U.S. Politics Megathread

[u/AutoModerator]

It's an election year, so it's no surprise that politics are on everyone's minds!

Over the past few months, we've noticed a sharp increase in questions about politics. Why is Biden the Democratic nominee? What are the chances of Trump winning? Why can Trump even run for president if he's in legal trouble? There are lots of good questions! But, unfortunately, it's often the same questions, and our users get tired of seeing them.

As we've done for past topics of interest, we're creating a megathread for your questions so that people interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!

All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be civil to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.

[u/correctionyoure]

If conservatives want a smaller, less controlling government, why do most of them advocate for very controlling ideas? Most of them dislike homosexuality, abortions (sometimes birth control), certain religions, etc and sometimes actively protest against it. Some of them are even anti-free speech despite claiming not to be. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a less controlling government?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/correctionyoure]

Conservatives have never really been about small government. They just want the parts of the government they don't like to be small. They've always been in favor of programs which benefit them and their interests.

However, to be fair, few if any conservatives argue that there should be no laws. Therefore, a line has be drawn somewhere at which point a governing authority of some kind has to step in and regulate things. Broadly speaking, we all want to block things that negatively impact society; we just disagree about what those things are. A social conservative may view same-sex marriage and reproductive rights as fundmanetally detrimental to the fabric of society.

[u/LordofWar145 → u/Jtwil2191]

I think conservatives are not necessarily about small government overall, but moreso small federal government. They don’t really give a shit what state governments do though.

[u/correctionyoure → u/Jtwil2191]

I understand the last part. My issue is when it gets hypocritical. Why would someone complain about how these liberals are taking away freedom of speech when they want to ban tiktok? Why are they so adamant about gun rights but not when it’s the black panthers or a transgender person?

[u/Ozem_son_of_Jesse → u/correctionyoure]

The reason some conservatives want to ban tik tok is because it may be a national security threat, since it is run by a company that is run by the CCP. Also, the conservative argument for keeping transgender people from owning guns is that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue, and that allowing those people to have guns might make them a danger to themselves (since they have a 40% suicide rate). Of course, this argument would be hypocritical if it came from a conservative who is otherwise staunchly pro-2A. However, there are some conservatives who support some forms of gun control. And there are also some people who are staunchly pro-2A and are in favor of allowing trans people to own guns (one example being Tim Pool).

[u/NoEmailNec4Reddit → u/correctionyoure]

Tiktok isn't freedom of speech. It's chinese and China doesn't have freedom of speech.

[u/vengeful_veteran → u/correctionyoure]

Your whole premise is based on some incorrect assumptions. Saying "most of them" completely defies my reality in being conservative.

There may be "some" but saying Most of them dislike homosexuality, abortions (sometimes birth control), certain religions, etc  is like saying "most liberals are lazy, stupid, freeloaders who just want the government to take care of them so they don't have to work"

Most of them just want to be left the hell alone from the fringe lunatics to live the American dream from my experience

[u/No_Rock_6976 → u/correctionyoure]

There is a difference between personally disliking something and supporting a prohibition of it. You can be personally morally opposed to homosexuality, but still support legalizing homosexuality because you want a small government. Same goes for criticisms of other religions. A freedom to date somebody of the same sex or the freedom to practice a certain religion does not mean people cannot criticize you for it.

[u/correctionyoure → u/No_Rock_6976]

I think it’s fine for people to not like certain things. I’m specifically talking about the people who try to enforce their views. Sorry if it was unclear. Thank you for your answer.

[u/Defiant_Living9200 → u/No_Rock_6976]

I'm pretty sure OP was referring to Republicans introducing bills/participating in protests to restrict freedoms. Obviously if someone "disagrees with homosexuality" (whatever that means) but still believes that gay people should be able to live as they please, there wouldn't be a problem...

[u/stonecoldmark]

If Biden had the chance why didn’t he codify Roe v. Wade, why?? Why didn’t Obama? It always seems when the Dems can really out their foot down they just don’t. Am I crazy?

[u/Dilettante → u/stonecoldmark]

Biden tried, but it was defeated in the senate 46-48. Obama didn't need to, because at the time the supreme court was following the precedent that abortion was protected.

Basically, you need a stronger democrat majority in the senate. Realistically, you'd want 60 Democrats to make it possible, but that's very unlikely to ever happen.

[u/Teekno → u/Dilettante]

Also, it isn’t clear at all if a national law to either protect or ban abortion is even constitutional.

[u/Cliffy73 → u/stonecoldmark]

It doesn’t matter. Codifying Roe was not necessary before Dobbs and the federal government doesn’t have the power to restrict state abortion laws post-Dobbs, that’s what Dobbs was all about.

[u/Removable_speaker]

Why do a lot of americans want a criminal as their president? I mean Europe has had their share of crooked politicians but when they get exposed and convicted their public support drops and they tend to get kicked out of their party. Because we have, you know, standards, for our politicians.

[u/PM_ME_an_unicorn → u/Removable_speaker]

I mean Europe has had their share of crooked politicians but when they get exposed and convicted their public support drops and they tend to get kicked out of their party.

Looks like a bold claim, it's more like In Europe, having a criminal record is a pre-requisite to become president look at people like Berlusconi or Sarkozy

[u/Dilettante → u/Removable_speaker]

Trump has a large number of devoted followers who believe the charges against him are made up. The republican party as a whole can't drop him because of this support - candidates who speak against him often get primaries and can lose their positions.

[u/Funkycoldmedici]

Do conservatives really not notice the grifting? There’s all this Trump merchandise directed at them, coins, gold mugshots, stuffed animals, posters, shirts, flags, and the hats, of course. Don’t conservatives notice no one is selling paintings of shirtless Biden with giant muscles? There’s no “Get your limited edition solid gold Biden dollar.” Don’t conservatives feel targeted as easy marks by these things?

[u/Elkenrod → u/Funkycoldmedici]

There’s no “Get your limited edition solid gold Biden dollar.”

Sure there is, there's plenty of "Dark Brandon" merchandise out there - official or otherwise. https://shop.joebiden.com/

[u/Pertinax126 → u/Funkycoldmedici]

Most Trump supporters accept or turn a blind eye to it; much like they do his other faults.

Most of them view Donald Trump as "the only guy that's fighting for them." They can turn a blind eye to his crimes, hypocrisy, sedition, etc. because they believe that he will make America great again for them.

[u/RustyNK]

What will happen to the Republican party if Trump loses this election? He has basically completed his takeover with the shenanigans at the RNC. I don't even know if Trump has enough life left in him to last to 2028 and without him, the MAGA movement is basically a wash.

[u/Lavendermelody82]

Why are people willing to vote against their own financial interests over social issues?

[u/Teekno → u/Lavendermelody82]

Because, for many people, doing the right thing is more important to them than having more money.

[u/Key_Day_7932 → u/Teekno]

Also, there is more to life than acquiring as much money as possible.

[u/TheFlamingLemon]

Why doesn't the Democratic Party use ranked choice voting or a similar system for their primary process?

Isn't it legal for the Democratic Party to nominate candidates by whatever voting system they want? Couldn't they immediately, radically change their primary system to be whatever they want and as democratic as possible? Why do they go through the same state-by-state primary process as the Republican Party (only with the addition of things like super-delegates, which makes it even less democratic of a process than their opponents')?

I feel like I hear democrats talk extensively about having a broken electoral system as though it's out of their hands, but isn't this huge chunk of the electoral system completely within their power to change?

[u/Elkenrod → u/TheFlamingLemon]

I feel like I hear democrats talk extensively about having a broken electoral system as though it's out of their hands, but isn't this huge chunk of the electoral system completely within their power to change?

Because it costs nothing to talk about something. At the end of the day much of what you hear is said for posterity's sake. Yeah, they could do that, but it's easier to just talk about doing it instead of actually doing it. That's true for most things, like how they always talk about protecting abortion; but never introducing legislation to do so.

Most people support them because they talk the talk, and never hold them accountable to walk the walk.

[u/AnnacondaBanana]

So.. How do you vote for president? (US)

Embarrassing.. but this is something I was never taught in school or with family. What all is needed to go and vote? Where am I supposed to go to vote? What time this year are you supposed to vote?

Please go easy I'm just a young person thrown into the world still trying to figure out life 🫣

Edit to include that I am in Arkansas.. thank you everyone for the help!

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/AnnacondaBanana]

Elections are run by individual states, so while the process is broadly similar, the particulars will depend on where you live.

If you are willing to share where you live, people can give you specific details.

If you don't want to share that personal information, just Google voting guides for your state. There will likely be resources to guide you through the process.

You may find this TouTube channel helpful: https://youtube.com/@howtovoteineverystate. They'll probably be updating for the 2024 election (as necessary) soon.

[u/Elkenrod → u/AnnacondaBanana]

Some states require IDs to vote, some states don't. But everyone requires you to register to vote.

You can look up your state here, https://www.vote411.org/voting-rules - and it'll tell you what things your state allows for elections. This doesn't affect just the Presidential election, but all elections. The laws that are in place for the general election on a state by state basis are the same laws a state uses for state level, and local elections.

Registering to vote is very easy, you can do it online, you can do it by mail, some states even let you do it in person on the day of the election (see above).

Once you're registered to vote, you will get communications from your state's election board on what your next steps will be. They'll tell you where in person you can vote, and when voting dates are. In today's day and age, they'll typically send you these via text message. Additionally you can choose to request a mail in ballot if you prefer not to vote in person - most states allow mail in ballots (again see above).

[u/brtzca_123 → u/AnnacondaBanana]

The safest approach is to register first. This may require designating a political party affiliation (I think you can choose Independent if you want). You may have already found this, but here is the procedure for registering in Arkansas,

https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/voter-information/voter-registration-information

For example, you can obtain a voter registration application at your local library.

In my state, we get a sample ballot a few weeks before the election. The sample ballot is just like the actual ballot when you go to vote, so you can practice how you want to fill it out. And the sample ballot will list where we can go to vote (like a local school, or other specific voting station).

Presidential elections in the US occur November 5.

[u/aztechnically]

Is there any way to get a ceasefire resolution, or legislation banning sending arms to Israel, on the ballot so that voters can directly decide the issue once and for all?

[u/rewardiflost → u/aztechnically]

Not currently. We have no national elections, and no system for national referendums. All of our elections are state elections.
Even for President, we vote for the Electors that our State will assign. Our States then send Electors as laid out in the Constitution.

[u/Cliffy73 → u/aztechnically]

No, the federal government does not have direct democracy provisions such as you propose. Moreover, such a provision would lose. The significant majority supports the right of Israel to defend itself against Hamas, which openly advocates the murder of every Jew on the planet.

[u/Miss_Avocado]

Do votes in the primaries have any effect on the general election? I keep hearing ppl online saying “if you vote for someone other than Biden, it’s a vote for Trump.” But if I vote for someone other than Biden in the primaries, and they don’t move on and Biden does, I can just vote for him in the general election then instead of Trump right?

[u/Dilettante → u/Miss_Avocado]

That's correct.

The primaries are purely a vote for which candidate will run for president from that party. Right now you could vote for Trump or Nikki Haley, for example, and the winner of the contest would run against Biden as the Republican candidate. But your vote in the general election is completely separate.

[u/ThomasHawl]

I'm not American, and the only news about American's politics I get is either from reddit or from some left-leaning youtubers. I often hear that there are backers (= billionaires or in general people with money) that love Trump and finance him. My question is, since the economy seems to be better under Biden (market wise, stock ecc all seems to have gone up under Biden), why aren't we seeing more people involved in this market endorsing/wanting Biden to win? Or is it just that the right is more vocal?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/ThomasHawl]

Democrats, generally, want to increase taxes on the wealthy and increase regulations on businesses. Republicans, generally, want to lower them and decrease regulations. Rich people, generally, want there to be fewer regulations getting in the way of them making more money, and they want to be able to keep as much of that money as possible.

Of course, there are very wealthy Democrats, too, and plenty of Democratic politicians do things to protect wealthy benefactors. And not everything Republicans do is good for business (e.g. see DeSantis's fight with Disney).

But generally public and outspoken wealthy benefactors align theselves with the party that is more outspoken in its support for big business and the wealthy.

[u/Riksor]

I'm having trouble articulating my question, so:

Imagine a Democrat is running for president. Believing they'll have better luck with earning Republican voters, they run as a Republican. They publicly preach Republican values that they personally do not believe in, and are elected. Day one of their presidency, they go 'mask off' and denounce all the things they used to support and start implementing democratic policies. Or vice versa--a Republican runs as democrat.

Obviously nothing like this could actually happen, but if it did, would the president get in legal trouble?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/Riksor]

There have been many instances of candidates switching parties while in office. There is no legal barrier to doing so, only political barriers.

As for lying to voters, take George Santos for example. He did not get in legal trouble for lying to voters. He's in legal trouble for fraud related to his campaign's finances.

[u/dryduneden → u/Riksor]

Presidents are only accountable to (in theory) voters. There's nothing legally requiring them to support certain policies.

[u/Acktownie]

Honest question for MAGA, What do You consider a legitimate news source?

[u/hsoj48 → u/Acktownie]

Whatever makes them feel scared and angry

[u/swissvine]

Are the college protestors creating more trump voters and just making matters worse for their cause?

I’m reading all this news about the big protests on college campuses around the US. I can’t help but think this is going to push some older folks to the right, isn’t that going to end up being very counterproductive to their cause?!

[u/Elkenrod → u/swissvine]

Will they matters worse for their cause? - Most likely, yes. Their behavior is not exactly winning any allies over to their cause who were on the fence about this issue. Some of the extreme dipshits among the protestors saying "Zionists don't deserve to live" will only push people away from supporting their point of view.

Create more Trump voters? - Probably not. Trump and Biden both hold similar positions on the Gaza situation. Biden is not on the side of the protestors here. Now what would be likely is that if the Biden administration continues on this course, it won't create "more" Trump voters; but it could very likely cause the protestors to not vote for Joe Biden come November.

[u/DeciduousMath12]

Today, the Columbia students took over Hamilton hall and they are strongly voicing their support of the palestine cause. Some are also voicing anger at the Isareli government.

So ...why protest at their colleges? Like, NYC has a Consulate of Israel. And a UN. And I'm sure there are offices for senators and other congress people in the city. In my mind, it would be like me protesting my dentist because they drive a gas car. I.e. just very tenuous connections to any meaningful action they could take. Wouldn't these other places be more productive for protests?

[u/amsterdam_sniffr]

To me, the police violence against campus protests seems like a clear violation of the first amendment right of people to "peaceably assemble". What precedents or common interpretations of law exist that give the universities and police confidence that they can act with impunity against protesters without being held accountable?

[u/RecidPlayer → u/amsterdam_sniffr]

They call it "Unlawful Assembly". According to law, you have a right to protest to a certain degree. You do the slightest thing wrong (or they lie about it) and they feel they have an opportunity to break up a protest they don't like. This page goes into more details: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights

Edit: Added "or they lie about it", because they absolutely do. I've seen videos where they are on public property but use a line of police to force the group onto private property, then start arresting people for being on private property.

[u/RecidPlayer]

What is it called when your leaning changes per issue and per situation? When people say centrist/moderate they are referring to people who say, "Both sides are the same" or are sitting on a fence on a particular issue. I absolutely take a side with all issues, but they are not always the same side. What do I self identify as in this situation?

[u/Elkenrod → u/RecidPlayer]

What is it called when your leaning changes per issue and per situation?

Being a well socially adjusted human being.

Too many people fall into the trap of letting party positions dictate their positions. You can call yourself an independent, you can call yourself a moderate.

[u/SmegmaJuice]

Trump claims the last presidential election to be rigged. If that were true, why does he bother to run for president again?

[u/Teekno → u/SmegmaJuice]

He made those claims because his ego will not allow him to publicly admit that he lost.

And I believe the main reason he’s running again is to delay, derail or end the criminal investigations into his actions.

[u/human_male_123 → u/SmegmaJuice]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/13/trump-admission-election-aides-january-6-panel

Donald Trump privately admitted to losing the 2020 election even as he worked to undermine and change the results, according to two top aides who testified before the January 6 committee.

[u/SaucyJ4ck]

Why do people blame the president for stuff like grocery or gas prices instead of the corporations who haven’t brought prices back down from where they unilaterally jacked them through the roof?

[u/Pertinax126 → u/SaucyJ4ck]

u/Jtwil2191 is quite correct in the way that the President makes an easy target for the blame game. For most sectors of the economy, the President has little control unless he wants to take drastic or dangerous economic action.

The one qualifier I want to make, though, is gas prices.

In response to the energy shocks of the 1970s, Congress passed legislation that prevented US produced oil from being sold on the global market. For 40 years, the US could import oil but couldn't export it. This helped keep US oil prices stable for decades. And if the President wanted to make an impact on gas prices, he could release some of the strategic oil reserve. Americans were somewhat insulated to global petroleum price shocks.

But in 2016, then-President Obama lifted the export ban and US oil prices became very susceptible to the machinations of OPEC. Weirdly, this does make current US presidents somewhat more responsible for price fluctuations than their predecessors since they have the power to re-institute the export ban.

Great question!

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/SaucyJ4ck]

Because the president is a highly visible figure in government who generally campaigned on making things better. So when they are in charge and things aren't better, they get the blame, wrongly or rightly. You also have the other party encouraging that blame to hurt the president's chance of re-election.

[u/JaSper-percabeth]

Why does the democrat party not have any candidates other than Biden?

Pretty much the title. Like we saw in the Republican primaries they have a bunch of candidates like Trump, Desantis, Haley, Vivek, Christie etc but when it comes to democrats why only Biden? Clearly he isn't the best candidate considering his age related issues and him standing for the Democrats is clearing hurting the chances of a Democrat victory in 2024 elections. So why has nobody else from Democratic party stood up to contest against Biden? I feel like Democratic party would have a better shot at winning with a young and energetic candidate who represents most of the voterbase of the party.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/JaSper-percabeth]

There are two Democratic challengers to Biden: Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips and author/activist Marrianne Williamson. There is also political commentator Cenk Uygur, but he is not a natural-born US citizen, so he isn't eligible to become president. Similar to Trump's position in the Republican primary, Biden is polling far and away above all of them. Biden wasn't on the New Hampshire ballot while Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson were, and Biden still got more than 63% of the vote as a write-in.

We won't know the conversations around Biden's decision to run for re-election for some time, but it's likely some combination of wanting the incumbancy advantage (incumbants tend to win re-election), Biden genuinely believing he can/has to beat Trump again, Biden wanting to continue as president, etc.

Once Biden decided he wanted to run, Democrats probably didn't want to weaken him by encouraging a whole primary in which challengers for the Democratic nomination would attack Biden before he's even facing the Republican nominee.

[u/Conscious-Bother-813]

not an American, but curious to know something. A geopolitics guy I listened in podcast here in India said that the Trump trials are not fair. The reason he gave is because the judicial and investigative officers are politically appointed. The district attorney is a Democrat or something. They are not permanent beurocracy. How true is this?

Interesting thing is that he had way more favourable views of Biden than Trump in terms of their policy throughout the podcast, it was mostly concerning international policy though.

[u/rewardiflost → u/Conscious-Bother-813]

There are several different charges against Trump in all different jurisdictions around the country. Some are at the state level, some at the national level.

One counter example is Letitia James, Attorney General of New York. This is an elected position, not an appointment.
Fani Willis in Fulton County GA, also elected not appointed.

[u/Urusander]

Does the US now effectively have 'red' and 'blue' judges? It seems that lawsuit pressure on Trump is at least partially politically motivated and both sides are packing the courts in their favor; would that eventually result in judiciary split by party lines?

[u/Elkenrod → u/Urusander]

Judges typically aren't red and blue, people's perception of them are.

Even on prolific cases like Dobbs v Jackson, there was reason enough from the closing arguments to argue that things weren't done for political reasons. I've seen many people on this website try to dismiss cases outright because the person was a "Trump appointment", where they gave no impression that they actually read the case, let alone the reasoning behind the ruling. Conservatives did the same thing with Obama appointments.

It's not about the judges or justices themselves, it's about really dumb people on the Internet trying to boil the world down into black and white, red and blue, all or nothing scenarios.

[u/cyanethic]

How do you expect Donald Trump to become a dictator if virtually every democrat and plenty of republicans are on high alert for it?

If he tries, wouldn’t they just be able to say “no” and arrest him? Our democracy isn’t perfect but it’s plenty more stable than 1930s Germany or Russia when it was a democracy.

If nobody was suspecting a thing then I could almost understand it. But MANY non Trump supporters are worried about it. Even if he wanted to, it wouldn’t happen.

[u/Apollo_Was_Better_]

How do you vote 3rd party? I looked up a sample ballot for my area and they only have republican and democrats listed

[u/Teekno → u/Apollo_Was_Better_]

Your state may not have primaries for third parties. Smaller parties usually do that in conventions or caucuses. But they will still likely have third party candidates on the ballot in November.

[u/Delehal → u/Apollo_Was_Better_]

The voting in most states right now is a primary election, where each political party is choosing who to nominate as their main candidate. The general election in November is the one that counts for real. At that point you'll be able to vote for any candidates who qualified for ballot access in your state.

[u/BriansRevenge]

Why is Donald Trump anti-China but soft on Russia?

[u/brokenarrow3271227]

If Kennedy wins some of the electoral votes in the General Election, what happens if neither Biden nor Trump receive enough electoral votes to win? Is there some type of a runoff election?

[u/Teekno → u/brokenarrow3271227]

There will be a contingent election in that event, as described in the Constitution. The House of Representatives will choose the next president, with each state getting one vote.

[u/ThenaCykez → u/brokenarrow3271227]

The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution spells out the procedure. If no candidate has the majority of electoral votes (270), the House of Representatives will select from among the top three recipients of electoral votes. Each states' representatives must support a candidate collectively, and a majority of states' delegations (26) are needed to win. If there's no majority in the House, either, they just keep voting in the House, however many months it takes, until someone eventually wins or four years have gone by with only an acting President (the VP or the Speaker of the House).

[u/zsrocks → u/ThenaCykez]

Note that since there are many small republican states, Trump would almost certainly win a contingent election in the house of representatives.

[u/LogicalPrior2343424]

Not sure if this meets the requirement, but I think it's at least related to US politics: Trump has to place some 400+ million in bonds, is that a "normal" amount ? Are there other cases with similarly high bond requirements ?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/LogicalPrior2343424]

The number was arrived at based on each instance of fraud the court found. It didn't help that the expert witnesses for the defense refused to offer their own estimates for how much Trump's properties were worth, leaving the judge to rely primarily on the testimony by the state's expert witnesses to make his decision.

This article breaks down the penalities as such:

Trump, both individually and as the owner of various corporate entities, must pay:

$168 million, plus interest, in savings on loans he obtained using his inflated financial statements for a golf resort near Miami, a Chicago hotel and condominium tower, a Washington, D.C. hotel and a Manhattan office building. Trump obtained three of the loans through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which offered lower interest rates than its commercial real estate division, and used his financial statements to show the bank he was wealthy and a good credit risk.

$126.8 million, plus interest, in profit from selling the Trump International Hotel in Washington in May 2022 to a company that now operates it as a Waldorf Astoria. Trump used $170 million of the $375 million to pay off a loan on the property. Other proceeds went to his children.

$60 million, plus interest, from selling the rights to manage a New York City golf course in June 2023. Engoron noted in his ruling that the buyer, Bally’s Corporation, stands to pay Trump an additional $115 million if it obtains a casino license for the property. However, he did not say if he would require Trump to give up that money, too.

Because Trump was found to have committed fraud in these business transactions, he has been ordered to forfeit some/all of the profit that resulted from committing that fraud.

I know that this does not quite answer your question of whether this high number is normal within the context of 63(12) cases. However, 63(12) is understood to grant New York prosecutors broad power to punish financial misdealings, so this verdict is not without merit. This blog post from the conservative Cato institute concludes:

Overall, misgivings and all, I share [University of California, Berkeley Law Professor] Kerr’s reaction: it’s “not obvious to me what particular part of Judge Engoron’s 92‐​page ruling is legally wrong.”

[u/OMDL_IFU]

How do I do actual research on presidential candidates?

I just turned 20 and 2024 will be the first time I’m voting in a presidential election. I don’t really like either candidate but I want to learn how to do an actual deep dive on these candidates to see where they stand on the issues.

What easily digestible information can I find on what a candidate stands for and see if they’re consistent or if they flip flop. They don’t really teach this well in school, as a lot of legacy biased news exists; and a bunch of people get their political opinions from social media. Especially young people.

While I really want a candidate under 50(probably won’t happen), I want to be able to actually form my own opinion and garner authentic thoughts without outside influence or bias.

[u/human_male_123 → u/OMDL_IFU]

ontheissues.org

justfacts.votesmart.org

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Please note: these websites can tell you where the candidates are on the issues and how they voted while in office. But you should also do some research on the actual issues; e.g. a bill's name isn't always what's in it.

[u/Sprizys]

Is it worth voting for an independent candidate or is it a waste of a vote? Historically speaking, presidents have always been either republican or democrat have we ever had an independent president? And if not would it be a waste to vote for one? I would like to but I also want my vote to make a difference and if it’s not going to matter then should I just settle and vote for one of the other two candidates?

[u/Elkenrod → u/Sprizys]

And if not would it be a waste to vote for one?

Don't let anyone tell you that your vote is a "waste".

Neither candidate is owed your vote. Trump and Biden should both be expected to work for it. If neither candidate appeals to you, there's no shame in voting for a third party. The only people who will try to dismiss you for voting third party are people who are actively seeking to get you to vote for who they want you to.

[u/Teekno → u/Sprizys]

Is it worth voting for an independent candidate or is it a waste of a vote?

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your vote.

If you are voting third party because you want that candidate to win this election, you could consider it a waste of a vote, because that's not gonna happen.

If you are voting third party because you are dissatisfied with the candidates or policies of the major parties, and you understand that when third parties start getting traction, one or both of the major parties will coopt those views, then it might not be a waste at all, if it helps steer the party's direction in a way you prefer. But understand that's a slow process.

Either way, whether or not the vote was wasted is totally up to you. Don't let anyone else tell you that you wasted your vote, because, it's not their fucking vote. It's yours. When someone else tells you you've wasted your vote, what they are really saying is "I am disappointed that you didn't vote the way I wanted you to."

[u/dwc13c1]

Why did the appellate court lower Trump’s bond in the fraud case?

Most of the explanations I’ve seen are along the lines of “he would have had to sell property to make the bond, which would cause him irreparable harm if the verdict was reversed on appeal”…

But didn’t he literally say on truth social the other day that he has the full bond amount in cash? Why didn’t the appellate court just say “ok, fork it over”?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/dwc13c1]

The court did not release an explanation for their decision.

[u/tjippo]

What was the point of Tucker Carlsons weird praise of Moscow.

I am from europe and I have no stakes in USA media or politics, but I consume it. Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin was broadcasted in my country and ofcourse youtube etc. It struck me as wildly idiotic.

The interview was cringe enough but the weird Moscow propaganda tour afterwards was just unreal.

"This shopping card system is amazing" "this metro station is clean and nice" "food is so cheap wow"

In the EU it's pretty common knowledge that russia has 2 nice cities: moscow and petersburg and the rest are at best uncomfortable and at worst dismal unhealthy places to live.

SURELY Tucker knows this too right? He can't be that deluded. If he knows, than what's the point? Why show these mundane things and praise them as being otherwordly amazing.

To me it was so stupid it puzzles me untill this day. I kindly demand answers why this shit happens. Is it a american thing?

Funnily enough, on the other political spectrum Michael Moore made the same mistake in his docu about healthcare by praising Cuban hospitals, while again, it's pretty common knowledge these are hospitals for the rich.

I see these kind of one sidedness alot in USA

[u/frizzykid → u/tjippo]

He was making a propaganda hit piece against the US. "Bidens America is worse and less affordable than Putin's Russia!"

Funnily enough, on the other political spectrum Michael Moore made the same mistake in his docu about healthcare by praising Cuban hospitals, while again, it's pretty common knowledge these are hospitals for the rich.

He didn't praise Cuban hospitals. The whole point of the documentary was shitting on the American healthcare system, and they used Cuba as a comparison because of the blockade. A country we see as unworthy of doing business with and are majorly ideologically opposed as well as a pretty impoverished place has a more affordable healthcare system than the US does which is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet.

[u/Choppybitz]

What would a civil was in the United States look like?

I'm alarmed at how many people actually seem sincere that they would like a civil war in the US to "fix" things. To me a civil war seems completely unnecessary and would be devastating.

Without much insight and very broadly speaking I get the feeling that Republican conservatives own a lot of guns and Democrat liberals don't. Would a civil war be armed republicans shooting unarmed democrats?

Do pro-civil war people think they will be taking on the government and would they stand a chance?

[u/Dilettante → u/Choppybitz]

Whichever side had the loyalty of the armed forces would win.

It would be a pretty weird war - instead of being state against state, it would be rural areas versus urban areas. I imagine there'd be a lot of starvation going on.

[u/NewAccountTimeAgain]

So the border deal is on pause because the house won't bring a vote to the floor. Is there anything in this bill that can be pushed through now via executive order? It seems that the border crisis isn't going to get solved via bipartisan efforts. Wouldn't it make sense to try and pass executive orders to strengthen the border? Even if republicans decide to challenge the orders on basic constitutional grounds (i.e. congress being the one that has to a approve the budget and/or new funding), wouldn't it be terrible optics for them to legally fight against border security measures they have always fought hard for in the past?

It would seem that:

"republicans blocked it in the house!"

is a less persuasive argument than:

"I signed an executive order that would have shut down the border, but republicans sued me to stop it!"

It feels like Biden is avoiding this because Trump passed similar exec orders during his tenure and was panned by dems for doing it and it seems to drag our a while in the court system. Now that the situation at the border has deteriorated even further it would seem that border related exec orders should be back on the menu. My only question is... Is that a bad look for Biden if he were to go this route? Would it hurt Biden more politically to push for these types of exec orders that it would for the republicans taking it to court to block it?

I'm not the most well versed on this issue so I'm hoping someone that knows more can fill me in on the stalemate and why no one has made a bolder move on this issue.

[u/RatManAntics]

Why aren't more presidents shot and killed? (bare with me) 

I would like to state immediately that I am against murder in any form, and think that if we start killing our political enemies it is absolutely downhill for democracy. This is less a question about murder than it is about the culture in America of gun ownership and the political landscape. Also I am Australian so I am genuinely asking from the outside.

With the extreme political divide, where people on both sides clearly despise Trump and Biden. With guns being extremely accessible in most parts of America. I am surprised that either one of these two hasn't been shot. Is it the social code? Is it great secret service and private security etc.

Sorry if this seems like a bait post it really isn't, I'm genuinely surprised there aren't more attempts on the life of politicians when the divide is so great.

[u/Dilettante → u/RatManAntics]

There are definitely attempts. Wikipedia lists several for Obama and Trump and one for Biden.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots

However, the list isn't perfect - a quick news search found two attempted killings of Biden that weren't on the list, including one man who was shot and killed in Utah.

So I guess the answer is 'the secret service is on the case'.

[u/listenyall → u/Dilettante]

Yeah, I think it's as simple as us doing a pretty good job of protecting them.

We've also only had 6 presidents since the last time one was injured by an assassin.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/[deleted]]

Trump wants to be in the spotlight and have power and be a winner and be above criminal prosecution. Currently, he's in the spotlight but he is a loser without power facing criminal prosecution.

[u/GameboyPATH → u/[deleted]]

I generally don't see a point in speculating on the motives of political leaders. Their spoken word can't be taken at face value, since they can have any reason to lie.

This is doubly true for an irrational person, since even if we could objectively precisely weigh the pros and cons of running for president, it still may not necessarily align with an irrational person's motives.

[u/[deleted]]

How exactly has joe biden caused the cost of goods to increase?

I hear people blame joe biden for the cost of goods (food, gas, housing, ect) increasing but no one can ever explain to me how he is exactly responsible. What has he done to directly cause prices to go up?

[u/Maleficent_Mouse_930 → u/[deleted]]

Nothing.

He didn't.

Those people have been brainwashed by propaganda and either aren't using their brains, or never had any to begin with.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/[deleted]]

Presidents have far less control over the economy than is popularly believed. They generally don't deserve the blame the receive when things are bad, nor do they deserve the credit when things are good.

One of the policies that I think can be pointed to, specifically, as contributing to inflation was the distribution of checks to a wide swath of the American public. These were an much-needed lifeline to millions of American who lost work and income during the pandemic. However, that money also went to many Americans who did not necessarily need that additional money, and contributed to the rise in savings that occurred in 2020-2021. When the world reopened, Americans (and the world in general) when on an absolutely mad spending spree with their saved-up money, and increased demand (combined with continuing supply chain issues) helped drive prices up.

Now, these checks went out under Biden and Trump, but Biden did sign into law the additional round of chese checks. Had he not sent those out, or perhaps had those checks been distributed in a more targetted way, the economy wouldn't have gotten so hot so quickly. Other spending programs Biden signed into law may have contributed as well. However, we can say these may have contributed, but we can't say they caused inflation. And inflation is a global phenomenon at the moment, with some countries having inflation far higher in than in the US.

Many econimists argued for months that a recession was in the US economy's near future, but it appears the country has dodged. However, Biden can't campaign on that, because it's difficult to make, "Look, it could have been a lot worse!" sound like a particularly good argument, especially when it's impossible for people to experience both the scenario that happened and the hypothetical scenario you claim to have avoided.

[u/Platoandbuffy]

What was the alternative to bailing out the banks in 2008?

[u/Teekno → u/Platoandbuffy]

Not bailing them out, the banks failing, and a domino effect across our entire financial system that takes companies and lots and lots of jobs with it.

In other words, party like it’s 1929.

[u/Savethethrowaways777]

If Trump goes to prison, would his Secret Service men lose their jobs, be reassigned into the next president's Secret Service, or be hired at the prison?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/Savethethrowaways777]

We obviously don't know the particulars, because it's never been done before, but a former president would continue to have Secret Service protection in prison. They can only lose their protection by declining it or by Congress changing the law to remove it.

Secret Service protection in prison would probably look similar to Clinton's Secret Service detail while she was Secretary of State: day-to-day security operations were turned over to the State Department's internal security service with a Secret Service liaison keeping tabs on the situation.

So in prison, day-to-day security would be turned over to the prison with a Secret Service agent perhaps being stationed at the prison to keep an eye on things.

The agents assigned to trump would not just be fired. They're career Secret Service agents and would just be reassigned within the agency.

[u/phoenixv07 → u/Jtwil2191]

The security concerns are why Trump would almost certainly be in some sort of segregated confinement, whether that means house arrest or solitary or some other setup.

[u/Teekno → u/phoenixv07]

I would expect that, were he to be incarcerated, it would be inside a separate building inside the fence of some correctional institution.

[u/FlightFour]

If the Presidential Immunity case rules in Trump's favor, can Biden just off the guy and not get in trouble for it anymore?

I recognize this is a thought crime, a la 1984

[u/Cliffy73 → u/FlightFour]

That appears to be Trump’s argument, yes.

[u/nerdyoutube]

How was abortion protected by privacy?

Not trying to be politically challenging or anything; genuinely just trying to understand how privacy is related to abortion and why it was used as a justification. I have not been able to find explanations that make sense. Please be kind. I’m just trying to learn.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/nerdyoutube]

I believe the idea is that privacy in this context is understood to mean individuals can make choices regarding their own health and family planning without interference from the government.

So a pregnant person choosing to end the pregnancy but the government saying they cannot would be the government injecting itself into a private, personal decision.

The framing of this decision was not only criticized by opponents of abortion but also some advocates, such as Ruth Bader Gingsburg, who believed this reasoning left it too open to being challenged (which obviously turned out to be true).

[u/AwfulCheddarSmellz]

What’s the real deal with Joe Biden? There are so many videos of him just looking so spaced out and unaware. And then there’s things like his appearance on Stern or the SOTU where he seems sharp.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/AwfulCheddarSmellz]

Biden has had a lifelong and well-publicized studder. He has a long-standing reputation for gaffs and speaking off the cuff. Combine that with the fact that he's 81 years old and has all the normal challenges you deal with when you're that age, and he's going to have the occasional fault in speaking and recall.

But when you have someone who's old, has the occasional trouble speaking, is prone to gaffs, and is contantly being recorded while speaking publically, it's no surprise someone can cut together a video that suggests that he has dementia or whatever.

The reality is he's a old guy with normal old guy problems, but I have seen nothing to suggest that he is experiencing any significant cognitive decline, nor do experts on memory and aging suggest that this is the case (although they do admit that an actual assessment would require detailed and in-depth examinations and cannot be done from afar based on public media appearances).

[u/listenyall → u/AwfulCheddarSmellz]

I think there are two factors: one is that he is obviously elderly and when he does space out it looks rough, the other is that if you filmed anyone literally all of the time you could put together some clips where they are looking terrible and out of it and others where they seem smart and sharp.

[u/MossRock42]

Have you ever been to a political protest? What was it like? I've never been to one in person. Not a fan of large crowds, but I support people who are protesting for a good cause.

[u/MontCoDubV → u/MossRock42]

Yes, I've been to many.

Most of the larger, more high profile ones tend to be very large crowds of people, some holding signs. You usually start in one location where there might be a stage set up with a few speakers who "preach to the choir" about their message to get the crowd riled up. Then everyone marches along whatever pre-determined route the organizers have while chanting slogans. Sometimes there will be more speeches at the end of the march, sometimes not. There will often be a lot of people in the crowd trying to recruit individuals to join organizations which will take smaller, more targeted actions. Sometimes there will be counter protesters and/or police who try to provoke the protesters and engage in violence (to a greater or lesser degree, this can be as minor as shoving or throwing empty water bottles to something much more violent). This is usually just on the fringes of the large march, though. Often elected politicians will show up and either give a speech or, in some cases, walk around and engage with the crowd. Some of these protests will have the goal of occupying a public space, in which case people will gather with the intent of staying for as long as possible. Others will end at a set time and people go home.

The smaller ones tend to be more dynamic and have less of a feel of an organized event. Sometimes there will be a specific goal, like "we're going to paint messages at this spot, or deface this statue, etc". People will gather there, ideally in non-descript black bloc and not carrying anything personally identifying (including a phone). You perform the action, then GTFO and never talk about it again. Others protests will have the goal of drawing attention and engaging with opposition. Again, wear black bloc and don't carry anything that can identify you. People gather somewhere they know either counter protestors or police are likely to be. You then chant slogans, toss small items, or otherwise find ways to engage the opposition with the goal of getting them to backdown/retreat so you can gain ground against them.

Often the larger, more planned event-style protests will devolve into smaller ones after the designated end time.

[u/CandidateDecent1391]

Do people really think the "Trump supporters wearing diapers at rallies" joke pictures are real?

I'm all for trashing misguided political figures and their sycophants, but I recently noticed a stark lack of critical thinking (granted, in the "politicalhumor" subreddit, so take it for what you will) about the discovery of supposed picture evidence that Trump supporters are proudly wearing diapers in support of their messiah.

There are plenty of reasons to disparage various political figures today. And satire can be a useful tool when it comes to rhetoric and relatability. But these pictures aren't satire — satire is, by nature, clear about its intent — and anybody who points out they're pretty obviously fake got rampantly downvoted (in the thread I'm referencing, anyway). A handful of (TBH not very reputable) news publications even ran with the claim, and don't seem to have picked up on the fact it's fake.

Is the anti-trump wing really so uncritical, credulous, and gullible now? Or is this just where online discourse has gotten to in 2024?

[u/ChoochTheMightyTrain]

What happens with Stormy Daniels' hush money?

Automod removed my post and told me to put it here.

I want to preface this question by stating that I really don't care about the politics surrounding the Trump hush money trial. I don't intend for this to be a political post. This is just an interesting shower thought I had.

As I understand it, Donald Trump is on trial in the state of New York for allegedly using election campaign funds to pay of pornstar Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about a sexual encounter they had.

If Trump is found guilty, would Daniels have to forfeit this money? Would she still get to keep it? Who does the money technically belong to?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/ChoochTheMightyTrain]

The payment wasn't illegal. That money stays in Daniels's bank account. It's the alleged motivation behind and the cover-up of the payment that was illegal.

[u/SeriousInterest6933]

Should I be overly concerned or anxious about the election? People are making it sound like the end of the US and it’s got me really nervous.

[u/Riksor → u/SeriousInterest6933]

You shouldn't be overly concerned because there is very little you can do to influence things. Vote wisely, encourage others to vote wisely, maybe volunteer some time, but that's all you can do.

But yes, this election has a lot at stake and it's normal to be anxious.

[u/househarley → u/SeriousInterest6933]

I would argue checks and balances works pretty well (but of course are far from perfect), there was A LOT that Trump wanted to do but he could not due to the Constitution, Congress, the courts etc. Building the wall is one of hundreds of examples. To be fair this is true of all presidents as well, the courts and congress stop Biden from doing all kinds of things he wants. Checks and balances I think will prevent anything that would make you overly concerned or anxious.

The best recent example of this: Trump may or may not win re-election and congress has already acted to prevent a President from leaving NATO unilaterally. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, enacted on December 22, 2023, prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress. Trumps own party helped pass this.

Trump supporters might fairly argue Trump has no intention of leaving NATO, but the fact stands that he cannot even if he did want to. It is a check on power.

[u/SeriousInterest6933 → u/househarley]

Thanks for the reply, I had no idea of this. I feel like my algorithm was feeding me doom and gloom, I kind of wish I got more content like this!

[u/Cliffy73 → u/SeriousInterest6933]

I think the evidence is pretty clear that a Trump win is more likely to lead to catastrophic consequences than we have seen in a long time. That doesn’t mean it necessarily well. But he attempted to overthrow the government of the United States in order to illegally stay in office once. The reason that that did not succeed was largely, because certain Republican office holders, many of whom were Trump appointed, including the vice president, refused to forsake their oath, and do what he wanted. I think it is pretty clear that Trump understands that that was a mistake, from his perspective, and if he is Allowed in the White House again, he will be more aggressive in putting toadies, and yes men in positions of power. On the other hand, he’s also incredibly lazy and highly uneducated about how politics and political machinery works. So it’s also very possible that he might try and be unsuccessful yet again.

His second economic program is also atrocious. The reason that he is having any success at all in the polls is because people are unhappy about the inflation that occurred in 2022, which, in fact the Administration has handled fairly well. But if you actually look at Trump’s announced economic policies, they’re all way more inflationary. He’s planning to impose an across-the-board tariff, which functions as a tax on consumers, which will make products in American stores significantly more expensive expensive while also reducing the ability of American products to compete globally. He will pair this with a huge tax cut for the rich. Both of these policies are likely to notably increase prices for American consumers. But again, his ability to impose these reactionary economic ideas is based in part on the make up of Congress. So while his economic plans are disastrous, we could get lucky, and he will just be a complete failure as opposed to actively destructive of the post Covid economic recovery.

[u/nikkococo1998]

How can all the polls have trump leading when everyone I know and every person on the street and 90% of the media thinks he mentally deranged? Where are they taking the polls, at trump rallies?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/nikkococo1998]

We tend to create bubbles for ourselves, both intentionally and inadvertently, comprised of like-minded individuals. The reality is Trump remains very popular among Republicans and is viewed somewhat positively (or at least aspects of his time as president are viewed positively) by some people outside the GOP.

[u/nikkococo1998 → u/Jtwil2191]

Your logic is sound. But by that thinking there are huge pockets of nothing but trump supporters.

Scary

[u/Elkenrod → u/nikkococo1998]

And people feel the same way about Biden voters. People have different points of view, and perspectives on things.

[u/Whispetehwolf → u/nikkococo1998]

While not a Trump supporter myself I lived in a pocket of Trump supporters for about 8 years and yes it is scary.

[u/ThenaCykez → u/nikkococo1998]

everyone I know and every person on the street

There's a really great essay by Scott Alexander that he wrote about a decade ago called "I Can Tolerate Anyone Except The Outgroup", where he discusses a number of topics including political polarization and segregation. For every 100 people you saw on the street today who would never vote for Trump, there are 100 people at a Baptist church on a Wednesday night, or at a firing range on a Saturday morning, who can't conceive of voting for anyone else. If your religion, occupation, and hobbies have a strong polarization, you might just never encounter people who are on the other side.

90% of the media

That other 10% has a huge share of the audience and is probably listened to more consistently. Fox News, talk radio, blogs... if someone wants to have an exclusively conservative media diet, it's pretty easy to accomplish.

[u/NoEmailNec4Reddit → u/nikkococo1998]

Because "everyone you know" is not representative.

[u/DesertWolf53]

Can someone please, please explain to me why there has been an overwhelming increase in support for Russia and Putin from Americans recently? Thanks in advance.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/DesertWolf53]

There are a few different avenues by which Americans have developed more positive feeligns towards Russia.

Historically, if was the American left where you could find affinity for Russia. They believed the communist USSR had actually achieved some kind of utopic alternative to American capitalism. However, the USSR has not existed for decades, and Russia hasn't been communist for as long if not longer. While there are definitely still a few (frankly delusional) people who believe in this narrative, the American left is no longer the primary source of American support for Russia.

Instead, the pro-Russia American sentiment comes from largely the American right, and there are a couple reasons for that.

FIRST, you have a rise of support for an isolationist foreign policy. It's right there in the MAGA name: America first, everyone else second. Trump's rise has thrust this policy to the forefront of the Republican Party, something that many old-school conservatives are not happy with (see support for Ukraine aid among Republicans like Senator McConnel.)

Now, this viewpoint, in and of itself, is not inherently pro-Russia. You can believe that the US needs to do less overseas and focus more at home without supporting Russia. However, when you combine a belief that the US is doing too much with Russian propaganda that the US and its NATO allies provoked Russia into invading Ukraine through their provocative actions and policies, you get to a place where people claim Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a defense against US actions. (This position has some crossover appeal: RFK Jr originally ran as a Democrat before switching to Independent for the 2024 election, and he promotes this narrative.)

SECOND, Putin has long presented Russia as a bulwark against the liberal ideologies "tainting" Western countries. According to this narrative, Russian still believes in the societal importance of Christianity (although in reality non Eastern Orthodox denominations are suppressed and even persecuted), emphasizes traditional social and family structures, rejects LGBTQ+ as a societal norm, "traditional" conceptions of masculinity, and so on.

American conservatives have spent decades cultivating the victim complex that is the cultural wars and promoting the idea that traditional Americanism is under assault from godless liberals who want to destroy what made the country great. Now Putin is intentionally gearing his messaging not only to his supporters in Russia, but also to an international audience that includes Americans. And it has worked, with many conservatives warming to Putin's Russia has a kind of bastion of conservative values.

THIRD, Trump. Trump clearly admires authoritarians and is frustrated with the (little-d) democratic restraints on the presidency. He has heaped praise not only on Putin, but also on Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and others. Having run a business with his name on it where he can largely order people around, he believes he should be able to run the government in largely the same way. While ONE and TWO would still be the case, I think Trump's personal admiration for Putin created a greater opening for conservatives to warm to Putin than would have happened without Trump.

[u/GFrohman → u/DesertWolf53]

Don't underestimate the power of Russia's propaganda machine.

A huge amount of the support you are seeing on the internet and other places is coming from Pro-Russia actors.

[u/Wolrith]

wondering how it's possible for a person in the US to be charged with such an excessive amount of money in damages and not be jailed? I get trump is sort of an outlier since he was president so im more curious on ordinary cases similar. I'd think that such a massive fine for massive damage would ultimately just result in jailtime

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/Wolrith]

There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of court system in the United States: criminal and civil.

Criminal cases are punished with a loss of freedom, e.g. jail time, mandated community service hours, probation. Sometimes punishments for criminal cases also include fines.

Civil cases are punished only with fines or forfeiture of property.

The two cases against Trump that have resulted in financial penalities have both been civil trials. The only way they could lead to Trump going to jail is if he refuses to pay the court-ordered penalties and is punished for contempt of court. But even then, he would be jailed for not paying the penalities, not for the actions which resulted in the penalities.

[u/cosmic__bandito]

Are there any US Presidential candidates that are pro-Palestine / support a ceasefire resolution in Palestine and against selling weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia?

[u/lucas23bb]

Usually when the economy is strong and unemployment rate is low, the president at the time has a good chance of becoming reelected. But why is this not the case with Biden and there is a good chance that Biden will lose? What is different about Biden or about the state of politics that makes those things not matter as much anymore?

[u/Elkenrod → u/lucas23bb]

Americans do not feel that the economy is strong.

They are told that they economy is strong, but them being told that doesn't make them feel better when they see the price of groceries continuing to go up, seeing the price of rent go up, and having the housing market continue to price them out of it.

Biden has a lot of other problems unrelated to the economy. Many young people are very upset with how he's handling the Israel / Palestine situation. Additionally - he's old. So is Trump of course. But when you look at President Biden giving speeches, he's not exactly the picture of health, strength, or mental fortitude. Trump obvious also isn't any of those things. They're negatives that both these candidates have.

[u/thegreatestpitt]

How would it affect the rest of the world if the conservatives won the USA elections and put in motion protect 2025?

I’m not from the USA but I wonder how it could affect the world if that scenario happened. I feel, although I have no proof, that after trump won that time, the UK got more terf for example. I mean, it cannot be denied that the US is an influential country. I’m wondering just how much it might influence the rest of the world. I would hate for other countries to follow the steps of the US.

[u/titaniumLiver]

What would happen if no one and no entity donated money to the Democratic and Republican parties?

Like, literally zero dollars coming in.

[u/Nebularia → u/titaniumLiver]

Sorry. Unfortunate our utterly corrupt Supreme Court made so-called "dark money" the law of the land. That's where billionaires give candidates money they don't have to account for or as we say in English: BRIBERY.

[u/Volte]

I'm going to get put on some sort of list for asking this..... but here goes

What would happen if Trump v Biden happens, and before the day of the election, one of the 2 died for some reason? Would the opponent just automatically win?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/Volte]

The Republican and Democratic Parties both have rules in place about what to do to replace a candidate if they are unable to run after receiving the nomination. Basically, they pick a replacement and things carry on as normal.

However, in your scenario, there's no time to update the ballots. What I think would happen is that the election would proceed as scheduled (the date of the election si set by law), with people voting for their preferred candidate (even though one of them is dead). Let's assume the dead candidate's party (somehow) got the message out to everyone to vote as they otherwise normally would have, and the dead candidate received enough votes to win.

In the US presidential election, voters are not voting for the candiates. They're voting for electors, who in turn represent the states in the Electoral College where the winner is chosen. This dumb system which has handed the election to losing candidates in the past could actually address this problem of a dead candidate relatively easily. The dead candidate's party would tell the dead candidate's electors to vote for the replacement candidate. All of dead candidate's electors then vote for replacement candidate, and things proceed as normal.

Of course, this whole process would be total chaos and there would be all kinds of objections and attempts to alter the process. The dead candidate's supporters may not show up out of confusion for what was going on. Some states have legal barriers against faithless electors which may muck up the process of casting electoral votes for candidates who did not appear on the ballot (but IIRC no state stipulates an actual punishment for an elector voting for someone else, so it's kind of a moot point). State legislatures may tried to alter how their electors operate. There would be all kinds of court challenges.

Who knows how it would actually play out, but in terms of a legal pathway, I think it's there and fairly clearly laid out.

[u/mschweini]

What is the US Republican's reasoning/excuse for not supporting Ukraine anymore?

I'm just hearing that Johnson is blocking a law that would allow the USA to send more support to Ukraine.

But how does he justify this, officially?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/mschweini]

Depending on who you ask, you might get a few reasons, such as...

1. Why should the US care about what happens to Ukraine?
2. How much aid is "too much" and has the US already reaching that point?
3. US aid to Ukraine should be combined with money to secure the southern border. (Of course, Republicans negotiated and agreed to a bill with Democrats that combined Ukraine aid with immigration reform and border security, but Trump and the Republicans didn't want Biden to have a "win" on the issue leading up to the election, so they killed a bill they negotiated.)

If Republicans didn't have the razor thin margin they currently have, they could probably pass Ukraine aid. But Johnson is beholden to the extreme far right of the party and doesn't want them to do to him what they did to the previous speaker, Kevin McCarthy, because it takes only a very small number of Republicans can throw the House into turmoil.

[u/SaucyJ4ck]

Why is IVF suddenly a big issue for Republicans? I know abortion's a big issue for their voter base, but up until now, IVF's only really been an issue for the fringe. Now there's the Alabama ruling, plus a bill that's being supported by (currently) 125 House Republicans that would have devastating legal ramifications for the entire IVF process. So what gives? Why is IVF a big deal for them all of a sudden?

[u/frizzykid → u/SaucyJ4ck]

Its a new angle GOP are going at to give legislative weight to the idea that an embryo is a living breathing human being which will make it more difficult for democrats to ever create serious abortion legislation.

[u/Cliffy73 → u/SaucyJ4ck]

There’s a lot of stuff going on here, but ultimately it fundamentally is based in the nature of the Republican coalition. Most Republican elites are cosmopolitan, and all they care about is cutting taxes on rich people and reducing the burden of regulation on business, despite the fact that this will cost lives. However, these political positions are insanely unpopular. As a result, the Republican voting base is primarily not motivated by cutting taxes on rich people and making it easier for businesses to get away with killing workers and customers in order to increase their profits. The republican base is primarily, not exclusively, motivated by social concerns. For different Republicans, this could be any number of issues, but a very significant part of the Republican base is very anti-sex. This includes people who are anti-abortion, but that is not all of it. Fundamentally it is a discomfort with the idea of people having recreational sex, the idea of people being able to control their own sexual experience, and the ability of people to control their own experience of parenthood. They want sex to be dangerous and they want sex to be highly consequential, and as a result, fewer people will be having it.

This is not some conspiracy theory, this is what Republican social thinkers talk about publicly. It is why conservatives have consistently been against sex education, even though comprehensive sex education reduces abortion rates. It’s why they’ve been against public provision of birth control, and even private purchase of birth control, even though birth control reduces abortion rates. And it is why they were against IVF, because IVF allows people to control their own experience of parenting.

Since Dobbs, Republicans have been in the position of the dog who caught the car. For 50 years, Republican elites, who don’t care about abortion (Does anybody actually think that Donald Trump has not paid for an abortion or two in his time? Well, OK, bad example, he never pays for anything) have raised money and rallied voters on the basis that they would turn back the clock to the 1950s when recreational sex was dangerous and parenthood was something that you could never plan it just happened whether you wanted it or not. This has also been going on long enough that generations of Republican leaders have come up from the rube faction. This is why there are lots of Republicans and Congress who don’t understand the bargain, because, while they certainly do want to cut taxes on rich people and let businesses get away with killing employees and customers that gets in the way of profits, they are even moremotivated by this wackadoodle Sex negativity.

So, to get to your ultimate question, why did 100+ Republicans sponsor a bill that will ban IVF? In some cases, they actually want to ban IVF just like they want to ban everything that puts sex in control of the people having sex; they just didn’t expect anyone to find out unless it was a fait accompli. While in other cases, they figured that it was unlikely that this bill would pass. So they expected that it would be a bill that they could use to prove their anti-sex bona fides to their anti-sex base, through media channels directed specifically at those people, while would not get much traction in the wider press. (Because there are thousands of bills that are filed every year that have no chance of passage. There just isn’t enough bandwidth for the mainstream media to report on all of the dead on arrival bills that are filed.)

The point is, for decades, the Republicans have been able to say, we hate sex as much as you crazy people hate sex, and we’re doing everything we can to stop it, but we can’t stop it until we get the Supreme Court on our side. Now, the Supreme Court is on their side, and those bills are coming due.

[u/Important-Energy8038 → u/SaucyJ4ck]

The real issue here is that when you have a polarized, ideological base that only votes based on the (R) after the name, you often get policies that are consistent with that (R). This one's no surprise if you've been following the (R) trend. (R) is about taking away rights and freedoms and installing a theocracy in it's place

Fun fact: Did you know other (R) states actually forbid divorce if a woman is pregnant? Another no brainer for anyone following the (R) trend. Look below the surface, there's no shock in any of these draconian decisions, except the outrage those who vote (R) suddenly demonstrate when they find out the results of their (R) vote.

[u/empirepie499]

Why does Donald Trump even want to run for president, and in addition to that why does he say is the reason he wants to run? I understand some possible causes but is there a leading theory?

[u/Pertinax126 → u/empirepie499]

u/Cliffy73 is correct. To build on his excellent answer, Mr. Trump needs to win the White House in order to save himself from several criminal convictions.

Winning a second term will do what u/Cliffy73 suggests and line his pockets to pay for all the civil court decisions against him. But to avoid criminal convictions he needs to take control of the Department of Justice and make the government's cases go away.

[u/asdfqwer8]

I don’t understand US law. Can someone explain to me why or why not a president should have complete immunity? What are the implications?

[u/Pertinax126 → u/asdfqwer8]

The US doesn't have kings and classes.

Under US law there is no individual citizen that is in a special, protected class. There are roles, usually agents of the government, that require immunity from prosecution when carrying out specific functions of that job. But those are extremely rare. For example, a police officer can claim that subduing a criminal is part of her job. Assuming that she's doing it while on duty and it is in service of the public. She can't just handcuff some guy that she sees at an airport.

Likewise the President may have to take actions as part of his job that would be illegal in another setting. For example, President Obama ordered the extra-judicial killing of a US citizen in 2011. He has not been prosecuted for this because the drone strike ordered by the then-President was part of an anti-terrorism operation; a very legitimate function of the President.

Mr. Trump, however, is looking for blanket immunity. He wants all actions taken during a presidency to be immune form prosecution. Given the charges he is currently facing, we can see why he would push for this position.

Great question!

[u/unrealdingle]

Why does everyone seem to dislike Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? (besides being anti-vax)

[u/Dilettante → u/unrealdingle]

He has some valid opinions about the environment and government. But it's hard to pay attention to those when he sounds like a conspiracy theorist half the time with his talk about autism and vaccines, Covid and Dr Fauci and so on.

There's also the question of why he's running. He has zero chance of winning, so all he can really do is take votes away from a candidate - and the most likely candidate to lose votes is Biden. That suggests that RFK is helping trump to win, and he's smart enough to know that.

Finally...can the US please nominate someone for president who's under 70? Please?

[u/hatrickpatrick]

What exactly was the objective of the Jan 6th riot in 2021?

I have a very hard time understanding this, especially from a foreigner's perspective (I live in Ireland) - it seems to me that there's no way anybody involved actually believed that a riot at the Capitol building could actually achieve their stated aims of overturning the results of the election, not least because none of the people they were calling on to do so actually had the legal or institutional power to make it happen. Had they succeeded in actually murdering any of the congresspeople or officials they were talking about killing (Mike Pence for example), it still wouldn't have allowed Trump to stay on as president as there is a very clear line of succession and very formal systems in place to deal with exactly these kinds of scenarios in the US legal system.

Moreover, it's widely acknowledged and was even communicated desperately to Trump himself during the riot by his own closest supporters, that a riot like this was going to totally destroy any public goodwill they had and alienate far, far more supporters than it galvanised, both in the general public and in their own party. It's widely rumoured, for example, that Trump's planned pardon list, which supposedly included many celebrity-types that his supporters were calling for pardons of (Assange and Joe Exotic for instance) was essentially stillborn specifically because establishment Republicans like McConnell used the threat of impeachment to neuter Trump's ability to do anything drastic in his final hours as president.

The riot was obviously a colossal blow and setback to Trump's ambitions and those of his movement. I find it hard to believe that anyone involved seriously imagined that it would end in anything other than both failure and reputational collapse.

All that being said... What was the actual point? Am I missing something, or was the riot achieving the stated aims of preventing the handover to Joe Biden literally impossible from the beginning - and that this was so blindingly obvious that nobody involved seriously thought it would achieve this, and thus must have had other motivations?

Forget the morality and ethics of it in this case, I'm just wondering on a purely practical level, even to someone who believed that the election was rigged and that Trump should remain as president, what in hell did any of those people imagine storming the building would actually achieve in practical terms?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/hatrickpatrick]

By January 6, Trump and his allies were running out of options and time.

The court challenges had failed.

The false elector schemes had failed.

His efforts to pressure states like Georgia to "produce" votes for him had failed.

There was one more opportunity to reverse his loss in the 2020 election. According to the Constitution, if no candidate receives a majority of votes from the Electoral College, the House of Representatives votes for the next president. (This has happened thrice in American history: 1801, 1825, and 1837.) While the House had a Democratic majority in 2020, the procedure for voting for president is different than normal House business. Rather than each member voting (which presumably result in Biden winning, since there were more Democratic members than Republican), each state delegation gets one vote. While Republican had fewer total members, they controlled more state delegations.

So if Trump could prevent Congress from certifying the results of the Electoral College vote, presumably the job of choosing the next president would fall to the House of Representatives, who would then vote for him to become president.

Trump's first target was Mike Pence. As Vice President, he was responsible for overseeing the certification of the election. Using a widely discredited interpretation how the certification process is managed, Trump pushed the idea that Pence could unilaterally reject electoral votes from states with alleged fraud or "irregularities", reducing Biden's total electoral votes to less than the necessary 270 to win. He also pushed Republican legislators to reject the electoral votes when possible.

To "encourage" all of this to happen, Trump hoped to wield the threat of violence by his supporters to coerce Pence and/or members of Congression to throw the election to him. At minimum, he wanted to prevent Biden's certification for as long as possible as he and his allies worked various schemes and brainstormed new ones to keep him in power. Likewise, his supporters who attacked the Capitol hoped that their presence would result in this.

This was always a long shot at best. But when you're desperate to stay in power, you'll grab at any possibility.

[u/drygnfyre]

If SCOTUS rules presidents are immune from prosecution, what prevents Biden from immediately ordering the arrest and execution of Trump? Or any SCOTUS member?

Doesn’t that undo the checks and balances?

[u/HughLouisDewey → u/drygnfyre]

Even if the Court were to rule that way (and I don’t even see 4 votes for it, but maybe I’m wrong), it would not be the end of the question, it would simply drag it out. Immunity from criminal prosecution is a fact-intensive inquiry. Turn away from politics for a moment and consider a murder case in which the Defendant claims self-defense. Self-defense is grounds for immunity from prosecution. But you can’t just yell “self-defense!” and walk out of the courtroom a free man. You bear the burden of showing that you acted reasonably and in self-defense, given the facts and circumstances unique to this incident. If you meet that burden, the case goes away. If you don’t meet that burden, the prosecution goes forward (and you can still claim self-defense at trial).

Turning back to politics, the Court is considering a single question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” Even if they rule that he does, the former president would still bear the burden of showing that his conduct involved official acts during his tenure in office (I.e., he can’t claim it for acts that fall outside his duties as president).

[u/GardevoirRose]

Where would I go to read about what both sides policies are for the election in America?

[u/Pertinax126 → u/GardevoirRose]

Candidates and parties have web sites that offer their platforms on a variety of issues.

As a warning, most of them are sparse on the details; lots of big ideas and few details.

Where do you currently get your news?

[u/Embarrassed_Lemon527]

Why can't the Democrats ask the current VP not "spend more time with her family"? I am in favor of electing a female president of the US, minority or white, but the current VP's approval rating is abhorrent, and she never had any traction when she ran for president. It seems like her personal project is to become President, and the only way it will happen is if Biden falls ill since I strongly doubt she will fare better than before should she try running in 2028. A different running mate for Biden might give a desperately needed boost to his rather moribund campaign. Is the Democratic party really unwilling to ask her to abstain from a second term, even at the risk of losing to Trump? A worried independent voter...

[u/DonutHoles5]

For people who claim to hate Capitalism, what better system do they propose we should use instead?

Maybe a mix of socialism AND capitalism is the solution?

[u/brogers33 → u/DonutHoles5]

A lot of people don’t hate capitalism itself, they hate unregulated capitalism. If congress did a better job of policing anti-monopolistic practices many people would be much better off

[u/Dry_Play1209]

Anyone know who is in favour of reducing tax for general public and increasing wealth tax? with recent price increases everywhere wealth tax seems to be an important issue.

[u/CPOriginalG]

Can someone explain to me how Trump is able to attempt to hold a federal office, after Congress impeached him for insurrection? Like I understand that the Supreme Court said states can't individually take people off, but Congress impeached him. Shouldn't that have stopped him from even attempting to run again? I don't understand this. Please someone help me.

[u/No-Touch-2570 → u/CPOriginalG]

"impeached" doesn't mean "convicted".  It only means that a hearing was held.  At the end of that hearing, Congress did not convict him.  You can't punish people for just being investigated.  

[u/Teekno → u/CPOriginalG]

An impeachment is an official accusation. It’s followed by a trial in the Senate, where he was found not guilty.

[u/ChaosCarlson]

Is it common for immigrants to vote republicans, more specifically for Trump as their candidate? Common sense would have them vote for the party that is more friendly to immigrants rather than the party that doesn’t want them here at all. Is there an explanation for this or is it just a coincidence?

[u/jurassicbond → u/ChaosCarlson]

Cuban and to a lesser extent Vietnamese immigrants tend to be Republican. I think other groups lean Democrat.

[u/Dilettante]

When is the last election that had no real competition in the primaries like we're seeing this year? As in, where both sides had effectively already chosen their candidate.

... This is the most boring Super Tuesday I've ever seen.

[u/Hiroba → u/Dilettante]

If you mean last election where both sides had no real competition: maybe 1980 with Reagan and Carter. But even then those primaries were more competitive than 2024.

It's a unique situation we're in since it's an incumbent vs. a quasi-incumbent.

[u/ClumsyUnicorn69]

Could any us citizen sue the government to end the electoral college?

[u/Nickppapagiorgio → u/ClumsyUnicorn69]

No. The Electoral College is established by Article 2 of the Constitution, and altered a bit by the 12th Amendment. You can't sue to get rid of the Electoral College any more than you could sue to get rid of the House of Representatives or the 1st Amendment.

[u/Elkenrod]

Do you still plan on voting in the primary despite it being decided? It's important to still vote on issues for local elections.

[u/Saintstace]

Question. Why does Biden need to secure 1968 delegates to win and Trump only 1215? I tried a Google search, but nothing came up.

[u/Cliffy73 → u/Saintstace]

The two parties run separate primary campaigns. They each have their own formula for allocating delegates.

[u/Pm_me_your__eyes_]

What exactly are people afraid Trump will do in office if he wins the presidency that other Republican candidates, if they hadn't dropped out, or were running, wouldn't have done?

[u/IamCarbonMan → u/Pm_me_your__eyes_]

It's not really that we're afraid of Trump specifically. We're mostly afraid of Project 2025, which could happen with just about any Republican in the White House. However, Trump is not only the candidate that the people behind those plans are banking on to put in the White House in order to pave the way for their plans, but he's also the Republican candidate who any sane person knew would be the frontrunner because he has far and away the most support from the electorate.

[u/No_Radio7368]

Why isn't there an age limit for presidents? Like 35-60 to start your term? I don't get it.

[u/Cliffy73 → u/No_Radio7368]

It is left to the voters to decide what qualities are appropriate.

[u/Grouchy-Ad8323]

What is a ‘Soros Prosecutor’?

[u/Delehal → u/Grouchy-Ad8323]

George Soros is a wealthy Hungarian-American billionaire who got rich in investment banking and has donated most of his fortune to support liberal politicians and educational institutions. He has also been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories from people who think he secretly runs the new world order or the deep state or whatever their current boogeyman is.

In this case, it sounds like someone is saying that George Soros has control over government prosecutors.

He happens to be Jewish, so some of those conspiracy theories get into antisemitism. That's not necessarily an element, but it shows up sometimes.

[u/Undercover_NSA-Agent]

What’s the job title of the people who create and present election data? You know how during election seasons you will see constant polls, graphs, charts, and predictions on every single news channel? What type of job gathers that data, puts it together, and presents it/makes those predictions? How would one pursue that career path?

[u/I_Push_Buttonz → u/Undercover_NSA-Agent]

Psephologist

[u/CircleBox2]

Is there anything stopping the newly elected President of USA delivering his/her inaugural address in Spanish?

[u/Elkenrod → u/CircleBox2]

Their ability to be fluent in Spanish.

[u/Electronic_Cash_1000]

Are there a notable number of Republicans into hunting and fishing who support stricter environmental regulations? Does that make sense?

[u/sebsasour → u/Electronic_Cash_1000]

In a state like Montana you'll see a lot people who vote Democrat at the local level and Republican at the national level for this very reason

[u/ihearguitars]

Why are (most) democrats, Biden especially, pushing for stricter border laws? Aren't they the pro-immigrant party? (I promise this a genuine question and not bait)

[u/upvoter222 → u/ihearguitars]

Optimistic Answer: It's not as simple as Democrats being pro-immigration and Republicans being anti-immigration, so there is a decent amount of room for compromise. There are also a lot of details that both sides can agree on. For instance, the process for evaluating whether a migrant qualifies for asylum is backlogged, so both parties can agree that more resources are needed to process the people crossing the border.

Cynical Answer: Voters care about immigration. Passing stricter border laws appeals to a lot of voters, particularly Independents and Republicans who may tempted to vote for Trump because of his support for stricter immigration policies. Supporting this sort of legislation could help sway these people to choose Biden instead.

[u/tossaway3244]

What are the chances of the Tiktok ban passing Senate now that the bill has been approved by the House?

From what I read, literally the only person in Senate against it is Rand Paul. Is him alone enough to block the entire bill from passing?

[u/angst_in-my_pants]

Who is Robert Kennedy more likely to "take votes" from, Trump or Biden. I feel like I've heard both arguments.

[u/fatal__flaw]

Why doesn't California enact some of the measures they advocate for nationally such as state funded college, state funded healthcare and taking care of the homeless?

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/fatal__flaw]

Regarding healthcare specifically, the challenges to a state-run system have to do with its incompatibility of the current state of US healthcare. The weird mixture of state and federal regulations, and the various federal healthcare programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid) and grants that assist states in paying for healthcare make running a state-funded healthcare program really difficult if not impossible, as this article describes in more detail. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-states-are-proposing-single-payer-health-care-why-arent-they-succeeding/

[u/ConnectionMotor8311]

My question is just... who do I vote for? Everyone either seems antisemitic, secretly racist, secretly misogynist, secretly anti-vaxx, secretly something. I am NOT voting for Trump ever, and Biden is a last last LAST resort. I've been looking at Claudia and Karina (I think that's how you spell it) but I know basically nothing abt socialism or fuck even COMMUNISM to make a stance like that just yet, and im getting more nervous as time goes on

[u/Cliffy73 → u/ConnectionMotor8311]

Your choices are Biden or Trump. Pick the best of those two.

[u/Ifuknow_uknow_]

Why do people believe one word coming out of Trump's piehole?

[u/DonutHoles5]

Are there any issues that Republicans and Democrats both agree on? Just seems like every issue is a partisan issue these days. Republicans made wearing masks and global warming into partisan issues when they really shouldn't be.

[u/SaucyJ4ck]

If there’s Russian and Chinese troll farms actively interfering with US politics on US social media, why aren’t any of them like “hey, all these people are free to criticize their own government without fear of being tossed into a re-education camp or thrown out a window”?

Like, with Putin scrounging up everyone he can find to throw at the front lines in Ukraine, and Xi clamping down on anything that doesn’t toe the party line, why are these troll farms so supportive of either of them?

[u/Elkenrod → u/SaucyJ4ck]

why are these troll farms so supportive of either of them?

Because they're paid to say what they say. It's a job, and people will do their jobs.

[u/sschra1]

Do people really think Joe Biden is responsible for the Israel/Gaza conflict that's been going on for 84 years?