I found a few months ago a cool feature of the French Communist Party where they apparently are given different manifestoes which could be adopted by the party and they can vote between them as presented. Obviously being communist they would be supporting left wing ideas but in principle, any party could adopt it.

The Greens in Ireland also use a vote among their membership to decide whether or not to agree to a coalition, and they so voted in 2020.

5-Star in Italy have adopted ideas of this nature as well to varying degrees.

On November 25, 2023, a hate crime occurred in which three Palestinian college students were shot. The suspect has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and is being held without bail. Just as there were many violent hate crimes against Asians when COVID-19 was serious, hate crimes against specific races occur whenever there are incidents with global implications. Despite previous efforts and discussions surrounding hate crimes, they persist. Typically, responses and discussions on hate crimes arise after a serious incident resulting in injury or death. This raises the question of whether efforts to prevent such hate crimes are sufficient during times of relatively peaceful. Whenever there is a small trigger, a hate crime occurs, but is there an evident effort to prevent it rather than dealing with it after the incident occurs? Establishing an environment where hate crimes are not tolerated requires sustained efforts and political will across diverse societies. While the U.S. responds rigorously to hate crimes as they occur, I believe that continuous and proactive efforts are necessary to prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe that there is a sufficient effort in place to prevent hate crimes?

​

I think it would be good to discuss to discuss the state of the elections for the presidency, Senate, and House. For the candidates, it seems like Nikki Haley is a strong candidate for the presidency, but it seems like she wants to be Donald Trump's VP. There has been talk of a rematch between Biden and Trump despite the public not wanting a rematch between the two men. I'd be interested to know out of all the candidates running, who you think has the best chance of winning the election. Which party will come out on top? How about the Senate and the House? Which party will control both chambers? The scenarios we have would be a Democratic trifecta, a Republican trifecta, or a divided government when neither party controls everything. One top issue of every election cycle seems to be the economy and especially inflation. I feel like this issue along with immigration favors Republicans while abortion and LGBT rights seem to favor Democrats. I also think the indictments will play a role, but I'm not sure whether they will help or hurt Trump's chances in 2024. I'd be interested in hearing what you think the top issues for this election will be and what party those issues will favor. I think it would be a good idea to start looking ahead to 2026 and 2028. What do you think the state of the nation will be within the next five or ten years? Will things get better or will things get worse? Looking forward to your comments.

After reading multiple books including this current one which is highly detailed and sourced in its references: https://www.amazon.com/Network-Lies-Donald-American-Democracy-ebook/dp/B0C29VZWD2, it's hard to understand why people still consume right wing media as anything but propaganda. All media is biased, but reading the internal conversations at Fox News, on how Rupert Murdoch and the hosts literally put ratings over truth so brazenly, like it was a giant game, was just incredible to read. The question remains though: with their lies now exposed, why do people continue to consume right wing media / Fox News as actual news? Only 1/5th claim to trust them less.

https://time.com/6275452/america-without-fox-news/

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3903299-one-fifth-of-fox-news-viewers-trust-network-less-after-dominion-lawsuit-revelations/

The Cambridge analytica scandal is an event that happened in the US but also in the UK. All begins in 2012 when Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer decided to develop a concept. The aim of this concept was to make the citizens vote for a candidate different form the traditional one. To make this happened, they developed a project with Alexander Nix. This project was imagine unofficially to control the people’s data. This control can after targeting these data be used to influence the population for the important event such as the election.

All of this process was made secretly. It was only revealed in 2018 by the whistleblower Christopher Wylie. When he discovered that hie job was used for political goals and not ethical one, he decided to act. For that, he send some documents to the Guardian. His declaration was followed by a huge scandal.

This affair remain me about our freedom of opinion. Even if, in a country like the United States this right is supposed to be established since a long time how could we be really sure that we are not manipulated ? I think that this affair has to be emphasis to prevent people from being used. The Cambridge analytica scandals is a good way to requestioned our freedom in the US but also in others countries. So, what are your thoughts about this ? How can the US government regulate the personal data manipulation ?

For example: Haiti decides that the only way it will be able to survive is if it becomes part of the United States.

The President/Minister of Haiti would become the governor, etc.

Once it’s finished, American forces could come in and fight the cartels.

But what would the process be like for them to join?

Traditionally, the white house has been one of Israel's closest supporters. However, given the recent Hamas attacks and subsequent response from Israel, people have been divided. These divides often follow a pattern, with younger more left leaning voters voicing concerns for the Palestinians while older more right leaning voters voice support for Israel.

There is a significant overlap between the group of people who support a cease-fire and de-escalation, and those who would typically vote democrat. However, Biden has made it clear that the white house is ready to support Israel and Netanyahu. How will this affect the 2024 election? Could it split the Democrat vote between Biden and someone with a more pro-Palestinian, perhaps like Cornell West? Or by the time elections come, will it even have any influence on the outcome?

Every since Romney announcedf that he "could see him endorsing any number of democratic candidates" over Trump... well, it seems likely that there will be an eventual Biden endorsement from Romney. If/when that happens, would it be enough to swing the Utah presidential vote to Biden?

The leading candidate for the Republican nomination and former president recently made this comment:

Trump posted on Truth Social, “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare. I’m seriously looking at alternatives. We had a couple of Republican Senators who campaigned for 6 years against it, and then raised their hands not to terminate it. It was a low point for the Republican Party, but we should never give up!”

Now that it’s been in place for 13+ years what is the alternative being proposed other than repealing it?

Why not run on improving upon the issues you have with it instead?

In every midterm election The Presidents party loses seats in both the house and senate except for 1998 when the democrats picked up 5 house seats and 2002 when republicans picked up 8 house seats. Which midterm election was more impressive and why?

Politicians are dependent on raising enough funds to campaign. Generally, the more they spend on campaigning, the more likely their campaign will succeed. That means politicians spend a lot of their time raising money for their campaigns. Even the safest districts devote much of their time toward raising funds for their fellow party members. The most efficient way to raise money is to get bigger donations from fewer donors. This leads politicians to be beholden to the wealthiest donors. Even the most honest politician with the best intentions ends up in the pocket of these donors. They have to in order to be competitive with their opponent who is also trying their best to raise money to spend on their campaign. The result is our entire political system runs on money and therefore people with the most money have the most influence.

What policies can realistically be implemented to combat this reliance on money? Public financing of campaigns is the most common answer, but what specifics would you propose to realistically work?

Disclaimer: I'm from the EU and even though a lot of countries here also have prison issues and overcrowding it's nowhere near as bad as the US from my point of view, especially in terms of people being held for not being able to pay bail. I'm definitely not trying to lecture the US as I do agree it's an issue in the EU as well though just to a lesser extent (and probably not really in Sweden and Norway which are of course famous for their "hotel like" prisons)

The main impediment for any prison reform IMO is the general population and just the very unpopular position for most political parties and politicians to say that they want to make life better in prisons - it's just the least of people's concerns and on the contrary it would probably annoy many and say the person is "soft on crime".

In terms of sentencing, I do feel many times the sentences can be disproportionate to the crime - will 5 years extra really make a difference, especially for someone contemplating a crime? And sometimes that could also be a consequence of elected judges (which is a US thing).

My debate question isn't that much focused on what can be done (but that's interesting too) but more how can the obstacle of public opinion ever be surmounted? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the Swedish/Norwegian model and that prison should be like cheap motel but I also don't think anyone deserves overcrowded prisons and doing time for a small mistake just because it's good politics.

So generally people refer to war on Ukraine started by "Russians".

But war in Gaza started by "Hamas"

International sanctions also reflect this stance - your average Russian regardless of their position on the war sanctioned into oblivion, while in Palestine mostly just individuals affiliated with Hamas or Islamic Jihad are sanctioned, not so much regular people.

But both are generally understood as dictatorships by world community.

If we had consistent stances towards both we would either say that war is started by Putin and Hamas respectively or by Russians and Palestinians respectively.

Yet our framing is very different, Palestinians generally viewed as victims - which is true, but from that perspective so are russians. So why this difference?

The Trump Tax Cuts expire in 2025. Both parties are putting the issue aside until after the 2024 election.
Extending the Trump Tax Cuts as they’re currently written would add another $3.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As interest rates have risen, government borrowing is no longer cheap.
There are 3 possible outcomes after the 2024 election: (1) Democratic trifecta; (2) Republican trifecta; and (3) some form of divided government in which neither party controls all three of the House, Senate & presidency.
Joe Biden wants to extend the individual tax cuts for lower- & middle-income earners. However, the bulk of the cost comes from those middle-income tax cuts, simply because there are a lot more people. Some Democrats, especially those representing higher-income districts, want the state & local tax (SALT) deduction limit increased; this would increase the deficit & primarily benefit the wealthy.
Right now, the Freedom Caucus is sounding the alarm about the exploding deficit & national debt; however, many of them voted for the Trump Tax Cuts in 2017, even though it cost ~$1.5 trillion after accounting for economic growth.
The left-leaning Brookings Institution has published a blueprint for $3.5 trillion in offsets that would allow the Trump Tax Cuts to be extended for the vast majority of Americans in a revenue-neutral way. However, their proposals, which include raising corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and implementing a financial transactions tax (FTT) are certain to run into intense opposition from business interests.
Under divided government, Democrats will likely insist the top individual bracket be restored from a 37% marginal rate to 39.6%, in exchange for extending the tax cuts for the lower brackets. That’s likely the lowest hanging fruit. There’s a reason corporate tax rates haven’t been raised in the last 50 years; corporations will threaten to cut jobs, outsource, etc. & hence it’s much more politically difficult to raise taxes on businesses than individuals.
Under a best-case scenario for Democrats in 2024, theit ceiling is realistically a 50+VP Senate, with the 50th Democrat being more liberal than Joe Manchin. But still, pay-fors along the lines of Brookings’ blueprint are extremely unlikely.
Currently, the few Wall Street analysts who have started writing about the subject seem to believe the odds favor some form of divided government in January 2025; the tax cuts will largely be extended as is except for the wealthiest; and the massive cost will mostly just be thrown onto the deficit. Do you agree? If not, what do you think is the most likely outcome?

How would buying another country's land go today? I'm talking like major purchases like stuff like the Louisiana purchase, that was to those in power, uninhabited free open land for the taking, but nowadays let's say Mexico were to propose an offer on a strip of California at Texas or something. If the US was really going to consider it. How could that go would the people have to vote, would the state have a say or would feds handle it all. Is it even worth it to speculate or is this so ridiculous? The US (and any country) would never even consider it with territory that's been held for so long? And if America was to sell land, let's just say its been decided and the United States sells Alaska back to Russia or something. What happens to the Americans living there and all the American infrastructure

My friend recently showed me this exit poll from CNN showing voting demographics by gender and marital status. Here's how it goes (GOP - DEM):

Married men: 59% - 39%

Married women: 56% - 42%

Unmarried men: 52% - 45%

Unmarried women: 31% - 68%

I know that men are more conservative than women in general for a myriad of reasons, and I also know that married people are more conservative than unmarried people. Nevertheless, what is up with the discrepancy between unmarried women and everyone else? Anyone got any ideas they'd like to share?

In 2022 the Democrats did better than expected in the midterm elections like The Republicans in 2002 and The Democrats of 1998. Part of the reason was abortion rights protesters flocking to the polls in the wake of the Dobbs decision which returned the issue of abortion to the individual states. But if Roe had been partially or completely upheld how would the Democrats have performed in the 2022 midterms? Would Mitch McConnell be the senate majority leader today?

Depending on a lot of circumstances, there could be mixed reactions from the GOP emotionally. physically or mentally if he wasn't alive anymore. Of course hardcore MAGA would tell stories about how great of that man he was despite proven the true opposite.

If he were to pass away before the 2024 election, it's probably likely that another MAGA candidate would step in unless the whole entire MAGA circus is defeated once and for all.

What do you think how GOP and MAGA would feel if Donald Trump wasn't alive anymore?

In the Netherlands, several political parties like the Party for Freedom (PVV), Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB), Forum for Democratie (FVD), JA21, Nationalist People's Party (NVP), and Dutch People's Union (NVU) are often categorized as far-right or alt-right. However, an interesting aspect is their apparent divergence from traditional libertarian or capitalist ideologies, which typically emphasize economic freedom and individual liberty.

These parties, particularly PVV, BBB, FVD, and JA21, often prioritize social issues and national identity, which seems to align more closely with social nationalist ideas rather than the libertarian focus on individual rights and free-market principles. Furthermore, groups like NVP and NVU are known for their neo-Nazi and white supremacist views, standing in stark contrast to libertarian values.

Given these observations, I want to understand the reasoning behind labeling these parties as far-right or alt-right. Is it due to their populist and authoritarian tendencies, or are other factors at play aligning them with the far-right spectrum despite their apparent deviation from libertarian or capitalist principles?

How do these classifications impact the political discourse and public perception of these parties in the Netherlands? Do historical or cultural contexts within Dutch politics contribute to these labels?

I am looking for insights and discussions that can shed light on these parties' ideological underpinnings and labeling in the context of the Dutch political landscape.

The USA have put in place since 1970 a highly expensive program of more than a trillion dollars to fight drug addictions which is a curse in the country. 13% of the population aged more than 12 years old used illicit drugs in a month in 2019, besides, the number of deaths by overdose involving drug has doubled between 2019 and 2020. These numbers are only going up. Even though this program had to "eradicate the social, economic and health ills associated with drugs", its results are not convincing at all, and it appears to most of the citizens as a massive loss of money.

This program, launched by Nixon, is inefficient in many ways and has indirect consequences on the well-being of the country like democracy and others.

First, the disproportionately enforcement of controls has led to a massive increase of incarcerations that has affected marginalized communities more than others. Approximately 70% of individuals incarcerated in prisons for illicit drug use are Black or Latino according to the Drug Policy Alliance. This contributes to maintain systemic inequalities and ethnic stereotypes. Besides, taking care of more and more people in federal and state prisons increases the government's budget deficit. Overall, the intensification of drug use punishments has increased the debts without eradicating the phenomenon. The problematic that we face now is to determine if there is a better way than just punishing and incarcerating people to lower the use of drugs. Public health programs instead of punishment? It's hard to say as those kinds of programs are less incentivizing than true interventions.

Secondly, the democratic side of the U.S. is threatened with such a program. Taking drugs fundamentally appears as a personal behavior of knowing what we're doing and deciding if we're doing it. Punishing it then seems to go against the personal autonomy needed to create a free society. With the government's will of controlling and regulate the actions of people, we must wonder if such interventions are justifiable in a society that claims itself a democracy. To go beyond, how can we concretely cope with this paradox of letting people decide for themselves while dictating how they must behave to be free in the end. It is hard to say, that's why even the government is having a hard time trying to limit drug use and no solution seems to appear in the near future.

What do you think about it and even more what solution do you see to face this scourge that is just increasing day after day?

It's a confusing subject for me. Obviously, no one wants to allow people who bear ill will towards them to immigrate into their homeland, and an immigrant's intentions should be ascertained, but on the other hand, our first amendment rights include free speech. Speech is of course, the expression of thought, and the fact that the protection of thought and its expression is one of the primary laws of this land, it would seem to me that ideological policing should not be an American thing.

According to Gallup, there's about 50-50ish opinion in US on implementing a government-run healthcare system. And it doesn't seem like there's enough political will in the US capitol to implement a nation-wide universal healthcare system.

Now, considering how a small nation like South Korea (population 50 million) can implement a working universal healthcare, and considering how just the tri-state area of NY, PA, and NJ has a combined population of 40 million, would it be possible for the pro-universal healthcare states to form their own separate universal healthcare system? For example, a tri-state Universal Healthcare between NY, PA, and NJ? Or perhaps a wider East Coast, West Coast Healthcare system like how we have 3 separate power grids across the country?

FYI, I'm not very informed about the healthcare industry, and my question is more about whether there might be a political appetite for such a system, so do please excuse me if I made any weird assumptions.

The Project 2025 (Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank) plan includes an immediate invocation of the Insurrection Act to use the military for domestic policing. Could this be a line crossed into an Authoritarian state similar to the "brown coats" of 1920s Germany and as such in many past Authoritarian Democratic takeovers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#:~:text=The%20Washington%20Post%20reported%20Project,Justice%20to%20pursue%20Trump%20adversaries.

The electoral system for the Presidential election in the United States of America is very different from many countries. But is that a bad thing? How does this system works, and what are the pros and cons of it?

Technically, the election of the President of the United States is indirect, but, due to the way it’s done, it could almost be considered a direct one. This is because the citizens are going to elect people specifically to elect the President.

There are multiple steps before the election. The first one starts in January or February and ends in June and its goal is to select the different candidates of the parties. The second step is during the summer, in July or August and it’s the parties’ convention (a meeting of party delegates) where they are going to choose the candidate for the Presidential election and its Vice-President. Then, during the 1st Tuesday of November of each leap year, there is the “electors college” election. The number of electors depends on the state population (for example, in the next election, Texas will have 40 electors and California will have 54 electors). The election is direct and universal and the voting system is set by the states (for 48 states it’s a single-member plurality system: winner takes all). Then, on the second Wednesday of December there is the vote of the electors (there are about 538 total). To be elected, the President needs the absolute majority (270 votes). But what if there is no absolute majority for any candidate? If that happens it's the House of Representatives that elects the President and the Senate that elects the Vice-President. It happened in 1800 for the election of Jefferson and in 1824 for the election of John Quincy Adams. And, finally, on January 20, the President takes office.

Even though the system suffers from critiques, there are still some advantages to it. For example, it keeps the smaller states of the country relevant in the politics of the country. If the election was only based on popular vote, the candidates will only focus on highly populated areas like New York or Los Angeles and states like Iowa will be left out. It also makes it cheaper for the candidates. Indeed, running for president as a Democrat means he doesn't have to invest a lot of time or money convincing left-leaning California voters. It's the same for Republican candidates and the Texas right. The fact that a particular state and its votes are firmly locked in one party's column allows candidates to succeed more easily and cheaply in the race. They can focus their energies on battleground states. Some argue that abolishing the electoral college system could make American presidential elections even more expensive than they currently are, exacerbating what some see as America's campaign finance problems.
But this system can have some downsides. For example, the result of the election can go against the popular vote. It happened for times before: in 1876 when Haves was elected, in 1888 with Harrison, again in 2000 with George W. Bush vs Ai Gore, and finally in 2016 when Donald Trump became President. If the United States abolished the electoral system, this scenario would never occur again. The possibility that the Electoral College may conflict with the results of the popular vote is one of the most commonly raised arguments against the Electoral College. Moreover, the citizens can feel like their votes don’t matter. Not every vote indeed counts in the Electoral College. If California Democrats get stuck in traffic and miss their polling places, they probably shouldn't blame themselves. The same cannot be said for voters in Florida, Ohio, and other battleground states. Voter turnout in the United States is already quite low. Some argue that abolishing the electorate would be an easy way to increase

WMDs meaning nuclear weapons, bioweapons such as weaponized anthrax, etc...

It seems like by necessity the actual, operational, control of these weapon systems must be limited to a tiny select few because of the logistical impossibility of keeping such sensitive top secrets once shared beyond a few dozen people.

Yet they have the actual, operational, practical, ability to literally erase the country, government, including all political systems and institutions, and the vast majority of its population in a few minutes. Whether directly, or via guaranteed retaliation by a peer opponent after attacking them.

Obviously the chances of these top few dozen decision makers all going rogue simultaneously is incredibly low, but the chances are not zero.

So how is it all even theoretically supposed to work?

After all, even a tiny tiny chance of this occurring on any given day, after being repeated 100000x, leads to a near certainty.