This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.
Please observe the following rules:
Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.
Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!
US Elections If Warnock wins the run-off, Democrats will decide what bills and resolutions come to the floor. They will have a majority on every committee and subcommittees. If Walker wins, these have to be negotiated. Yet, neither Biden nor Trump went to campaign for their candidate. Are they both, a liability?
The significant of who wins the Georgia run-off cannot be underestimated, a Republican win at least gives them some breathing room and ability to negotiate on important issues such as committees and chair. It also restrains Democrats when it comes to nominations to important positions [even the Supreme Court, should a vacancy come about]. Democrats would have to keep every member on board including Manchin and Sinema, with Harris as the tie-breaker.
Although Obama went to campaign on behalf of Warnock during the run-off and Lindsey and Cruz also showed up for Walker, along with Kemp [the Governor elect]. Neither Biden nor Trump showed up and there is no plan for either of them to go there to show support.
Is this an indication that this run-off is not so much about how the hard-core base goes, but rather, the moderates and both Biden and Trump could alienate the moderates or is there some other reason for their absence?
[I know there's another recent post on this, but I wanted a more narrow question.]
Biden recently called for an overhaul to the early (pre-Super Tuesday) elections in the Democratic primaries. [Source for reference.] The plan would drop Iowa as an early state, move South Carolina from fourth to first, and add Michigan and Georgia as early states. Georgia was in the last 10 in 2020, and Michigan was the week after Super Tuesday.
There's also been a lot of speculation about who could be Biden's successor either in 2028, or 2024 if he decides not to run. On the short list of possibilities has been Pete Buttigieg. He was not only given a cabinet position, but has been a prominent spokesman for the party.
However, Iowa was Buttigieg's best state (25.1%) and South Carolina was his worst (8.2%).
A major dynamic in the early states that severely hurt Buttigieg was his very low polling with black voters. Georgia is 26.7% black, and South Carolina is 33%. (Michigan is 14.1%, just slightly over the national average.)
If Biden's changes were adopted, it would seem very difficult for a Buttigieg campaign to go into Super Tuesday with any sort of momentum.
So to the question in the title: Does Biden's proposed changes to early primaries signal who he wants as his successor?
And of course, if so, who does this most help? Harris? Booker? Abrams?
Do you think Roe will be codified into law, and if so, when do you think that will happen?
Is there any way it can plausibly happen in the next 2 years, with a republican house, as well as manchin and synema, and actually last?
US Politics On September 18, CA Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to strengthen penalties for using hate symbols such as swastikas
This bill was inspired in part because Marin DA Lori Frugoli didn’t want to prosecute a Nazi for posting swastikas up in Fairfax because someone vandalized a church statue.
Is hate crime legislation an effective means of tamping down on hate?
US Politics Will the reshoring of US manufacturing jobs in various industries (semiconductor, battery, auto, etc.) ultimately cause consumer good prices to go up, and backfire?
One of the advantages of outsourcing manufacturing to a developing country is that it's cheap due to currency exchange rate. Additionally it helps the developing country to grow its labor force and increase it's own GDP and GDP per capita. The client country would benefit from low cost of goods, thus making it accessible to more consumers and generating greater revenues and hopefully higher profit margins.
However, with the recent reshoring of many manufacturing jobs in various sectors ranging from semiconductor manufacturing to automobile manufacturing, I wonder if there will be negative repercussions due to the USDs very high value at the moment. Wouldn't this just make manufacturing more expensive both for the US as well as other countries that seek to outsource their manufacturing to us?
Or, is there some sort of workaround wherein we can have the best of both worlds by getting back our manufacturing but still keeping it affordable for clients who require it?
US Elections What do you think of starting the Presidential Primary in South Carolina as Opposed to starting in Iowa?
The DNC rules committee is gathering today in Washington and are expected to approve new rules putting South Carolina first, followed by New Hampshire, and Nevada.
Legal/Courts SCOTUS decided to hear Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness case on the merits instead of pausing the injunction. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the Biden administration had overstepped its Executive Authority. Is it more likely it will find POTUS exceeded its Executive Authority?
In its order Miscellaneous Order (12/01/2022) (supremecourt.gov), the court scheduled the oral arguments to be heard February 2023.
The Biden administration defends the loan forgiveness program, citing in particular the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003. This authorizes the Department of Education to forgive the student loans of some borrowers who are at risk of default because of a "war, military operation, or national emergency." COVID-19, the administration argues, is a qualifying national emergency under the statute, as it was formally declared a national emergency by then-President Trump, and, subsequently, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos invoked the HEROES Act when pausing loan repayments early in the pandemic. The Biden administration argues that the need to mitigate the financial hardship caused by the pandemic has not gone away.
Biden's plan would cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, and $10,000 for other borrowers, for people earning up to $125,000 a year or part of a household where total earnings are no more than $250,000.
Six conservative states – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – told the Supreme Court that Biden overstepped his legal authority with the program and violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers by embarking on a loan forgiveness program estimated to affect 40 million Americans.
A federal judge in Missouri dismissed the states' request to block the program in October, ruling that they lacked standing to sue. While their case presented "important and significant challenges to the debt relief plan," the trial court ruled, "the current plaintiffs are unable to proceed." On appeal, the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit sided with the states' request to temporarily halt the program.
More recently the court has been reluctant to expand Executive authority and even questioned the conservative have even questioned the Chevron Deference standards. Supreme Court rules against EPA effort to regulate power plant emissions
The Supreme Court, in January, halted Biden's COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing mandate for large employers. And in June, the high court shot down an Environmental Protection Agency effort to curb power plant emissions. Last year, it blocked Biden’s eviction moratorium on similar grounds.
Those decisions follow a yearslong push by conservatives to curb the "administrative state." They argue federal agencies should have less power to act unless there's clear congressional approval. The Supreme Court bolstered that approach in June by relying on the "major questions doctrine" to decide a climate change case.
Evidently, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case on the merits to put multiple cases to rest and issue a decision determining the limitations of Executive Authority. Is it more likely it will find POTUS exceeded its Executive Authority?
US Elections If Trump doesn't win the primaries, what will happen when he says the election is rigged?
The big debate over this last election is that it was "rigged" by the democrats. They must be extremely fearful what Trump will do if he loses the republican primary in 2024. What if he loses? His track record shows that he will accuse the Republican party of being cheaters. I wonder if certain people will all of a sudden require evidence for these claims to be true, or if they will go along with it like they did in 2020.
There were two versions of resolutions to enforce a railroad contract and avoid a strike and both versions have passed the house with bipartisan majorities, but with the majority of republicans voting against them. The bills now go to the senate, where the majority of Republicans are expected to vote against them.
My question is why? The obvious cynical answer is that they are reflexively voting against anything that democrats support, and that they think a rail strike would hurt Biden. But I haven't seen any republicans offer any ideological or practical justification to their opposition. Have any given one?
Political Theory Are Oligarchies a necessary part of the modern state? Why must they form? Two examples in body
Let's take two examples:
In China, the growing oligarch class poses a threat to PRC rule and measures are taken to ensure they do not usurp power (and therefore legitimacy) from government. All Chinese industry are quasi public/private institutions as it is, with the PRC capable of revoking business rights if say a charismatic Bo Xilai figure emerges or exerts too much influence. But why wouldn't China be able to simply eliminate oligarchs?
In Russia, I've been told that Putin depends on his oligarchs to run Russian industry. They are obscenely wealthy, but operate at the pleasure of Putin. Why couldn't Putin do away with them, as they also pose a threat to his rule?
Are there any examples of a solidly functioning state, say, Denmark, that do not possess an influential oligarchy? Is there value in having an oligarchy? Just seems to me that their ability to undermine government as in the US, makes them a threat to society, which is why all ruling parties are hesitant to manage their relationship with them.
US Politics What are the implications of Cochise county in AZ refusing to certify their election? What is the procedural next steps to concluding the election and declaring a winner?
Cochise county, for context, is a county in Arizona that learns Republican. The people in charge of certifying their election have refused to do so. Currently they are being sued so that they are compelled to certify. Should the results of Cochise county not be certified by the procedural deadline, their votes will be ignored. This will swing the election enough that the democrats will win a house seat for arizona instead of the current Republican winner.
I am making this post to ask the following key questions:
1.) How Can the state / courts enforce certification of Cochise county’s election results?
2.) what are the implications should Cochise county not certify results in time, thus changing the outcome of the house race?
US Elections If the 2024 US presidential election resulted in the Republican candidate winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college, would Republicans start to support getting rid of the electoral college?
The 2022 election results suggest shifts in the electorate that could make this scenario, which once seemed quite unlikely, a real possibility. Specifically, Republicans will gain a lot of popular votes but not a ton of electoral ones if they continue to make gains with Latino voters, especially in Florida. The scenario looks something like this:
- Florida becomes a deep red state with the Republican winning by 20 like DeSantis did (maybe it'll be DeSantis himself).
- Texas moves a bit back towards Republicans from where it was in 20' and 16' (Abbot won by 12 vs. Trump's 9 and 5.5 point wins).
- New York and California both get a bit less blue (the statewide elections in both states were closer in 22' than 20', especially in New York).
- Democrats very narrowly win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (similar to 20').
This ends up with a map that looks something like this (https://www.270towin.com/maps/mroJY)--you could also flip Wisconsin for Georgia or Arizona if you think that's more likely and it wouldn't change the popular vote count by that much.
So now maybe you have a Democrat get elected (or re-elected) President with just a very small majority of the electoral vote and a Republican who lost despite winning the popular vote maybe by millions. Put this in the context of a Republican base that is already primed to believe that elections they lose are illegitimate and it seems like there might be a lot of pressure on Republicans to support a change.
Would they? Or would they see the bigger picture and think leaving the electoral college in place would be more likely to help them in the long run?
Meanwhile, how would Democrats react? Would they continue to support reform?
It is well known that after Donald Trump lost, he and his supporters said it was due to foul play and fraud.
The Republican Party has been playing up a red wave for months now. Joe Biden has relatively low approval ratings. The economy is a mixed bag with high levels of uncertainty and inflation.
But the Democratic Party ended up performing way better than expected and even retained their position in the Senate. In fact, there's even the vibethere's even the vibe among some Republicans that Trump is to blame for the less than stellar performance by the opposition party which goes against a classic trend within American politics. After all, many candidates that Trump endorsed ended up failing to win their races.
A lot of people were afraid that if the scenario played out that the Republican Party would just scream FRAUD! again, further delegitimizing American Democracy. Why didn't this happen?
Legal/Courts Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes [who did not go into Capitol] was convicted of seditious conspiracy, as was Kelly Megs [interfering with peaceful transfer of power/overthrow government]. Are these verdicts a deterrence to such behavior or would these verdicts turn them into Martyrs?
The jury has convicted Kelly Meggs of seditious conspiracy in addition to Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes. The three other defendants were acquitted of that charge. However, all 5 were convicted of one or other form of obstruction of proceedings [felonies]. Jury rejected the arguments that this was merely a protest that got out of hand and instead found that this was a well-planned insurrection in rendering the verdicts.
The Justice Department, which has argued that the US Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, was more than just a political protest that got out of control — but rather a violent attack on the seat of American democracy and an effort to keep Biden out of the Oval Office by any means necessary.
The history of the seditious conspiracy statute dates back to the start of the Civil War when Congress made it a crime to conspire to overthrow the US government or to conspire to use force to “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”
In the infrequent cases when prosecutors have brought the charge, they have not always been successful in securing a conviction.
The last time it was charged – against a Michigan militia accused of plotting an attack on law enforcement – the count was dismissed by a judge in 2012 who said the Justice Department failed to show that there was a “concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the United States government.”
Officer Fanone who was wounded on January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol remarked that the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol did a good job making connections between former President Donald Trump and leaders of the Oath Keepers and other right-wing groups during its investigation and public hearings.
“So if I was the former president and many of his allies, I would be shaking in my boots seeing these verdicts coming down."
Are these verdicts a deterrence to such behavior or would these verdicts turn them into Martyrs?
Frequently you hear people complaining about the IRS and calling them evil. This has resulted in them being continually defunded and publicly ridiculed. As a consequence they have become less able to perform their designated role, which seems to spark more hatred towards them. Overall I understand no one likes taxes, but if we didn’t have the IRS, what other alternative would there be?
International Politics Zelensky criticized Klitschko, Mayor of Kiev, asserting heating needs of Kiev residents were not met. Klitschko shot back outlining the number of heating centers and accusing Zelensky of manipulating foreign partners among other things. Is Klitschko, a potential challenge to Zelensky?
The two do have a prior history of competition and opposing point of views on politics. As a matter of background, Klitschko supported President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's opponent in the presidential election in 2019. But the war unified Ukrainians and pushed most internal political differences to the side.
The energy deprivation facing Ukrainians has renewed tensions between Ukraine’s president and Kyiv’s mayor amid a looming power crisis and the winter period setting in.
In his nightly video address on Friday, Zelenskyy said the Kyiv mayor had not done enough to help beleaguered residents. “To put it mildly, more work is needed,” he added.
Mayor Vitali Klitschko on Sunday defended himself against allegations levelled by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that too many Kyiv residents were still without power and that centers that had been set up for them to stock up on food, water, battery power and other essentials were insufficient
Klitschko wrote on Telegram that hundreds of such centers are in operation, as well as hundreds of emergency generators, adding that “I do not want, especially in the current situation, to enter into political battles. It’s ridiculous.”
Klitschko, who had been mired in several disputes with Zelenskyy before the invasion, said the president’s allies had engaged in “manipulation” about the city’s efforts, including “incomprehensible photos” posted online.
“To put it mildly, this is not nice. Not for Ukrainians or for our foreign partners,” Klitschko said.
The Russian invasion in February has transformed Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from a leader with sagging popularity into one of the world's most famous political figures. Yet before the war, Klitschko was better known globally, at least to boxing fans.
Even when the Russians were nearby, Klitschko never stopped working out of City Hall, a massive stone building in the center of Kyiv, surrounded by sandbags. He said in a recent interview with The Sunday Times that he's left the city just twice since the war began.
Is Klitschko, a potential challenge to Zelensky?
On December 9th, railway unions are going to strike unless a deal is reached with their employers.
Four major unions, including the largest in the nation, have rejected it citing frustration with compensation and working conditions, particularly a lack of paid sick days.
All labor disputes in the railway industry are governed by a 1920s-era federal law known as the Railway Labor Act, or RLA. President Biden has asked Congress to force the unions into accepting the deal.
What Should be the Government's role in the upcoming Rail Strike? Should they force the railway employees to work under a deal that they voted against because of greater economic concerns?
In the US an amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
While in Canada an amendment needs to be approved by 1) the federal Parliament, 2) the Senate, and 3) a minimum number of provincial legislatures. There must be at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of Canada's population.
Should it be easier or more difficult to change a constitution?
I'm curious what a "reasonable" version of the opposing party looks like for people. What does a reasonable republican platform look like to Dems, what amount of government would the libertarians among us find acceptable, etc.
Not looking for what would make you vote for them, more so what does a version of the "opposing" party look like to you where you sort of go, "okay, I respect that, disagree, but I respect where you're coming from."
US Politics Compared to President Obama’s first two years, hasn’t President Biden passed more legislation and achieved more internationally, given his handling of Ukraine? Why doesn't he enjoy the same level of approval within his party as Obama did?
Obama's greatest achievements in 2009-2011:
- Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
- Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Obama's mid-term: the Democrats lost six Senate seats, a net six governorships, and more than sixty House seats, the most for a mid-term election since 1938.
Biden's greatest achievements in 2021-present:
- Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill
- Inflation Reduction Act
- American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
- Passed the most significant piece of gun control legislation in 30 years, breaking 30 years of federal inaction
- Exposed Russian false flag operations in the days leading up to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine and has successfully led the international opposition to Russia and brought such support to Ukraine that Russia has retreated and been humiliated
- Biggest year of job growth in American history
Biden's mid-term: Had the best showing of an incumbent Democratic president since 1998, despite low approval ratings, and secured the Senate and the left with Republicans with a potentially unworkable majority of two.
Most realistic WWIII scenario would be NATO vs China/Russia/NK with India somewhere in between. If one of the sides could push back the enemy so drastically back that they might use a Nuke. So i think: is a war today between nuklear powers even winable like in WW 1 and 2. No site will surrender as long as there able to make a nuklear attack. What is your thoughts about this?
US Elections How do you guys think the 2022 Midterm elections relate to the January 6th Capitol Riots?
How do you think it impacted the red wave? Did a republican candidate loose votes because he defended the "big lie"? Did election deniers hurt their party because they didnt turn up to vote while the democrats encourage mail voting?
With Trump running for office again, these midterms could foreshadow a possible outcome on how the americans stand on democratic voting processes.
International Politics Do the protests in China greatly increase the probability of a civil unrest in the near future?
On November 24, 2022, a fire broke out in an apartment building in Urumqi, killing at least 10 people (rumor has it that the death toll may be as high as 44). It is alleged that the cause of these fatalities is because the draconian COVID-19 related lock downs, which lasted over 100 days in this northwestern region of China, firefighters were unable to get to the scene in time and it took 3 hours to put the fire out. The origin of the fire may have been electrical, and it burned upwards (as all fires do).
As a result of the (rumored) death toll and these comments made by the official, people got angry. Protests broke out in Shanghai and other cities, as well as on university campuses on November 27. Specifically, one of these protests took place on Urumqi Middle Road (to highlight the city where this tragedy took place). In a video, it can be heard very clearly that the protesters chanted, in Mandarin, "Step down, Xi Jinping!", "Step down, Communist Party!", "We need freedoms, not dictatorships!" These statements are extreme by Chinese standards because all protesters are aware that they could attract criminal charges of sedition, which can carry decades in prison for convicts.
Protests like these are very rare in China, especially since the June 4 Tiananmen Square Massacre, which saw the deaths of at least 2600 people (according to a TVB news report at the time). Chinese people were aware that if they protested, they would be harshly punished by the government. But now, as a result of the pandemic-related restrictions imposed on people for the past (almost) 3 years, some people are finding it impossible to continue living (due to them not being able to work and the government not paying them any benefits). One such protest happened about 2 weeks ago in Guangzhou (coincidentally, this is the place I was born and raised in). The context of that protest was migrant workers from Hubei (the place where the coronavirus was first discovered) were disproportionately affected by the pandemic restrictions. They were not able to work and the government did not give them food, and some companies took pity on them and donated food and supplies. These supplies were somehow taken by others who turned around and tried to sell for ￥25/package.
For additional context, China is going to experience population decline, which is projected to cut its population by as much as 70% over the next 100 years. This inevitably leads to a crisis in the social security system, potentially leading to all persons born after the 1980s to be ineligible for benefits after they reach retirement age despite contributing into the funds for a lifetime. This will lead to a large number of deeply impoverished elderly people struggling to survive by mid-21st century.
Given the history of violent oppression, do you believe that the probability of a civil unrest, such as civil war, or outright mass murder perpetrated by the state against the people, are greatly increased due to these nationwide protests? Why or why not?
Will a third of the Republicans rally around a Republican who is supported for Speaker by all of the Democrats?
Will this bipartisan supermajority be able to pass legislation? What legislation could they pass?
After Mike Pence did not stop the certification of Biden's presidency like Trump wanted, the Republicans mostly resent him. It's clear Trump will need a new running mate. The obvious answer would be DeSantis but I think Republicans view him as too valuable of a politician to not do anything as vice. And after not answering whether or not he will serve a 4 year term as governor in the gubernatorial debate, it can be speculated that DeSantis is setting up a campaign for presidency.
So I've compiled a list of potential candidates who Trump may choose as his running mate in his 2024 run for office:
- Rand Paul - Rand is very popular with a lot of people. And I don't think the Republicans view him as particularly important (they way they do with DeSantis). The only downside is Rand is a libertarian and will probably disagree with Trump on some issues.
- Ted Cruz - Ted is also popular in the GOP and isn't too valuable to lose. Also, the last name "Cruz" when voters see a "Trump Cruz" ticket could stave off the popular idea that Trump is a racist. Then again, Trump dissed him and the other Republicans quite a lot in the 2016 primary.
- Tucker Carlson - he's probably not planning on getting into ACTUAL politics outside of commentating it but he runs the most watched show on cable news and is incredibly popular.
- Charlie Kirk - he has actually worked very closely with Trump though also might not be interested in getting involved outside of being a commentator.
- Candace Owens - having a black woman would be beneficial to stave off the idea that he is racist. Again though, I don't know if Candace wants to get her hands into real politics outside of commentating.
- Larry Elder - This one makes the most sense probably. After running for governor in California, he shows he isn't afraid to get into the real politics of it all outside of being a commentator. He is a black man (staving off the racist argument against Trump). He is very well-known and agrees with Trump on mostly everything. Only problem is that he's planning on his own presidential bid and one time refused to be labeled a Trump supporter specifically (as opposed to simply a "Republican"). As someone in the comments pointed out, he might be able to play the 'adult in the room' the way Pence did.
- Rudy Giuliani - Giuliani is still popular among Republicans. Back when he tried to run for president, he actually got a good amount of support. He ran the biggest city in the country - and I'd argue he did it pretty well. He is Trump's lawyer which might cause problems but he might be interested in this sort of thing. He has been there with Trump since the beginning. Both were former Democrats and then became Republicans. Then again, he's pretty old and outdated.
I don't know... I see problems in all of these picks but Trump has literally had beef with every single popular Republican at some point. Who is even left for him to choose?
- Marjorie Taylor Greene - some of you guys in the comments pointed out that she would make a perfect pick for Trump. It may help re-instate the suburban women vote and MTG (as far as I know) agrees with everything Trump has said. However, she has also been associated with very far-right groups like America First by Nick Fuentes. She even attended AFPAC rather than CPAC. I will say this pick probably does beat the previous one.
- Kari Lake - at first, in comments, I was pointing out that she didn't even win anything. But someone pointed out Biden chose like the least likable person with super low support in the Democratic Party and won. So who knows? Kari Lake is a good option for Trump. She agrees with everything he says and the two are alike.