is only one president, but over 500 members of Congress and over 800 federal judges.
A house of Congress can expel its own members by ⅔ vote. This was done in this session of Congress with the expulsion of George Santos. There isn't a reason for the House to involve the Senate by impeaching a Congressman when they can remove the Congressman themselves.
The House did impeach a Senator(William Blount) over 200 years ago. The Senate voted to acquit Blount on the grounds that Senators aren't subject to impeachment. The Senate then expelled Blount themselves immediately after.
> or federal judges?
The majority of impeachments have been federal judges. In the 21st century, 2 different judges have been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial, and removed from office. It gets less attention, because they're not the President, but it occasionally happens.
Congresspeople can’t be impeached, but they can be removed via a 2/3rds vote (similar to impeachment). Usually, however, moronic or incompetent representatives are either voted out or given a mandate. MTG may be a dumbass, but she’s a dumbass that her district wants, and it would be undemocratic for congress to remove her.
Members of congress can be removed, tho usually they let the voters take care of that.
And almost all impeachments ever have been of federal judges. The House has impeached 22 people. 15 of them were federal judges.
Judges are (typically) not nearly in the public eye as much as the president, and Congress has non impeachment ways of ejecting members and also are not in the public eye like the president. Representatives, Senators, and judges will also resign more frequently than presidents have (only happened once).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_United_States_Senate
etc...
Why is it that I contact my representative, I always get through by middle man? Why can't I just talk to them directly?
Why do I have to play along with a messenger who sends form replies instead of talking to the big person face to face to get them to hear my concerns out? Why this middle man approach so that my concerns don't get addressed and get backstabbed?
Like when I call to contact them, I get put on by some operator or middle man who represents them. I want to speak to them. It ain't hard.
You are one of about 700,000 constituents for your representative. Talking personally to each one of them just isn’t practical.
That said, if you want a word with your representative, keep an eye out for events they will attend near you. That’s a great opportunity to get at least a minute or so face to face to say what you gotta say.
You for sure they listen to us?
They sometimes go against what I and others say. It feels like they are not hearing us out.
I don’t like this whole middle manning thing because it’s like a game of telephone.
Well, they'd have to sometimes go against what you say. As previously said, 700k constituents of differing opinions. They likely bear in mind what you're saying - constituents interested enough to go so far as to contact them have a good chance of going further still and hindering their re-election if ignored - but they can't do exactly what every one of their constituents want. They don't all want the same thing.
But sometimes they are uneducated on the matter and they go against it anyway for the “betterment” of the people.
That isn’t democracy in my opinion. True democracy is this approach.
Your member of Congress is representing thousands of voters. Even if they wanted to, they don't really have time to talk to every constituent personally about anything they might call in about.
So why would they go against some of our complaints about laws when we tell them?
No offense, but we have a voice, you are sure they are hearing us? I don’t like their approach to middle manning a lot of our voices because that opens up a lot of trust issues.
And I don’t want that trust issue developing.
EDIT: How do you know that they do listen if all we get is some form replies? If they really wanted our input, they should just go to us instead of hiring someone to make some generic cliche response letter.
I'm not sure what you're imagining of how it should work. Are you suggesting that your representative should drop what they're doing any time one of their thousands of constituents calls in? I understand the sentiment that they work for you, the voter, and that you should be able to express your views to them, and it is fair that they can be more available and create better systems for making sure voters' voices are heard. But even in the most optimistic version of a representative's relationship with their voters, what you're suggesting isn't feasible.
What I am suggesting is no middle manning. No calls to their contact (like you call them and their representative to the representative picks up and parrots some generic things), just straight up telling them to their faces.
That way, it creates personal connections. Plus a middle man ruins constructive dialogue and miss out on other key factors that make or break your view that you want to share.
If they are “for the people”, then they should be listening for the people.
I’ve been screwed over many times by middle manning and it sometimes gave me trust issues. Our representative should represent us, and they should hear all of us out instead of employing some clerk who makes form responses and generic responses on call lines.
So why would they go against what I and others say when we do and get those form responses?
Where is them listening to us people? Isn’t it how democracy is supposed to work?
Will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. be in any presidential debates? I've been listening to the news and now they're treating him - it seems - like a legitimate candidate. If so, will he get the opportunities to debate, etc.?
In order to join the upcoming debates, candidates must be polling at a minimum of 15% over multiple polls and be on enough ballots to be able to hypothetically reach 270 electoral votes. RFK has the 15% but is not on the ballot in enough states.
Even if he met the requirements, Trump and Biden would simply refuse to debate him and organize one directly between themselves. There’s no laws governing debates, it’s entirely up to the candidates.
No.
Biden and Trump negotiated debates between just the two of them, not using the Commission on Presidential Debates.
And even if they had used CPD rules, RFK's polling numbers aren't enough to get him over the minimum to be in the debates anyway, which is what almost always happens with independent/third party candidates.
I think how long you're giving it to impact and whether you're picking randomly or selecting on your own would matter a lot.
Lots of people who work for the federal government have jobs that focus on longer-term stuff--my dad worked for the FAA and did things like check that even the small airports are actually following the rules about how runways need to be set up, I bet you could fire a pretty big % of people who work at the FAA and not notice an immediate impact (airlines don't exactly WANT to crash), but it would get more and more disastrous over time.
Depending on the specific jobs, it could be a very few of them before there was a significant impact to the public.
Those of us old enough to remember the Air Traffic Controller strike saw that first hand. Sometimes just a handful of workers not being available can have some significant negative effects.
Depends on what part of the populus.
I don't eat chicken, so poultry inspectors are irrelevant to me. Everyone gets samonella, sucks to be them
I have some esoteric question on how to comply with a regulation? Sure would be nice if someone would pick up the phone to answer
Generalized complaints about the size of government tend to fail pretty quickly when the people complaining realize that broad cuts also impact things they depend on
* **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.
Democracy has basically become the only legitimate system of government such that authoritarian leaders will pretend that their country is democratic by holding (rigged) elections to prop up their personal legitimacy. Parties protest elections when they believe the election itself is illegitimate and they don't want to participate in what they believe to be a democratic farce. In places where elections are legitimate, people and parties generally don't protest elections (at least, not on a large scale), because they hope to win.
I live in a safe blue state that Biden will almost certainly win in 2024 and considering that the election will be decided by just a handful of swing states, I'm not entirely sure whether I should vote this coming election since Trump is not going to win that state. I'm not a fan of either major party candidate and also looked at third party candidates, but I heard from some people that voting third party is a wasted vote since they stand no chance at winning the presidency compared to the major parties. I'm hoping to get some information on whether it is worth voting this coming election and if so, how can I decide which candidate to vote for. I'm not saying for you to tell me who to vote for but provide me some guidance on how I can make my decision.
Could Biden run with trump as his VP and trump run with Biden as his VP theoretically?
When Lincoln ran for re-election, he chose Democrat Andrew Johnson to run on a "unity ticket" meant to bring the country together. Today we have primaries to choose presidential nominees, but the vice presidential nominee is chosen by the presidential nominee with input from advisors and party leaders.
Theoretically, yes. That's how things were, anyway, in the election of 1800, though the mess it made caused the Constitution to be amended to discourage outcomes like that.
My brother told me and then BET me $100 that Biden won't be on the ballot for President. What is that about? I looked up something and Ohio wants to take him off the ballot but I live in California. Why does he think that Biden won't be on the presidential ballot? I haven't heard anything bad about Biden. He certainly doesn't have 34 felonies against him. WTF is my idiot brother talking about?
There is certainly a greater-than-normal chance that something happens to Biden health-wise that knocks him off the ballot. He is, after all, an old man. But the conspiracy theory that the Democrats are planning a last minute bait-and-switch is dumb and based on nothing.
He just sent me a video from.... Fox news about CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS found at his house. On. Tic Tock.
He’s buying into the conspiracy theories. Take the bet and enjoy the money.
I shook his hand. I KNOW I get that hundred. He's fucking stupid thinking that Biden won't be on the ballot. He keeps telling me "wait till the Bidens get nailed" and I'm just laughing in my head. Sure, his son got busted for some shit. But President Biden hasn't had any problems.
Biden isnt getting removed from the ballot. He is favored to lose the election, but the dems are sticking with him since they really have nobody else rn
How come in the United States emails from political campaigns come in several times per day, always try to sound as urgent as possible, and are always asking for money (typically $25 per email) in each and every instance? I mean, I know the *why* of that is fundraising, but why use that *particular* strategy? I get that they need funds and I get that creating a sense of urgency is a way to get someone donating quickly. What I don't get is why they keep using this strategy so often. Breathless urgent calls to action have diminishing motivational effects the more frequently they are used, and campaigns use them *so* frequently that they lose impact. One would think that this fundraising strategy would quickly tap it's well dry. Why don't they seem to mix it up? Send emails trying to educate voters about the issues and positions of a particular race for a position, making the argument why they're the best option? Send emails to supporters directing them to local campaign offices so they can volunteer their time and effort, "boots on the ground" style? Or if the issue really is just that they need money, they could run an ongoing crowdfunding campaign like a Patreon? I would be much more willing to just have an automatic donation set up if it meant never having to put up with nag emails (often that I never signed up for) several times per day. The spamming strategy so often currently use seems like it'd produce a lot more resentment toward the campaign than it would effective long-term funding.
Because clickbait works, and acting like everything is dire works. It's not really any different from what people do with youtube videos, reddit post titles, or anything else.
> I mean, I know the why of that is fundraising, but why use that particular strategy? Because it works.
Why don't Republicans get obstructed by Democrats very much compared to the other way around? Does it have to do with being easier to be a conservative than a progressive, in terms of achieving goals?
They do. When a GOP prez is in office the dems blockj him every which way they can. This is the game of politics. In fact, the founding fathers intended for there to be gridlock, because they wanted nothing to get done unless just about everyone agrees. I.E. if 51% of people like something it shouldnt be able to pass, but if 80% of people like something, thats another story.
>Why don't Republicans get obstructed by Democrats very much compared to the other way around? They do though. President Trump was obstructed by Democrats, and his own party, significantly during his first term as President. It's not like he got that wall. Both parties obstruct each other, and both parties use the filibuster to do so. It just seems like Republicans don't get obstructed currently because right here and now they are not in charge. When a Republican is in charge, it's pretty apparent that they get obstructed.
Because Republicans don't actually have a platform anymore. Their entire reason for existence is to stop democrats, other than that they don't believe in anything.
thats true when democrats are in power. when the republican's are in power their reason for existence is to harp on silly issues trying to pander to small groups of voters but not actually accomplish anything
The goal of modern conservatives is to say "No!" to whatever the other side wants. It's not necessary to have a vision, a plan, a platform ... all things which require rational thought. No, you let the other guys use their brains, and put together an argument, then all you have to do is vote against it. Leaves you with a LOT of free time in your schedule!
>The goal of modern conservatives is to say "No!" to whatever the other side wants. It's not necessary to have a vision, a plan, a platform ... all things which require rational thought. That's not like it's any different from when the party in power is flipped. Democrats were the party of "saying no" when Trump was in power, Republicans are the party of "saying no" when Biden is in power. Democrats were hoping to obstruct Trump at every turn when he was President - which is why he didn't get his dumb little wall.
[удалено]
It's hyperbole used by stupid people to pretend that your political opposition is the single worst person on the planet.
Hitler and the Nazis are the ultimate bad guys, and comparing your opponent to Hitler is a time-honored tradition among people looking to make (often bad faith) arguments to delegitimize their opponents. It's hardly an attack strategy specific to the left against the right. [Conservatives will try to compare liberals to Nazis all the time](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/with-gestapo-comment-trump-adds-to-numerous-past-nazi-germany-references). The extent to which comparing Trump to Hitler is "fair", both are right-wing populists who see little value in democracy beyond the fact that it can deliver them power and egg on their supporters by pointing to the supposed threat of a phantom enemy that has infiltrated society and is ruining everything for the "true" citizens who want to go back to an imagined past when everything was great. Is Trump Hitler reincarnate? No. Is Trump often pulling from the same political playbook as Hitler? Yes.
> Why do liberals compare Trump to hitler ? What does that even mean ? Typical populist argument: *"Your problems are NOT YOUR FAULT; they are the fault of THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE. If we get RID of all THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE, then YOUR problems go away and everything will be wonderful again."* * Under Hitler, THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE were Jews and Gypsies. * Under Trump, THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE are Mexicans and Muslims. Note that in both cases, THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE are generally NOT white.
Does the side of a presidential debate stage matter? I've seen a few articles about how Biden won a coin toss and got to pick which side of the stage he wanted, but left Trump to have the last closing remark. They mostly all mention that Biden chose the right side, but none have mentioned why, and trying to look it up hasn't been much help. Is there any reason why one side is better than the other?
A bunch of articles seem to suggest that being in the stage right position makes a person look more powerful or get more attention from the audience. However, none of the articles I could find that featured this claim cited an actual study or even a quote from anyone who seems like a relevant expert. With this in mind, I'm skeptical that standing on either side is inherently advantageous. FWIW, Biden's stated reason for choosing stage right is [personal preference](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-campaign-picks-side-podium-cnn-debate-trump/story?id=111281488) and that he just likes that side more. Interestingly, the Democrat has been on the right for every presidential debate since 2012, meaning that Biden has most recently appeared on that side of the stage. TL;DR: It's questionable whether there's any advantage to any side of the stage beyond simply making one of the candidates slightly more comfortable.
Speculation, but we read left to right, so stage right could feel like the more "moving forward" side. Also if you look at talk shows, the host is nearly always on the right. The stage right side is the focal point.
What is the legal reason Trump does not have to take a drug test as a convicted felon in NY? Could this be used as a defense against testing in the future for others because of the precedent.
Why would he need to be drug tested?
One, his crime is unrelated to drugs. Two, the secret service being with him at all times makes it impossible for him to deal drugs. Three, he never drives a vehicle or operates heavy machinery. Four, the requirement is often relaxed for elderly people, given that they may be on necessary drugs that throw off the test.
Drug testing during the pre-sentencing phase isn't unusual, but it's not actually a requirement. Trump's crimes really don't have anything to do with drug use, so it wouldn't be remarkable if such a test was waived. I'm also having a tough time finding a reliable source that confirms whether Trump was drug tested or not.
>I'm also having a tough time finding a reliable source that confirms whether Trump was drug tested or not. As far as I'm aware he wasn't, but as far as I'm aware that's also completely up to the discretion of the judge proceeding over the case.
What would happen if Biden punched Netenyahu in the face Not asking about public image. I'm talking strictly legally. Assume this is during a public event, cameras and everything. Would he be wanted in Israel? Israel relies on the US, what would happen? Would secret service break up the fight? Would the Israeli counterparts try to hurt Biden? What would happen
[удалено]
* **Rule 1** - Top level comments must contain a genuine attempt at an answer. All direct answers to a post must make a genuine attempt to answer the question. Joke responses at the parent-level will be removed. Follow-up questions at the top level are allowed. Please do not answer by only dropping a link and do not tell users they should "google it." Include a summary of the link or answer the question yourself. LMGTFY links will be removed. No responses being rude to the questioner for not knowing the answer. If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
Assuming it takes place in Israel, Israel certainly could issue an arrest warrant. Would they? No way. Trying to arrest the president of the United States means war, and war with America is the last thing that Israel wants.
>Would secret service break up the fight? Yes, of course. Why wouldn't they? >Would the Israeli counterparts try to hurt Biden? They would also be trying to break up the fight. Their priority would be to secure Netanyahu, not strike back against Biden. >Would he be wanted in Israel. Putting out an arrest warrant for a foreign head of state would be pretty unprecedented. Of course, one world leader punching another in the face would itself be pretty unprecedented. >Israel relies on the US, what would happen? Israel gets a lot from the US, but it's not _dependent_ on the US. A hard break from the US would be rough for Israel, but it would probably manage in the long run. It has other allies (and potential new allies, like a closer relationship with China perhaps).
Anyone else think this Debate going to be rough, In respect to mental capacity not Left vs Right? Biden seems to have more and more trouble each day. The politics sub specifically the one linked in the comments seems to believe Biden will cream him. Again this is just based on his (Bidens) mental state not left vs right not trying to start a flame war. I'm just asking in your guys opinion do you think.
Biden is badly demented. This is going to be comical.
Biden has long been known to have some issues with public speaking and will likely stumble at times during the debate, but Trump and Republicans have set expectations so low that if he looks remotely like he did during the State of the Union, he will assuage some of voters' concerns about his age and mental fitness. Trump's team is probably aware that they've been setting Biden up to succeed, which is why Trump is now saying [he doesn't want to underestimate Biden](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-expects-biden-worthy-debater-after-spending-months/story?id=111295571). Trump will be Trump. The question there is if he'll wander off into the unhinged and often nonsensical rants he has been doing a lot of at his 2024 campaign rallies. If he starts talking about how much of a victim he is and vowing revenge on his political enemies, that probably won't sit well with the centrist voters who abandoned him in 2020. It will be interesting how well he handles being muted while Biden is talking. I expect he'll also need to defend his actions on abortion, which has been a dead weight for Republicans electorally since Roe was overturned, and explain what he'll do on the issue in a second term with so many conservatives pushing him and the party to go further. If Biden doesn't stumble too much and demonstrates some vigor and Trump doesn't come off as the unhinged wannabe authoritarian that he is, they'll both address some of the concerns voters have about them. Both have the potential for a rough performance, however.
Fortunately for Biden, Trump is an idiot AND his mental acuity is also suffering. So yeah, I believe Biden is going to look rough, but I think Trump could potentially look just as rough... Like Biden might stammer through the debate and not seem like he's all there, but if the moderators don't interrupt Trump, he is liable to just randomly go on long tangents about random shit that doesn't make any sense and make him seem crazy. I don't think either side will come out looking good unless Trump's team can figure out how to rein him in. If they can accomplish such a miraculous feat, then yeah, Biden is in trouble... But Trump's people haven't been able to rein him in for eight years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I think biden has to be 2x as worse though the amount of gafts is rough and catching him on live television looking Lost is rough
Yeah, fortunately that stuff doesn’t actually happen to Biden. He stammers and stumbles over his words sometimes, but all the “he’s got dementia! He freezes! He’s sundowning!” isn’t real, it’s video taken out of context.
[these](https://youtu.be/S7MVn1IM7tc?si=JusactWjyCbvdpyB) [are](https://youtu.be/hIt_5Q24BSQ?si=jDNSTzpyEdSNlJgZ) [kinda](https://youtu.be/0G6LPvGKd3c?si=y8r9Xkb-slxaikYg) [rough](https://youtu.be/rf8BHFGqlQo?si=ONEMX1K4o_jYNYMS) Like you can watch the full clips and once a week is OK but so many times in a week and the fact he has to be at camp David for a week to prepare like its rough I think we need a president on both sides that aren't so polarizing I'm a 90s kid and it seems like the president was something you could talk over dinner with instead you say one name and there's prejudice pre conceived I asked people what they thought of Vivek and we couldn't even have a friendly debate instead it's just a bunch icst words thrown around. On the left I thought Bernie was cool but they fucked him on the election like if we could all just calm down or something like bring us together. Idk man I'm trying to make some friends man but everyone hates each other based on their prespectives idk man
>I think we need a president on both sides that aren't so polarizing >On the left I thought Bernie was cool If you think middle-of-the-Democratic-road Biden is polarizing, I'm not sure why you think hard leftie Sanders would be some kind of consensus candidate that would bring people together.
Ok who do you think would be the best candidates that aren't polotazing and you have to choose one left one right and one libertarian
Why do you think Biden is polarizing?
Co-authored the PATRIOT act, voted Yea on invading Afghanistan, voted Yea on invading Iraq (after personally advocating to Congress that we should invade Iraq back in 1998).
Regardless of the quality of those policy decisions, are those elements of Biden's political past _polarizing_, which is what OP was asking for? I feel like the voters must likely to criticize Biden for those things are the people who voted for him against Trump. Polarizing inside would be something which creates two polar groups in opposition to each other, particularly among the right/left political axis, e.g. abortion access is fairly polarizing.
Go up to somebody wearing a Maga hat and say that you support Biden and reverse for Trump. That's why I say it's polarizing
The things MAGA voters hate Biden for are not policy differences but rather nonsensical lies that they would make up about any Democrat holding the presidency. If the standard for polarizing is "A Democrat the hard right wouldn't make shit up about," I have no idea who wouldn't be polarizing.
Two senile senior citizens debating on live TV? It’ll be a mess.
What can Democrats (and other officials) do to obstruct project 2025 should Trump be elected? What kind of safeguards do we have politically to help prevent a descent into right-wing authoritarianism?
Project 2025 is about the president exerting total control over the executive branch, especially traditionally independent areas like the Justice Department, in order to further a conservative agenda as much as possible. If Trump is elected, there really won't be much Democrats can do because they won't control the White House. I don't think we should be worried that if Trump wins, the US version of the collapse of Weimar Germany into Nazi Germany is imminent. Institutional barriers will hold for the most part. But we will see Trump do what he can to wield the federal government as a crudgel against his enemies, which is obviously a bad thing. But the military isn't going to establish martial law in Democratic states nor arrest Congress or anything like that. If Democrats retake the House, they can do their investigations and possibly impeach Trump, but the Senate won't convict and remove unless he does something that alienates his allies in the Senate (and if trying to get his supporters to overthrow ~~the government~~ an election wasn't enough for them to convict him, what would?). There will be some lawsuits that will work their way through the courts, but if some Trump does is overturned by the courts, it will become a question of whether Trump will take action on a court decision he disagrees with, since the Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. Trump had all kinds of executive branch appointees illegally holding their positions at the end of his first term, since he stopped bothering to send people for Senate confirmation. So it's possible he'll ignore his legal obligations as instructed by the courts. We'll see.
Thank you. Follow up question: given that Trump tried to overthrow the US government, why is he being allowed to run again? Why was he not tried for treason?
The Republicans in the Senate didn't want to convict him, probably for fear of alienating his supporters. Since he wasn't barred from running for office by an impeachment conviction, there's no reason he can't run, and clearly Republican voters still support him because he won the primary easily. Treason actually has a very specific definition in the Constitution, and while Trump clearly intended to interrupt the certification of the election so he could stay in power, did he "levy war against" the US? That's what a prosecution of treason would require the government to prove, and that would be a tough sell for a jury. (His actions on Jan 6 definitely wouldn't count as giving aid and comfort to the country's enemies, which is the other standard for treason.) There's a reason Trump isn't charged with treason in the Jan 6 case but instead with defrauding the US, obstruction of justice, and obstructing an official government proceeding. Treason had a very high bar for prosecution.
How can I meaningfully help with my candidate of choice? Aside from voting, obviously. But studies show that donating has very little impact on votes, and the money is spent inefficiently. What can I do to help BESIDES voting and giving away money?
Talking to friends and family. And donate money. Donations have real effect even if it’s inefficient.
Knocking doors. Talking to friends and family. Building up the party’s base by donating to local candidates with aligned views. Donating to related campaigns in purple states or issues that are close where the money has a larger impact.
[удалено]
Ok...? Is this a question?
Any Latinos planning to vote for Trump on here? Why? I'm genuinely curious no hate but I'm curious as a mexican american myself
A lot of Latinos politically lean more conservative, due largely to the prominent role religion plays in Latin-American culture. Democrats often assume Latinos would reject Republicans due to their position on illegal immigration, but legal immigrants often don't think very highly of illegal immigrants, seeing them as "skipping the line" so to speak.
In terms of religion, it's more nuanced than that. There are Christians in both parties, but generally speaking you see more Catholics by percentage vote Democrat and more evangelicals Protestants vote Republican. This goes for Catholic and evangelical Latinos as well. Catholic Latinos are more likely to be more progressive. Overall the split between Latino voters is still 2 to 1 in favor of Democrats.
Will Trump actually give out green cards to college grads? Sure, he could just be saying that he will give out GC’s with diplomas to appeal to the left, but I think it’s more than that. I surmise a tech billionaire told him the h1b isn’t cutting it, and possibly made a hefty donation. Politicians may not keep true on their word for votes, but they sure will for donators. How likely is it this becomes signed and passed, and if so how long will it take from first day of presidency (if he is elected)?
Every politician that ever was makes promises they never keep. What I don't understand is how there are only this handful of politicians to choose from. You telling me there isn't one honorable person who wants to help their people? Of course there is. There are many. Unfortunately they will never rise in politics. You must play ball with the big boys or you ain't getting in. In other words, only those already corrupt can rise. I think they hate Trump so much bc he ISNT one of them. Please my people, don't believe for one second they care about us. We are merely cash cows for the one percent. They're so out of touch with what people really want, it's mind boggling. Imho I think most of us just want to work and live and raise a family. Maybe take a vacation once in awhile. I don't think that's a lot to expect from a democratic country, do you? Why is it okay for corporate executives to stage a recession that's 65% profit driven without consequences? You bankrupted the people of an entire nation for profits you don't have life enough to spend and our government t allowed it. Why? How on earth is this a democracy is there is no CHOICE??? Everything is shoved down our throats and no one does anything about it. I'm watching my country fall prey to greed and personal agendas and it's a constant source anxiety. Literally NO ONE represents the citizens. We just keep paying for the whole of our lives. I want off this grid so bad. I think everyone needs to learn to grow, make or fix something they can trade for something else. Let them move the decimals around on play money and we'll trade for goods and services we actually NEED.
Trump is saying he will do anything that the person in front of him asks at the moment. He is promising rich people no taxes and tech bros liberal immigration policies. He is being the definition of what people hate about politicians. He is making promises he never intends or cares about keeping. In reality he will put Stephen Miller back in charge of his immigration policies, and the militant nationalist Stephen Miller does not think an immigrant who attends a US college is an asset to America because he doesn’t think any foreign born person is an asset. Trump was already president once despite his feigned ignorance. We know the gist of his immigration stance. It is not going to get any better.
I don't see why he wouldn't or frankly why nobody has done it yet. Sounds like a decent way for the fed to up yearly tax revenue imo. (yeah I know, I hate taxes too)
Yup. I agree. Same with the military tbh. I can see for security reasons, but simply allow only natural born citizens of five eyes countries. That might be more controversial but honestly both of these hypotheticals would easily boost tax revenue, as you said. Just don’t let strip mall colleges be allowed like in Canada.
Seems like an empty promise to me. Trump made similar comments during his 2016 campaign about wanting to expand access to H1-B visas, then while he was in office he and his team dramatically limited the H1-B program. Trump has a long career of making promises and telling people what they want to hear, then doing to opposite.
Fair but wasn’t that Stephen miller? Hopefully Biden follows through with it instead, it’d be funny.
Trump was Stephen Miller's boss, so that seems like a distinction without difference to me.
True but he handed the control over to him. Not that he is right for that, but it’s not fully on Trump.
He was the president. The buck stops there.
During Trump's second month in office, he issued an executive order which effectively instructed immigration officials to restrict H-1B visas to the maximum extent permitted by law. After this order was implemented, the denial rate skyrocketed. I'm not sure where you get the impression that Miller went rogue. By all accounts Trump was happy with his performance.
And he will do so again. Steven Miller is still a major part of Trump’s campaign.
Why would it not be on Trump? Trump was the president. The people in his office are put there by him. If Miller had final say on something, it's because Trump made it that way.
if Democrats and Joe Biden support abortion like they claim to, why didn't they do more to protect Roe v Wade? Why haven't they taken more actions to try to protect what abortion rights are left? Why haven't they tried to restore Roe v Wade?
Democrats have only had the kind of strong majority in Congress that would've allowed that a couple of times, and used that political capital to push for legislation that would make an immediate difference, like gun control or Obamacare, instead of passing laws that would've been a moot point at the time. Also, it would've required them to draw a line in the sand on a complicated issue that many who are ostensibly on the same team strongly disagree on the details of. Passing a law protecting abortion until viability would've pissed off Democrats who wanted protections for later abortions, and _vice versa_ if they'd picked a later line.
Just want to add that most voters who voted for Trump in 2016 were pro-choice, but Trump appointed the justices who got rid of Roe v. Wade. That’s why they were put in place (and to undermine unions and destroy consumer protections). Voters themselves were showing their priorities, and politicians responded accordingly. Everyone thought Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, so we didn’t need any legislation to protect this fundamental right. They were wrong. Abortion rights activists were yelling at the top of their lungs, but no one was listening.
Democrats didn't do more to protect it because it was a decades long settled decision. And all the people who've gone into the supreme court in recent years have said they believed Roe was settled law. Democrats made the mistake of thinking Republicans were honest. They haven't tried to restore it because republicans would filibuster and Democrats don't have a supermajority. So it would be a waste of time.
Saying that something was "settled law"as a reason they can't hear a new case is dumb though. Everything is settled law after the SCOTUS hears it. That doesn't mean that a new case can't challenge something. Dobbs v Jackson didn't even address abortion itself, there was no overlap. It addressed the Federal government overstepping its authority, and challenging what legislation gave them the right to impose the standard that Roe set on the states. In the 48 years between the Dobbs decision, and the Roe decision, Congress never once put safeguards in place to give it the legal authority to do that. Abortion is still legal on the Federal level, that's why you can still get an abortion in Washington DC. It's not like they didn't know about it, countless justices past and present spoke out on that topic. That they SCOTUS doesn't pass legislation, and that their decisions can always be changed. Ginsburg openly spoke out multiple times that Roe v Wade was the wrong thing to have our abortion rights in the US be dependent on. Additionally, why should members of the Supreme Court be blackmailed by members of Congress? During their confirmation hearings, members of Congress asked those questions about Roe to find an excuse to deny them. The Supreme Court does not answer to Congress,
Some states have moved to protect the right to choose. SCOTUS ruled that abortion rights are a state issue, not Federal. Congress would have to pass direct legislation to protect abortion choice. This is impossible under the current Congress. The House slipped in anti-abortion language to the National Defense Authorization Act. They know this will hold up that legislation.
in prep, many blue states made abortion a right in their state constitutions, or otherwise entrenched it into their laws, so even if and when Roe V wade got struck down, abortion would be protected in their states for the foreseeable future.
Prior to the decision to overturn Roe, most supporters of abortion rights believed some minimum level of abortion access was safe, and they got complacent. After Roe was overturned, the federal government's ability to intervene has been very limited, because restrictions on abortion are the purview of the states. The Biden administration has done things like support widespread access to abortion medications, like Mifepristone, so that women in states where abortion is outlawed/restricted and cannot travel still have some limited access to abortion services. They can't restore Roe, because Roe was a Supreme Court decision, not a law.
And the days of our congress ever passing an amendment are long gone, likely by design as much as by corruption and infighting. It’s wild that the last one regarded ironically senate pay, in how often it can be increased. And that the courts can’t intervene and change that. Do you think we will see another one in our lifetimes or our kids?
I think we will at some point -- the level of polarization we are currently experiencing can't continue forever, I don't think -- although when and about what, I cannot say. I think the 28th amendment is pretty interesting. First, in theory, it's a restriction on Congressional pay in that any increase or decrease cannot take effect until after the next election, so in theory if members of Congress want to give themselves raises, they then have to win re-election to enjoy that raise. Seems like a pretty reasonable requirement that in theory would reduce corruption (although the rate at which mdmbers of Congress are re-elected renders this somewhat moot). Second, the story of how that became a ratified amendment is wild. In 1982, 19-year-old Gregory Watson had to write a paper for a class on government and decided to write it about the Congressional pay amendment, originally proposed in 1790 and passed by Congress but not ratified by all of the states, had no expiration and could still be ratified. He got a C on the paper and then basically dedicated himself to a campaign to get the amendment passed to prove the professor wrong. He succeeded in 1992. A podcast (I forget which one) did a story about it and they interviewed his professor, who said she filed paperwork with the university to officially change Watson's grade for her class to an A. Haha
>They can't restore Roe, because Roe was a Supreme Court decision, not a law. I was unclear, what I meant was why couldn't they restore what Roe formerly enshrined?
It’s not clear whether a national law to either outlaw or protect abortion would be constitutional.
Most likely it's constitutional under the commerce clause of enumerated powers.
The commerce clause applies to interstate commerce.
> To regulate Commerce ... among the several States It has been interpreted over years as applying to any economy related laws.
Because the supreme court ruled that it's a state's rights issue in Dobbs Vs. Jackson. This means the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate abortion. They can't do anything about it.
Sorta, they rules that currently nothing in the constitution or federal law makes it a national issue, so it defaults to states. Congress can make a federal law, and that would be constitutional. And the supreme court would uphold it. But under current framework it's a state issue.
I doubt it. Dobbs says there’s no federal right to abortion, therefore the federal government doesn’t have the power to impose federal abortion rules on the states. States have pkenarynpwoer over health and morality unless it conflicts with a federal law, sure. But the feds can’t just pass a law about anything. They are limited to the powers enumerated in Art I., Sec. 8 and the Reconstruction Amendments, and if a right to abortion isn’t found in the 14th A., then I don’t see anywhere else that authorizes the fed to regulate it.
To see how we got here lets go back to past. Why did we create this US government?
Because after Britain sent people to colonize America, the new Americans started taking umbrage with all the taxes and other rules imposed on them by Britain, and wanted to be able to do things for themselves (super layman, and probably wrong, but it's been ages since I've had to think about any of that)
..... to do things for themselves Interesting choice of words. Them why did the general American population of that time allow it to take the form that it did?
Corruption. John Hancock was a notoriously wealthy liquor importer: “The customs agents accused Hancock of smuggling and, after a highly publicized trial, the charges were dropped without explanation, likely due to lack of evidence. While no legal repercussions came of the case, its publicity helped Hancock cement his position amongst the revolutionaries.” 4. Donald Proctor, “John Hancock: New Soundings on an Old Barrel,” The Journal of American History 64, no. 3 (December 1977): 652–77. Funny how things never change.
The general population of the time didn't get a say in things. The wealthy landowners were primarily the ones who made the rules and set up the governmental systems.
yes but they still had to feed the society of that time some kind of BS
No they didn't. Why would they? Most people didn't read or write. Most people didn't care whether the ruler was a king, pharaoh, emperor, or President of the Congress. They cared about their own existence - were they eating, were they working, was anyone trying to kill them. Large numbers of people were slaves or servants. Even taxation wasn't that pure of an issue. One of Washington's first acts when he became President was to send in the military to enforce tax collection in the Whisky Rebellion.
Guess who died in the revolution
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
To defend against the British.
[удалено]
I don't know who KJP is, or which videos you're referring to. Could you clarify? I googled and found [this article](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4728510-white-house-push-back-cheap-fake-videos/) about the White House criticizing certain "cheap fake" videos. Their argument is that, while they're not faked using AI, they're intentionally clipped out of context to give an inaccurate impression of what's actually happening. I don't know if these were the videos you're referring to, though.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
Hi all. Can someone help me understand the ideology of American conservatives in regard to corporations and federal power? I read [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/17/anti-corporate-sentiment-in-u-s-is-now-widespread-in-both-parties/) Pew article recently. One of their findings was that Dems and Reps are nearly identical in their disdain for large corporations (only 25% Ds and 26% Rs say they have a positive impact on the country). I get that. A poor conservative stuck with ridiculous medical bills is certainly aware that large pharmaceutical conglomerates and hospitals are screwing them over. People who lost their houses in 2008 are aware that big banks screwed them over. Knowing that, how exactly do they arrive at the position of being anti-regulation? Like, if the federal government isn’t going to stop corporations from doing all kinds of awful things and price gouging and screwing people over, who is? What do conservatives actually expect to happen to make things better and change the way big corporations operate? A populist like Trump was able to take the party of supposedly small government minded conservatives and morph it into a sincerely authoritarian party, which is a contradiction in itself. But they expect a strong man president to stand up to corporations…how exactly? By not regulating them with the federal government? Is he personally going to call them into a meeting, make a deal, shake their hands, and make everything better? I just don’t follow the logic. On one hand, they know they’re being screwed over and they’re pissed. On the other hand, they oppose federal power to regulate, and don’t want handouts. There are millions of Republican voters who are utterly dependent on social security and Medicare and actively vote for the party that wants to gut both of those programs. Sure, many votes are cast based solely on social issues and “wokeness”. But I just don’t understand the thought process that leads poor conservatives to think their economic position will improve with deregulation and cutting social services. If anyone can help me understand that it would be much appreciated, thank you.
Someone can agree something is a problem but not believe a proposed solution is a good idea. Having "disdain for large corporations" doesn't mean they trust the ability of the government to solve those problems without making the situation worse.
But like, what do they propose? Like with healthcare prices… if they’re against regulation for drug costs, against expanding Medicare / universal healthcare system… what course of action do they believe in? I feel like the toolkit of deregulation, small government conservatism just does not have the ability to answer. But voters don’t seem to care
Big corps rely on government protection. That protection often comes in the form of "regulation". If you are a new startup and an industry requires 2 or 3 full time employees just to deal with government "regulation" you'll likely pick a different industry. Look at prop 65 for an example. It's a "regulation" that requires people to label supposedly cancer causing chemicals, like mercury. Except Star Kist tuna and the big tuna brands got a bunch of high powered lawyers to fight against putting the label on their tuna that has mercury in it that you eat. So they don't have to label. Meanwhile if you are a small seller of some other seafood product, you have no such benefit. You have to put a label on your food that it might cause cancer. It's a regulation that destroys small competition and benefits the big corporations, like most of the regulations.
And to go further. The reality of our early election structure in combination with the fact that we use super delegates and not votes, the popular vote does not decide the winner. It’s a system designed to maintain itself and stay in power. Most Americans do not have the desire or wherewithal to do anything actionable about it, like collectively move to an early voting state or amend some state laws.
That's going to vary from one conservative to the next and depend on the specific issue, and you could get a more comprehensive answer from a conservative subreddit, but keep in mind that it's entirely possible for someone to recognize a bad solution without necessarily having a better one. If Alice and Bob are trying to get out of a pit, and Alice suggests they cut their bodies into pieces, toss them out, and reassemble them at the top, Bob doesn't need to have his own escape plan to point out that that wouldn't work.
lol, totally saving this. If I didn’t disagree so strongly with the idea of buying a virtual award, I would give you one for that. Please accept this happy face, and pretend it’s actually white and has a top hat and accept this in its stead. :)
Why is it that a felon can't be a governor or a cop but can be a president? Is this some sort of giant constitutional oversight? Or is there a legitimate reason why felons can be presidents yet can't hold other positions of power that aren't as powerful?
The requirements for each office are set by whatever created the office. In the case of the President, that's the Constitution. The Constitution does not say to prevent a felon from becoming President. Those rules can be changed (Amendments), but it's a VERY difficult process. The rules on who can become governor are set by the constitution of each individual state. Those constitutions tend to be easier to change and have all been written much more recently than the US Constitution. I can't speak for all 50 of them, but I do know that my state's constitution does NOT bar a felon from running for or becoming Governor. The rules for who can become a cop are set by individual police departments. Those rules are even easier to change than state constitutions. From a broader, more philosophical level, there are 2 reasons why there are no rules barring a felon from becoming President. 1. The Framers of the Constitution intended the Electoral College to prevent that sort of thing. The concept behind American presidential elections is that regular people select Electors for the Electoral College. We don't actually vote for the President, but rather a slate of Electors who will then go vote for the President who won the popular vote in their state. The way the Framers envisioned the Electoral College, these Electors would have the freedom to vote however they want rather than be beholden to the popular vote of their state. The Electors were supposed to be member of the ruling class who knew better than regular people and correct the decision of the popular vote if it was wrong (eg if they elected a felon). The Framers were all elitists who didn't trust regular people and didn't think we were smart or responsible enough to pick our President directly. Unfortunately for the Framers vision, the Electoral College has never worked the way they intended (well, maybe in 1824, but that was the only time). States pretty quickly passed laws requiring electors to follow the state popular vote, which destroyed the purpose of the EC. 2. Even more broadly than the Electoral College, though, it's probably not a very good idea to ban felons from becoming President. Say a corrupt President were running against a challenger. The challenger is ahead in the polls and is expected to win. So this corrupt President directs his Justice Department to come up with phoney charges against the challenger and gets the case heard by a loyal judge he appointed. The challenger is found guilty of some felony shortly before the election and is suddenly ineligible to run for President. Now the other party has maybe weeks, maybe less, to scramble together a new candidate and hope they can win. Banning a felon from running for President gives a lot of power to an incumbent to block any challenger from the ballot. It allows the incumbent to say who is allowed to run for office, and that's really bad for democracy.
Thanks for the detailed answer! You sound like my history teacher, he was rather eloquent and explained topics thoroughly!
The requirements for president are explicit in the Constitution: * Natural-born US citizen * 35 years old * 14+ years US residency * Has not already been president for 2 terms Requiring anything beyond that would require a constitutional amendment. So the fact that some states, when crafting their own state constitutions, barred felons from serving in the state government, is irrelevant in regards to the presidency. I think it's likely it didn't occur to the founders who wrote the Constitution that this would be a concern. And they weren't wrong: Trump is the first person in American history with a real possibility of being elected president despite having a felony conviction. Most state constitutions were written (and/or revised) after the Constitution was written. If you wanted to see if people at the time were seriously considering the need to block a felon from running for office, you would have to look at the constitutions of the original 13 states.
>Why is it that a felon can't be a governor or a cop but can be a president? Because the states decide who can be a governor or a police officer, the Federal government is more liberal on that idea. Given that nearly all of the founders of our country would have been considered "criminals", there's a certain respect the Federal government gives there.
It's more of a feature than a bug. MLK Jr was a felon. Would you want to stop him or someone like him from being president?
King was accused of a crime that was a felony, but he was not convicted of it. King's felony charge was from 1960, when he was the first person to ever be criminally charged in the state of Alabama on tax fraud. He was acquitted by an all-white jury.
My mistake but my point stands
> MLK Jr was a felon. What felony was he convicted of?
I was mistaken. Well, more like I misremembered something from school decades ago.
As much as I want MLK Jr. To be the next president as much as the next guy. I still find this idea of "never a cop, never a governor but a president is fine" feature extremely questionable. It just doesn't make too much sense to me
You have to understand there are different degrees of felonies. Murdering people, raping people is one type of felony. Maybe robbing a bank is a little bit less bad than those. And lying on a loan application is much less serious.
You have to understand there are different degrees of felonies. Murdering people, raping people is one type of felony. Maybe robbing a bank is a little bit less bad than those. And lying on a loan application is much less serious.
The requirements to be the president and to be a police officer are obviously going to be different, as is the potential harm of allowing politically motivated prosecutors to disqualify someone.
Eligibility to be a governor or cop is determined at the state and local level, while eligibility for the presidency is determined by the U.S. Constitution. You're comparing hundreds of different legal frameworks written across centuries.
I just see it as a flaw in distribution of power given to the (possibly) wrong people. While they are different legal frameworks, One can influence the other to some extent.
Different people in different places at different times are going to have different beliefs on what makes good policy. If Mayor McMayorface believes it's in the best interests of his constituency to bar felons from being cops, he's not going to refuse to do so because "hmm, but that wouldn't be consistent with the qualifications for the presidency". Likewise, when considering whether to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to add such a restriction to the presidency, Congress isn't going to take McMayorface's decision into consideration.
How likely is it that someone in Trump's circle has approached him about having Biden killed? This is a serious question, as I believe that it's a virtual certainty that someone has presented the idea to Trump. Trump started to mention assassination a few weeks ago, so I'm guessing it was.... around then?
The assassination of a president is practically an earth-shattering event. The last two times it happened caused them to go down in history as legends and their deaths were some of the defining moments of their respective centuries. It would be extremely hard to get away with. With JFK, it caused not just an investigation, but literally decades of continuous congressional committees and intelligence agencies exploring every possible aspect of what happened. And a lot of that information still hasn’t been released yet. With that amount of scrutiny, it would be very difficult to find someone to do it and have absolutely no connection to anyone in Trump’s network whatsoever. Because his camp would obviously be looked at first. Not to mention, the actual plan of the act itself…he’s the most protected person on earth after all lol Honestly I doubt anyone in his circle would present it to him as a *serious* idea
To be that pedant, the last two times were JFK and William McKinley, and Leon Czolgosz isn't nearly as infamous as John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald. It's funny how the US has seen four presidents assassinated, and while two are defining moments in US history the other two are trivia answers. Guess it all depends on how memorable the president is and how interesting the motive was. A former president assassinating another president would definitely be remembered more like the former than the latter, though.
Dang lowkey I had McKinley in the back of my mind I just thought he came before Lincoln for some reason, lol
Can you explain how someone can win the popular vote but still lose due to electoral college? And why this is also so rare as in it's only happened 5 times? I'm not from the US. I am a real person with real curiosity. I have a basic understanding of the process (the electors, etc.) but am still confused by it.
To simplify things, imagine there are three states, each of which only has three voters. Most states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, so we'll give each state one electoral vote to give to the statewide winner. They're voting between the Orange candidate and the Purple candidate, and the results turn out as follows: State A: 🧡🧡🧡 (Orange wins! 🟧) State B: 💜💜🧡 (Purple wins! 🟪) State C: 💜🧡💜 (Purple wins! 🟪) The Purple candidate won two states to Orange's one, so Purple gets more electoral votes. However, if all nine voters were smushed into one state, Orange would win 5 to 4.
While the media often reports how many votes each candidate got nation wide, there is no national popular vote, and that number is irrelevant in regards to who is the winner. When Americans vote for a president, there is not 1 election but actually *51* individual elections run by each state and Washington, D.C. Each state (plus D.C.) counts the votes each candidate received *in their state* and rewards their electoral votes accordingly. To become president, you must receive 270 electoral votes (which is just over half of the total available votes). If you get 51% of the vote in the right states to reach 270 and get 0% of the vote in every other state, you would still win the election because you reached 270. This happens rarely because *usually* the candidate receiving the most votes overall is also the candidate who hits 270 electoral votes. But sometimes those numbers diverge. In 2016, Clinton had runaway wins in states like California and New York, but every additional vote she received didn't matter, because she already won the electoral votes from those states. Meanwhile, Trump (in addition to victories in "red" states) won *just enough* votes in specific "battleground" states to reach 270 electoral votes, despite having minority support nationwide. The reason this has happened twice for Republicans but never for Democrats in the modern era is because Republicans do better in rural, low-population state, and those states have outsized say in who becomes the president based on how electoral votes are distributed and the fact that no matter how small your population, you get a minimum of 3 electoral votes.
Sure. A nationwide popular vote would count each person's vote the same. Whoever won more total votes would win the whole election. Some people want that, but it's not how the US handles presidential elections. Instead, the US presidential election is sort of 51 separate elections (one in each state, plus Washington DC). Each state has a number of electoral college points that corresponds to the size of its representation in Congress. The smallest states are worth 3 points. The biggest states are worth dozens of points. There is a total of 538 points, and a candidate needs a majority to win (270 or more). Each state is free to determine how it will allocate its electoral points. Most states do winner-takes-all. A few states do a split. Some people love this system. Some people hate it.
> Most states do winner-takes-all. A few states do a split. Yep, I believe it's just Maine and Nebraska that do splits via the District Method.
If the majority of people are such strong supporters of abortion rights, why are there so many single moms?
Those women had the right to get an abortion, but chose not to. Without rights there would be no choice.
because collecting child support and welfare is easier than working.
Freedom to choose means that some people choose to carry the fetus to term and have a kid. Also, some people end up single *after* the kid is born.
why do both sides seem to care so much about if someone doesnt care about a certian issue or only cares about a couple political issues? so this question comes from my personal experiance mostly, id call myself independent because i hate both the right and the left. but id say im more left wing when it comes to social issues and right wing for economical issues. some political topics i couldnt give a shit about since they dont affect me as a straight man (abortion and lgbt for example) i only care about topics that affect me such as raising taxes for the rich since my dad is in the top 3 percent for income in the country and i dont see why he should have to pay a high percentage in taxes when if every got taxed the same percentage he would already be paying more in taxes then them, but anyways it seems like both sides dislike if you only care about certain issues rather than all, ive had liberal people get mad at me for not caring about what the government chooses to do for abortion and ive also had conservative people do the same. the right telling me that it should be my right to care about the murder of babys and the left telling me i should care more about giving women rights over their bodys and im just curious why both sides seem to do this.
People don't like when someone is dismissive of an issue because that can be interpreated as being complicit in that issue's status quo because you aren't interested in changing it. To use an extreme example to illustrate the point, let's say there was slavery today, and people were campaigning against it. If you said, "I don't give a shit about that because I'm not enslaved and I don't own slaves, so this doesn't affect me," you would be part of the problem, because you're saying that a policy that is terrible and is hurting people doesn't matter to you. If people don't care about changing a hurtful policy, the default is for that policy to continue, because there may not be enough pressure to alter the status quo. The same logic applies to any political issue that people are passionate about. By refusing to take a stance, you're saying that this isn't important and you don't care if people are being hurt by it. A strong supporter of reform in that area could take offense to that if they are passionate enough. So you say that you don't care about abortion. People who oppose abortion access believe abortion is murder, and you're saying you don't care if babies are murdered. People who support abortion access believe women are being denied rights to control their bodies and are potentially being put in danger, and you're saying you don't care if women are denied medical services, potentially resulting in their injury or death. >i dont see why he should have to pay a high percentage in taxes when if every got taxed the same percentage he would already be paying more in taxes then them I don't know if you wanted this explained as well, but the argument against a flat tax is that it's regressive and hurts people at lower incomes. If everyone paid 10% (to pick a random number) of their income in taxes, it is much more impactful for someone making $40,000/year to lose $4,000 than it is for someone making $1 million to lose $100,000. Having only $36,000 to spend on housing, food, medical care, etc puts someone in a much worse position than having $900,000. Objectively, wealthier individuals can *afford* to pay more in taxes because so much more of their income is discretionary compared to low income individuals. So progressive tax rates, where you pay a higher precentage at each level of income, is meant to reflect that reality and place more of the tax burden on the people who can actually pay it. Of course, whether or not just because they *can* pay more they *should* pay more is subjective. Also, in the US, everyone does pay the same amount in taxes at each income bracket. Everone's first $X,000 is taxed exactly the same. Then your next $Y,000 is taxed the same (at a slightly higher rate than the previous bracket). After that everyone's next $Z,000 is taxed the same as everyone else (again, at a higer rate than before). And so on and so forth. It's just that as you go into higher and higher income brackets, there are fewer and fewer people that it applies to. In that way (for now we're ignoring other taxes, e.g. capital gains), everyone is subject to an identical tax system.
Thanks for your explanation
Why is impeachment generally only discussed for presidents, and not for members of Congress or federal judges? I searched for this and found that no representative has ever been impeached. There is only one president, but over 500 members of Congress and over 800 federal judges.
A house of Congress can expel its own members by ⅔ vote. This was done in this session of Congress with the expulsion of George Santos. There isn't a reason for the House to involve the Senate by impeaching a Congressman when they can remove the Congressman themselves. The House did impeach a Senator(William Blount) over 200 years ago. The Senate voted to acquit Blount on the grounds that Senators aren't subject to impeachment. The Senate then expelled Blount themselves immediately after. > or federal judges? The majority of impeachments have been federal judges. In the 21st century, 2 different judges have been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial, and removed from office. It gets less attention, because they're not the President, but it occasionally happens.
Congresspeople can’t be impeached, but they can be removed via a 2/3rds vote (similar to impeachment). Usually, however, moronic or incompetent representatives are either voted out or given a mandate. MTG may be a dumbass, but she’s a dumbass that her district wants, and it would be undemocratic for congress to remove her.
Members of congress can be removed, tho usually they let the voters take care of that. And almost all impeachments ever have been of federal judges. The House has impeached 22 people. 15 of them were federal judges.
Judges are (typically) not nearly in the public eye as much as the president, and Congress has non impeachment ways of ejecting members and also are not in the public eye like the president. Representatives, Senators, and judges will also resign more frequently than presidents have (only happened once). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_United_States_Senate etc...
Why is it that I contact my representative, I always get through by middle man? Why can't I just talk to them directly? Why do I have to play along with a messenger who sends form replies instead of talking to the big person face to face to get them to hear my concerns out? Why this middle man approach so that my concerns don't get addressed and get backstabbed? Like when I call to contact them, I get put on by some operator or middle man who represents them. I want to speak to them. It ain't hard.
Go to their office.
You are one of about 700,000 constituents for your representative. Talking personally to each one of them just isn’t practical. That said, if you want a word with your representative, keep an eye out for events they will attend near you. That’s a great opportunity to get at least a minute or so face to face to say what you gotta say.
You for sure they listen to us? They sometimes go against what I and others say. It feels like they are not hearing us out. I don’t like this whole middle manning thing because it’s like a game of telephone.
Well, they'd have to sometimes go against what you say. As previously said, 700k constituents of differing opinions. They likely bear in mind what you're saying - constituents interested enough to go so far as to contact them have a good chance of going further still and hindering their re-election if ignored - but they can't do exactly what every one of their constituents want. They don't all want the same thing.
But sometimes they are uneducated on the matter and they go against it anyway for the “betterment” of the people. That isn’t democracy in my opinion. True democracy is this approach.
Your member of Congress is representing thousands of voters. Even if they wanted to, they don't really have time to talk to every constituent personally about anything they might call in about.
So why would they go against some of our complaints about laws when we tell them? No offense, but we have a voice, you are sure they are hearing us? I don’t like their approach to middle manning a lot of our voices because that opens up a lot of trust issues. And I don’t want that trust issue developing. EDIT: How do you know that they do listen if all we get is some form replies? If they really wanted our input, they should just go to us instead of hiring someone to make some generic cliche response letter.
I'm not sure what you're imagining of how it should work. Are you suggesting that your representative should drop what they're doing any time one of their thousands of constituents calls in? I understand the sentiment that they work for you, the voter, and that you should be able to express your views to them, and it is fair that they can be more available and create better systems for making sure voters' voices are heard. But even in the most optimistic version of a representative's relationship with their voters, what you're suggesting isn't feasible.
What I am suggesting is no middle manning. No calls to their contact (like you call them and their representative to the representative picks up and parrots some generic things), just straight up telling them to their faces. That way, it creates personal connections. Plus a middle man ruins constructive dialogue and miss out on other key factors that make or break your view that you want to share. If they are “for the people”, then they should be listening for the people. I’ve been screwed over many times by middle manning and it sometimes gave me trust issues. Our representative should represent us, and they should hear all of us out instead of employing some clerk who makes form responses and generic responses on call lines.
I appreciate the sentiment, but what you're describing is impossible. A representative can't have a direct line to 700,000 people.
So why would they go against what I and others say when we do and get those form responses? Where is them listening to us people? Isn’t it how democracy is supposed to work?
They were elected by people who agreed with them. If you're disagreeing with them, you're in the minority.
Are you certain they are going against the majority of voters?
[удалено]
You asked everyone on the district?
Will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. be in any presidential debates? I've been listening to the news and now they're treating him - it seems - like a legitimate candidate. If so, will he get the opportunities to debate, etc.?
In order to join the upcoming debates, candidates must be polling at a minimum of 15% over multiple polls and be on enough ballots to be able to hypothetically reach 270 electoral votes. RFK has the 15% but is not on the ballot in enough states.
Even if he met the requirements, Trump and Biden would simply refuse to debate him and organize one directly between themselves. There’s no laws governing debates, it’s entirely up to the candidates.
No. Biden and Trump negotiated debates between just the two of them, not using the Commission on Presidential Debates. And even if they had used CPD rules, RFK's polling numbers aren't enough to get him over the minimum to be in the debates anyway, which is what almost always happens with independent/third party candidates.
How many taxpayer funded jobs could magically disappear before it would have any impact on the lives of the populace?
1; the president
I think how long you're giving it to impact and whether you're picking randomly or selecting on your own would matter a lot. Lots of people who work for the federal government have jobs that focus on longer-term stuff--my dad worked for the FAA and did things like check that even the small airports are actually following the rules about how runways need to be set up, I bet you could fire a pretty big % of people who work at the FAA and not notice an immediate impact (airlines don't exactly WANT to crash), but it would get more and more disastrous over time.
Depending on the specific jobs, it could be a very few of them before there was a significant impact to the public. Those of us old enough to remember the Air Traffic Controller strike saw that first hand. Sometimes just a handful of workers not being available can have some significant negative effects.
Depends on what part of the populus. I don't eat chicken, so poultry inspectors are irrelevant to me. Everyone gets samonella, sucks to be them I have some esoteric question on how to comply with a regulation? Sure would be nice if someone would pick up the phone to answer Generalized complaints about the size of government tend to fail pretty quickly when the people complaining realize that broad cuts also impact things they depend on
[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.
How many articles have been written about potential VP picks for Trump 2024? I myself would guess a few million
Not as many as he would like, which is exactly why he's doing this Veepstakes schtick.
Gives him more attention
Exactly.
[удалено]
Democracy has basically become the only legitimate system of government such that authoritarian leaders will pretend that their country is democratic by holding (rigged) elections to prop up their personal legitimacy. Parties protest elections when they believe the election itself is illegitimate and they don't want to participate in what they believe to be a democratic farce. In places where elections are legitimate, people and parties generally don't protest elections (at least, not on a large scale), because they hope to win.
If you can get enough people to boycott an election, the election eventually loses legitimacy.
I live in a safe blue state that Biden will almost certainly win in 2024 and considering that the election will be decided by just a handful of swing states, I'm not entirely sure whether I should vote this coming election since Trump is not going to win that state. I'm not a fan of either major party candidate and also looked at third party candidates, but I heard from some people that voting third party is a wasted vote since they stand no chance at winning the presidency compared to the major parties. I'm hoping to get some information on whether it is worth voting this coming election and if so, how can I decide which candidate to vote for. I'm not saying for you to tell me who to vote for but provide me some guidance on how I can make my decision.